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

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

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

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Still more else

Seems like we've arrived at an impasse regarding Patsy's role in this case. And that's fine by me. I've done my best to make my points, and some others here are doing a great job of clarifying and amplifying the case for JDI, for which I am both grateful and impressed. What bothers me is not that certain others disagree, which is to be expected, but the assumption that somehow, by our refusal to bow before arguments that seem deeply flawed, those of us convinced of John's guilt and Patsy's innocence are somehow imposing our views on everyone else.

Since I have never made any effort to censor or modify any post containing an argument for any position on this case I find such accusations totally unfair. This is an open blog and all points of view are and always have been welcome. But at the same time I, for one, reserve the right to defend my position, why shouldn't I? So please lay off the offensive (and defensive) rhetoric, folks, and stick to a meaningful consideration of the facts, evidence and logic of the case. Thank you.

201 comments:

  1. Is it possible to have polls on this blog Doc?

    Over 80% of people on websleuths think Patsy was involved. It was be interesting to see some stats from this blog (not just on Patsy but a range of things).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd be interested too! It would just be interesting to see who thinks what and why. I know what a lot of commentors think and their thought process, but I'm sure there are a lot of lurkers. The polls could be more than just PDI, JDI, BDI, etc. -M

      Delete
    2. I'm not in a position to take a poll on this blog, and, moreover, see no point in doing so. Readers come and go here so I don't think a poll would mean much. However, I'm pleased to say that I've heard from a great many people since this blog was initiated that my take on the Ramsey case has changed their minds -- and that's very gratifying.

      Websleuths has been a bastion of RDI and PDI dogma for many years now, to the point that I was banned for consistently challenging their views. So the results of their poll are not surprising. If a poll had been taken at Jameson's old Webbsleuths site the results would have been totally different, as their dogma was overwhelmingly IDI. For an amusing summary of my experiences at both forums, I'll direct you to the blog post I've titled (with no little irony): Why I Am So Popular: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-i-am-so-popular-or-murder-on.html

      Delete
    3. What caused you to get banned?

      Delete
    4. Gumshoe, as should be evident from so many of the comments we see here, people can get very emotional when their pet theories are challenged. They take it as a personal insult when certain articles of faith are analyzed and found wanting. I was always very careful to avoid personal attacks and ad hominem arguments, but just as you yourself have found some of my remarks offensive, so did many on the forums. I never hesitated to label certain arguments as dogmatic, biased or illogical and that was enough to drive some people literally up the wall.

      Delete
    5. "Not in a position to take a poll?"

      There are 12-15 people who vote regularly on here, so why doesn't everyone state if they think Patsy was involved. Maybe Doc, you don't want to see the results of such a poll?

      -J

      Delete
    6. I don't think such a poll would mean much, but if people want to express their opinions I won't stop them. In my view Patsy WAS involved in some way, since she certainly did go along with John's wishes in some respects and certainly did lie to support him.

      Regardless, it is well known that the vast majority of people following this case believe that Patsy was guilty of either the murder or the coverup. One important purpose of this blog is to swim against that current and make a case for her innocence in the face of all that certainty, but obviously no matter what facts, evidence or logic is presented, most Patsy "lovers" will never be convinced, as this has become, for them, practically an article of faith.

      Delete
    7. yea...it really wouldn't mean much in all honesty.

      I definitely don't think Patsy murdered JB, but without question feel that she was involved in the staging. Just my opinion

      -J

      Delete
  2. What would be the point? A popular opinion doesn't make it true.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously it doesn't make it true... -M

      Delete
    2. M, tell that to certain BDIs (and a couple of PDIs) here who are very fond of employing this fallacy in order to lend credibility to their theory: "Oh, but THOUSANDS of people believe it, therefore it must be true!"
      In that case, alien abductions must be real, the holocaust never happened, man never walked on the moon and Elvis is alive and well and living in a Nevada trailer park with Jim Morrison.

      Delete
  3. I agree, Doc. You have never censored anyone on this blog for having a differing opinion than your own, the attacks are unwarranted and smack of spoiled brat syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zed, I think it was you that asked about John at the Whites party. From what I remember reading he and Fleet played with the toys their daughters got for Christmas. No mention of the boys interacting with their dads. Too tired to look for a link.

    Had to take my husband to ER earlier where he was admitted. His blood platelets are 10k and should be 150k. So my dad gets out of the hospital Friday with his septic shock and my hub gets admitted to the hospital on Monday and I have 6 dogs to care for before my day ended.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry to hear that -fingers crossed for you and yours diamondlil, for speedy and full recovery.

      Delete
    2. So sorry to hear that, diamondlil! Hope it all works out and your dad and husband are restored to good health.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Best wishes Lil. You've for sure had more than your share of troubles.

      Delete
  5. Agreed. Simply don't see the point of an opinion poll. There is too much of that kind of stuff. Can't see a single valid reason for such an exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All good. Was just interested to see the spread of BDI vs JDI vs PDI etc. on this blog. No other motive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Zed, I think a poll on this blog would result in mostly JDI. Hercule is PDI, not sure of any other supporters of that theory here. With a Handful of BDI I think.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doc, I think your confirmation bias is getting the best of you. The people who seem to make the attacks more than anyone else are those on team JDI.

    Anyone who posts anything to refute JDI or point towards Patsy is attacked with snide remarks.

    I don't know why some of us who think Patsy was involved are accused of using flawed logic. The majority of points made in favor of JDI do not seem to based on fact but mere speculation:
    -John gaslighting Patsy on the broken window: pure speculation
    -John sexually molesting JBR: pure speculation
    -Burke being physically incapable of striking the blow: pure speculation
    -Burke just being a "nerd": pure speculation
    -John writing the note: pure speculation

    As I've said before, all the theories seem to have a degree of merit and require speculation at some point. If JDI was solely based on facts and nothing else, he'd have been charged and convicted 20 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, Gumshoe and I agree. However, I do think Doc tries to delete those posts as soon as they appear, in all fairness. I know some do slip through, but it only makes the person posting them look idiotic, immature and just plain nasty.

      You'd think that being adults, this would be non existent here, and that we could have a good and proper argument without resulting in biting remarks, etc. Some people just never grew up, unfortunately and continue to be the bratty kid at the park or on your block that none of the other kids wanted to play with. :)

      EG

      Delete
    2. Gumshoe, as ever you are wide of the mark: you list "the majority of points made in favour of JDI" but then signally fail to list the very few FACTS upon which Doc's entire JDI theory is built. You list only the secondary, and necessarily speculative points.

