To answer EG (in regards to Patsy sending Priscilla cards after they stopped talking):
Yes EG, you and I think alike.
Priscilla stated they had fallen out, albeit not a grand argument or anything like many people believed. They were simply pushed out of the inner circle because they tried to get the Ramsey's to do things (i.e. talk to the police).
So they were no longer in contact, but for some reason Patsy continued to send cards to the Whites. Why? Doesn't really make sense. I wouldn't send anything to a person I'm no longer talking to. So I believe you're on the money EG...she kept sending them purely for the handwriting to be seen ("look, my handwriting looks nothing like the RN"). I'm glad Priscilla remembered what her handwriting used to look like.
Zed, this is an excellent example of what is meant by cherry picking, i.e., selecting what suits you and ignoring everything else. And by the way, that is NOT what I do, as anyone following this blog should know. I consider ALL the evidence, NOT just what suits me.
First of all, you don't know that Patsy actually changed her handwriting, that's just something someone who grew to resent Patsy reported. Steve Thomas reported that she stopped using manuscript "a," but as I was easily able to demonstrate, that was NOT the case.
Secondly, as you ought to know by now, Patsy's historic exemplars were studied by the examiners, not just writing she provided after the murder. So what would be the point of her changing her writing style if her earlier style was already there for the authorities to examine?
If you can show me examples of letters written by Patsy to Priscilla both before and after the murder, I'd be happy to examine them and tell you what I think. If you can't do that, then spare us your "analysis" because you don't know what you are talking about.
Damn Doc, thought you always preached respecting each other on this site. I expected more from you.
It's getting to be a bit frustrating with how rude the JDIers have become on this site towards anyone that doesn't buy in to their theory. The one thing that drew me to this site initially was the courtesy showed by everyone regardless of their opinion. So much for that. This site is quickly becoming just like every other sports blog I visit where it's just one attack after another to try and one-up the other person.
"If you can show me examples of letters written by Patsy to Priscilla both before and after the murder, I'd be happy to examine them and tell you what I think. If you can't do that, then spare us your "analysis" because you don't know what you are talking about."
Doc is saying that *if* you can show evidence, rather than just repeating something you heard as fact, then he'd be willing to discuss it, but *if* you can't then you're just talking about something you don't actually know anything about.
Why is that a problem, Gumshoe?
Rather than complaining, show us the evidence you surely have.
To be fair, Gumshoe, I do think the problem is, it's the internet. Were we all sat around a table like the CBS experts I'm sure we'd enjoy thrashing it out in a robust but civil way. And sometimes online it's hard to replicate that. I tend to write in a rather dry sardonic style and it can sometimes come across as sneeringly dismissive or even hostile, because when you read it you're not privy to the wry smile or the friendly sparkle in my eyes! (Ha! You buying that?) So I try to rein myself in sometimes, because words on a page don't always capture quite the tone with which we intend to invest them. There are times I've fallen foul of Doc's censorious wrath, and I can understand why. I think actually very few people *are* being genuinely hostile, but robust, lively disagreement can easily come across that way.
Gumshoe, I'm deleting your posts because your constant whining is becoming tiresome. I'm sorry but when someone posts something that strikes me as absurd or when I believe someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about I have no problem saying so. That is NOT a personal attack, it's an evaluation of an opinion. What you've been posting IS personal and has no place here.
You're not wrong in how you feel about the JDI's and their biting remarks. However, Doc does do an excellent job at dealing with all of our different personalities and it's hard (as MHN stated) on the internet to get the true essence of expression when typing here. We can't see the smile, or we see the sarcasm as biting, rather than playful. I am guilty of it myself. Being a native New Yorker makes me cynical and sarcastic by nature. Sometimes it comes through in spades.
I apologize to anyone I've been less than gracious to. :)
Gumshoe, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Stop trying to justify yourself and resume participating in our discussion.
Doc, you're acting like I am standing on top of the mountain and shouting to the world that this is concrete evidence. I am not doing that. I am simply saying it's one of many, many strange things that Patsy did after the murder. And my post was not an "analysis" haha...can't believe you even thought that.
As for cherry picking...I disagree, your whole theory does that. I know you disagree but there is NO evidence saying John did this alone. Nothing. Not a scrap. I'm sick of repeating this. So everything you say is cherry picking as there is NO evidence against John!! Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
I've asked on the last three blogs for someone to provide true evidence that John did this alone. No one has come close. You say LE made a mistake not looking at John closer. I say LE didn't look at John as the sole perpetrator for good reason.
Zed, to the sweetest cherry picker around. Why the statement of Priscilla is a kerfluffle should not matter. She said the handwriting had changed. Why should that need to be doubted? She was a friend and vacationed with the family. And that can be found in the lengthy article written by Pendergrast for West Word in 2014. (not a blog or forum link) http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856
(O/T I won't have much time to read up for awhile. I took my dad to the dr and then to the ER for his legs. I was right, they are infected and he will be in ICU for awhile while they will have to debrid them. Went to feed his dogs and had to use a flashlight. Power company shut off his power while I was getting him medical care. I could sell his Mosin Nagant but have no clue where the bayonet is, so any remote viewers, help me out. I do know a dowser tho.)
Yep, I agree. What other reason would she have for sending Priscilla notes, when they weren't speaking. I would notice if one of my best friends had changed their handwriting. I wouldn't need an analysis done to prove it.
Now, I know that BDIs hate it when mere bloggers question the credentials and bona-fides of experts, but I disagree: experts can and do make mistakes, get things wrong, and allow unconscious biases to influence them. Examples are legion.
And truly, having read about it a bit, "handwriting experts" carries as much weight with me as "astrology experts" or "homeopathy experts".
I do actually agree with your post MHN...a rare occurrence.
However give me the option of handwriting experts (or whatever you want to call them) or internet bloggers in a handwriting analysis, of course I'm going to choose the former everytime. I have read all docs blogs on the RN/John and to me (my opinion only) it was Patsy and not John. But I'm not an expert so what would I know.
It's not what you know, it's what you are willing to SEE. I'm not an expert either, so my opinion is worth no more than yours. But nevertheless, I've been able to present evidence that anyone can actually see, demonstrating the very clear failings of the "experts" hired explicitly to "prove" that she wrote it.
So no, don't take my word for it -- but DO look at the evidence I've accumulated and make up your own mind.
The MAJORITY of experts who have looked at the note concluded that Patsy most likely wrote the note. You can spin this any way you want, but that's the reality. If you want to say its junk science or that none of the handwriting experts who made that claim are credible, then that is your choice. This isn't just 1 expert saying it, there are SEVERAL!!!
"The MAJORITY of experts who have looked at the note concluded that Patsy most likely wrote the note."
Wow. Well, I have a 5 week old boy on one arm so typing is not easy for me, but that is quite a claim. Please, someone not trying to get a baby to sleep, take up the challenge.
You mean the "experts" who mistook a crooked xerox for margin drift? Or maybe you are referring to the "experts" who built much of their case on an exemplar made up of little dots filled in by a child? (Rainbow Fish Players) Or maybe the "expert" who decided Patsy's letter "x" matched an "x" in the ransom note simply because the leftmost portion of both letters were lower than the rightmost portions?
For more details, sorry, you'll have to actually do some reading.
Doc, it is true what you say - no-one is really attempting a point-by-point rebuttal of your explanations for Patsy's sometimes odd behavior. I think the reason is that we have all more or less established the few known facts in our heads, and what remains is always going to be subject to our own subjective interpretation (apologies for that clumsy sentence.)So you claim that all of these things have potentially innocent explanations, while BDIs or PDIs or RsDIs will not be convinced that the cumulative body of oddness or evasiveness or contradictions in Patsy's record indicates anything other than her complicity, on the grounds that there is not THAT much smoke without fire.
Now - don't jump down my throat, because you know by now that I think your theory of the case makes more sense of more aspects of the case than any other - indeed, it's so far the only explanation of the case I've read that doesn't ask us to trip over massive internal contradictions or logical absurdities. But the way I see it there are only two weak areas:
Motive
and
Patsy
I have no problem with your proposed motive, and there is of course a reason why that aspect of your theory must remain 'weak'. There has been a fair weight of medical testimony attesting to chronic (if small-scale) abuse, and I'm not one of those people who would expect to see clear prior signs of pedophilia or abuse in JR's biography - things just don't work like that in real life, plenty of happily-married religious men are child abusers who for many years manage to fool people cleverer even than us commenters here. I also won't rush to embrace the idea that just because siblings *do* sometimes experiment sexually with each other, and just because it's *possible* for a 9 year old to have fractured a skull, that it's *likely* Burke did either of those things. He was enraged that she stole a chunk of pineapple so he smashed her skull in. Oh, and he was probably having a sexual relationship with her too, because there is that evidence to explain away also... Nope, not for me.
But Patsy is where I do have problems. Here I can see both sides. I can convince myself of an innocent explanation for most of the things you've listed individually. It's when I step back and view them not as individual items but as a body of evidence that I start to entertain doubts. Of course, it's a myth: there sometimes IS smoke without fire...
I don't subscribe to the more obvious nonsense such as, "She hung up on the 911 call!" or "She said 'I'm the mother' - who says that!?" Patsy sounds close to hysteria for much of that call, and her absolute panic clearly continues after she thinks she has hung up. That's not evidence of innocence, granted, but it's sure as hell not evidence of fakery either.
As I've said, as these events unfolded I think I as a parent would be nearly catatonic, numb, shut-down with the horror of the situation. Once you have children, and while they are still young and vulnerable, their safety and well-being are essentially your instinctive, all-encompassing raison d'etre. Personally, my brain is not equipped to cope with the loss of my daughter, or the thought of her suffering or afraid in any way, let alone the ultimate way. I imagine my brain would flood with chemicals I didn't even know it had stored away somewhere. For that reason I'm inclined to disregard as evidence of guilt any of the noted oddities in her behavior that morning.
But....
I'd read the whole ransom letter. I'd ask Burke if he saw or heard anything.
I'm just saying, Doc, I can see why some people suspect her complicity, and I struggle to disregard it myself.
But it may well be that some such anomalies of behavior obtain in every murder case. Your theory may be entirely true and logical and yet we may be wrong to expect entirely truthful or entirely logical behavior from every innocent party. I sometimes feel you are the victim of your own paradigm, Doc: people see your reliance on logical inference, and then they use any illogical behavior by Patsy or Burke as evidence of guilt, as though in a logical theory the innocent must always follow the laws of logic.
It's easy to accuse Burke. He's odd. But I thought society had moved away from suspecting the obviously odd of any and every unsolved crime.
I find your analysis of the handwriting, and of the expert handwriting analysis, more than convincing. I think about John's luck. Being wrongly ruled out as the author of the handwriting gives him tremendous leverage over Patsy; he can claim that whatever he needs her to "remember" is for her own benefit, not his, as she is the chief suspect and he has been ruled out. He can also remind her whenever he likes that although the intruder threatened to withhold JonBenet's body and deny her proper burial, the police had done the same, and were prepared to follow through on the threat, so why the hell would she cooperate with people who had bungled the investigation, suspected HER of being the killer, and kidnapped her beloved daughter's body to use as a bargaining chip?
That baloney handwriting analysis, it puts all the cards in John's hands. And from there he sits there calm and collected, giving little away, letting his wife talk herself into a national hate figure for something he has done....
A lot of words to say very little. I have a portrait commission to finish today and I'm trying to avoid starting work, apologies :)
MHN...Great post. I, too, struggle with my own theory because it's got holes just like all the others. However, for me, it makes the most sense and answers most of my questions. That doesn't mean mine is the right one, and I do agree and see a lot of Doc's points and know there is a great possibility that JR did do it. Being the only adult male in the house and on and on makes sense and it's logical. However, as you so clearly stated above, there is just too much smoke where PR is concerned and can't be dismissed so easily.
MHN, I understand your problems with the many items in the "Patsy list." But as I believe I was able to demonstrate, all but one are easily explained. There are so many ONLY because PDIers have been looking for any item, no matter how trivial, that might possibly be a sign of guilt. Since so much in her writings, actions, testimonies, interviews, etc. is now readily available to the public there is fertile ground for cherry picking. If one out of a thousand letters in her handwriting exemplars resembles one letter of the note in SOME way, that is seen as a "match" and counts against her. Which is basically the method employed by the "experts" touted by Zed and so many others.
The unbiased experts hired by Boulder LE saw little to no evidence that she wrote it. But if Priscilla White decides that she's changed her handwriting style, then hey, what does THAT tell you? It tells ME nothing. The 911 operator claimed Patsy "changed her tone" after she hung up and said something no one else heard on that tape. But I still see her absurd comments being quoted as though they were meaningful.
I've recently laid most of it out in a couple blog posts and invited anyone here to add to the list. Some did, and I was able to easily explain literally everything. Or almost everything, because her testimony regarding the broken glass is admittedly more difficult to account for. Aside from that one item, which can in fact be explained, but with more difficulty, Patsy "fans" have NOTHING. Which is why Hunter found it impossible to proceed with an indictment.
As for evidence against John, well obviously there is no smoking gun. If there were the case would have been settled years ago. But there IS a considerable body of evidence pointing in his direction, no question. Many of the posts on this blog present just such evidence.
Bottom line: there is evidence that no intruder could have been present; there is evidence of Patsy's innocence; while one might find a motive for Burke assaulting his sister, there is no possible motive for the parents to respond in the bizarre and disgusting manner suggested by either the CBS team, James Kolar or anyone posting here. On the other hand, there is NO evidence of John's innocence and in fact many reasons to suspect him, including his many obvious lies, obfuscations, contradictions, etc., not to mention the clear evidence of prior abuse, which, in any normal setting, would point to the only adult male in the household.
I'd read the whole ransom letter. I'd ask Burke if he saw or heard anything."
Not sure why it should be necessary to repeat myself so often on this matter. The notion that the Ramseys failed to tell the whole story about what was said and done prior to the 911 call is fundamental to my theory. And yes, we can be sure Patsy lied on that score, as I've argued many times.
So when John lies it's because he's guilty. When Patsy lies it's because she's gaslit, or emotionally devastated or chemo-brained.
Your "clear evidence of prior abuse" is in dispute, but let's say that JonBenet was definitely digitally penetrated previously. Do only adult males in the same household have digits?
The lies of John that point to his guilt are far more germane to the case than the array of irrelevant "lies" attributed to Patsy. He goes down into the basement to check on a possible entry point for the intruder, finds a window broken and open, closes it, and tells NO ONE until months later. Then, when being interviewed by Katie Couric he claims he told Linda Arndt and accuses her of doing nothing. Sorry, but that's far more serious than Patsy's confusion about some oversized panties or Hi Tec boots.
John's lies regarding the basement window and when it was broken pertain directly to whether or not he himself broke that window to stage a phony intruder break-in. That goes to the heart of the case. Patsy's inviting friends over does NOT, and means nothing.
John Ramsey aka Jason Bourne aka Liam Neeson in Taken was such a brilliant criminal mastermind that he was able to gaslit Patsy and Burke into covering for him in the 20 years that followed the murder BUT he was unable to stop Patsy from dialing 911 SMH
Have to agree with Doc there - so many of the 'lies' of which Patsy has been accused actually have no bearing on anything serious at all, and half of them make you ask, "why would she lie about this trivial point when telling the truth would've damaged neither her, John, or Burke?" Such things can almost always be discounted as flotsam and jetsam.
But John's shenanigans with the window, for example... that's massive.
John I - the evidence of prior abuse may be disputed, but let's be honest: if none of us were allowed to propose theories or ideas that derived in any way from disputed evidence, none of us would have anything to discuss here, we should all shut up and go home. The strength, as I see it, of Doc's case is that he has made some very straightforward inferences using only the known, undisputed facts:
There was a note that was intended to be read as a ransom note from a kidnapper who had Jonbenet.
There was no intruder in the house that night so the note was penned by someone in the family.
There was a call to 911 made by Patsy, ignoring the warnings in the note.
John then 'discovered' the body, (and - as I see it - came up from the basement conspicuously offering the only Plan B open to him at that time - "I don't think he meant to kill her" - in other words a kidnapping turned accidental sexual murder. If you find your daughter dead, with a garrote around her throat, it makes no sense at all to say she has been inadvertently killed, and I can take his words only as a desperate attempt to bridge the gap between the planned fake kidnap and the unavoidable situation he was now in.)
Taken together, the RN and the broken window can be most simply understood as two components of an incomplete staged break-in and kidnap. Following the 911 call John closes the window, and says nothing about it. That act alone carries more weight than all of Patsy's meaningless little inconsistencies put together.
Gumshoe: "Spot on John. Another thing that I find interesting is how any expert that points a finger at Patsy is somehow discredited or viewed as illegitimate. "
Let's start with the handwriting. Doc didn't simply decide to assert that it was bullshit, he undertook a very detailed study of his own. You'd be welcome, I'm sure, to present a detailed rebuttal.
Truly great post MHN. I totally agree with you. I believe and feel in the same way. This paragraph below is exactly what I was thinking, except I couldn't have expressed it so eloquently:
"But Patsy is where I do have problems. Here I can see both sides. I can convince myself of an innocent explanation for most of the things you've listed individually. It's when I step back and view them not as individual items but as a body of evidence that I start to entertain doubts. Of course, it's a myth: there sometimes IS smoke without fire...
I don't subscribe to the more obvious nonsense such as, "She hung up on the 911 call!" or "She said 'I'm the mother' - who says that!?" Patsy sounds close to hysteria for much of that call, and her absolute panic clearly continues after she thinks she has hung up. That's not evidence of innocence, granted, but it's sure as hell not evidence of fakery either"
J - if Doc were able to clearly demonstrate fallacious claims made by an expert, surely you're not simply going to side with credentials? That's absurd.
Carl Sagan: "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."
Especially when we're dealing not with a verifiable, testable science, but a subjective judgment call, which is what handwriting analysis amounts to.
I don't think the "lies" attributed to John have actually been established to be lies. He very well could have broken the window the previous summer. The innocent Patsy corroborated it. Also he very well could have told Arndt about the window and she for whatever reason didn't hear, misheard, or lied about it later as a CYA.