      As you would know, if you had read this blog, which I assume you have, Doc reaches his conclusion based on the following:

      A ransom note, specifically, was left in the house, a ransom note detailing that a kidnapping *had taken place* and urging the reader not to call 911. Fact.

      Patsy called 911. Fact.

      The body was still in the house. Fact.

      Certain elements that would've been expected in a kidnapping - RN, broken window, tape over mouth, bound wrists - can all be interpreted, and often *were* interpreted by LE, as being staging pertaining to an attempted kidnapping. Fact.

      The items you list above are all secondary. Doc's always the first to say there are very few facts, and everything else must necessarily be speculation. But his conclusion is built only on the facts, none of which you listed.

      Delete
  9. Good morning!

    Well said, Doc. I've served on juries consistently throughout my lifetime, and have deliberated many a case with my fellow jurors. We always started by taking a poll, then trying to persuade with evidence, logic, etc to form a consensus.

    This was done without ridicule or sarcasm, but rather with facts, logic, opinion, and good old common sense. It was also done with respect for each other, and not rudeness. The oneupmanship was reserved for the lawyers battling it out in court which I've always watched with amazement and awe. I will say at times it got heated, but we always tried to maintain a certain decorum between us.

    I appreciate the way in which you try to accommodate all personalities here, all opinions and theories and think you do an outstanding job. I also appreciate your deleting posts that are just downright nasty and become personal attacks real fast.

    Thank you!

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm puzzled, and genuinely curious. EG accuses we who believe JDI of "biting remarks" and immature behavior. Gummy feels she's under attack, constantly. Zed and various others of you sneer at our logic, and seem astounded that we cannot simply open our eyes and embrace BDI with an RDI joint cover up.

    You do not accept our theory or our ideas, think it's perfectly acceptable to mock us, but the instant we defend our positions, we're "attacking", and aggressively.

    Zed has found a site whereon 80% of the participants are like-minded, while you've brought no one around to your way of thinking here, nor have we persuaded you to to ours. I think the bickering is the result of months of mutual frustration. It long ago went beyond fruitful debate. Why are you here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CC, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "I think the bickering is the result of months of mutual frustration."

      Question for CC: If, and I realize that's a huge if, Burke were to come out and admit he killed JBR, would/could there be any course of legal action against John?

      Delete
    2. No, not unless he participated in the murder. The statutes of limitation have run on all other possible charges.

      Delete
    3. I think it's rather obvious why they're still here at this point, CC - to try to beat us into submission by loudly asserting what idiots we are in the hopes that, if nothing else, they might shame us into coming around to their way of thinking! It appears to be pissing them off that we demand more than just baseless assertions, so they respond by trying to make us believe they've been slighted by giving us the "Woe is me" sob story. A little bit of emotional manipulation goes a long way. That's my take on it anyway.....I can't think of any other, logical, reason why people who so vehemently disagree with the premise put forth by the blog owner, along with scoffing at the opinions offered by a good majority on this blog, would continue coming here when they are allegedly targeted by the big, bad, JDIs, can you?
      I don't visit PDI or BDI forums.....I don't like what they have to say, so rather than bitch and moan about it, I just avoid the sites altogether, which seems the logical thing to do.

      Delete
    4. I suspect some of them are here just for the sake of arguing, to vent a little anger at faceless strangers with a different POV rather than whatever frustrates them in their own lives.

      I also suspect they're here because this is the smartest, most insightful JBR website out there, with thoughtful, intelligent commenters who have original ideas rather than simply reciting some litany of "evidence" that proves nothing. MHN came up with a new idea last week. HKH figured out the dots on Rainbow Fish Players, and has had other insights. I caught the significance of Rol Haverstock heating water. We all do it, all the time. We think. Even other site administrators, like Miss Marple, poach here.

      It's just a shame that this creative place has bogged down in useless, ineffective - and endlessly repetitive - exchanges.

      Delete
    5. You're right MsD. Now that I'm enjoying my days in retirement, I want nothing more than to beat you into submission on an internet blog about a 20 year old cold case.

      Perhaps you could offer some assertions of your own that indicate how John did it instead of pissing on the commentary that non JDIers provide. Please offer some FACTS of your own because the pillars to the JDI theory seem to be anything but.

      The JDI theory is interesting but it's based on just as much speculation as any other theory.

      Delete
    6. Well said Gumshoe.

      All I keep hearing is that JDI is based on logic and facts. I am sorry but you ARE wrong!! Yes, I will repeat...you ARE wrong. The JDI is cherry picking at its absolute best. Do all of our theories cherry pick? Yes they do. I think there is much more logic, and more importantly, evidence, that puts Burke as the likely person who started all this. But every JDIer on her acts like they are vastly superior because their theory uses logic. No it doesn't. Just admit you cherry pick just as much as all of us (if not more) and then this blog can peacefully continue.

      Delete
    7. It will peacefully continue regardless, Zed. You weren't here a few months ago and you won't be here a few months from now.

      The BDI furor is solely a result of television peddling garbage to the masses.

      This too shall pass.

      Delete
    8. Pfffttt...another one of your wild assumptions. BDI was here long before CBS (which actually had some great content) and will be here long after.

      I remember (it might have been you CC) saying it was impossible for a 9 year old to deliver that much force with a headblow. CBS made those comments look very silly.

      Delete
    9. Hardly a wild assumption. We had one or two BDIers a year until last September when CBS and Dr Phil brought your current crop.

      Not me, Zed. I've seen autopsy photos of the damage a Maglite can inflict with very little effort.

      Delete
    10. Yup, the CBS show had some dynamite content. I especially enjoyed the revelatory interview with Fleet White.

      Delete
    11. And the poignant scene in which Werner Spitz, having been prevented from getting involved in the real investigation, finally gets to see, in the flesh, a genuine mock-up of the bowl of pineapple on a reconstruction of the table in a facsimile of the kitchenette.

      Wow. Just wow.

      Delete
    12. Now be fair, M. The production company CBS chose was named "Creative Content", and they certainly were.

      Delete
    13. They were content to be creative.

      Delete
    14. Am I not the perfect straight man? Knew I could count on you to deliver that line, Basil old chap.

      Delete
    15. I'm sorry it took me so long CC, I'm on quite strong painkillers at the moment. You keep setting them up and I'll keep stumbling awkwardly around them :)

      Delete
    16. You're doing just fibe. Sorry you're under the weather. Love, Sybil.

      Delete
    17. Creative Content....? Hmmmm. What do those initials bring to mind? CC, not playing both sides are you? ;p

      Delete
    18. You ARE stoned, dear boy.

      Come down to the end of the thread and help me hold off the philistines, willya please?

      Delete
  11. I am more than willing and open to the JDI theory as well as any and all of the others that differ from my own. I have said that several times on this very blog. However, so far, I haven't been persuaded.

    And most likely never will be, when the person posting his or her theory does it in a disrespectful, immature, idiotic manner using sarcasm and ridicule. When reading such trash, I am immediately turned off and closed down to anything informative that might reside betwixt such drivel.

    I also think if Doc didn’t welcome different theories, we’d all be banned from his blog. On the contrary, he is open and tolerant. WOW, what a concept, huh?

    I understand frustration, we’re all feeling it. However, it doesn’t give us license to verbally abuse or insult other people whose theory happens to not agree with our own.

    EG

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

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

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

      Delete
    3. I recognize this Anonymous, HKH. S/he posted here a couple years ago, is the person from the last thread who told someone to STFU - just as she suggested I do two years ago. I recognize not just that so-memorable acronym, but also his/her convoluted syntax and oddly spaced punctuation. S/he is a merciless accuser of Patsy, but employs no logic or even coherent argument, just invective and, as ever, anonymity.

      Delete
  13. I would just like to compare some logic here for a minute with a logic test. If PR was found on the morning of the 26th with garotte and paint brush fibers on her hands and clothes then your logical conclusion would be
    A) She is guilty
    B) Secondary Transfer
    C) The fibers were planted there by JR and PR is completely innocent.
    Be honest, JDI use your standard backwards logic for your answer please ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She would then be a prime suspect. However, the ransom note and the 911 call become damn near impossible to explain. So, B or C would become likely.

      That's the reasoning. "If Patsy had fibers, then she wrote the ransom note" is perhaps true, but given that it's just as reasonable to say "But she didn't write the ransom note, so the fibers are planted" as it is to say "There are fibers, so she wrote the note". One man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.


      Delete
    2. You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope, Anon. If she were guilty she would most certainly have made sure to eliminate any evidence that might point to her guilt. So your hypothetical makes no sense.

      Also, do you really believe that, if John and Patsy were in this together, he'd have left it to HER to assemble that "garotte"?

      Delete
    3. Oh and one other thing relating to Patsy's fibers. If you want to argue that those fibers were there because SHE constructed the "garotte," then you can't argue that Burke constructed it, can you? And if all he did was bludgeon her, either purposefully or by accident, then it becomes really hard to explain why his parents would not have immediately called 911 for help in reviving their still breathing child, rather than plotting a bizarre "coverup" where their beloved daughter is strangled, leaving deep furrows in her neck.

      Delete
    4. Sigh. No it doesn't become hard to explain Doc. It is actually very easy. But we have had this conversation before.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, Zed, I must have missed your explanation. Could you repeat it please?

      Delete
    6. You see, you'll call this snide, but tell me honestly how it can be resisted?

      If you're telling me that not one, but BOTH parents, confronted with a blow that could've been accidental, that could've been non-lethal, (there was no blood, for one thing), discussed the situation for 45 minutes and rather than immediately summoning help for their stricken daughter, decided to garrote her to death and stage a planned-kidnapping-turned-sex-murder as the best way forward for the family - IF you're telling me that, then you're basically saying that they're psychopaths ANYWAY.

      Delete
    7. Exactly, MHN....according to BDIs, JonBenet's parents are both homicidal maniacs, whichever way you spin it. Burke was the perpetrator of an accident, but it was his parents who made a conscious decision to commit capital murder - for reasons BDIs are still not clear on.

      Delete
  14. CC feel free to give an explanation to your answer of C, something close to the usual logic like, because she had the fibers on her hands and clothes that makes her innocent, surely if she were guilty she would have washed those fibers off, would be completely expected. Doc ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My answer, given those circumstances and those choices would be A, because I follow logic, which you would know if you read and understood anything I post here.

      The fact is those were not the circumstances, and your query has no meaning.

      Now you kindly explain to me how your little challenge was intended to further meaningful discussion, and while you're about it, have the balls and the common courtesy to add your initials to your remarks. Anonymity seems to give you the false courage to insult people and post inanities.

      Delete
  15. Could anyone so kindly provide me the link to the best previous post on the broken window? It appears there are many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This might be as good a place to start as any: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-broken-window-redux.html

      Delete
  16. I have a question for JDIers.

    If Burke eventually came out and said he was involved and that both parents covered for him, would you still argue JDI?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, of course not. What's up with you guys and the goofy questions? No one on this side of the aisle lacks logic - it just isn't your logic.

      Delete
    2. I'd want to know the details. Exactly how did he do it, what was his parents' reaction and what did they do afterward? Also: how did the window get broken, why was the suitcase under it, and why was it staged as both a sexual assault and a kidnapping?

      We've already had one false confession in this case, so I would not be in a hurry to accept this one either. But I would certainly want to ask Burke some tough questions, yes.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Doc for the honest answer. CC, not so much.

      Delete
    4. Don't impugn my character, Zed. Don't you dare.

      I'm always honest, sometimes brutally so.

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

      Delete
    6. have a question for Zed.

      If John eventually came out and said he was involved and nobody else was, would you still argue BDI?

      See, the weird thing is, I can sense the pointlessness (and presumptuousness) of the question as I type it.

      Why couldn't you, Zed?

      Delete
    7. As asinine and valueless as the question was, my bet is that if John Ramsey confessed to the murder, the majority of BDIs would say he was simply covering for his son. You know - in the same way he covered for him when he strangled his daughter to death in order to cut the poor kid, who clubbed his precious daughter over the head, a break.