The broken window is another thing that should have been laid to rest. How difficult is it to determine if that glass showed signs of age (debris, dirt, etc) vs. newly broken glass? What's with that?
"He very well could have broken the window the previous summer."
And by the same token, an intruder might very well have entered the house that night, written a 2 1/2 page ransom note, murdered JonBenet, forgot to actually kidnap her and forgot to retrieve his now meaningless note.
Once we toss logic to the winds then truly anything is possible.
I think you're doing yourself and the whole JDI theory a disservice by being so stubbornly hidebound.
The salient point about the broken window is that JOHN CLOSED IT, TELLING NO ONE, THOUGH HIS DAUGHTER HAD, OSTENSIBLY, BEEN KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS. Worse than any of Patsy's inconsistencies, that's a fact you can hang your hat, and your theory, on.
The other sticking point is, of course, that unfortunate word, "gaslighting". John had, historically and verifiably, called the shots in that marriage, whether by edict or manipulation. Surely that's enough without resorting to a word that opens your theory to, well, frankly. . . scorn? You must see it yourself - just last night or this morning someone made a joke about so-and-so being gaslighted. Happens nearly every day.
"Gaslighting" is a handy term and as we know it is not at all uncommon. But you're right in that the term typically stands for something much more complicated than what I believe John did with Patsy, which was to implant a false memory. So "false memory" is probably a better term than "gaslighting."
The comparison with what happened to Amanda Knox is instructive, by the way. No one has accused the Italian cops of gaslighting her -- but it's certain that they implanted a false memory. And that's demonstrable whether or not you believe in her innocence.
The parallel with Patsy's window story is striking. Amanda could not have been telling the truth, because as we know, Lumumba had an iron-clad alibi. And she could not have been lying, because she knew very well that he'd have had an alibi. By working on her for hours, stressing her relation with Lumumba, whom they suspected, they managed to implant that memory in her mind and she actually signed off on it.
Response: wrong. No evidence. Your opinion only. Come on Doc!
there is no possible motive for the parents to respond in the bizarre and disgusting manner suggested by either the CBS team, James Kolar or anyone posting here.
Response: again, your opinion only. Many disagree completely and think this is very simple and explainable motive.
there is NO evidence of John's innocence
Response: Agree. But there is also no evidence that John did this alone.
Does the autopsy report say when those two marks were made?
There were 5 or 6 kids at the Whites' Christmas dinner. Maybe Daphne or Fleet Jr poked her with a serving fork. Or a train track. Who's to say they have anything to do with the murder, or were incurred that night?
Good point. I have never heard of any theory proposed outside of the stungun and train tracks. Although, I suspect marks that prominent would have been pretty painful to the point of JBR coming to tears at the party which attendants would have corroborated at some point during the investigation.
Any other theories on the two marks on JBR's back from JDIs?
I'm also curious why John had this elaborate plan yet failed to prevent Patsy from calling the police. Seemed like his entire plan hinged on her NOT calling the police so he could then leave and get the body out of the house. With that said, it seems like he would have done more to prevent Patsy from dialing 911, to the point of killing her if he had to since he'd be facing the death penalty if he was caught. Hell, he killed his 6 year old daughter, might as well kill your wife too if necessary. This is a major part of the case that prevents me from moving over to the JDI camp.
You beat me to it, CC. And we'd do well to remember they are two marks. The first thing everyone seems to ask is 'which single, two-pronged object made those two marks?' Who's to say she wasn't poked with the same single-pronged object twice in rapid succession? And, as you so rightly point out, who says it had anything to do with her death?
try cigar or cigarette burns ,a glue gun perhaps? has anyone ever wondered about the shrieking scream heard by the neighbour across the street? at around 12:am -2:am if so , did the scream come from basement kitchen or top floor area ? certainly not basement on less window had been open? IMO, she had been strangled in the kitchen dining area ,and brought down stairs , Then the R-note was written, Then down basement 45 minutes later and strangled again with a garrotte with same nylon rope used to tie her hands cut a piece of duct tape and places it over her mouth , apparently she was already dead? what a vicious monster, and later bludgeoned ,or picked her up and smashed against the concrete wall ....... noticed how JR talks about the (concrete} W cellar? It was a dungeon in my opinion ,..... again, how would ,an intruder know all of this? Lou Smit had marbles in his head,
So whatever these marks on her back are, I guess it's just a huge coincidence they are the EXACT match in gauge and width of Burke's train tracks as shown in Kolar's book?
Even granting, which I am not, that the marks were made by a piece of Burke's train track, what's your point? They were in the train room in the basement of a home shared by four people. Got any proof Burke poked her with them? Got any proof it happened that night? You don't. Might be time to give it a rest.
Didn't the CBS special state that the marks were likely made after she was dead since there was no blood from them? And don't be coy CC, you know damn well that if those marks were made by the train tracks, it helps support BDI.
I know nothing of the kind, nor do you. It was a shared home; anything in any room was available for use or forensic contamination by anyone, obviously.
Sure. Yeah. Still waiting on my question as to how John planned the murder of the century but failed to prevent Patsy from dialing 911. Also not sure why Patsy went along with the lie that Burke was asleep the entire time when he wasn't.
Your question has been answered by Doc many, many times, by Ms D many.
It's my opinion that the fool seriously underestimated his wife; narcissist that he was, he failed to understand that her love for her child would trump her usual obseqiousness to him.
But that won't satisfy you any more than any other answer you've been given, so once more I have to ask: what's your point?
C'mon CC. I'm seeing a trend where you just dismiss everything and ask "what's your point?" when it comes to things that are hard to fit into the JDI scenario. My point is clearly that no one is dumb enough to hinge their entire plan on a roll of the dice that their wife won't call 911 after their daughter was "kidnapped". Hell, killing her would be easy if he had it in him to sexually abuse his own daughter and plan her murder too.
And what proof do you have that John is a narcissist? You don't. Might be time to give it a rest.
Oh for god's sake. Even you cannot seriously believe leaving two dead bodies in his wake wouldn't be just a tad too suspicious, even to the hapless BPD.
John chose the city they lived in, the house within that city, their vacation and travel plans - all despite her protests and contrary wishes. Her job, according to a former housekeeper was "to keep John from being annoyed." Of course he thought she'd leave this to him as well.
I have no more proof that John was a narcissist than you that Burke was disturbed. I'd say that pretty well levels the playing field.
You've been asking the very same questions for months, Gummy, and are never satisfied with any reply. So no, it isn't deflection, I'm genuinely curious: what's your point?
Oh I absolutely believe it. Once you commit capital murder on your own 6 year old daughter, I gotta think killing your wife would be even easier; especially if it means keeping LE from coming to your house where you're storing your victim.
Based on what you said above about Patsy being so passive towards John, I would think he easily could have convinced her to not call 911 since that is what the RN stated.
And while we're on the subject of Patsy, why did she say "I didn't kill my baby" during the collection of non-testimonial evidence?
What mother would ever tell LE under those circumstances that she didn't kill her child when no one had suggested that she did?
And how I s LE going to come to the house if no one calls them? Can't be any more obvious. John must be the luckiest criminal in history to stage the perfect murder only for it to still get ruined and escape unscathed. Even OJ must be beyond envious of him.
Mike Bynum knew they were under suspicion the afternoon of the 26th, which is why he suggested retaining the Haddon firm. John took his advice, and I'm going to play another wild hunch here and guess her husband told Patsy why they had attorneys flanking them when they gave their fingerprints and DNA and Steve Thomas heard her make the remark you find so suspicious.
You strain credulity. LE would come to the house when someone noticed Patsy and JBR missing - Mike Archuleta at 7 AM, when they missed their flight, or JAR and Melinda when they weren't on the plane in Minneapolis; Pam and Nedra Paugh when they couldn't reach her by phone. We're not talking about people living under the radar; someone would notice, and fairly quickly.
Hard to say if Mike Archuketa would come to the house, and if so, when he would get there. The rest would have taken hours to get there. Bottom line, if she was such a servant to John as you state, he would have had absolutely no problem at all convincing her not to call 911 and to follow the instructions of the RN.
I didn't say she was a servant; please don't twist my words in a feeble attempt to make a point.
Mike was to pick them up and take them to the private plane at Jeffco Airport at 7 AM. In any event, how would "hours" help John with either two missing females or two dead bodies?
Logic seems lost on you, no answer pleases you, your grasp of basic case facts is still poor, and based on Doc's recent deletions, you're becoming increasingly fractious. You clearly don't like our company or what we have to say. Why keep on?
I don't think you've ever conceded a point either CC. You're just not convincing me.
You have an unbelievable air about you when you respond which I don't get. Your points about Patsy are flimsy and naive. Sorry that I don't buy into your fantasy theory about John. Don't take it so personally. As I've said numerous times, all theories appear to have major holes in them.
I know this case and it's minutiae and arcana as well as any I ever tried, and that makes me testy with folks like you and Inquisitive who won't take the time and trouble to get your facts straight. I frankly care nothing for the opinions of people who can't be troubled to educate themselves, yet feel they have valid points to make.
I take nothing personally, but my words are my stock in trade; I don't like to be misquoted, have my words hijacked or twisted for another's use.
Gum, don't be disingenuous. It's a near-miracle noone was charged for the JonBenet murder. You think John could've beat the rap if his wife and daughter had been found dead? Or both gone missing? What would he say, that she was taken from the bed next to him without his noticing? How many intruders would there have had to be to pull off this mega-kidnapping? I don't mean any disrespect, but your point here is so absurd it's really not worth replying to and I don't know why I've bothered.
As for the underlying point: in what circumstances did John 'allow' Patsy to call 911? - we don't know. We know only that they told different stories about it. Doc's theory makes sense of the known facts, but of course it was a Ramsey tactic to stall the investigation, and so there are many, many unknowns.
Doc has stated on many occasions that we simply cannot piece together what really happened prior to the arrival of the police that morning. Just because he can't currently answer that question doesn't mean that there isn't a valid answer that does not negate his theory.
I'm interesting in knowing more about John calling all the shots and Patsy kowtowing to everything in their relationship. Where/how is this documented?
Much of it comes from PMPT. Linda Wilcox, the former housekeeper, provided some telling anecdotes in various interviews, Peter Boyles' show, possibly. Suzanne Savage, the nanny in '92-'93 or '93-'94, I don't recall Which, fleshed it out too, and you can probably find their words on the "Flight 755 15th Street " section of acandyrose.
John I, you amaze me. Ransom note, no obvious point of entry, open and broken window that John amazingly closes and keeps quiet about. And your magnificent idea is that if two very superficial unidentified marks on a child's body might not be connected to her death by skull fracture and ligature strangulation, then maybe the window isn't either?! Bravo!
If my daughter were examined tomorrow the M.E. would find about one thousand bruises, scrapes and abrasions on her knees and hips, and a small flesh wound with some missing skin on the palm of one hand.
MHN, before I ask this question, I just want to reiterate that I am very much in the RDI camp. But why do people say there was no obvious point of entry? Wouldn't a door constitute as just that? An intruder could have had a key and any reasonable IDI theory involves the intruder knowing the Ramseys.
Geez, read my post. I never said there was a reasonable IDI theory. Just answer the question already. Why is it a fact that there was no obvious entry when they could have come through any door with a key? That's all I'm asking.
I think the more pertinent question would be, "How can you state that locked doors did not constitute an obvious point of entry when there could hypothetically be an intruder who was a locksmith or a shapeshifter?"
Gum, if in your universe a LOCKED DOOR is an OBVIOUS point of entry, fine. Good one. Enjoy.
John's feeble attempt to say he vaguely remembers reporting this window to Arndt is laughable. John Ramsey was the CEO of a company. Do you think if is his daughter were really missing and he found an open broken window he would just close it?
The investigators should have jumped on him right there and asked him what was the real reason he was in the basement.
Yes, K, you're right. They should have done a lot of things, but were told to treat the R's with kid gloves. They tiptoed around them allowing JR to call the shots.
Hi EG, just replying to one of your comments right up the top (regarding Patsy's cards to Priscilla).
Agreed with your reply EG. It is a FACT that Priscilla received cards from Patsy after they stopped talking.
It is NOT a fact that she changed her handwriting on them...although I do take Priscilla's word for it...I am sure Priscilla still has them stored somewhere for evidence (if she didn't already hand them over to LE).
But even if Patsy didn't change her writing, why else would she send the card? That in itself is something strange. It's like she really didn't want people thinking she was involved...especially people that knew her personally. Which again gives us insight into the minds of the Ramsey's...they truly would cover up for something because doing what they did was a lesser evil than people finding out that JBR was killed by a member of the family.
Very hard for people to grasp but not everyone operates in the same mindset as John and Patsy. Once you understand that they are people that would do this then the RN, odd behaviour and everything else just flows into place.
I agree totally, very strange indeed. I think PR had changed her handwriting and knew PW was being questioned and would be forthcoming with those notes.
You had two narcissists in that house, and although JR ruled the roost and called the shots, PR was no slouch and knew how to manipulate JR to get her way.
As we've said many times, their behavior was not that of two grieving parents willing to do anything to help find their daughter's killer. They may have talked the talk when they did the CNN interview days after, but they certainly didn't walk the walk.
"The salient point about the broken window is that JOHN CLOSED IT, TELLING NO ONE, THOUGH HIS DAUGHTER HAD, OSTENSIBLY, BEEN KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS. Worse than any of Patsy's inconsistencies, that's a fact you can hang your hat, and your theory, on."
CC...once again you've proven my point about PR being involved as well. Do you think that PR would not have thought that very odd of JR to just close that window and say nothing? The BIG lie, and PR wouldn't think anything of it?
"Oh yes, Johnny, am glad you shut that window and never told anyone about it. That wasn't strange at all even though it might have had something to do with our daughters kidnapping, but hey..nahhh its just a coincidence."
Only way she'd let that one go, is if she was also in on the bigger lie along with JR.
I prove no point of yours. What makes you think she ever heard that he hadn't reported the broken window? By her own admission, she watched no TV coverage, read no books or articles about the case, never so much as read the autopsy report. Why would you suppose she read the transcripts of John's interviews with LE?
Patsy most likely never had access to any of the transcripts, and if she did would probably not have read them. Everything we've learned about her tells us she was happy to leave the sleuthing to the professionals. Could this have been part of her "act"? Possibly, yes. But we have no way of knowing.
And by the way, John's story about finding that window open is hardly a confession of guilt. He would have been aware by then of Lou Smit's efforts to convince the world that this window must have been both the entry and exit point for "the intruder." And if that were the case, then the window would have been left ajar for sure, after this person exited the basement. Yet Fleet reported finding it shut. What to do?
John's answer was to claim HE found it open and shut it himself. And when asked when he did that his response is vague, as he isn't sure when Fleet first went down there.
When asked why he didn't report what he had supposedly found, he produces the typical sort of smokescreen he's mastered so well: well maybe he did report it, he can't be sure -- but it wasn't unusual for the window to be open anyhow -- etc. etc. Make everything so vague there's no way to pin him down. And later, as we know, he claimed he did report it to Arndt, who did nothing, which is simply unbelievable.
For him what was important was not that he didn't report it, but that he found it open, with that hard suitcase under it, thus bolstering Smit's theory that the intruder must have boosted himself up on that suitcase and exited through the window.
If Patsy had ever gotten wind of John's testimony, therefore, she would certainly not have read it as incriminating, but on the other hand, yet another piece of intruder evidence.
MHN..I am from NYC, USA--We use lots of other words though -"fuggedaboudit" being one of the more popular ones. :)
Doc - CC said much the same thing as you've said and I guess because I would've read everything I could've gotten my hands on if that was my child, I can't expect another mother to do the same. Bottom line. You and CC are right. We have no way of knowing. BUT I do find it hard to believe.
MHN... It's the kind of place where people either love it or hate it. There's no in between. I was born and raised here, so to me, it's just home. Where are you from? An artist? Now it's my turn to say--Lucky you. Such talent.
MHN...I have a very good friend in Sussex who I'd love to visit one day. You farm village sounds lovely. Am sure you're inspired by the beautiful scenery and it shows in your paintings.
I don't think JBR will ever be forgotten here. Especially now with the 20th anniversary--just brought it all to the forefront again.
MHN, you're right there, I think it's all been about maddie the last few years here. Ben needham case only had a bit of the spotlight last year due to the digger driver. EG, next county to me is Sussex where your friend lives.
Of all the theories I have heard and read throughout the years and on this blog, Doc's is the one I find the most sensical. It's based only on the facts known by most people and the logical inferences stemmed from those facts. However, whenever I feel settled in the JDI camp, I remember Patsy and all the oddities around her, including her confusion, brain fog, "don't recalls"and convenient lack of memory and I can't help but rule her back in. MHN explained it perfectly. That feeling that she must know... I know some people here will disregard this comment as nonsense, because most JDIers believe Patsy was in the dark, before, during and after...but I will share the reasons why I believe there could be another theory that makes sense, at least, of course, to me. I think PR could have known about what was going on between John and their daughter. From my experience working at a school in SA, I know for a fact that the majority of mothers know when there is sexual abuse going on in the privacy of their homes but decide to turn a blind eye on the situation. So...I ask myself...What if the head trauma was in reality an accident. What if both parents knew she was not reacting after a short while and realized they needed to call an ambulance? What if they decided to wait for some more time and after two hours they knew JB was in a comma? What if they knew that the person in a comma can not be awakened by any stimulation including pain? What if they knew that JB would end up being either at the ICU in a hospital or on the autopsy table at the morgue and the abuse would be found out? What if he really didn't mean to kill her (as John stated upon bringing JB from the cellar)? I think they could have freaked out at the idea of losing everything they valued. With the tragedy they were losing their "precious daughter", and also Burke, who would be surely taken away from abusive parents. Company, church friends,the community. Everyone would be against them. They would be outcasted from the selective circles they frequented. John would lose his job, reputation and esteem. And so would Patsy. They were doomed. And JonBenet was not going to come back. So, the plan was concocted, the ransom note written. They agreed to do that for Burke. Not because Burke necessarily bludgeoned her sister but because if the abuse was to be found out he would lose everything too! JR relaxed for one moment and went take a shower. It was going to be a long day, he had to finish the staging and continue with the plan. In those moments, when Patsy was left alone and realized that she needed to give closure to what had happened, she knew she needed to give that innocent girl a proper funeral and burial. She couldn't agree to dump the body. She couldn't see her daughter dumped as garbage. She was way too "religious" to do that! And she called the police. I tend to believe she called some of their friends immediately after and isolated with them in the sun room to be protected from an infuriated John. She foiled the original plan but for another reason. Not because she was in the dark. She was not confused. She knew exactly what happened that night. Just my take. Anybody share a similar idea?