      Delete
  17. And at least all of us agree on the Avery case. I don't think anyone here thinks Avery or Dassey are innocent?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I confess I am a lurker of this website for some of the reasons CC mentions ("this is the smartest, most insightful JBR website out there"), and because DocG seems to be sincerely interested in solving the JBR case. Yes, the same material is discussed again and again -- to the point of tedium sometimes, but just when I'm thinking that reading the comments is a colossal waste of my time someone presents a fact or theory that I've never encountered elsewhere or considered. So I keep coming back to this blog, hoping one day someone will present an illuminating discovery of a fact that will convincingly persuade me that JDI. For now, I'm open to all theories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good for you, for getting off the bench, and thanks for confirming my hunch.

      By all means, join in, just please, please attach your initials or your dog's name, whatever - we have way too many Anonymii.

      Delete
  19. Hi, I'm also a longtime lurker here first time posting. I just want to say how much I enjoy reading this blog and all of the comments, especially from Doc and MsD. Doc, in my opinion, your theory is the only one that makes sense (to me anyway). I believe as you do, that JR wrote the ransom note, and he did NOT want that call made to 911. It seems to me anyway, that him being the CEO and man of the house, he should've been the one to make that call, especially since PR was the one who was distraught and he was all calm and cordial as described by Linda Arndt. If there had really been a kidnapping and his daughter was really missing, I'd think he would've been the one on the phone taking control of the situation. I think he felt he had control of it, until PR made that 911 call. He sure didn't have a problem picking up that phone soon after he brought his dead daughter up the stairs and calling his pilot to get out of dodge. All just my opinion, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, JustJ, I agree with you! I've followed this case since the beginning and every theory of "who done it" just seemed to go in circles and end with "no, that just doesn't make sense". Then I read Doc's theory and the pieces fell into place. Does that mean there are no loose ends or questions still hanging? No, it doesn't, but the key pieces all fit. And I love MHN's humor and CC's direct, intelligent wit!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's very kind MissB, thank you. I've always admired your excellent taste :)

      Delete
    2. As do I, Miss B. Not everyone could pull it off, but you look great in that hat.

      Delete
    3. MHN and CC are my two favourite posters also, MissB. I appreciate their ability to get their point across in a direct and succinct manner....not to mention their modest humility. ;)

      Delete
  21. Has John ever stated as to what prompted him to hire a lawyer so fast? Was there a specific event or something that was said to make him hire a lawyer so fast? I kno it was suggested by a friend but what would make his friend suggest that?

    ReplyDelete
  22. John Ramsey April 1997 4 month's after the murder, interview with detectives , I have counted 20 times and stopped counting and there were more , "I don't remember" "I don't remember"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're forgetting all the "can't recall"s.

      Delete
    2. Exactly Doc, JR: "no, not that I recall" "I cant say" "I cant remember exactly" "I don't know"
      If ever In court(on the stand in his defense) same answers , "don't remember specifically". Prosecutors will have a difficult time questioning this guy.
      We all know how he stammers while being interviewed and how he hesitates.
      He knows how to play (head games)
      So there will be no need of JR representing himself because he will dig his own pit and fall into it. lmao

      Delete
    3. To be fair, have you counted Patsy's "I don't know"s and "I don't recall"s as well?

      Delete
    4. My, what a short memory you have. I recently got done listing and accounting for just about everything Patsy said or did that you and others have found suspicious.

      Delete
    5. How is that relevant to how many "I don't know"s and "can't recall"s were in Patsy's various interviews?

      Delete
    6. Because the context in which they occurred is just as important as what was said.

      Delete
  23. Did he hire a lawyer before or after the body was found?

    ReplyDelete
  24. i've been lurking this blog for a few months and wanted to express my appreciation for DocG's dedication to solving this case. I was BDI for a long time until reading your theory--and I agree, it is the only logical theory. I also wanted to point out something Doc has mentioned before- of course JR had to rely on assumption when he thought PR would not call 911 upon finding his note, he would have chosen to be in a different room than her and the note at that time so that he wouldnt have to act surprised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All he would have to do is come downstairs first, "find" the note and run upstairs saying "Jonbenet's been kidnapped! The note says don't call the police or they'll kill her!" Easy, peasy.

      Delete
    2. I would not have expected John to let Patsy call 911. Why didn't he at least try to argue with her not to call 911 using the specific instructions in the note as his reasoning? Instead, he says on the CNN interview that he told Patsy to call 911.

      Delete
    3. As I've said before, many times, we have every reason to be suspicious of their version of what happened prior to the 911 call. For all we know, he may have been the one to "discover" the note and maybe they discussed it for some time before she broke away and made the call.

      And as for his "allowing" her to make the call, I see no way he could have prevented her from doing that short of tying her to a chair or something. Maybe she made it when he was sitting on the john, who knows?

      Delete
    4. And moreover, the fact that, for reasons we cannot now know, she *was* "allowed" to make the call does not somehow invalidate the reasoning that Doc applies to the existence and wording of the note, and the identity of the 911 caller.

      There was a plan to stage a kidnapping. It was aborted because of the 911 call. Patsy made that call. Therefore Patsy was not involved in the plan. That, at least is the reasoning, and it is not invalidated in any way by the fact that John's plan failed. Because that's all the argument actually is: "this can't have been John's plan, because it wasn't perfectly executed! If this had been John's plan he would've made sure it worked 100% as planned!"

      Human beings can't be controlled so easily. Not in extremis, anyway.

      Delete
    5. John I - yes, you're right! But just because you have come up with a better plan - after 20 years of rumination - than the one John came up with in one frantic night, doesn't mean that John's plan didn't exist. It just means that yours is better!

      I presume John intended to let Patsy find the note because it gave him distance and a veneer of innocence. Just as he probably hoped someone else would find the body during those hours it remained undiscovered. He at least made sure someone was with him when he finally ended the tension.

      Imagine how it would've looked if:

      John rushes upstairs shouting "Patsy, I've found a note - they've kidnapped JonBenet!"

      and then hours later he rushes up the stairs from the basement shouting, "I've found her body! I don't think they meant to kill her!"

      It all puts John front and center. He knew where to find the RN, he knew where to find the body. Etc. Just what he didn't want.

      Delete
    6. I also find possible significance in the fact that the letter is NOT addressed to Mr and Mrs, but specifically to John.

      Sure, it could be an attempt to make the crime look personal-vendetta-driven, but another way to look at it is, nobody writes to himself. Put simply: if it's written *TO* John then it prima-facie looks like it was not written *BY* John. On Patsy's pad. Using Patsy's sharpie.