Marcela, I too have considered that Patsy could have been aware of it but also think she could have known Burke was the sexual abuser. So many possibilities in my opinion but I'm not sure I can be convinced that Patsy was completely in the dark on everything. For me, she has to be involved.
Marcela, I don't know what happened that night, but I do think it involved more than an accidental head injury. In that case, I think either parent would have called for medical assistance.
I do agree with you that Patsy would have wanted a proper funeral and burial for JonBenet.
As far as abuse, I think many mothers would remain in denial because the truth would be too painful to accept. If JonBenet's death was related to sexual abuse, an innocent Patsy may have felt partly responsible.
K, My theory is that they didn't call the ambulance because both parents knew she would show signs of abuse. JDI is the most possible theory, though. If Patsy was involved, we need to agree that she knew about the chronic abuse very well.
Hi Marcela, If I understand you correctly, are you suggesting JB suffered an accidental head injury with LOC, and both parents wasted precious time because of fear of discovery of previous abuse? I can't agree with that theory.
Patsy may have suspected the possibility of abuse because of the medical issues JB was having. I don't know.
Hi K, First of all, just to clarify, I believe JDI. But I see so many of you guys believing and even arguing that Patsy had to be involved, even Doc devoting a few posts to address the issue, lie by lie, that I tried and entertained that idea that maybe she was part of the whole thing for a while. The only possible way for me for her to have been involved is if she knew JR was abusing JB and decided to go with the plot of the kidnapping. Only if it was actually an accident what happened (the head blow) and she did it knowing JB was brain dead and just for the sake of Burke, their reputation and wealth. What I still believe and maintain is that she was not completely in the dark about the abuse.
The last post two threads ago was mine and intended for you CC. Here it is again in case you missed it.
April 11, 2017 11:25 PM
"I, as ever, applaud your ruling in of John, most if not all of your theory, and for reasons you helped me articulate in a guest post, am convinced JDI...But I'm still a lawyer and a former prosecutor, and I'm telling you again, with all the respect and esteem you know I hold you in: Ya' got no evidence." (CC to Doc)
CC: By saying you're "convinced" JDI, you're admitting your doubts he didn't are less than reasonable. Is it not reasonable to postulate that if a former prosecutor, after considering all the evidence in a case, concludes, not as "lawyer" but as "citizen", beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused is guilty of a crime, so could twelve members of a jury not schooled in the law?
I have long mistakenly believed, that you believed, John's attorney could successfully file a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on insufficient evidence. But after checking, lo and behold I discovered that "insufficient evidence" alone is no grounds for a dismissal. Furthermore, even if a smart criminal defense attorney tries to conflate "sufficient evidence" with "probable cause", the more violent the crime, the less likely they are to get the judge to rule in their favor. Last, but not least, I learned that prosecutors get the last word in pre-trial hearings on motions to dismiss before judges make their decision.
With all this in mind, tell us again why you believe no prosecutor in their right mind, or worth their weight in gold, would try to prosecute this case? At what point would they begin to suffer humiliation? At the beginning, middle, or end of the trial? And don't forget, no matter what happens, you have friends and Pina Colodas waiting for you in Tahitti!
I did miss it; apologies. I'll take one umbrella in every color, line 'em up and keep 'em coming. And I suspect you should be cut off (what time is it there anyway?), as your questions are a little oblique tonight, but I'll give it a try.
In my experience twelve jurors are a whimsical lot capable of damn near anything, so the answer to your first question has to be yes.
With regard to the second, I'm confused, as there is not and has never been a case pending against John that could be dismissed, so I'm sorry; I don't understand your premise here. Can you clarify?
The threshold for proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil matter it's only a "preponderance of the evidence". "Probable cause" is the lower standard of proof required of grand juries to indict and cops to charge.
Happily, prosecutors get the last word in trials too, not just motion hearings.
It's got nothing to do with personal humiliation. A prosecutor has a duty to seek justice, but a responsibility not to charge an innocent person. S/he also, as the representative of The People of the State of Whichever, has a responsibility to not squander taxpayer dollars, court time, and resources. All this must be balanced against the weight of the evidence: Is it there? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? In our case I simply cannot say that the evidence offsets the other considerations. We just ain't got it.
Pour me another, and get off the computer and go lie on the beach.
Let me go at it a different way. You say you are "convinced" JDI. So right now, at this very moment, if you were casting your vote as a juror in this case, you would vote guilty, right? I mean, it is oxymoronic to say, 'I am convinced A=B, but I also have reasonable doubt about it too?
I think you regard CC the citizen, and CC the prosecutor, as two different people. It seems intellectually dishonest to say...'speaking as a prosecutor, I can understand how people might have a reasonable doubt JDI, but in my own mind (i.e. as everyday CC shopping for lipstick in the mall), I'm "convinced" he did! What you're really saying is, 'I don't have confidence in my abilities as a prosecutor, to convict John'.
Fine, if that's true. But you then shouldn't malign prosecutors who ARE or MIGHT be confident enough in their prosecutorial abilities to obtain a conviction as you have in the past.
I'm not trying to paint you in a corner, or touche you, as the expression goes. If that was my intention, I'd be a fool, because you could one upmanship me in that area with little or no effort. I merely believe, CC the lipstick shopper, convinced JDI, would not, as CC the prosecutor, be charging "an innocent person".
Is there room for disagreement here? In law school, are there courses on legal ethics acknowledging shades of grey exist with regard to individual approaches to the law and what attorney's perceive to be moral obligations?
I will admit this much. John Ramsey may one day be too old to prosecute. But today, he's seventeen years younger than my father who's still kickin' it strong. If a penniless seventy year old John Ramsey, suspected of killing his daughter, needed an immediate aortic heart valve replacement to survive, and I as his cardiac surgeon had to make a decision whether to give it to him or close his chest, I'd give him the damn heart valve and let the hospital figure out how to pay for it!
That's exactly right, Mike. I am of two minds. The lipstick buyer in deck shoes and jeans thinks JR did it, while the lawyer in stilettos is convinced he did too, but believes there isn't enough evidence to build a case.
Unfortunately, morals of the kind I think you mean do not enter much into Legal Ethics, and debate on gray areas gets left behind after law school. Our Code of Professional Responsibility is rigid and pragmatic. You're a good researcher; you can probably do a search for ABA Code of Professional Responsibility and see the whole business laid bare.
You've made me think about my two minds. I'd hate to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty or think I've lost faith in my abilities, so here's a thought I've been toying with: What would you think about you and Doc and whoever else is interested meeting via anonymous email or chat room and collaborating on a Complaint, trial strategy, exhibits, witnesses, the whole nine, against JR? Let's put the whole thing together, step back and ALL think like prosecutors and decide if we have a case. Doc can publish it as a separate thread, if he's pleased with the outcome.
@Mike G., I don't understand why you consider it intellectually dishonest for CC to be convinced JDI, but at the same time, understand that others might have a reasonable doubt JDI. Isn't it demonstrated everyday on this blog that not only do others have a reasonable doubt JDI, they flat out doubt/refute JDI? I don't think this has to do with CC's confidence in her abilities as a prosecutor. The evidence that exists against JR has been exhaustively presented on this blog, yet some still don't believe JDI. Not everyone thinks the same way. Without a smoking gun, people are going to have their doubts and opinions are going to differ. Don't forget there are some people who are thoroughly familiar with this case and still adamantly believe IDI!
Thanks for the support, H. As always you make a good point: there's always someone on a jury who may fool you by adopting a completely arbitrary stance, regardless of the evidence. In our case, I expect it would be a man who simply can't imagine a father could be capable of abusing, much less murdering, his child.
I'm all in CC! I'll start by sending Doc an e-mail address I'll create for the purposes of this project. I use Aol; they allow you up to seven different e-mail addresses.
If what you are saying is, that the many others having a reasonable doubt John-did-it has nothing to do with CC's confidence in her own abilities as a prosecutor, then I absolutely agree. But you seem to be suggesting that it is her "belief" JDI that is influence by the number of people who don't, and on that I can't agree. In fact, consider this; that while Doc believes John could be prosecuted once he is arrested and subjected to interrogation, and CC doesn't, CC's own personal conviction that JDI may be GREATER than Doc's! Now, if that isn't paradoxical, I don't know what is.
Since she went against what was in the note, John had no choice but to concede defeat. Because then Patsy would question how he already knew what was said in the note. Not to mention that Burke was present and out of his room. Something he won't admit to law enforcement.
The thing I don't get is that an intruder CAN be disproven in a court of law...I have no doubts about that.
What CAN'T be proven, is exactly what happened on the night and who did what. I mean, this blog has been going round in circles and people see things differently, analyse evidence differently. At the end of the day, ALL of us are cherry picking (including me and including Doc). Whilst I am adamant Burke was involved, it cannot be proven. Whilst Doc is adamant John did it alone, it cannot be proven.
But as per my first paragraph, we know that an intruder CAN be disproven. And based on the facts we know about John, I think it CAN be proven he was involved in some regard. It may be impossible to get him for murder but surely John should have been found guilty of something! (Tampering with a corpse, intent to mislead authorities...something!). And any conviction is better than none.
Sorry I know you have responded to these types of questions before so I do apologise in advance.
You need never apologize to me. We don't agree, but I respect your passion and your commitment.
I agree, Zed. He could have been "gotten for something", and should have been. Our problem is that the statutes of limitation expired some 17 years ago for all but murder.
I don't see any way for an intruder to be conclusively disproven without conclusively proving who did it. It's really hard to prove a negative. All of the "proofs" I've seen are rhetorical "such and such doesn't make sense to me" arguments.
You make a good point, John. It IS awfully hard to prove a negative. Which is why the "unknown intruder" ploy is so often invoked by lawyers for the defense. Someone kills his wife, breaks a window, messes up some drawers, and claims that some mysterious intruder did it. Reasonable doubt, no? And very often it works.
But the Ramsey case is like no other. It's not just the possibility of an intruder per se, but a very special type of intruder: a kidnapper who failed to kidnap; who waited until he was inside the house to write one of the longest ransom notes in history; and then left his note behind anyhow, for no reason, as there was no kidnapping. An intruder familiar enough with the family to demand a ransom comparable to John's bonus, address him by his first name, and include what was apparently a favorite joke in Patsy's family, the bit about "southern common sense." An intruder careless enough to leave his DNA behind, yet so elusive that no match has ever been found -- despite his being someone familiar with his victim's family. An intruder who broke in through a basement window yet left no sign of his presence anywhere in the well or the window sill. But for some odd reason placed a suitcase directly under a broken window in the basement. This intruder was so close to the family that he knew enough to leave his (meaningless) note at the bottom of the spiral stairs, where Patsy descended into the kitchen every morning, and also, apparently, had possession of a key. And yet when the DNA and handwriting of everyone with some connection to the family was tested, no match could be found.
So yes, in many cases where an intruder has been alleged, it's all but impossible to prove that negative. But in this case that does NOT apply. NO possible intruder could fit the above description. So in this case, as far as I'm concerned, it IS possible to prove a negative. Which of course would never prevent a resourceful defense lawyer from invoking "reasonable doubt" -- against all reason.
And leaving all those excellent arguments aside, it's not necessarily that hard to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt, though. If I sit in front of you and construct a cube, and I seal up the sides with tape, and make sure it's all firmly secure, and we both examine it and sign the seals, and we leave it overnight, and in the morning I hand you the cube and the seals are all still in place, and I ask you whether it's possible or likely that a mouse armed with a garrote has entered and spent the night inside the cube writing a ransom note on the inner walls of the cube, I don't think you're going to tell me you don't know because you can't prove a negative.
John, you mean the Christmas lights power-cable window that was too small for a human to pass through, or the basement window that clearly nobody did pass through? This is tiresome. You either have to deal with the facts or else there's no point to this.
How exactly is it "clear" that nobody passed through the basement window? What about the butler pantry door? What about JBR's balcony? What about the garage? Where did you hear that both windows that the power cords were stuck through were too small for a human (I know one was covered by bars)?
You are new to this case. I suggest reading my post titled "The Lou Smit show," which covers some of these questions. As for the balcony and the garage there was no sign that either had been disturbed. The power cords were in a partially open window protected by bars.
Of course someone with a key could have gotten in. But why would such a person want to place a hard suitcase under the basement window?
The writer of the Ransom Note either committed the murder or was involved in it. The writer of the ransom note disguised their handwriting, why would someone do this? Either A) they would be suspected of being involved and have close relations with Jonbenet or B) some random guy who could have been caught and chose to just disguise their handwriting for the hell of it. I go with A. So then you narrow down the facts of why would Jonbenet be left in the house with a ransom note saying she was kidnapped? So the note was left to have time to get rid of the body on that morning, although the police were called by Patsy which would lead to either Burke or John in that case. Or Patsy choked that morning and thought it would be better to call the police as it would be hard to get rid of the body that morning. It's hard to determine.
Question: John lawyered the family up almost immediately, and it wasn't until more than four months had passed that they submitted to formal police interviews. They then refused a second round of interviews unless they could be allowed to review all the evidence police had.
I know it's not a lawyer's job to decide whether or not his/her clients are innocent, but does anyone know of any other instance where lawyers have fought this hard to hinder an investigation? Would there not come a point where a lawyer might advise the clients that the best thing they could do would be to help the police clear them as quickly as possible? Do the activities of the Ramseys indicate that their lawyers knew damn well that someone in the house killed JonBenet?
Been thinking about method of death. Wondered if a parent could *really* do something as barbaric and violent as ligature strangulation on their own child.
Then it occurred to me that we are dealing with a hard, fast blow to the head, from which JonBenet likely never regained consciousness, and the coup de grace would not have required 4 or 5 minutes of choking, as with manual strangulation. The knot could've been tightened and left. The perpetrator could've walked away and left her to die, then returned later to check. The knot didn't have to be continuously pulled, it embedded into her neck. So actually the amount of physical violence is quite minimal, however grotesque and disgusting the image and the result. For all we know the killer could've left her wrapped in that blanket slowly choking to death, unconscious all the while.
And then I recall John telling Detective Division Commander Larry Mason that he had to (literally) fly, as he had a business meeting he couldn't miss.
He clearly didn't become an emotionally cold sociopath overnight. Patsy must have known what he was. Recall one housekeeper (Linda? Don't remember) stating that Patsy's chief role was to prevent John from becoming annoyed...
I don't think it would've been difficult for John to get what he wanted from Patsy after the killing. Recall also his stepping-in quickly as Patsy started to wander off-script when Larry King asked what they thought the purpose of the RN was:
PR: I don't know, but I hope to ask the killer one of these days. LK: Can you guess? PR: I think it was a ruse to throw us off. LK: From what? I mean, unless he's in the house. JR: We did two things in the book. LK: By the way, the book is The Death of Innocence. I should have mentioned that right at the beginning of the show. The book is now on sale everywhere. The book is The Death of Innocence. Our guests are the Ramseys. I'm sorry John. JR: We spent a considerable amount of time describing as best we could what we think happened, and we think the killer wrote the note before we came home that night. We think he was in the house while we were out four to five hours. The note was written before the crime. LK: He intended then to kidnap you? JR: We think it was a kidnapping. LK: Gone awry? JR: And something went terribly wrong. That's what seasoned investigators have told us.
One thing that's clear is that John is the one with the nice neat narrative, while Patsy has to be interrupted because she's all over the place. She gives two different explanations - they *don't know*, and they *think it was a ruse to throw them off* - neither of which agree with John's very detailed narrative about a kidnapping gone wrong. Which is interesting. It sure doesn't sound like a tag team with a nicely rehearsed pre-agreed narrative. And also interesting is, however much it might appear that Patsy hasn't a clue and doesn't share his theory, John is nevertheless very careful to sprinkle his narrative with 'we' and 'us'. You'd think that if seasoned investigators had shared this theory with both of them, the least Patsy might do is have some vague memory of the idea (especially as she 'co-authored the book John is citing!)
We and Us seem important to John, and I think it's quite clear why.
Lawyers cannot, must not, deceive the court or subvert the law (or knowingly lie to anyone), so the first words out of the mouths of most defense types are "I don't want to know if you're guilty or innocent". Likewise hindering prosecution or a criminal investigation, which would also have been made clear to JR from the jump, is verboten. It would also have been made clear to him that his lawyers could guide him in achieving his ends, but he would have to be very careful what he said to them to achieve those
Having said that, no one is required to sit for an interview with police, ever, with or without an attorney present, and one's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination is absolute.
Lots of tiptoeing through a potential ethical minefield, which is about half the reason I never played for the other team.
I do remember now - didn't John Douglas form the distinct impression that the Ramsey legal team had brought him in because they wanted a clearer idea of whether or not their clients were actually guilty? I think that's what Kolar stated, anyway.
Douglas may have thought that, but there's no way that would be true.
I personally think they brought Douglas in at John's insistence, because he'd read Mibdhunter and learned an important lesson: the personality and behavior of the perp is reflected in the crime; hence the foreign faction and the foreign-seeming garrote, the very antithesis of a cool, composed CEO.
John wanted him inside the tent pissing out, not outside the tent pissing in.
Correct me if I'm wrong, CC, but I do believe the authorities have the right to warn a suspect that he'll be indicted for sure if he refuses to be questioned, but if his answers are satisfactory he'll be released. And of course, if there is probable cause, he can be arrested regardless of his 5th amendment rights.
The cops are permitted to tell all kinds of lies, and that a suspect can be indicted for sure if he refuses to answer questions would be one. "We've got your DNA/fingerprints on the gun/a witness who saw you" is a big favorite.
But yes, if they have probable cause, they may indeed arrest, whether or not a suspect asserts his Fifth Amendment rights or has an attorney sitting next to him.