      I get the feeling this guy was happy to have as much suspicion attach to his wife as possible.

      Delete
    7. Bingo. We have a winner!

      Delete
  25. John had (and still has) a friend named Mike Bynum, an attorney, who brought food to the Ramseys at the Fernies' the night of the 26th. According to John, Bynum felt the Rs were being targeted by LE, and suggested John hire criminal defense attorneys, recommended the Haddon firm in Denver, and John took his suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has Mike Bynum expressed why he thought the Ramseys were being targeted so early in the case?

      Delete
    2. I presume it was because of the facts.

      Delete
  26. With all the evidence (as contentious and circumstantial as it may be), Burke most likely delivered that head blow..of that I am extremely certain. I do not have the time or patience to go into any detail so I am keeping this post fairly brief. What occurred after the headblow is most definitely up for debate and Burke may have been even more involved than some think. But undoubtedly both parents were involved in the coverup and denying justice for their sweet little daughter. Patsy penned the RN and John controlled the entire situation, from that day and still to this day. Both John and Patsy were HEAVILY investigated for sexual abuse (especially John) and there is not a smidgeon of evidence to say they abused Jon Benet in any way. The autopsy does show that there were anomalies with what you would expect to see, but many experts have stated there could be many possibilities which could have contributed to that (not of a sexual nature). Of course, you cannot rule out Burke and his sister as experimenting or "playing" or maybe even something more sinister on Burke's behalf...there were findings which did highlight this as a possibility. Burke definitely had some personality traits that were not common in boys of his age. And he was the only person in that house to have struck Jon Benet in the past.

    Whilst I haven't read all posts on this blog, I am sure the pineapple in her stomach is spoke about often. I firmly believe that neither parent knew anything about this. It is highly likely that Burke and Jon Benet were eating together shortly before her death.

    I am hoping that once John Ramsey passes on, Burke does have the guts to speak up about exactly what happened that night. Maybe then, he too can find some peace and get on with his life and maybe even have a family of his own.

    Argue away on any of the above points. I most likely will not reply. I realise I haven't provided acute details or evidence in this post but I just wanted to keep this brief and share my thoughts on this terrible tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Burke most likely delivered that head blow..of that I am extremely certain."

      If you are certain, your 'extremely' is redundant.

      So you are 'extremely certain' that something 'most likely' happened.

      Thanks for sharing that.

      Delete
  27. don't use words like "definitely" unless you are someone to whom burke admitted to.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Argue away on any of the above points. I most likely will not reply."

    As is usually the case with BDIs.
    It's so very easy to make assertions when you don't have to back them up with facts, isn't it?

    "Burke most likely delivered that head blow..of that I am extremely certain. I do not have the time or patience to go into any detail."

    You've really got the BDI rhetoric down pat!
    1. Offer an assertion without giving details.
    2. State your level of certainty of Burke's guilt in lieu of actual evidence.
    3. Get the hell outta here before the questions start comin

    Why do every one of you share the exact, same, MO? Is it perhaps because you all know how impossible it is to defend such a fantastical argument?

    "But undoubtedly both parents were involved in the coverup and denying justice for their sweet little daughter."

    Committing capital murder is not a "cover up", which is exactly what John and/or Patsy did if we're to accept BDI. She was alive when her parents made a decision to sacrifice her life for her brother's, and choked her to death - so let's stop with this whole "cover up" nonsense. A cover up is when, upon finding your daughter unconscious due to a blow to the head inflicted by her brother, you call 911 and say she fell down the stairs. Fashioning a torture device designed to kill is pre-meditated murder, pure and simple. This is why BDIs always stop short of defending their theory past the head blow, of course. The manner of death was asphyxiation, an inconvenient truth for BDIs, who would have us believe she died from an accidental blow to the head delivered by her nine year old brother.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ms D.....yawwwwnnnnn. I would love for you to have a coffee with James Kolar (I am assuming the above poster is no relation to him). He knows more about this case than any of us combined and if you spurted that verbal diarrhoea at him I am sure he would laugh in your face. You continue waving that logic stick when there is not a single shred if evidence (not even a crumb!) that points to John doing this by himself. Why on earth do you feel the need to WHINGE at every BDI post when your theory is in exactly the same boat. Honestly, it blows my mind!!!

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

      Delete
    2. I'll try again :)

      Zed, describing someone's thoughts as diarrhoea is not an argument.

      Neither is an appeal to authority. Neither Kolar nor anyone else in LE has ever been able to nail this case. Kolar's presentation failed even to persuade the person who employed him as an investigator, so please, wave his name around all you like, as though he suddenly represents the authoritative all-knowing LE position, but don't fool yourself into thinking that his name or rank constitute an argument.

      If Burke did the head blow they would've tried to save her life, not finished her off in this obscene and sexual way.

      If Burke did the head blow, the sexual assault, and the garotte, there is no way on earth Patsy goes to her grave hated and reviled by all, just to draw suspicion away from the disturbed kid who has murdered her beloved daughter, her pride and joy, her vicarious second self, her princess. If you think they did what they did for the sake of their family reputation, well that worked out about as well as we might have predicted, no?

      It's a loopy idea.

      Delete
    3. You know what else is a loopy idea? Gaslighting. Also staging a break-in and then immediately claiming credit for it.

      Delete
    4. So you're of the opinion that gaslighting is just some esoteric, mystical, phenomenon, John I? Do some research, it is very real and is not as rare as you might think. After establishing it does, indeed, exist, explain why it isn't possible that Patsy could have been a victim of it?
      The breaking of the window/subsequent admitting he was the one who broke it, has been covered ad nauseam on this blog, and the explanation, though you may disagree with it, isn't "loopy". What *is* loopy, is to believe John's story about climbing through the window in the middle of the night - naked, sans shoes - then leaving the window to his sprawling mansion unrepaired for the next year, and not even considering it as a possible point of entry the morning his daughter was abducted.

      Delete
    5. Because there is no evidence in any other aspects of their relationship that Patsy was ever gaslit or emotionally manipulated by John in any way. It was purely made up to explain away a discrepancy in Doc's theory. Somebody doesn't just suddenly turn into a gaslighter (or a child molester) at age 53.

      Delete
    6. He carried on an affair for years whilst married to his first wife, so I'd say that counts as evidence of prior gaslighting.....long before he turned 50. He was still in his thirties, in fact.

      Delete
    7. Are you suggesting that gaslighting is necessary for having an affair? Or that all wives are equally susceptible to being gaslit? Did Lucinda ever suggest that she had been gaslit or emotionally manipulated by John in any way? Did their children ever suggest that?

      Delete
  30. BDI all the way. Only theory which makes sense to me. JDI theory seems way too far-fetched in my opinion

    I have no problem believing the parents protected Burke and I doubt they even knew she was still alive - if Burke didnt do the garotte himself. $hitloads of people around the world (incluing high profile detectives and LE) think BDI, so a blog and a few JDIer croonies aren't going to change my mind. Its interesting reading some of the comments on here though :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BDI all the way. Yay! GO BURKE! GO BURKE!

      It's good that you've surfaced to announce that this is only a blog and therefore it is not going to change your mind.

      Though it does make me wonder, why do you read it, then? Just accept whichever LE opinion you like at any given time: PDI, RDI, BDI, IDI - various elements of LE have embraced all four at various times, so take your pick; after all, they're not bloggers so they know best, right? :)

      Sincerely, a 'croonie', whatever the hell that is.

      Delete
    2. "Shitloads"?

      Well, you must be Zed's friend!

      "I have no problem believing the parents protected Burke and I doubt they even knew she was still alive."

      Sure....why waste time checking for signs of life before choking their six year old daughter to death, right? I mean, yeah, they *could* have perhaps saved her instead, but why go to the trouble when one of them is so adept at fashioning torture devices? Besides, Patsy really wanted to try out her new art supplies.
      You, and every other BDI here, are missing one integral element: two people making a joint decision to commit capital murder is not in any way, shape, or form a "cover up". It is premeditated murder, and one that wasn't actually required in order for the Ramseys to protect their son. So, tell me, if saving their son from a murder charge wasn't their motive, what was?

      Delete
    3. *Chirping crickets*
      The sound we've all become accustomed to whenever we ask BDI a simple question. You all love to - loudly - ram your theory down our throats, but become suspiciously quiet every time you're asked to defend it logically. Your predictability is becoming legendary. Aren't any of you even slightly embarrassed by your complete lack of a satisfactory counter argument?

      Delete
  31. CC..That Anon person is not on my "team". Evidently they think PR did it alone, and that's not my theory at all. As far as nasty comments, I don't condone any of them coming from any "team".

    Bobby K - That's how I feel--it's the only theory that makes total sense to me, and answers all of my questions about the R's behavior afterwards. I think PR found JR already dead and BR was responsible for all of it except the cover up.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  32. Junior Kolar may be intentionally forgetting that the real James Kolar theorized that BR had a psychiatric disorder called SBP (sexual behavior problem). He connected that coercive victimization of JB to BR’s final act of the actual killing including the asphyxiation.

    In case some folks have not heard this on YouTube, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlU6ErG4mZg&feature=related ) this is Wecht discussing JB’s injuries, and he takes it right from the autopsy report. "Let's talk now about the external genitalia, let's talk about the injuries...the injuries are for the most part, old--they're chronic. A good part of the hymen is absent, and that's an old, old phenomenon, it's been there for a while. Then the pathologist reports--and I'm taking it right from the autopsy report--he reports superficial erosion of the vaginal mucosa, that's the lining, the delicate lining of the vaginal canal at the seven o'clock position, and that's been there for a while, that's not acute, and then he finds microscopically chronic inflammation under the microscope--that means it's been there for days...it could be longer than days, but it's not fresh, and then he finds, also, birefringement material under polarized light.”

    ReplyDelete
  33. Scary how much John Ramsey and Bill O'Reilly look alike.

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

      Delete
    2. Mikey, you're trying waaaaay too hard. It was just an observation. Nothing to do with the case.

      Delete
    3. "He knows more about this case than any of us combined and if you spurted that verbal diarrhoea at him I am sure he would laugh in your face."

      A. This "Kolar" guy knows no more than anyone else here. That you happen to agree with his theory hardly makes him the authority on this case. Your confirmation bias is showing again.
      b. I really take offense with your "verbal diarrhea" comment, as I always think long and hard about my comments. Disagree all you want, ridicule me even, but don't reduce my opinions to mere drivel - they are not devoid of any substance merely because you disagree with them. Your predictable ad homs are becoming more and more frequent and they're just not necessary in order to get your point across.
      c. If someone who subscribes to such a preposterous theory is overwhelmed by the urge to "laugh in my face" in regards to my own, I would find the irony absolutely delicious, so laugh away, by all means.....the scoffing doesn't bother me, it is the BDIs lack of a credulous argument that does.

      Delete
    4. Apologies.....the above should have read "lack of a credible argument".

      Delete
    5. Wait, you think you know as much as James Kolar!!! :)

      Someone who was officially on this case and has been in the house and analysed evidence etc.

      Seriously??

      Delete
    6. I assumed we were talking about the Kolar who posts here, Zed....

      At any rate, if James Kolar is the authority on who killed JonBenet because he was officially on the case, then I guess that makes Steve Thomas's theory every bit as valid as Kolar's.....they both can't be right, can they?
      Stop appealing to authority. Just another - in an ever growing list - of your logical fallacies.

      Delete
    7. Ms D, I think that's another example of cherry-picking! ;)

      Delete
    8. You're right. Zed's posts are littered with so many logical fallacies that I can't even identify which ones he's using/abusing at this point. :)

      Delete
  34. Sorry for the long post...but this is from James Kolar, for those who haven't read it:

    I had obtained a copy of the book, Sexually Aggressive Children,
    Coming to Understand Them,70 and other research materials on that
    topic late that fall and began to review them in my spare time.
    Araji’s book, in particular, provided a comprehensive overview of
    national research that had studied sexual abuse perpetrated by
    children 12 years of age and younger.

    Approximately two months had passed since the mailing of
    my letter to the D.A.’s office, and I had finished my study of the
    SBP text book. It was incredibly enlightening, and the case studies
    only served to strengthen my belief that developed from my
    analysis of the case that indicated some form of family cover-up.

    This information is not all-inclusive but provides an overview
    of the behavioral symptoms seen with this childhood disorder:

    • Research into sexually aggressive children was described as
    being in its “infancy” in the mid1990s. (It appears that the
    earliest studies on this topic only dated to 1980.)