Timing would be key. Arresting John when he least expects it and while his attorneys are out of town or otherwise indisposed would be optimal. And Doc you'll have to get yourself arrested and put in jail the night before....
John I: I wouldn't paint "telling lies" with such a broad brush. Without under cover cops or intelligence agents acting as spies, more evil people in the world would get away with doing evil things. All people need to know is that nothing they say can be used against them if they remain silent. This is true even before they are arrested and Mirandized.
This is for John Ramsey, {if you are log into this (Blog)forum}. I have a question for you, In one of your past interviews I would like to know what the hell you meant by this comment, { "well, you hope that she didn't suffer and if I let myself think beyond that"} Here is my opinion . Yes ,I would say the little Angel did suffer seems as though she had been beaten and tortured, that would be enough to kill a 6 year old child , and to finish with strangulation and head blow is just to much for me to think ofafter looking at autopsy Photo's . And you commented in your interview "well.. "you hope she didn't suffer" In My Opinion over the years from the time you and Patsy had been questioned in your Depositions , questioned in your interviews (interrogations) many talk shows Larry king and Barbara Walters , you did nothing but {LIE} and changed stories about what had happened that night.I cannot believe why BPD did not arrest you that night , damn , you must have put on a sweet face, I am exactly the same age as you are and I remember things from when I was three years old , and you kept saying ("cant remember ) 'don't recall")days after the murder of your child... and so on are you loosing it? shake your F***N head , turn your self in , tell us what you know , did you hire someone? allowed him in and gave him a tour, and escorted him the way out? Investigators say it was not an intruder, well then it had to be you , why did you lie and say you know (nothing about a Garrotte ) you were in the Navy? and I have searched Yes, in training you have been taught how to create a garrote, I wish I knew you personally I would get something out of you , Linda A , to this day, I believe her I believe she notice in your demeanor your guilt, IF DNA can prove you are the culprit, I hope you get arrested and charged even though you are 74 years old , hope you live until you are 94 and rot in prison and burn in hell, good luck to ya...
Part 3 of Dr. Diamond's "Who Killed John Benet" was just released and focuses on the Grand Jury's indictment. My response to it can be found in the comments section.
lordy lordy , here I am again after writing a dear John letter to John , lol. thanks Mike G, I have checked out the Dr Diamonds part.one two ad three, who the heck wrote that R-note with the pages from the note pad in kitchen , I believe John had torn or ripped these pages and had someone a" punk" in my opinion to write this crap ,no way did John or Patsy sit and write this ridiculous letter of scary instructions as to what would happen to JonBenet , IF someone hated John that badly why didn't they kidnap him and demand 1 million , why do this to his daughter? and not Burke? and nor Patsy ? and how did this person know he had a daughter? Patsy claimed (someone came in our home and murdered our daughter ) how did the person find out they were not at home(xmas) ?sneaked in the house with out not being noticed , omg this amazes me , there are so many theories , so many scenarios as to how and when this murder occurred , hope we find out soon ,
"Or perhaps the Ramseys felt that, with poor JonBenet already dead, they did not want to see their friend, Bill, who was already in poor health, die in prison. (This is the same scenario some cite to suggest that John and Patsy were protecting their son, Burke; though it is one thing to hypothetically cover up their daughter's death at the hands of her 9-year-old brother to protect him, and quite another to do so for an adult friend or acquaintance.)"
Nice response, Mike. Diamond can't just assume that the GJ thought neither John nor Patsy were responsible for directly causing their daughter's death. More likely they thought it was one of them but couldn't figure out which one. Seems like if the GJ was presented with evidence that Bill McReynolds did it then they would have indicted *him*.
Doc, regarding the Steve Avery case, while I absolutely think he's guilty, the lack of her blood or DNA evidence in the house confuses me. Your post on it indicates he may have laid sheets and/or a tarp down. Wouldn't it still be very challenging to avoid getting her blood or DNA on something? He doesn't seem like an intelligent person by any means to think through a lot of those details.
Well, as you may know, my method is to stick with the facts as far as possible and try not to make assumptions. The key FACT in this case is the fact that Brian Dassey described what happened to his young cousin, who reported it to her school counselor, who had her write it up and sign it. As there was no reason for her to lie, I think it safe to take this as a fact. Which tells me that, regardless of anything else, Steven Avery committed this crime -- with the assistance of his nephew, Brian, who both participated and witnessed it.
Whether Dassey was manipulated later, when he testified to the police, is neither here nor there. His cousin certainly did not manipulate him.
Now at one point Brian reported that the victim had been stabbed in Avery's bedroom, but that is NOT a fact. Actually Dassey's testimony to his police interrogators is all over the place and, as seems clear, he was trying, in his own way, to "outsmart" them by mixing the truth with lies.
So we don't know that she was stabbed in the bedroom. According to another version, Avery strangled her, which would of course have left no blood. And only afterward was she carried into the garage where she was probably stabbed. There are signs that the garage floor was scrubbed very thoroughly with bleach, paint thinner, etc. which would explain the fact that no blood was found there. But according to the prosecutor, the luminol did light up in certain places, indicating that blood had been there.
If the police wanted to plant incriminating evidence to really nail Avery, they could easily have planted blood in his bedroom -- but obviously they did not. The blood evidence would have been enough. No need to go to the absurd lengths of burning the body, sneaking the remains onto Avery's property, moving the car, etc.
The lawyers who decided to built their case on that nutty theory got what they deserved. But of course it isn't they who now have to do the time. If they'd advised him to cop a plea, he could be out by now.
It's amazing that people think the cops would be in on it because of the lawsuit. People don't commit murder of innocent people to save their job. Killing Steve Avery would have been more logical.
Exactly, Gumshoe. If they were that desperate the easiest course would have been to murder Avery himself, NOT concoct an absurdly complicated frameup.
I think Brendan was involved, just as he said he was. But since he wasn't all that bright and was so young, it seems clear that his uncle manipulated him. If his lawyers had been competent (and ethical) they'd have arranged for him to turn state's evidence in return for a reduced sentence. He too could be out by now. That's what his original lawyer had in mind, by the way, which is one reason that "documentary" was so vile, as they made him look like a fool for basically doing his job.
Since you're a partner in the newly formed law firm of GG&C, you should promptly acknowledge that no reputable lawyer would have sent Brendan to an interview unaccompanied. Otherwise competent, perhaps. ;-)
Avery and Dassey both guilty. Brendan had sex with her too, no doubts.
But Avery did make Dassey do things and Brendan, being mentally challenged, basically just went along with anything Avery said. I'm with Doc 100% on this one.
I check out this blog every few days because I'm interested in the JBR case, and because the comments are the most insightful and entertaining of any blog I've read. I agree that much of the evidence points to JDI, and he was #1 on my list of suspects from day one. The most glaringly suspicious act of his, i.m.o., is that he allegedly searched the basement and found the window open and closed it. What parent when looking for a missing child upon discovering an open window would simply close it? Surely even an imbecile would wonder if the open window was an entrance/exit for an intruder, especially given that a large, hard suitcase was stationed just beneath it. That JR did this does not, of course, prove JDI. As for PR, some people say her 911 call sounds rehearsed. She was hysterical. And unless one has had a child go missing, one does not know how one would react or what one would say when phoning LE. I would most likely be so hysterical I would have to be hospitalized. Yet when my father was murdered in his bed three days after Christmas many years ago, I became numb, zombie-like, exhibiting no outward signs of grief. I was in profound shock. What I do find suspicious with PR is that she never read the ransom note in its entirety. Common sense tells me that one would want to read and re-read that ransom note to search for any clue to the identity of the kidnappers and to be fully aware of instructions regarding how to access the child's safe return. Patsy's not fully reading the note does not prove anything, though. Burke? Why did he remain upstairs alone in his bed while his sister was missing and dangerous kidnappers were loose in the area? Was he there by his own choice, or was he there because his parents demanded it? Add it all up. John unconcerned that a basement window was open. Patsy not concerned with all the contents of the ransom note. Burke apparently unconcerned that a kidnapper has been in the home and taken his sister. What does it all mean? Me thinks it's a family secret -- one of those secrets Burke hinted he might have.
The garrote was definitely used. But it could have been used to cover up manual strangulation, as you say, possibly in an effort to obliterate the strangler's prints. But I see no need to struggle with such a question. We will never know many of the details of what happened, but that doesn't prevent us from drawing conclusions based on what we DO know.
So it was capable of pulling tight and not just for show?
I admit intruder or Burke are insane, and Patsy or both Patsy and John just don't add up. That leaves John. The note is obviously written by John to himself, and what already implicated John like finding the body or the window is no longer mysterious.
Even the garrote is 1) so violent it might require the man of the house and 2) evidence of skilled knot tying that might require a navy boatman guy
Still, if not for simply wondering what happened to JonBenet, John knows what happened and might exploit a discrepancy.
Thus I wonder why using a cloth or something isn't easier to obliterate prints. If not for that, then what? Just to account for the strangulation in a way that looks "Foreign faction"y? Perhaps it shows the note was written in advance, then.
John's original plan was to dispose of the body, hence there was initially no need for any staging that would point to her having been murdered by a "foreign faction", this is why I believe the garrote was added later - only after Patsy called 911 and John knew her body was going to be discovered in it's original state, which no doubt pointed directly to a familial homicide. So he wiped her down to remove his DNA/prints etc., added the duct tape and wrist bindings to make it appear as though she'd been prepared for a genuine kidnapping, then added the real "selling point" - the garrote. She was strangled earlier, no doubt, but I think the adding of the paintbrush handle to the cord used to strangle her came post mortem, when John was AWOL, keeping the evidence in line with the "foreign faction" scenario. He used the paintbrush because it was the only material nearby that would have done the job, and time was limited. Had it have been a planned "garroting", I'm sure sturdier materials would have been used - and certainly not an item that could be traced back to the house.
You're aware of my obsession with this case. Naturally, this leads to excessively discussing it with my friends, and more consistently my girlfriend. My girlfriend knows your theory, and my theory inside and out. She is convinced of John guilt, but definitely thinks Patsy was involved. I disagree, but that's where we're at theory wise.
Her biggest problem with the JDI scenario is the handwriting of the note. She thinks that it's the only real evidence in this case, and although she believes the authorship is inconclusive, she finds merit in the Patsy parallels found by the experts. I told her about your computer tracing theory, and directed her to your courier post.
She was skeptical naturally, but agreed to look at your post with an open mind. She's a front-end developer, and builds websites for a living. She's very well-versed in format, typography, spacing, the works. She looked at your findings, and was very unimpressed, to the point where she thought it was fantastical nonsense. Now I know you don't know her and quite frankly don't care about her opinion frankly, but I trust her opinion due to her experience.
She opened up a word document on her laptop and had your post on my computer to the left. She mimicked margins, used your post as a reference, and pointed out consistent discrepancies. Now I wanted her to help me out with a post on here to be more detailed, but she refused. She gets tired of talking about this case as much as I want to. However, during her walk through, she pointed out that the letters, and words weren't consistent with tracing, and the alignment was all off, even if he experimented with it. Some words were smaller, and bigger and would therefore be inconsistent with tracing. Despite the words, and letters providing an inconsistent path for tracing, she addressed the unlikelihood that John would have been able to be so fluid throughout the note without there being dead giveaways of deception.
She doesn't rule out the fact that John was involved, but definitely doesn't think the note was composed the way you think. If she's right, then it becomes harder to believe that John was able to pull this off.
Well good. Thank you, Zach. May I ask if your girl friend is a blonde or brunette?
Just kidding. :-)
I welcome this sort of critique, especially because I'm not completely sure myself that the note was traced (or copied) from a computer font. What I found could be a coincidence, yes.
But at the same time I think your friend is being a bit pedantic. Obviously the lettering is not carefully traced in every detail and we would not expect that. I think it preferable to suggest that the font in question could have been used as a model and could either have been very roughly traced, or else roughly copied. The idea would be to throw the "experts" off by adopting an impersonal model that would make it more difficult to spot distinctive characteristics of John's own writing style.
He would have had no reason to copy it literally, nor to be totally consistent. After all this would not have been a school exercise. And in fact the formatting is abandoned after line 16. Why not?
What makes it most convincing to me is the overall general layout of the first 15 lines or so, which does conform almost precisely to the word processor layout using the Courier New font. Note the absence of hyphenation anywhere, which is consistent with a word processor layout. And the very consistently wide spacing between words, which, again, fits quite nicely with Courier New most of the time.
Of course the use of a word processor in such a manner doesn't really tell us that John did it -- Patsy could have done it that way also. But if it WAS done that way, it could help to explain why John was ruled out.
More telling, as I see it, is the graphic comparisons I displayed in that same post, where specific letter and word formations are compared with those in the note. If your friend can distinguish John's exemplars from those in the note, as presented in my second graphic, I would be very impressed. No one has ever been able to do that so far. That doesn't mean John necessarily wrote the note, because of course I cherry picked those examples, but it does make it very hard for someone to claim that his writing looks nothing like that in the note.
I DO have a background in handwriting analysis - for forensic documentation purposes. I agree with your girlfriend and I also agree that Patsy's handwriting is a likely match to the RN. I don't like to post about it because most readers on this blog don't seem to have much tolerance for that discussion. And I don't care to get into most of the arguments/personalities that dominate the blog. But I did want to note my support of Zach's posting. Daffodilgal
Not sure if this has been discussed but has there been any speculation around John's behavior at the White's party on Christmas night? Is it not fair to assume that a father would exhibit unusual behavior knowing he was going to brutally murder his daughter later that night?
Woops just realised there was a new thread.
ReplyDeleteTo answer EG (in regards to Patsy sending Priscilla cards after they stopped talking):
Yes EG, you and I think alike.
Priscilla stated they had fallen out, albeit not a grand argument or anything like many people believed. They were simply pushed out of the inner circle because they tried to get the Ramsey's to do things (i.e. talk to the police).
So they were no longer in contact, but for some reason Patsy continued to send cards to the Whites. Why? Doesn't really make sense. I wouldn't send anything to a person I'm no longer talking to. So I believe you're on the money EG...she kept sending them purely for the handwriting to be seen ("look, my handwriting looks nothing like the RN"). I'm glad Priscilla remembered what her handwriting used to look like.
Zed, this is an excellent example of what is meant by cherry picking, i.e., selecting what suits you and ignoring everything else. And by the way, that is NOT what I do, as anyone following this blog should know. I consider ALL the evidence, NOT just what suits me.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you don't know that Patsy actually changed her handwriting, that's just something someone who grew to resent Patsy reported. Steve Thomas reported that she stopped using manuscript "a," but as I was easily able to demonstrate, that was NOT the case.
Secondly, as you ought to know by now, Patsy's historic exemplars were studied by the examiners, not just writing she provided after the murder. So what would be the point of her changing her writing style if her earlier style was already there for the authorities to examine?
If you can show me examples of letters written by Patsy to Priscilla both before and after the murder, I'd be happy to examine them and tell you what I think. If you can't do that, then spare us your "analysis" because you don't know what you are talking about.
Damn Doc, thought you always preached respecting each other on this site. I expected more from you.
DeleteIt's getting to be a bit frustrating with how rude the JDIers have become on this site towards anyone that doesn't buy in to their theory. The one thing that drew me to this site initially was the courtesy showed by everyone regardless of their opinion. So much for that. This site is quickly becoming just like every other sports blog I visit where it's just one attack after another to try and one-up the other person.
Stop whining, Gumshoe. This is a forum for debate, NOT polite chitchat. If you have a case to make, then make it. But don't expect to go unchallenged.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"If you can show me examples of letters written by Patsy to Priscilla both before and after the murder, I'd be happy to examine them and tell you what I think. If you can't do that, then spare us your "analysis" because you don't know what you are talking about."
DeleteDoc is saying that *if* you can show evidence, rather than just repeating something you heard as fact, then he'd be willing to discuss it, but *if* you can't then you're just talking about something you don't actually know anything about.
Why is that a problem, Gumshoe?
Rather than complaining, show us the evidence you surely have.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteTo be fair, Gumshoe, I do think the problem is, it's the internet. Were we all sat around a table like the CBS experts I'm sure we'd enjoy thrashing it out in a robust but civil way. And sometimes online it's hard to replicate that. I tend to write in a rather dry sardonic style and it can sometimes come across as sneeringly dismissive or even hostile, because when you read it you're not privy to the wry smile or the friendly sparkle in my eyes! (Ha! You buying that?) So I try to rein myself in sometimes, because words on a page don't always capture quite the tone with which we intend to invest them. There are times I've fallen foul of Doc's censorious wrath, and I can understand why. I think actually very few people *are* being genuinely hostile, but robust, lively disagreement can easily come across that way.
DeleteGumshoe, I'm deleting your posts because your constant whining is becoming tiresome. I'm sorry but when someone posts something that strikes me as absurd or when I believe someone doesn't know what he or she is talking about I have no problem saying so. That is NOT a personal attack, it's an evaluation of an opinion. What you've been posting IS personal and has no place here.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteGrow up, Gumshoe. When you're ready to resume with relevant thoughts, I'll stop deleting your comments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete"Doc is saying that *if* you can show evidence, rather than just repeating something you heard as fact, then he'd be willing to discuss it"
DeleteYou mean like somebody repeating as fact something he heard about fibers in JonBenet's underwear matching John's shirt?
Gumshoe...
DeleteYou're not wrong in how you feel about the JDI's and their biting remarks. However, Doc does do an excellent job at dealing with all of our different personalities and it's hard (as MHN stated) on the internet to get the true essence of expression when typing here. We can't see the smile, or we see the sarcasm as biting, rather than playful.
I am guilty of it myself. Being a native New Yorker makes me cynical and sarcastic by nature. Sometimes it comes through in spades.
I apologize to anyone I've been less than gracious to. :)
Let's play nice, folks! :)
EG
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteGumshoe, one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Stop trying to justify yourself and resume participating in our discussion.
DeleteCall me insane then. The last one you deleted was a reach on your part though :)
DeleteDoc, don't think I've seen a response from you on why John had such an elaborate plan but couldn't even keep Patsy from dialing 911.
I've responded to that question many times. You already know the answer.
DeleteDoc, you're acting like I am standing on top of the mountain and shouting to the world that this is concrete evidence. I am not doing that. I am simply saying it's one of many, many strange things that Patsy did after the murder. And my post was not an "analysis" haha...can't believe you even thought that.
ReplyDeleteAs for cherry picking...I disagree, your whole theory does that. I know you disagree but there is NO evidence saying John did this alone. Nothing. Not a scrap. I'm sick of repeating this. So everything you say is cherry picking as there is NO evidence against John!! Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
I've asked on the last three blogs for someone to provide true evidence that John did this alone. No one has come close. You say LE made a mistake not looking at John closer. I say LE didn't look at John as the sole perpetrator for good reason.
Zed, to the sweetest cherry picker around. Why the statement of Priscilla is a kerfluffle should not matter. She said the handwriting had changed. Why should that need to be doubted? She was a friend and vacationed with the family. And that can be found in the lengthy article written by Pendergrast for West Word in 2014. (not a blog or forum link)
Deletehttp://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-how-the-investigation-got-derailed-and-why-it-still-matters-6053856
(O/T I won't have much time to read up for awhile. I took my dad to the dr and then to the ER for his legs. I was right, they are infected and he will be in ICU for awhile while they will have to debrid them. Went to feed his dogs and had to use a flashlight. Power company shut off his power while I was getting him medical care. I could sell his Mosin Nagant but have no clue where the bayonet is, so any remote viewers, help me out. I do know a dowser tho.)
Zed,
DeleteYep, I agree. What other reason would she have for sending Priscilla notes, when they weren't speaking. I would notice if one of my best friends had changed their handwriting. I wouldn't need an analysis done to prove it.
EG
And why would I want you to examine Patsy letters, before and after the murder? Anyone can do that. I'd much rather go off handwriting experts
ReplyDeleteSorry I didn't mean that last post to sound harsh. Wasn't my intention.
ReplyDelete"handwriting experts"
ReplyDeleteNow, I know that BDIs hate it when mere bloggers question the credentials and bona-fides of experts, but I disagree: experts can and do make mistakes, get things wrong, and allow unconscious biases to influence them. Examples are legion.
And truly, having read about it a bit, "handwriting experts" carries as much weight with me as "astrology experts" or "homeopathy experts".
I do actually agree with your post MHN...a rare occurrence.
ReplyDeleteHowever give me the option of handwriting experts (or whatever you want to call them) or internet bloggers in a handwriting analysis, of course I'm going to choose the former everytime. I have read all docs blogs on the RN/John and to me (my opinion only) it was Patsy and not John. But I'm not an expert so what would I know.
It's not what you know, it's what you are willing to SEE. I'm not an expert either, so my opinion is worth no more than yours. But nevertheless, I've been able to present evidence that anyone can actually see, demonstrating the very clear failings of the "experts" hired explicitly to "prove" that she wrote it.
DeleteSo no, don't take my word for it -- but DO look at the evidence I've accumulated and make up your own mind.
The MAJORITY of experts who have looked at the note concluded that Patsy most likely wrote the note. You can spin this any way you want, but that's the reality. If you want to say its junk science or that none of the handwriting experts who made that claim are credible, then that is your choice. This isn't just 1 expert saying it, there are SEVERAL!!!
Delete-J
"The MAJORITY of experts who have looked at the note concluded that Patsy most likely wrote the note."
DeleteWow. Well, I have a 5 week old boy on one arm so typing is not easy for me, but that is quite a claim. Please, someone not trying to get a baby to sleep, take up the challenge.
You mean the "experts" who mistook a crooked xerox for margin drift? Or maybe you are referring to the "experts" who built much of their case on an exemplar made up of little dots filled in by a child? (Rainbow Fish Players) Or maybe the "expert" who decided Patsy's letter "x" matched an "x" in the ransom note simply because the leftmost portion of both letters were lower than the rightmost portions?
DeleteFor more details, sorry, you'll have to actually do some reading.
Doc, it is true what you say - no-one is really attempting a point-by-point rebuttal of your explanations for Patsy's sometimes odd behavior. I think the reason is that we have all more or less established the few known facts in our heads, and what remains is always going to be subject to our own subjective interpretation (apologies for that clumsy sentence.)So you claim that all of these things have potentially innocent explanations, while BDIs or PDIs or RsDIs will not be convinced that the cumulative body of oddness or evasiveness or contradictions in Patsy's record indicates anything other than her complicity, on the grounds that there is not THAT much smoke without fire.
ReplyDeleteNow - don't jump down my throat, because you know by now that I think your theory of the case makes more sense of more aspects of the case than any other - indeed, it's so far the only explanation of the case I've read that doesn't ask us to trip over massive internal contradictions or logical absurdities. But the way I see it there are only two weak areas:
Motive
and
Patsy
I have no problem with your proposed motive, and there is of course a reason why that aspect of your theory must remain 'weak'. There has been a fair weight of medical testimony attesting to chronic (if small-scale) abuse, and I'm not one of those people who would expect to see clear prior signs of pedophilia or abuse in JR's biography - things just don't work like that in real life, plenty of happily-married religious men are child abusers who for many years manage to fool people cleverer even than us commenters here. I also won't rush to embrace the idea that just because siblings *do* sometimes experiment sexually with each other, and just because it's *possible* for a 9 year old to have fractured a skull, that it's *likely* Burke did either of those things. He was enraged that she stole a chunk of pineapple so he smashed her skull in. Oh, and he was probably having a sexual relationship with her too, because there is that evidence to explain away also... Nope, not for me.
But Patsy is where I do have problems. Here I can see both sides. I can convince myself of an innocent explanation for most of the things you've listed individually. It's when I step back and view them not as individual items but as a body of evidence that I start to entertain doubts.
Of course, it's a myth: there sometimes IS smoke without fire...
I don't subscribe to the more obvious nonsense such as, "She hung up on the 911 call!" or "She said 'I'm the mother' - who says that!?" Patsy sounds close to hysteria for much of that call, and her absolute panic clearly continues after she thinks she has hung up. That's not evidence of innocence, granted, but it's sure as hell not evidence of fakery either.
As I've said, as these events unfolded I think I as a parent would be nearly catatonic, numb, shut-down with the horror of the situation. Once you have children, and while they are still young and vulnerable, their safety and well-being are essentially your instinctive, all-encompassing raison d'etre. Personally, my brain is not equipped to cope with the loss of my daughter, or the thought of her suffering or afraid in any way, let alone the ultimate way. I imagine my brain would flood with chemicals I didn't even know it had stored away somewhere. For that reason I'm inclined to disregard as evidence of guilt any of the noted oddities in her behavior that morning.
DeleteBut....
I'd read the whole ransom letter.
I'd ask Burke if he saw or heard anything.
I'm just saying, Doc, I can see why some people suspect her complicity, and I struggle to disregard it myself.
But it may well be that some such anomalies of behavior obtain in every murder case. Your theory may be entirely true and logical and yet we may be wrong to expect entirely truthful or entirely logical behavior from every innocent party. I sometimes feel you are the victim of your own paradigm, Doc: people see your reliance on logical inference, and then they use any illogical behavior by Patsy or Burke as evidence of guilt, as though in a logical theory the innocent must always follow the laws of logic.
It's easy to accuse Burke. He's odd. But I thought society had moved away from suspecting the obviously odd of any and every unsolved crime.
I find your analysis of the handwriting, and of the expert handwriting analysis, more than convincing. I think about John's luck. Being wrongly ruled out as the author of the handwriting gives him tremendous leverage over Patsy; he can claim that whatever he needs her to "remember" is for her own benefit, not his, as she is the chief suspect and he has been ruled out. He can also remind her whenever he likes that although the intruder threatened to withhold JonBenet's body and deny her proper burial, the police had done the same, and were prepared to follow through on the threat, so why the hell would she cooperate with people who had bungled the investigation, suspected HER of being the killer, and kidnapped her beloved daughter's body to use as a bargaining chip?
That baloney handwriting analysis, it puts all the cards in John's hands. And from there he sits there calm and collected, giving little away, letting his wife talk herself into a national hate figure for something he has done....
A lot of words to say very little. I have a portrait commission to finish today and I'm trying to avoid starting work, apologies :)
Good morning!
DeleteMHN...Great post. I, too, struggle with my own theory because it's got holes just like all the others. However, for me, it makes the most sense and answers most of my questions. That doesn't mean mine is the right one, and I do agree and see a lot of Doc's points and know there is a great possibility that JR did do it. Being the only adult male in the house and on and on makes sense and it's logical.
However, as you so clearly stated above, there is just too much smoke where PR is concerned and can't be dismissed so easily.
EG
MHN, I understand your problems with the many items in the "Patsy list." But as I believe I was able to demonstrate, all but one are easily explained. There are so many ONLY because PDIers have been looking for any item, no matter how trivial, that might possibly be a sign of guilt. Since so much in her writings, actions, testimonies, interviews, etc. is now readily available to the public there is fertile ground for cherry picking. If one out of a thousand letters in her handwriting exemplars resembles one letter of the note in SOME way, that is seen as a "match" and counts against her. Which is basically the method employed by the "experts" touted by Zed and so many others.
DeleteThe unbiased experts hired by Boulder LE saw little to no evidence that she wrote it. But if Priscilla White decides that she's changed her handwriting style, then hey, what does THAT tell you? It tells ME nothing. The 911 operator claimed Patsy "changed her tone" after she hung up and said something no one else heard on that tape. But I still see her absurd comments being quoted as though they were meaningful.
I've recently laid most of it out in a couple blog posts and invited anyone here to add to the list. Some did, and I was able to easily explain literally everything. Or almost everything, because her testimony regarding the broken glass is admittedly more difficult to account for. Aside from that one item, which can in fact be explained, but with more difficulty, Patsy "fans" have NOTHING. Which is why Hunter found it impossible to proceed with an indictment.
As for evidence against John, well obviously there is no smoking gun. If there were the case would have been settled years ago. But there IS a considerable body of evidence pointing in his direction, no question. Many of the posts on this blog present just such evidence.
Bottom line: there is evidence that no intruder could have been present; there is evidence of Patsy's innocence; while one might find a motive for Burke assaulting his sister, there is no possible motive for the parents to respond in the bizarre and disgusting manner suggested by either the CBS team, James Kolar or anyone posting here. On the other hand, there is NO evidence of John's innocence and in fact many reasons to suspect him, including his many obvious lies, obfuscations, contradictions, etc., not to mention the clear evidence of prior abuse, which, in any normal setting, would point to the only adult male in the household.
"But....
DeleteI'd read the whole ransom letter.
I'd ask Burke if he saw or heard anything."
Not sure why it should be necessary to repeat myself so often on this matter. The notion that the Ramseys failed to tell the whole story about what was said and done prior to the 911 call is fundamental to my theory. And yes, we can be sure Patsy lied on that score, as I've argued many times.
So when John lies it's because he's guilty. When Patsy lies it's because she's gaslit, or emotionally devastated or chemo-brained.
DeleteYour "clear evidence of prior abuse" is in dispute, but let's say that JonBenet was definitely digitally penetrated previously. Do only adult males in the same household have digits?
Spot on John. Another thing that I find interesting is how any expert that points a finger at Patsy is somehow discredited or viewed as illegitimate.
DeleteThe lies of John that point to his guilt are far more germane to the case than the array of irrelevant "lies" attributed to Patsy. He goes down into the basement to check on a possible entry point for the intruder, finds a window broken and open, closes it, and tells NO ONE until months later. Then, when being interviewed by Katie Couric he claims he told Linda Arndt and accuses her of doing nothing. Sorry, but that's far more serious than Patsy's confusion about some oversized panties or Hi Tec boots.
DeleteJohn's lies regarding the basement window and when it was broken pertain directly to whether or not he himself broke that window to stage a phony intruder break-in. That goes to the heart of the case. Patsy's inviting friends over does NOT, and means nothing.
Doc, just because John lies does not exonerate Patsy.
Delete
DeleteJohn Ramsey aka Jason Bourne aka Liam Neeson in Taken was such a brilliant criminal mastermind that he was able to gaslit Patsy and Burke into covering for him in the 20 years that followed the murder BUT he was unable to stop Patsy from dialing 911
SMH
-J
Have to agree with Doc there - so many of the 'lies' of which Patsy has been accused actually have no bearing on anything serious at all, and half of them make you ask, "why would she lie about this trivial point when telling the truth would've damaged neither her, John, or Burke?" Such things can almost always be discounted as flotsam and jetsam.
DeleteBut John's shenanigans with the window, for example... that's massive.
John I - the evidence of prior abuse may be disputed, but let's be honest: if none of us were allowed to propose theories or ideas that derived in any way from disputed evidence, none of us would have anything to discuss here, we should all shut up and go home. The strength, as I see it, of Doc's case is that he has made some very straightforward inferences using only the known, undisputed facts:
There was a note that was intended to be read as a ransom note from a kidnapper who had Jonbenet.
There was no intruder in the house that night so the note was penned by someone in the family.
There was a call to 911 made by Patsy, ignoring the warnings in the note.
John then 'discovered' the body, (and - as I see it - came up from the basement conspicuously offering the only Plan B open to him at that time - "I don't think he meant to kill her" - in other words a kidnapping turned accidental sexual murder. If you find your daughter dead, with a garrote around her throat, it makes no sense at all to say she has been inadvertently killed, and I can take his words only as a desperate attempt to bridge the gap between the planned fake kidnap and the unavoidable situation he was now in.)
Taken together, the RN and the broken window can be most simply understood as two components of an incomplete staged break-in and kidnap. Following the 911 call John closes the window, and says nothing about it. That act alone carries more weight than all of Patsy's meaningless little inconsistencies put together.
Gumshoe: "Spot on John. Another thing that I find interesting is how any expert that points a finger at Patsy is somehow discredited or viewed as illegitimate. "
DeleteLet's start with the handwriting. Doc didn't simply decide to assert that it was bullshit, he undertook a very detailed study of his own. You'd be welcome, I'm sure, to present a detailed rebuttal.
Unless he just hasn't told us something, this is my assumption
Delete-Doc isn't in law enforcement
-Doc isn't a trained professional in criminal justice
-Doc isn't a handwriting expert
-Doc isn't in the FBI, NSA or CIA
This isn't to pick on him, but the FACT is that his opinion on handwriting doesn't matter more than an actual professional in the field
-J
Truly great post MHN.
DeleteI totally agree with you. I believe and feel in the same way. This paragraph below is exactly what I was thinking, except I couldn't have expressed it so eloquently:
"But Patsy is where I do have problems. Here I can see both sides. I can convince myself of an innocent explanation for most of the things you've listed individually. It's when I step back and view them not as individual items but as a body of evidence that I start to entertain doubts.
Of course, it's a myth: there sometimes IS smoke without fire...
I don't subscribe to the more obvious nonsense such as, "She hung up on the 911 call!" or "She said 'I'm the mother' - who says that!?" Patsy sounds close to hysteria for much of that call, and her absolute panic clearly continues after she thinks she has hung up. That's not evidence of innocence, granted, but it's sure as hell not evidence of fakery either"
Kudos to you! Great post!!
Delete-Doc isn't in law enforcement
-Doc isn't a trained professional in criminal justice
-Doc isn't a handwriting expert
-Doc isn't in the FBI, NSA or CIA
And YET, despite these very real deficiencies, Doc has managed to solve a case that none of them have been able to solve for over 20 years. :-)
J - if Doc were able to clearly demonstrate fallacious claims made by an expert, surely you're not simply going to side with credentials? That's absurd.
DeleteCarl Sagan: "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."
Especially when we're dealing not with a verifiable, testable science, but a subjective judgment call, which is what handwriting analysis amounts to.
Marcela that's very kind, thank you.
DeleteDoc, you forgot to mention "humble"!
DeleteI don't think the "lies" attributed to John have actually been established to be lies. He very well could have broken the window the previous summer. The innocent Patsy corroborated it. Also he very well could have told Arndt about the window and she for whatever reason didn't hear, misheard, or lied about it later as a CYA.
DeleteThe broken window is another thing that should have been laid to rest. How difficult is it to determine if that glass showed signs of age (debris, dirt, etc) vs. newly broken glass? What's with that?
DeleteEG
Sorry John, I don't do "humble." Arrogant is more like it. ;-)
Delete"He very well could have broken the window the previous summer."
DeleteAnd by the same token, an intruder might very well have entered the house that night, written a 2 1/2 page ransom note, murdered JonBenet, forgot to actually kidnap her and forgot to retrieve his now meaningless note.
Once we toss logic to the winds then truly anything is possible.
I think you're doing yourself and the whole JDI theory a disservice by being so stubbornly hidebound.
DeleteThe salient point about the broken window is that JOHN CLOSED IT, TELLING NO ONE, THOUGH HIS DAUGHTER HAD, OSTENSIBLY, BEEN KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS. Worse than any of Patsy's inconsistencies, that's a fact you can hang your hat, and your theory, on.
The other sticking point is, of course, that unfortunate word, "gaslighting". John had, historically and verifiably, called the shots in that marriage, whether by edict or manipulation. Surely that's enough without resorting to a word that opens your theory to, well, frankly. . . scorn? You must see it yourself - just last night or this morning someone made a joke about so-and-so being gaslighted. Happens nearly every day.
"Gaslighting" is a handy term and as we know it is not at all uncommon. But you're right in that the term typically stands for something much more complicated than what I believe John did with Patsy, which was to implant a false memory. So "false memory" is probably a better term than "gaslighting."
DeleteThe comparison with what happened to Amanda Knox is instructive, by the way. No one has accused the Italian cops of gaslighting her -- but it's certain that they implanted a false memory. And that's demonstrable whether or not you believe in her innocence.
The parallel with Patsy's window story is striking. Amanda could not have been telling the truth, because as we know, Lumumba had an iron-clad alibi. And she could not have been lying, because she knew very well that he'd have had an alibi. By working on her for hours, stressing her relation with Lumumba, whom they suspected, they managed to implant that memory in her mind and she actually signed off on it.
there is evidence of Patsy's innocence.
ReplyDeleteResponse: wrong. No evidence. Your opinion only. Come on Doc!
there is no possible motive for the parents to respond in the bizarre and disgusting manner suggested by either the CBS team, James Kolar or anyone posting here.