    • The average onset of preadolescent sexual behavior problems
    (SBP) are between the ages of 6-9 years.

    • Although the term “sexual” is used, the children’s intentions
    and motivations for these behaviors may be unrelated to
    sexual gratification.

    • Children act out for many varied reasons. Some may have
    been the prior victims of sexual abuse. Some may act out
    due to other behavioral problems related to PTSD, anger,
    fear, or emotional detachment. Sexual acting out has been
    linked to anger, rage, loneliness, and fear.

    • FBI UCR reports in 1979 revealed 249 rape arrests for
    children less than 12 years of age. Sixty-six of those children
    were under the age of 10.

    • Early research conducted in the 1980s provided evidence
    that preadolescent children’s behaviors can be as aggressive
    and violent as those of adolescents and adults.

    • FBI UCR discontinued reporting the age of offenders in
    1980, but the National Center for Juvenile Justice reported
    a forcible rape rate of .02 per 1000 for 10 and 11 year olds
    in 1988.

    • 1990 FBI and media reports in this time period indicate that
    among adults convicted of sex crimes, approximately 30%
    said they began offending before they were 9 years old.

    • A 1991 study revealed that some children engaged in
    behaviors that involved fire-setting, bed-wetting, animal
    mutilation, and scatological behaviors- (disturbed bodily
    functions related to urination and elimination).

    • A 1993 nationwide survey of SBP therapists identified
    preadolescent behaviors in 222 children that ranged from
    voyeurism to coercion: The more serious offenses involved
    digital penetration, penile intercourse, anal intercourse,
    bestiality, and ritualistic or sadistic sexual abuse.

    • Another 1993 survey conducted in the Northwest revealed
    that some offenders used physical coercion that included
    tying up their victims.

    • Offenders lack compassion, empathy, and exhibit inadequate
    social skills.

    • A victim may be the object of revenge or anger and could be
    viewed as the parent’s “favored child” by the perpetrator.

    • Families frequently attempt to portray themselves to the
    world as the “perfect” family.

    • Co-morbidity: SBP patients have a higher incidence of
    psychiatric disorders that include, but are not limited to,
    attachment disorder and separation anxiety.

    ReplyDelete
  35. continued....

    Revelation of these clinical case studies and the emerging
    national recognition of this childhood behavioral disorder was in
    its infancy at the time of JonBenét’s death, but confirmed what
    I had occasionally witnessed in the District Attorneys’ weekly
    SART meetings: Children of Burke’s age had been proven capable
    of sexually abusing their siblings and others.

    Moreover, these studies confirmed that children of his age
    were capable of committing horrendous acts of physical violence
    typically thought to have been reserved to adults.

    It had been stated repeatedly that there had been no prior
    recorded history / incidents of abuse that would have suggested
    parental involvement in JonBenét’s death. As I pointed out in the
    case analysis report and Power Point outline completed in the
    fall of 2006, Burke had already exhibited one prior incident of
    violence against JonBenét.

    The incident that involved a blow to the head with a golf club
    that took place in Michigan was claimed to be an “accident” by the
    Ramsey family, but it is interesting to note that this incident took
    place within a day or two of JonBenét’s birthday in August 1994.

    One can only wonder whether sibling jealousy or envy may
    have played any part in that instance, and whether these feelings
    spilled over into the events of the Christmas holidays in 1996.

    I had also found it interesting that the Paugh’s had reportedly
    purchased several books on childhood behavior for the Ramsey
    family. The titles of the books were intriguing:

    • The Hurried Child – Growing Up Too Fast, by David Elkind;
    • Children at Risk, Dobson / Bruer;
    • Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, Kilpatrick.

    When exploring the nature of the content of these three books,
    I wondered what might have been taking place in the home that
    prompted the grandparents to purchase these types of childhood
    behavioral books for the family.

    I had reviewed an investigator’s report that documented a 1997
    interview with former Ramsey nanny – housekeeper Geraldine
    Vodicka, who stated that Burke had smeared feces on the walls of
    a bathroom during his mother’s first bout with cancer. She told
    investigators that Nedra Paugh, who was visiting the Ramsey
    home at the time, had directed her to clean up the mess.

    There were other police reports in the files that documented
    what I thought could be viewed as related behavior. CSIs had
    written about finding a pair of pajama bottoms in JonBenét’s
    bedroom that contained fecal material. They were too big for her
    and were thought to belong to Burke.

    Additionally, a box of candy located in her bedroom had also
    been observed to be smeared with feces. Both of these discoveries
    had been made during the processing of the crime scene during
    the execution of search warrants following the discovery of
    JonBenét’s body.

    I wondered whether fecal material observed in pajamas
    thought to belong to Burke, and smeared on the box of candy in
    his sister’s bedroom, could have been related to the symptoms of
    scatological behavior associated with SBP.

    I also contemplated the reasons why a box of JonBenét’s candy
    would have been smeared with human excrement.

    As noted previously, Linda Hoffman-Pugh had also mentioned
    finding fecal material in JonBenét’s bed sheets. It raised the
    question as to who may have been responsible for the deposit of
    that material in her bed – had it been JonBenét or was it Burke?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I remember reading that portion of Kolar's book, with mounting impatience -- waiting for him to come up with some piece of real evidence linking Burke to the syndromes Kolar had been researching.

      For me, this is the major problem with Kolar's theory -- and the CBS "documetary" as well. The assumption of guilt based purely on possibilities rather than actual evidence. Yes, it's possible that Burke was one of those children with serious behavior disorders. It's possible that he is now a serial killer for all we know. But until you can find real evidence of such behavior, rather than speculations regarding books, a dog eared dictionary, and stray feces that could easily have originated with his sister, you have no case. As I recall, everyone on the investigative team recognized that except for him.

      All sorts of things are possible. Just because they are possible does NOT mean it actually happened that way. This is and always was Kolar's problem, and for some odd reason he finally managed to convince some people with the right media connections that he MUST be right. Because they too seem to have confused possibility with evidence. Their mistake may cost them dearly.

      Delete
    2. Doc, there is NO evidence in this case. The sooner you understand that the better. So no theory is in concrete.

      You say "the assumption of guilt based purely on possibilities than actual evidence"...that is exactly what JDI x 1000. Honestly, feels like I'm talking to a brick wall on here sometimes.