Response: again, your opinion only. Many disagree completely and think this is very simple and explainable motive.
there is NO evidence of John's innocence
Response: Agree. But there is also no evidence that John did this alone.
This blog is hitting peak-Lebowski right now:
ReplyDelete"Yeah,well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
And so the ride continues, around, and around, and around...
What do JDIers propose as a theory for the two marks on JBR's back?
ReplyDeleteDoes the autopsy report say when those two marks were made?
DeleteThere were 5 or 6 kids at the Whites' Christmas dinner. Maybe Daphne or Fleet Jr poked her with a serving fork. Or a train track. Who's to say they have anything to do with the murder, or were incurred that night?
Good point. I have never heard of any theory proposed outside of the stungun and train tracks. Although, I suspect marks that prominent would have been pretty painful to the point of JBR coming to tears at the party which attendants would have corroborated at some point during the investigation.
DeleteAny other theories on the two marks on JBR's back from JDIs?
DeleteI'm also curious why John had this elaborate plan yet failed to prevent Patsy from calling the police. Seemed like his entire plan hinged on her NOT calling the police so he could then leave and get the body out of the house. With that said, it seems like he would have done more to prevent Patsy from dialing 911, to the point of killing her if he had to since he'd be facing the death penalty if he was caught. Hell, he killed his 6 year old daughter, might as well kill your wife too if necessary. This is a major part of the case that prevents me from moving over to the JDI camp.
You beat me to it, CC. And we'd do well to remember they are two marks. The first thing everyone seems to ask is 'which single, two-pronged object made those two marks?' Who's to say she wasn't poked with the same single-pronged object twice in rapid succession? And, as you so rightly point out, who says it had anything to do with her death?
DeleteWell sure, but if you're going that route then who says the broken basement window has anything to do with her death?
Deletetry cigar or cigarette burns ,a glue gun perhaps? has anyone ever wondered about the shrieking scream heard by the neighbour across the street? at around 12:am -2:am if so , did the scream come from basement kitchen or top floor area ? certainly not basement on less window had been open? IMO, she had been strangled in the kitchen dining area ,and brought down stairs , Then the R-note was written, Then down basement 45 minutes later and strangled again with a garrotte with same nylon rope used to tie her hands cut a piece of duct tape and places it over her mouth , apparently she was already dead? what a vicious monster, and later bludgeoned ,or picked her up and smashed against the concrete wall ....... noticed how JR talks about the (concrete} W cellar?
DeleteIt was a dungeon in my opinion ,..... again, how would ,an intruder know all of this? Lou Smit had marbles in his head,
BTW if neighbours heard a loud scream why hadn't PR , JR and BR not able to hear the scream as we say "out like a light"
DeleteSo whatever these marks on her back are, I guess it's just a huge coincidence they are the EXACT match in gauge and width of Burke's train tracks as shown in Kolar's book?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEven granting, which I am not, that the marks were made by a piece of Burke's train track, what's your point? They were in the train room in the basement of a home shared by four people. Got any proof Burke poked her with them? Got any proof it happened that night? You don't. Might be time to give it a rest.
DeleteDidn't the CBS special state that the marks were likely made after she was dead since there was no blood from them? And don't be coy CC, you know damn well that if those marks were made by the train tracks, it helps support BDI.
DeleteI know nothing of the kind, nor do you. It was a shared home; anything in any room was available for use or forensic contamination by anyone, obviously.
DeleteSure. Yeah. Still waiting on my question as to how John planned the murder of the century but failed to prevent Patsy from dialing 911. Also not sure why Patsy went along with the lie that Burke was asleep the entire time when he wasn't.
DeleteYour question has been answered by Doc many, many times, by Ms D many.
DeleteIt's my opinion that the fool seriously underestimated his wife; narcissist that he was, he failed to understand that her love for her child would trump her usual obseqiousness to him.
But that won't satisfy you any more than any other answer you've been given, so once more I have to ask: what's your point?
C'mon CC. I'm seeing a trend where you just dismiss everything and ask "what's your point?" when it comes to things that are hard to fit into the JDI scenario. My point is clearly that no one is dumb enough to hinge their entire plan on a roll of the dice that their wife won't call 911 after their daughter was "kidnapped". Hell, killing her would be easy if he had it in him to sexually abuse his own daughter and plan her murder too.
DeleteAnd what proof do you have that John is a narcissist? You don't. Might be time to give it a rest.
Oh for god's sake. Even you cannot seriously believe leaving two dead bodies in his wake wouldn't be just a tad too suspicious, even to the hapless BPD.
DeleteJohn chose the city they lived in, the house within that city, their vacation and travel plans - all despite her protests and contrary wishes. Her job, according to a former housekeeper was "to keep John from being annoyed." Of course he thought she'd leave this to him as well.
I have no more proof that John was a narcissist than you that Burke was disturbed. I'd say that pretty well levels the playing field.
You've been asking the very same questions for months, Gummy, and are never satisfied with any reply. So no, it isn't deflection, I'm genuinely curious: what's your point?
DeleteOh I absolutely believe it. Once you commit capital murder on your own 6 year old daughter, I gotta think killing your wife would be even easier; especially if it means keeping LE from coming to your house where you're storing your victim.
DeleteBased on what you said above about Patsy being so passive towards John, I would think he easily could have convinced her to not call 911 since that is what the RN stated.
And while we're on the subject of Patsy, why did she say "I didn't kill my baby" during the collection of non-testimonial evidence?
I'm just going to play a wild hunch here, and guess that it was perhaps because she didn't kill her baby.
DeleteHow in the world would killing a second person keep[ing] LE from coming to your house"?
What mother would ever tell LE under those circumstances that she didn't kill her child when no one had suggested that she did?
DeleteAnd how I s LE going to come to the house if no one calls them? Can't be any more obvious. John must be the luckiest criminal in history to stage the perfect murder only for it to still get ruined and escape unscathed. Even OJ must be beyond envious of him.
Mike Bynum knew they were under suspicion the afternoon of the 26th, which is why he suggested retaining the Haddon firm. John took his advice, and I'm going to play another wild hunch here and guess her husband told Patsy why they had attorneys flanking them when they gave their fingerprints and DNA and Steve Thomas heard her make the remark you find so suspicious.
DeleteYou strain credulity. LE would come to the house when someone noticed Patsy and JBR missing - Mike Archuleta at 7 AM, when they missed their flight, or JAR and Melinda when they weren't on the plane in Minneapolis; Pam and Nedra Paugh when they couldn't reach her by phone. We're not talking about people living under the radar; someone would notice, and fairly quickly.
Hard to say if Mike Archuketa would come to the house, and if so, when he would get there. The rest would have taken hours to get there. Bottom line, if she was such a servant to John as you state, he would have had absolutely no problem at all convincing her not to call 911 and to follow the instructions of the RN.
DeleteI didn't say she was a servant; please don't twist my words in a feeble attempt to make a point.
DeleteMike was to pick them up and take them to the private plane at Jeffco Airport at 7 AM. In any event, how would "hours" help John with either two missing females or two dead bodies?
Logic seems lost on you, no answer pleases you, your grasp of basic case facts is still poor, and based on Doc's recent deletions, you're becoming increasingly fractious. You clearly don't like our company or what we have to say. Why keep on?
I don't think you've ever conceded a point either CC. You're just not convincing me.
DeleteYou have an unbelievable air about you when you respond which I don't get. Your points about Patsy are flimsy and naive. Sorry that I don't buy into your fantasy theory about John. Don't take it so personally. As I've said numerous times, all theories appear to have major holes in them.
I know this case and it's minutiae and arcana as well as any I ever tried, and that makes me testy with folks like you and Inquisitive who won't take the time and trouble to get your facts straight. I frankly care nothing for the opinions of people who can't be troubled to educate themselves, yet feel they have valid points to make.
DeleteI take nothing personally, but my words are my stock in trade; I don't like to be misquoted, have my words hijacked or twisted for another's use.
Gum, don't be disingenuous. It's a near-miracle noone was charged for the JonBenet murder. You think John could've beat the rap if his wife and daughter had been found dead? Or both gone missing? What would he say, that she was taken from the bed next to him without his noticing? How many intruders would there have had to be to pull off this mega-kidnapping? I don't mean any disrespect, but your point here is so absurd it's really not worth replying to and I don't know why I've bothered.
DeleteAs for the underlying point: in what circumstances did John 'allow' Patsy to call 911? - we don't know. We know only that they told different stories about it. Doc's theory makes sense of the known facts, but of course it was a Ramsey tactic to stall the investigation, and so there are many, many unknowns.
Doc has stated on many occasions that we simply cannot piece together what really happened prior to the arrival of the police that morning. Just because he can't currently answer that question doesn't mean that there isn't a valid answer that does not negate his theory.
"As I've said numerous times, all theories appear to have major holes in them."
DeleteThe why call JDI a 'fantasy theory?'
I'm interesting in knowing more about John calling all the shots and Patsy kowtowing to everything in their relationship. Where/how is this documented?
DeleteMuch of it comes from PMPT. Linda Wilcox, the former housekeeper, provided some telling anecdotes in various interviews, Peter Boyles' show, possibly. Suzanne Savage, the nanny in '92-'93 or '93-'94, I don't recall Which, fleshed it out too, and you can probably find their words on the "Flight 755 15th Street " section of acandyrose.
DeleteJohn I, you amaze me. Ransom note, no obvious point of entry, open and broken window that John amazingly closes and keeps quiet about. And your magnificent idea is that if two very superficial unidentified marks on a child's body might not be connected to her death by skull fracture and ligature strangulation, then maybe the window isn't either?! Bravo!
ReplyDeleteIf my daughter were examined tomorrow the M.E. would find about one thousand bruises, scrapes and abrasions on her knees and hips, and a small flesh wound with some missing skin on the palm of one hand.
MHN, before I ask this question, I just want to reiterate that I am very much in the RDI camp. But why do people say there was no obvious point of entry? Wouldn't a door constitute as just that? An intruder could have had a key and any reasonable IDI theory involves the intruder knowing the Ramseys.
DeleteThere is no reasonable IDI theory. Nice try.
DeleteGeez, read my post. I never said there was a reasonable IDI theory. Just answer the question already. Why is it a fact that there was no obvious entry when they could have come through any door with a key? That's all I'm asking.
DeleteI think the more pertinent question would be, "How can you state that locked doors did not constitute an obvious point of entry when there could hypothetically be an intruder who was a locksmith or a shapeshifter?"
DeleteGum, if in your universe a LOCKED DOOR is an OBVIOUS point of entry, fine. Good one. Enjoy.
FYI...Dr. Phil is airing a show right now on gaslighting. I can't be home to watch it, will have to catch it later.
ReplyDeleteJohn's feeble attempt to say he vaguely remembers reporting this window to Arndt is laughable. John Ramsey was the CEO of a company. Do you think if is his daughter were really missing and he found an open broken window he would just close it?
ReplyDeleteThe investigators should have jumped on him right there and asked him what was the real reason he was in the basement.
K
Yes, K, you're right. They should have done a lot of things, but were told to treat the R's with kid gloves. They tiptoed around them allowing JR to call the shots.
DeleteEG
Hi EG, just replying to one of your comments right up the top (regarding Patsy's cards to Priscilla).
ReplyDeleteAgreed with your reply EG. It is a FACT that Priscilla received cards from Patsy after they stopped talking.
It is NOT a fact that she changed her handwriting on them...although I do take Priscilla's word for it...I am sure Priscilla still has them stored somewhere for evidence (if she didn't already hand them over to LE).
But even if Patsy didn't change her writing, why else would she send the card? That in itself is something strange. It's like she really didn't want people thinking she was involved...especially people that knew her personally. Which again gives us insight into the minds of the Ramsey's...they truly would cover up for something because doing what they did was a lesser evil than people finding out that JBR was killed by a member of the family.
Very hard for people to grasp but not everyone operates in the same mindset as John and Patsy. Once you understand that they are people that would do this then the RN, odd behaviour and everything else just flows into place.
Hey Zed...
DeleteI agree totally, very strange indeed. I think PR had changed her handwriting and knew PW was being questioned and would be forthcoming with those notes.
You had two narcissists in that house, and although JR ruled the roost and called the shots, PR was no slouch and knew how to manipulate JR to get her way.
As we've said many times, their behavior was not that of two grieving parents willing to do anything to help find their daughter's killer. They may have talked the talk when they did the CNN interview days after, but they certainly didn't walk the walk.
EG
"The salient point about the broken window is that JOHN CLOSED IT, TELLING NO ONE, THOUGH HIS DAUGHTER HAD, OSTENSIBLY, BEEN KIDNAPPED BY INTRUDERS. Worse than any of Patsy's inconsistencies, that's a fact you can hang your hat, and your theory, on."
ReplyDeleteCC...once again you've proven my point about PR being involved as well. Do you think that PR would not have thought that very odd of JR to just close that window and say nothing? The BIG lie, and PR wouldn't think anything of it?
"Oh yes, Johnny, am glad you shut that window and never told anyone about it. That wasn't strange at all even though it might have had something to do with our daughters kidnapping, but hey..nahhh its just a coincidence."
Only way she'd let that one go, is if she was also in on the bigger lie along with JR.
EG
I prove no point of yours. What makes you think she ever heard that he hadn't reported the broken window? By her own admission, she watched no TV coverage, read no books or articles about the case, never so much as read the autopsy report. Why would you suppose she read the transcripts of John's interviews with LE?
DeleteAnd if you believe that one, I have a bridge I wanna sell ya. :)
DeleteEG
I haven't bought anything you've peddled to date. I'm hardly likely to start now.
DeleteEG, that's not really an argument, is it? That's just a snarky way of saying you disagree because you're smarter or more honest.
DeleteMHN..
DeleteGuilty as charged. Am I not allowed to be "snarky" once in awhile? :)...BTW, I love that word--"snarky". We don't use it much here.
EG
Hehe, it's a lovely word. It's also my default mode of existence. Where is 'here' btw?
DeletePatsy most likely never had access to any of the transcripts, and if she did would probably not have read them. Everything we've learned about her tells us she was happy to leave the sleuthing to the professionals. Could this have been part of her "act"? Possibly, yes. But we have no way of knowing.
DeleteAnd by the way, John's story about finding that window open is hardly a confession of guilt. He would have been aware by then of Lou Smit's efforts to convince the world that this window must have been both the entry and exit point for "the intruder." And if that were the case, then the window would have been left ajar for sure, after this person exited the basement. Yet Fleet reported finding it shut. What to do?
DeleteJohn's answer was to claim HE found it open and shut it himself. And when asked when he did that his response is vague, as he isn't sure when Fleet first went down there.
When asked why he didn't report what he had supposedly found, he produces the typical sort of smokescreen he's mastered so well: well maybe he did report it, he can't be sure -- but it wasn't unusual for the window to be open anyhow -- etc. etc. Make everything so vague there's no way to pin him down. And later, as we know, he claimed he did report it to Arndt, who did nothing, which is simply unbelievable.
For him what was important was not that he didn't report it, but that he found it open, with that hard suitcase under it, thus bolstering Smit's theory that the intruder must have boosted himself up on that suitcase and exited through the window.
If Patsy had ever gotten wind of John's testimony, therefore, she would certainly not have read it as incriminating, but on the other hand, yet another piece of intruder evidence.
MHN..I am from NYC, USA--We use lots of other words though -"fuggedaboudit" being one of the more popular ones. :)
DeleteDoc - CC said much the same thing as you've said and I guess because I would've read everything I could've gotten my hands on if that was my child, I can't expect another mother to do the same. Bottom line. You and CC are right. We have no way of knowing. BUT I do find it hard to believe.
EG
Eg - my favourite place in the world. Studied art there in Tribeca, regret ever leaving. Lucky you! Give my regards to Union Square, and Strand books.
DeleteMHN... It's the kind of place where people either love it or hate it. There's no in between. I was born and raised here, so to me, it's just home. Where are you from? An artist? Now it's my turn to say--Lucky you. Such talent.
DeleteEG
EG I'm from a farming village near Oxford, England. Currently live and work in London. I have to say, the JBR case is all but forgotten over here.
DeleteMHN...I have a very good friend in Sussex who I'd love to visit one day. You farm village sounds lovely. Am sure you're inspired by the beautiful scenery and it shows in your paintings.
DeleteI don't think JBR will ever be forgotten here. Especially now with the 20th anniversary--just brought it all to the forefront again.
EG
MHN, you're right there, I think it's all been about maddie the last few years here. Ben needham case only had a bit of the spotlight last year due to the digger driver. EG, next county to me is Sussex where your friend lives.
DeleteHi evej....The Maddie case is also baffling and I'm not sure what to make of that one. An abduction, with the parents as suspects initially.
DeleteFrom what I've seen of Sussex (in pictures only), it's absolutely beautiful. I am sure I'd love it there.
EG
Of all the theories I have heard and read throughout the years and on this blog, Doc's is the one I find the most sensical. It's based only on the facts known by most people and the logical inferences stemmed from those facts. However, whenever I feel settled in the JDI camp, I remember Patsy and all the oddities around her, including her confusion, brain fog, "don't recalls"and convenient lack of memory and I can't help but rule her back in. MHN explained it perfectly. That feeling that she must know...
ReplyDeleteI know some people here will disregard this comment as nonsense, because most JDIers believe Patsy was in the dark, before, during and after...but I will share the reasons why I believe there could be another theory that makes sense, at least, of course, to me. I think PR could have known about what was going on between John and their daughter. From my experience working at a school in SA, I know for a fact that the majority of mothers know when there is sexual abuse going on in the privacy of their homes but decide to turn a blind eye on the situation.
So...I ask myself...What if the head trauma was in reality an accident. What if both parents knew she was not reacting after a short while and realized they needed to call an ambulance? What if they decided to wait for some more time and after two hours they knew JB was in a comma? What if they knew that the person in a comma can not be awakened by any stimulation including pain? What if they knew that JB would end up being either at the ICU in a hospital or on the autopsy table at the morgue and the abuse would be found out?
What if he really didn't mean to kill her (as John stated upon bringing JB from the cellar)? I think they could have freaked out at the idea of losing everything they valued. With the tragedy they were losing their "precious daughter", and also Burke, who would be surely taken away from abusive parents. Company, church friends,the community. Everyone would be against them. They would be outcasted from the selective circles they frequented. John would lose his job, reputation and esteem. And so would Patsy. They were doomed. And JonBenet was not going to come back. So, the plan was concocted, the ransom note written. They agreed to do that for Burke. Not because Burke necessarily bludgeoned her sister but because if the abuse was to be found out he would lose everything too!
JR relaxed for one moment and went take a shower. It was going to be a long day, he had to finish the staging and continue with the plan.
In those moments, when Patsy was left alone and realized that she needed to give closure to what had happened, she knew she needed to give that innocent girl a proper funeral and burial. She couldn't agree to dump the body. She couldn't see her daughter dumped as garbage. She was way too "religious" to do that!
And she called the police.
I tend to believe she called some of their friends immediately after and isolated with them in the sun room to be protected from an infuriated John.
She foiled the original plan but for another reason. Not because she was in the dark.
She was not confused. She knew exactly what happened that night.
Just my take.
Anybody share a similar idea?
Marcela, I too have considered that Patsy could have been aware of it but also think she could have known Burke was the sexual abuser. So many possibilities in my opinion but I'm not sure I can be convinced that Patsy was completely in the dark on everything. For me, she has to be involved.
DeleteMarcela, for what it' worth, I think your theory is MUCH more believable than John doing it on his lonesome.
DeleteMarcela, I don't know what happened that night, but I do think it involved more than an accidental head injury. In that case, I think either parent would have called for medical assistance.
DeleteI do agree with you that Patsy would have wanted a proper funeral and burial for JonBenet.
As far as abuse, I think many mothers would remain in denial because the truth would be too painful to accept. If JonBenet's death was related to sexual abuse, an innocent Patsy may have felt partly responsible.
K
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteK,
DeleteMy theory is that they didn't call the ambulance because both parents knew she would show signs of abuse.
JDI is the most possible theory, though. If Patsy was involved, we need to agree that she knew about the chronic abuse very well.
Hi Marcela,
DeleteIf I understand you correctly, are you suggesting JB suffered an accidental head injury with LOC, and both parents wasted precious time because of fear of discovery of previous abuse? I can't agree with that theory.
Patsy may have suspected the possibility of abuse because of the medical issues JB was having. I don't know.
K
Hi K,
DeleteFirst of all, just to clarify, I believe JDI. But I see so many of you guys believing and even arguing that Patsy had to be involved, even Doc devoting a few posts to address the issue, lie by lie, that I tried and entertained that idea that maybe she was part of the whole thing for a while. The only possible way for me for her to have been involved is if she knew JR was abusing JB and decided to go with the plot of the kidnapping. Only if it was actually an accident what happened (the head blow) and she did it knowing JB was brain dead and just for the sake of Burke, their reputation and wealth.
What I still believe and maintain is that she was not completely in the dark about the abuse.
Mike G.
ReplyDeleteThe last post two threads ago was mine and intended for you CC. Here it is again in case you missed it.
April 11, 2017 11:25 PM
"I, as ever, applaud your ruling in of John, most if not all of your theory, and for reasons you helped me articulate in a guest post, am convinced JDI...But I'm still a lawyer and a former prosecutor, and I'm telling you again, with all the respect and esteem you know I hold you in: Ya' got no evidence." (CC to Doc)
CC:
By saying you're "convinced" JDI, you're admitting your doubts he didn't are less than reasonable. Is it not reasonable to postulate that if a former prosecutor, after considering all the evidence in a case, concludes, not as "lawyer" but as "citizen", beyond a reasonable doubt, that an accused is guilty of a crime, so could twelve members of a jury not schooled in the law?
I have long mistakenly believed, that you believed, John's attorney could successfully file a motion to dismiss the charges against him based on insufficient evidence. But after checking, lo and behold I discovered that "insufficient evidence" alone is no grounds for a dismissal. Furthermore, even if a smart criminal defense attorney tries to conflate "sufficient evidence" with "probable cause", the more violent the crime, the less likely they are to get the judge to rule in their favor. Last, but not least, I learned that prosecutors get the last word in pre-trial hearings on motions to dismiss before judges make their decision.
With all this in mind, tell us again why you believe no prosecutor in their right mind, or worth their weight in gold, would try to prosecute this case? At what point would they begin to suffer humiliation? At the beginning, middle, or end of the trial? And don't forget, no matter what happens, you have friends and Pina Colodas waiting for you in Tahitti!
I did miss it; apologies. I'll take one umbrella in every color, line 'em up and keep 'em coming. And I suspect you should be cut off (what time is it there anyway?), as your questions are a little oblique tonight, but I'll give it a try.
DeleteIn my experience twelve jurors are a whimsical lot capable of damn near anything, so the answer to your first question has to be yes.
With regard to the second, I'm confused, as there is not and has never been a case pending against John that could be dismissed, so I'm sorry; I don't understand your premise here. Can you clarify?
The threshold for proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt; in a civil matter it's only a "preponderance of the evidence". "Probable cause" is the lower standard of proof required of grand juries to indict and cops to charge.
Happily, prosecutors get the last word in trials too, not just motion hearings.
It's got nothing to do with personal humiliation. A prosecutor has a duty to seek justice, but a responsibility not to charge an innocent person. S/he also, as the representative of The People of the State of Whichever, has a responsibility to not squander taxpayer dollars, court time, and resources. All this must be balanced against the weight of the evidence: Is it there? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? In our case I simply cannot say that the evidence offsets the other considerations. We just ain't got it.
Pour me another, and get off the computer and go lie on the beach.
Let me go at it a different way. You say you are "convinced" JDI. So right now, at this very moment, if you were casting your vote as a juror in this case, you would vote guilty, right? I mean, it is oxymoronic to say, 'I am convinced A=B, but I also have reasonable doubt about it too?
DeleteI think you regard CC the citizen, and CC the prosecutor, as two different people. It seems intellectually dishonest to say...'speaking as a prosecutor, I can understand how people might have a reasonable doubt JDI, but in my own mind (i.e. as everyday CC shopping for lipstick in the mall), I'm "convinced" he did! What you're really saying is, 'I don't have confidence in my abilities as a prosecutor, to convict John'.
Fine, if that's true. But you then shouldn't malign prosecutors who ARE or MIGHT be confident enough in their prosecutorial abilities to obtain a conviction as you have in the past.
I'm not trying to paint you in a corner, or touche you, as the expression goes. If that was my intention, I'd be a fool, because you could one upmanship me in that area with little or no effort. I merely believe, CC the lipstick shopper, convinced JDI, would not, as CC the prosecutor, be charging "an innocent person".
Is there room for disagreement here? In law school, are there courses on legal ethics acknowledging shades of grey exist with regard to individual approaches to the law and what attorney's perceive to be moral obligations?
I will admit this much. John Ramsey may one day be too old to prosecute. But today, he's seventeen years younger than my father who's still kickin' it strong. If a penniless seventy year old John Ramsey, suspected of killing his daughter, needed an immediate aortic heart valve replacement to survive, and I as his cardiac surgeon had to make a decision whether to give it to him or close his chest, I'd give him the damn heart valve and let the hospital figure out how to pay for it!
Mike G.
That's exactly right, Mike. I am of two minds. The lipstick buyer in deck shoes and jeans thinks JR did it, while the lawyer in stilettos is convinced he did too, but believes there isn't enough evidence to build a case.
DeleteUnfortunately, morals of the kind I think you mean do not enter much into Legal Ethics, and debate on gray areas gets left behind after law school. Our Code of Professional Responsibility is rigid and pragmatic. You're a good researcher; you can probably do a search for ABA Code of Professional Responsibility and see the whole business laid bare.
You've made me think about my two minds. I'd hate to be guilty of intellectual dishonesty or think I've lost faith in my abilities, so here's a thought I've been toying with: What would you think about you and Doc and whoever else is interested meeting via anonymous email or chat room and collaborating on a Complaint, trial strategy, exhibits, witnesses, the whole nine, against JR? Let's put the whole thing together, step back and ALL think like prosecutors and decide if we have a case. Doc can publish it as a separate thread, if he's pleased with the outcome.
Whaddaya' think?
@Mike G., I don't understand why you consider it intellectually dishonest for CC to be convinced JDI, but at the same time, understand that others might have a reasonable doubt JDI. Isn't it demonstrated everyday on this blog that not only do others have a reasonable doubt JDI, they flat out doubt/refute JDI? I don't think this has to do with CC's confidence in her abilities as a prosecutor. The evidence that exists against JR has been exhaustively presented on this blog, yet some still don't believe JDI. Not everyone thinks the same way. Without a smoking gun, people are going to have their doubts and opinions are going to differ. Don't forget there are some people who are thoroughly familiar with this case and still adamantly believe IDI!
DeleteThanks for the support, H. As always you make a good point: there's always someone on a jury who may fool you by adopting a completely arbitrary stance, regardless of the evidence. In our case, I expect it would be a man who simply can't imagine a father could be capable of abusing, much less murdering, his child.
DeleteI would have no problem imagining it. I would just need to see it proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Delete"What would you think about you and Doc and whoever else is interested meeting via anonymous email or chat room . . . "
DeleteI'm willing to try it, CC. If you or someone else wants to set it up, email me and I'll be happy to participate.
I'm all in CC! I'll start by sending Doc an e-mail address I'll create for the purposes of this project. I use Aol; they allow you up to seven different e-mail addresses.
DeleteThanks CC!
Mike G.
Any other takers? All are welcome.
DeleteHKN:
DeleteIf what you are saying is, that the many others having a reasonable doubt John-did-it has nothing to do with CC's confidence in her own abilities as a prosecutor, then I absolutely agree. But you seem to be suggesting that it is her "belief" JDI that is influence by the number of people who don't, and on that I can't agree. In fact, consider this; that while Doc believes John could be prosecuted once he is arrested and subjected to interrogation, and CC doesn't, CC's own personal conviction that JDI may be GREATER than Doc's! Now, if that isn't paradoxical, I don't know what is.
Mike G
Mike G
Since she went against what was in the note, John had no choice but to concede defeat. Because then Patsy would question how he already knew what was said in the note. Not to mention that Burke was present and out of his room. Something he won't admit to law enforcement.
ReplyDeletedidn't Patsy say he read the note before she called?
DeleteAnd how does one explain Patsy not knowing about John's bonus. That says to me that she didn't write the note.
ReplyDeleteUnless she's lying about not knowing it, or they wrote the RN together, or it was just a coincidence that the amount was close.
DeleteOne for CC...
ReplyDeleteThe thing I don't get is that an intruder CAN be disproven in a court of law...I have no doubts about that.
What CAN'T be proven, is exactly what happened on the night and who did what. I mean, this blog has been going round in circles and people see things differently, analyse evidence differently. At the end of the day, ALL of us are cherry picking (including me and including Doc). Whilst I am adamant Burke was involved, it cannot be proven. Whilst Doc is adamant John did it alone, it cannot be proven.
But as per my first paragraph, we know that an intruder CAN be disproven. And based on the facts we know about John, I think it CAN be proven he was involved in some regard. It may be impossible to get him for murder but surely John should have been found guilty of something! (Tampering with a corpse, intent to mislead authorities...something!). And any conviction is better than none.
Sorry I know you have responded to these types of questions before so I do apologise in advance.
You need never apologize to me. We don't agree, but I respect your passion and your commitment.
DeleteI agree, Zed. He could have been "gotten for something", and should have been. Our problem is that the statutes of limitation expired some 17 years ago for all but murder.
I don't see any way for an intruder to be conclusively disproven without conclusively proving who did it. It's really hard to prove a negative. All of the "proofs" I've seen are rhetorical "such and such doesn't make sense to me" arguments.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteYou make a good point, John. It IS awfully hard to prove a negative. Which is why the "unknown intruder" ploy is so often invoked by lawyers for the defense. Someone kills his wife, breaks a window, messes up some drawers, and claims that some mysterious intruder did it. Reasonable doubt, no? And very often it works.
DeleteBut the Ramsey case is like no other. It's not just the possibility of an intruder per se, but a very special type of intruder: a kidnapper who failed to kidnap; who waited until he was inside the house to write one of the longest ransom notes in history; and then left his note behind anyhow, for no reason, as there was no kidnapping. An intruder familiar enough with the family to demand a ransom comparable to John's bonus, address him by his first name, and include what was apparently a favorite joke in Patsy's family, the bit about "southern common sense." An intruder careless enough to leave his DNA behind, yet so elusive that no match has ever been found -- despite his being someone familiar with his victim's family. An intruder who broke in through a basement window yet left no sign of his presence anywhere in the well or the window sill. But for some odd reason placed a suitcase directly under a broken window in the basement. This intruder was so close to the family that he knew enough to leave his (meaningless) note at the bottom of the spiral stairs, where Patsy descended into the kitchen every morning, and also, apparently, had possession of a key. And yet when the DNA and handwriting of everyone with some connection to the family was tested, no match could be found.
So yes, in many cases where an intruder has been alleged, it's all but impossible to prove that negative. But in this case that does NOT apply. NO possible intruder could fit the above description. So in this case, as far as I'm concerned, it IS possible to prove a negative. Which of course would never prevent a resourceful defense lawyer from invoking "reasonable doubt" -- against all reason.
And leaving all those excellent arguments aside, it's not necessarily that hard to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt, though. If I sit in front of you and construct a cube, and I seal up the sides with tape, and make sure it's all firmly secure, and we both examine it and sign the seals, and we leave it overnight, and in the morning I hand you the cube and the seals are all still in place, and I ask you whether it's possible or likely that a mouse armed with a garrote has entered and spent the night inside the cube writing a ransom note on the inner walls of the cube, I don't think you're going to tell me you don't know because you can't prove a negative.
DeleteWell, sure, but if the cube had a broken window and an unlocked mouse door or two then all bets are off.
DeleteJohn, you mean the Christmas lights power-cable window that was too small for a human to pass through, or the basement window that clearly nobody did pass through? This is tiresome. You either have to deal with the facts or else there's no point to this.
DeleteHow exactly is it "clear" that nobody passed through the basement window? What about the butler pantry door? What about JBR's balcony? What about the garage? Where did you hear that both windows that the power cords were stuck through were too small for a human (I know one was covered by bars)?
DeleteYou are new to this case. I suggest reading my post titled "The Lou Smit show," which covers some of these questions. As for the balcony and the garage there was no sign that either had been disturbed. The power cords were in a partially open window protected by bars.
DeleteOf course someone with a key could have gotten in. But why would such a person want to place a hard suitcase under the basement window?
Have to look at the facts
ReplyDeleteThe writer of the Ransom Note either committed the murder or was involved in it. The writer of the ransom note disguised their handwriting, why would someone do this? Either A) they would be suspected of being involved and have close relations with Jonbenet or B) some random guy who could have been caught and chose to just disguise their handwriting for the hell of it. I go with A. So then you narrow down the facts of why would Jonbenet be left in the house with a ransom note saying she was kidnapped? So the note was left to have time to get rid of the body on that morning, although the police were called by Patsy which would lead to either Burke or John in that case. Or Patsy choked that morning and thought it would be better to call the police as it would be hard to get rid of the body that morning. It's hard to determine.
Question: John lawyered the family up almost immediately, and it wasn't until more than four months had passed that they submitted to formal police interviews. They then refused a second round of interviews unless they could be allowed to review all the evidence police had.
ReplyDeleteI know it's not a lawyer's job to decide whether or not his/her clients are innocent, but does anyone know of any other instance where lawyers have fought this hard to hinder an investigation? Would there not come a point where a lawyer might advise the clients that the best thing they could do would be to help the police clear them as quickly as possible? Do the activities of the Ramseys indicate that their lawyers knew damn well that someone in the house killed JonBenet?
Been thinking about method of death. Wondered if a parent could *really* do something as barbaric and violent as ligature strangulation on their own child.
ReplyDeleteThen it occurred to me that we are dealing with a hard, fast blow to the head, from which JonBenet likely never regained consciousness, and the coup de grace would not have required 4 or 5 minutes of choking, as with manual strangulation. The knot could've been tightened and left. The perpetrator could've walked away and left her to die, then returned later to check. The knot didn't have to be continuously pulled, it embedded into her neck. So actually the amount of physical violence is quite minimal, however grotesque and disgusting the image and the result. For all we know the killer could've left her wrapped in that blanket slowly choking to death, unconscious all the while.
And then I recall John telling Detective Division Commander Larry Mason that he had to (literally) fly, as he had a business meeting he couldn't miss.
He clearly didn't become an emotionally cold sociopath overnight. Patsy must have known what he was. Recall one housekeeper (Linda? Don't remember) stating that Patsy's chief role was to prevent John from becoming annoyed...
I don't think it would've been difficult for John to get what he wanted from Patsy after the killing. Recall also his stepping-in quickly as Patsy started to wander off-script when Larry King asked what they thought the purpose of the RN was:
PR: I don't know, but I hope to ask the killer one of these days.
LK: Can you guess?
PR: I think it was a ruse to throw us off.
LK: From what? I mean, unless he's in the house.
JR: We did two things in the book.
LK: By the way, the book is The Death of Innocence. I should have mentioned that right at the beginning of the show. The book is now on sale everywhere. The book is The Death of Innocence. Our guests are the Ramseys. I'm sorry John.
JR: We spent a considerable amount of time describing as best we could what we think happened, and we think the killer wrote the note before we came home that night. We think he was in the house while we were out four to five hours. The note was written before the crime.
LK: He intended then to kidnap you?
JR: We think it was a kidnapping.
LK: Gone awry?
JR: And something went terribly wrong. That's what seasoned investigators have told us.
One thing that's clear is that John is the one with the nice neat narrative, while Patsy has to be interrupted because she's all over the place. She gives two different explanations - they *don't know*, and they *think it was a ruse to throw them off* - neither of which agree with John's very detailed narrative about a kidnapping gone wrong. Which is interesting. It sure doesn't sound like a tag team with a nicely rehearsed pre-agreed narrative. And also interesting is, however much it might appear that Patsy hasn't a clue and doesn't share his theory, John is nevertheless very careful to sprinkle his narrative with 'we' and 'us'. You'd think that if seasoned investigators had shared this theory with both of them, the least Patsy might do is have some vague memory of the idea (especially as she 'co-authored the book John is citing!)
We and Us seem important to John, and I think it's quite clear why.
Lawyers cannot, must not, deceive the court or subvert the law (or knowingly lie to anyone), so the first words out of the mouths of most defense types are "I don't want to know if you're guilty or innocent". Likewise hindering prosecution or a criminal investigation, which would also have been made clear to JR from the jump, is verboten. It would also have been made clear to him that his lawyers could guide him in achieving his ends, but he would have to be very careful what he said to them to achieve those
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, no one is required to sit for an interview with police, ever, with or without an attorney present, and one's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination is absolute.
Lots of tiptoeing through a potential ethical minefield, which is about half the reason I never played for the other team.
Thanks CC.
ReplyDeleteI do remember now - didn't John Douglas form the distinct impression that the Ramsey legal team had brought him in because they wanted a clearer idea of whether or not their clients were actually guilty? I think that's what Kolar stated, anyway.
Douglas may have thought that, but there's no way that would be true.
DeleteI personally think they brought Douglas in at John's insistence, because he'd read Mibdhunter and learned an important lesson: the personality and behavior of the perp is reflected in the crime; hence the foreign faction and the foreign-seeming garrote, the very antithesis of a cool, composed CEO.
John wanted him inside the tent pissing out, not outside the tent pissing in.
Good point. And quite a coup if you can secure the 'endorsement' of a big name like his.
DeleteIt was. Ressler and the other big-name FBI profiler, whose big name escapes me, both came down on it being an inside job.
DeleteHazelwood. Roy Hazelwood.
Delete"no one is required to sit for an interview with police, ever, with or without an attorney present"
ReplyDeleteCC - forgive my ignorance of US law. I presume the right not to attend interview goes out the window if you are charged? Or not?
Not. A suspect, even when he becomes a defendant, need never utter more than name, address and date of birth.
DeleteBut that's only telling me that a defendant is not obliged to *answer* the questions, right? The cops can insist that s/he sit and listen to them?
DeleteSure. And s/he should listen, gather as much information about the direction of their case and questions as possible.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong, CC, but I do believe the authorities have the right to warn a suspect that he'll be indicted for sure if he refuses to be questioned, but if his answers are satisfactory he'll be released. And of course, if there is probable cause, he can be arrested regardless of his 5th amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe cops are permitted to tell all kinds of lies, and that a suspect can be indicted for sure if he refuses to answer questions would be one. "We've got your DNA/fingerprints on the gun/a witness who saw you" is a big favorite.
DeleteBut yes, if they have probable cause, they may indeed arrest, whether or not a suspect asserts his Fifth Amendment rights or has an attorney sitting next to him.
Maybe we should get together and perform a citizen's arrest.
Delete?????
Timing would be key. Arresting John when he least expects it and while his attorneys are out of town or otherwise indisposed would be optimal. And Doc you'll have to get yourself arrested and put in jail the night before....
DeleteMike G
I'm not a citizen but I'd love to be there to take photos so give me some advance warning guys :)
DeletePersonally, I think it's a travesty that cops are allowed to tell lies as part of interrogation.
DeleteJohn I: I wouldn't paint "telling lies" with such a broad brush. Without under cover cops or intelligence agents acting as spies, more evil people in the world would get away with doing evil things. All people need to know is that nothing they say can be used against them if they remain silent. This is true even before they are arrested and Mirandized.
DeleteMike G.
This is for John Ramsey, {if you are log into this (Blog)forum}.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you,
In one of your past interviews I would like to know what the hell you meant by this comment,
{ "well, you hope that she didn't suffer and if I let myself think beyond that"}
Here is my opinion .
Yes ,I would say the little Angel did suffer seems as though she had been beaten and tortured, that would be enough to kill a 6 year old child , and to finish with strangulation and head blow is just to much for me to think ofafter looking at autopsy Photo's .
And you commented in your interview "well.. "you hope she didn't suffer"
In My Opinion over the years from the time you and Patsy had been questioned in your Depositions , questioned in your interviews (interrogations) many talk shows Larry king and Barbara Walters , you did nothing but {LIE} and changed stories about what had happened that night.I cannot believe why BPD did not arrest you that night , damn , you must have put on a sweet face,
I am exactly the same age as you are and I remember things from when I was three years old , and you kept saying ("cant remember ) 'don't recall")days after the murder of your child... and so on are you loosing it?
shake your F***N head , turn your self in , tell us what you know , did you hire someone? allowed him in and gave him a tour, and escorted him the way out?
Investigators say it was not an intruder, well then it had to be you , why did you lie and say you know (nothing about a Garrotte ) you were in the Navy? and I have searched Yes, in training you have been taught how to create a garrote,
I wish I knew you personally I would get something out of you , Linda A , to this day, I believe her I believe she notice in your demeanor your guilt,
IF DNA can prove you are the culprit, I hope you get arrested and charged even though you are 74 years old , hope you live until you are 94 and rot in prison and burn in hell, good luck to ya...
oops ** that morning"
ReplyDeletePart 3 of Dr. Diamond's "Who Killed John Benet" was just released and focuses on the Grand Jury's indictment. My response to it can be found in the comments section.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201704/who-killed-jonbenet-part-3-the-grand-jury
Mike G
lordy lordy , here I am again after writing a dear John letter to John , lol. thanks Mike G, I have checked out the Dr Diamonds part.one two ad three, who the heck wrote that R-note with the pages from the note pad in kitchen , I believe John had torn or ripped these pages and had someone a" punk" in my opinion to write this crap ,no way did John or Patsy sit and write this ridiculous letter of scary instructions as to what would happen to JonBenet ,
ReplyDeleteIF someone hated John that badly why didn't they kidnap him and demand 1 million , why do this to his daughter? and not Burke? and nor Patsy ? and how did this person know he had a daughter? Patsy claimed (someone came in our home and murdered our daughter ) how did the person find out they were not at home(xmas) ?sneaked in the house with out not being noticed , omg this amazes me , there are so many theories , so many scenarios as to how and when this murder occurred , hope we find out soon ,
I totally lost it when he wrote:
Delete"Or perhaps the Ramseys felt that, with poor JonBenet already dead, they did not want to see their friend, Bill, who was already in poor health, die in prison. (This is the same scenario some cite to suggest that John and Patsy were protecting their son, Burke; though it is one thing to hypothetically cover up their daughter's death at the hands of her 9-year-old brother to protect him, and quite another to do so for an adult friend or acquaintance.)"
Gee Dr. Diamond.....YA THINK?????
Nice response, Mike. Diamond can't just assume that the GJ thought neither John nor Patsy were responsible for directly causing their daughter's death. More likely they thought it was one of them but couldn't figure out which one. Seems like if the GJ was presented with evidence that Bill McReynolds did it then they would have indicted *him*.
DeleteDoc, regarding the Steve Avery case, while I absolutely think he's guilty, the lack of her blood or DNA evidence in the house confuses me. Your post on it indicates he may have laid sheets and/or a tarp down. Wouldn't it still be very challenging to avoid getting her blood or DNA on something? He doesn't seem like an intelligent person by any means to think through a lot of those details.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he could've lured her into the house, Gummy. She was already leery of Avery after the time he opened the door to her in just a towel.
DeleteMore telling to me is his DNA on the hood latch of her car and on her key fob.
Well, as you may know, my method is to stick with the facts as far as possible and try not to make assumptions. The key FACT in this case is the fact that Brian Dassey described what happened to his young cousin, who reported it to her school counselor, who had her write it up and sign it. As there was no reason for her to lie, I think it safe to take this as a fact. Which tells me that, regardless of anything else, Steven Avery committed this crime -- with the assistance of his nephew, Brian, who both participated and witnessed it.
DeleteWhether Dassey was manipulated later, when he testified to the police, is neither here nor there. His cousin certainly did not manipulate him.
Now at one point Brian reported that the victim had been stabbed in Avery's bedroom, but that is NOT a fact. Actually Dassey's testimony to his police interrogators is all over the place and, as seems clear, he was trying, in his own way, to "outsmart" them by mixing the truth with lies.
So we don't know that she was stabbed in the bedroom. According to another version, Avery strangled her, which would of course have left no blood. And only afterward was she carried into the garage where she was probably stabbed. There are signs that the garage floor was scrubbed very thoroughly with bleach, paint thinner, etc. which would explain the fact that no blood was found there. But according to the prosecutor, the luminol did light up in certain places, indicating that blood had been there.
If the police wanted to plant incriminating evidence to really nail Avery, they could easily have planted blood in his bedroom -- but obviously they did not. The blood evidence would have been enough. No need to go to the absurd lengths of burning the body, sneaking the remains onto Avery's property, moving the car, etc.
The lawyers who decided to built their case on that nutty theory got what they deserved. But of course it isn't they who now have to do the time. If they'd advised him to cop a plea, he could be out by now.
True. Although he could have physically restrained her and taken her inside. So do you discount a lot of Brendan's version of the story?
DeleteThanks doc.
DeleteI do. Obviously Doc does not. But we both think Avery did it.
DeleteDoc, I believe you meant Brendan Dassey. Do you think Brendan had any role in it?
ReplyDeleteCC?
I don't, no. I think he's seriously mentally challenged and his uncle bragged to him and the kid related his story to the cousin.
DeleteHe may have stood by the bonfire, unaware of what was in it, but I think that was the extent of his involvement.
DeleteIt's amazing that people think the cops would be in on it because of the lawsuit. People don't commit murder of innocent people to save their job. Killing Steve Avery would have been more logical.
DeleteExactly, Gumshoe. If they were that desperate the easiest course would have been to murder Avery himself, NOT concoct an absurdly complicated frameup.
DeleteI think Brendan was involved, just as he said he was. But since he wasn't all that bright and was so young, it seems clear that his uncle manipulated him. If his lawyers had been competent (and ethical) they'd have arranged for him to turn state's evidence in return for a reduced sentence. He too could be out by now. That's what his original lawyer had in mind, by the way, which is one reason that "documentary" was so vile, as they made him look like a fool for basically doing his job.
Since you're a partner in the newly formed law firm of GG&C, you should promptly acknowledge that no reputable lawyer would have sent Brendan to an interview unaccompanied. Otherwise competent, perhaps. ;-)
DeleteWasn't Brendan's initial lawyer a public defender? Agree it's shocking that he would allow him to be interviewed without being present.
DeleteAvery and Dassey both guilty. Brendan had sex with her too, no doubts.
ReplyDeleteBut Avery did make Dassey do things and Brendan, being mentally challenged, basically just went along with anything Avery said. I'm with Doc 100% on this one.
I check out this blog every few days because I'm interested in the JBR case, and because the comments are the most insightful and entertaining of any blog I've read. I agree that much of the evidence points to JDI, and he was #1 on my list of suspects from day one. The most glaringly suspicious act of his, i.m.o., is that he allegedly searched the basement and found the window open and closed it. What parent when looking for a missing child upon discovering an open window would simply close it? Surely even an imbecile would wonder if the open window was an entrance/exit for an intruder, especially given that a large, hard suitcase was stationed just beneath it. That JR did this does not, of course, prove JDI. As for PR, some people say her 911 call sounds rehearsed. She was hysterical. And unless one has had a child go missing, one does not know how one would react or what one would say when phoning LE. I would most likely be so hysterical I would have to be hospitalized. Yet when my father was murdered in his bed three days after Christmas many years ago, I became numb, zombie-like, exhibiting no outward signs of grief. I was in profound shock. What I do find suspicious with PR is that she never read the ransom note in its entirety. Common sense tells me that one would want to read and re-read that ransom note to search for any clue to the identity of the kidnappers and to be fully aware of instructions regarding how to access the child's safe return. Patsy's not fully reading the note does not prove anything, though. Burke? Why did he remain upstairs alone in his bed while his sister was missing and dangerous kidnappers were loose in the area? Was he there by his own choice, or was he there because his parents demanded it? Add it all up. John unconcerned that a basement window was open. Patsy not concerned with all the contents of the ransom note. Burke apparently unconcerned that a kidnapper has been in the home and taken his sister. What does it all mean? Me thinks it's a family secret -- one of those secrets Burke hinted he might have.
ReplyDeleteWas the garrote even used, or was it just to cover up manual strangulation - yet with some even more horrific idea?
ReplyDeleteIf I were a juror, I would convict John already, but I would really struggle with this question.
The garrote was definitely used. But it could have been used to cover up manual strangulation, as you say, possibly in an effort to obliterate the strangler's prints. But I see no need to struggle with such a question. We will never know many of the details of what happened, but that doesn't prevent us from drawing conclusions based on what we DO know.
DeleteSo it was capable of pulling tight and not just for show?
DeleteI admit intruder or Burke are insane, and Patsy or both Patsy and John just don't add up. That leaves John. The note is obviously written by John to himself, and what already implicated John like finding the body or the window is no longer mysterious.
Even the garrote is 1) so violent it might require the man of the house and 2) evidence of skilled knot tying that might require a navy boatman guy
Still, if not for simply wondering what happened to JonBenet, John knows what happened and might exploit a discrepancy.
Thus I wonder why using a cloth or something isn't easier to obliterate prints. If not for that, then what? Just to account for the strangulation in a way that looks "Foreign faction"y? Perhaps it shows the note was written in advance, then.
John's original plan was to dispose of the body, hence there was initially no need for any staging that would point to her having been murdered by a "foreign faction", this is why I believe the garrote was added later - only after Patsy called 911 and John knew her body was going to be discovered in it's original state, which no doubt pointed directly to a familial homicide. So he wiped her down to remove his DNA/prints etc., added the duct tape and wrist bindings to make it appear as though she'd been prepared for a genuine kidnapping, then added the real "selling point" - the garrote. She was strangled earlier, no doubt, but I think the adding of the paintbrush handle to the cord used to strangle her came post mortem, when John was AWOL, keeping the evidence in line with the "foreign faction" scenario. He used the paintbrush because it was the only material nearby that would have done the job, and time was limited. Had it have been a planned "garroting", I'm sure sturdier materials would have been used - and certainly not an item that could be traced back to the house.
Delete"So it was capable of pulling tight and not just for show?"
DeleteHave you not seen the photos? It was found tight around her neck, digging deep furrows in the flesh.
Doc,
ReplyDeleteYou're aware of my obsession with this case. Naturally, this leads to excessively discussing it with my friends, and more consistently my girlfriend. My girlfriend knows your theory, and my theory inside and out. She is convinced of John guilt, but definitely thinks Patsy was involved. I disagree, but that's where we're at theory wise.
Her biggest problem with the JDI scenario is the handwriting of the note. She thinks that it's the only real evidence in this case, and although she believes the authorship is inconclusive, she finds merit in the Patsy parallels found by the experts. I told her about your computer tracing theory, and directed her to your courier post.
She was skeptical naturally, but agreed to look at your post with an open mind. She's a front-end developer, and builds websites for a living. She's very well-versed in format, typography, spacing, the works. She looked at your findings, and was very unimpressed, to the point where she thought it was fantastical nonsense. Now I know you don't know her and quite frankly don't care about her opinion frankly, but I trust her opinion due to her experience.
She opened up a word document on her laptop and had your post on my computer to the left. She mimicked margins, used your post as a reference, and pointed out consistent discrepancies. Now I wanted her to help me out with a post on here to be more detailed, but she refused. She gets tired of talking about this case as much as I want to. However, during her walk through, she pointed out that the letters, and words weren't consistent with tracing, and the alignment was all off, even if he experimented with it. Some words were smaller, and bigger and would therefore be inconsistent with tracing. Despite the words, and letters providing an inconsistent path for tracing, she addressed the unlikelihood that John would have been able to be so fluid throughout the note without there being dead giveaways of deception.
She doesn't rule out the fact that John was involved, but definitely doesn't think the note was composed the way you think. If she's right, then it becomes harder to believe that John was able to pull this off.
Well good. Thank you, Zach. May I ask if your girl friend is a blonde or brunette?
DeleteJust kidding. :-)
I welcome this sort of critique, especially because I'm not completely sure myself that the note was traced (or copied) from a computer font. What I found could be a coincidence, yes.
But at the same time I think your friend is being a bit pedantic. Obviously the lettering is not carefully traced in every detail and we would not expect that. I think it preferable to suggest that the font in question could have been used as a model and could either have been very roughly traced, or else roughly copied. The idea would be to throw the "experts" off by adopting an impersonal model that would make it more difficult to spot distinctive characteristics of John's own writing style.
He would have had no reason to copy it literally, nor to be totally consistent. After all this would not have been a school exercise. And in fact the formatting is abandoned after line 16. Why not?
What makes it most convincing to me is the overall general layout of the first 15 lines or so, which does conform almost precisely to the word processor layout using the Courier New font. Note the absence of hyphenation anywhere, which is consistent with a word processor layout. And the very consistently wide spacing between words, which, again, fits quite nicely with Courier New most of the time.
Of course the use of a word processor in such a manner doesn't really tell us that John did it -- Patsy could have done it that way also. But if it WAS done that way, it could help to explain why John was ruled out.
More telling, as I see it, is the graphic comparisons I displayed in that same post, where specific letter and word formations are compared with those in the note. If your friend can distinguish John's exemplars from those in the note, as presented in my second graphic, I would be very impressed. No one has ever been able to do that so far. That doesn't mean John necessarily wrote the note, because of course I cherry picked those examples, but it does make it very hard for someone to claim that his writing looks nothing like that in the note.
I DO have a background in handwriting analysis - for forensic documentation purposes. I agree with your girlfriend and I also agree that Patsy's handwriting is a likely match to the RN. I don't like to post about it because most readers on this blog don't seem to have much tolerance for that discussion. And I don't care to get into most of the arguments/personalities that dominate the blog. But I did want to note my support of Zach's posting.
DeleteDaffodilgal
Not sure if this has been discussed but has there been any speculation around John's behavior at the White's party on Christmas night? Is it not fair to assume that a father would exhibit unusual behavior knowing he was going to brutally murder his daughter later that night?
ReplyDelete