      Delete
    3. If you really believe that, then how can you be so certain that Burke did what you accuse him of? Why not simply argue that there isn't enough evidence, and leave it at that?

      I've argued for some time that this is not an evidence-based case -- but that it CAN be solved by carefully examining certain facts along with the logic implied by those facts.

      My theory of the case is based, essentially, on precisely these two elements. I could be wrong, yes, but I've presented a consistent, coherent analysis pointing clearly to John alone. I see nothing of the sort in Kolar's book, or the CBS doc. or anything you or anyone else supporting BDI on this site. All I get from any of you is the Burke COULD have done this or that, based on little more than sheer speculation.

      Delete
  36. Hold on a minute, Zed.

    Kolar was never "in the house and examined evidence, etc." He wasn't even in Boulder when JBR was killed, was never assigned to the case by BPD, and only "followed up on one lead" in the case in 1997, according to his Reddit AMA.

    His information came from reading 60,000 pages of police reports when he was the lead investigator for DA Mary Lacy for eight months in 2005.

    And that's it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be clear, he did all his research into children and aggression and sexuality in "his spare time" and not as part of any official investigation.

      Delete
    2. CC, fair enough, you may have me there. But still, that is his job and he is a professional. And has put a LOT of hours into the case. And to me, his theory makes complete sense. No other theory even makes half sense to me.

      Delete
    3. Steve Thomas put many more hours into it, as did Mark Beckner. Both are police professionals, both detectives, though Thomas was a narcotics officer working his first homicide. Neither thinks Burke did it.

      Kolar was a patrol sergeant who, in my opinion, wanted a piece of this case and its notoriety and to make a few bucks as Thomas had done, so he came up with an idea no one else had floated, found some sketchy research that might conceivably back it up, and tried to get published.

      When no mainstream publisher would touch it, he self-published, without much success. When Creative Content and CBS went looking for an angle for their "documentary", they chose one that had not previously received much attention or been given much credence, for the shock value and to garner viewers
      Remember, Burke was cleared by both the DA and BPD early on.

      I understand you're going to continue to ignore Burke's exoneration in 1997-8, the grand jury's findings and Stan Garnett's recent statements because they all fly in the face of BDI, but don't talk to me about experts (all paid to perform a mock investigation for TV) and Kolar's qualifications, please.

      Delete
    4. CC, thanks for clarifying Kolar's connection to the case. Zed, thank you for the excerpt from Kolar's book. What I read was that feces was found in JB's room, in her bed, and on clothing in her room. And Kolar then assumed that all the feces originated from Burke because of his "disorders". Okay. Several popular books about child rearing (1990's) were
      in the home, so Kolar assumes Burke must have the afore-mentioned ""disorders" discussed in the books. Okay. I have lots of murder mystery books and romance novels in my home, but I don't murder people and there's precious little romance in my life, so there ya' go.

      Delete
    5. "But still, that is his job and he is a professional. And has put a LOT of hours into the case."

      And what of the other "professionals" who put as many hours - if not more so - into the case and ruled Burke out? Conveniently, you failed to mention those ones, Zed...if you're going to put your faith in the professionals, why are you dismissing the other 90% of them? Isn't that a tad dishonest?

      Delete
    6. Quite so, Miss D. The professionals aren't one unit. They've had various ideas at various times, including IDI, so let's stop please using authority as an argument.

      Miss B - romance will come. You just spend too much time reading about child murders ;)

      Delete
  37. Doc:

    Did you receive the e-mail I sent you on the 18th?

    Mike G
    GG&C

    CC:CC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the heads-up, Mike. I just now checked and found it. I'll be getting back to you soon.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, guys. I'm the hold up. Will send blind e-mail address to Doc tonight.

      Delete
  38. Doc, I have never said Burke was DEFINITELY involved! What I have said is that "in my opinion" he was definitely involved. Because TO ME, no other theory comes remotely close to being logical.

    I agree with this paragraph you posted:

    "I've argued for some time that this is not an evidence-based case -- but that it CAN be solved by carefully examining certain facts along with the logic implied by those facts."

    And that is why I am 99% sure Burke, John and Patsy were all involved.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Doc, Since you deleted Mike G's reply to Gumshoe about John Ramsey looking to him like Bill O'Reilly, it would be fair to delete the comment that provoked. I didn't take it as a random joke and I don't see what it has to do with this case. Nor would anyone with eyes think that a short lip licking man looks anything like a tall grumpy man. If the point was about incest vs sexual harassment, I don't get it. Female Reader

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what I believe was probably one of Gummy's attempts to be relevant (or possibly humorous; difficult to be sure) she managed to trivialize both incest and sexual harassment. She likely won't see the need to offer her own, so let me please offer my apology in lieu thereof. Most of us here - of both sexes - are more sensitive.

      Delete
    2. How do you possibly look that far into a simple comparison of an important figure to the case, John Ramsey, to a current figure of the news? The comment had absolutely nothing to do with incest, or literally anything other than their physical appearance. I don't need to be relevant on an internet blog, CC.

      And what evidence do you have of John commuting incest?

      Delete
    3. I see. So I may safely describe you as irrelevant, then?

      The child was sexually abused. It was either John or Burke, ergo it was incest.

      Delete
    4. Sure. Irrelevant works for me.

      Again, please provide evidence that Burke or John was sexually abusing JBR. Doesnt the JDI theory only work if John is the abuser?

      Delete
    5. There is ample evidence in the guest post I did for Doc called "The Case for Chronic Sexual Abuse" in September of 2016. Check Doc's archives. It was referred to by Steve Thomas and Jim Kolar in their books, and Mark Beckner acknowledged it in his Reddit AMA.

      I happen to think it was John. Others, obviously, think it was Burke.

      No. JDI is not contingent on that or any motive. The fact that it's the best one anyone has come up with is merely enhancement, gravy.

      I'm glad we're in agreement. Please change your hat accordingly, as Gumshoe was the name of a long-time, very bright, very insightful participant here . . . and you ain't her. :)

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

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

      Delete
  40. How do you know it was either John or Burke?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an epistemological question, John. Thank you for raising the bar. How do we know we know anything? How do we define knowledge? On what authority do we assert that we 'know' something?

      Delete
    2. More saliently, could we stop playing the silly game whereby chiefly BDIs demand standards of proof or 'evidence' from JDIs that they do not demand of themselves. Doc has said, and I think most would agree, that definite facts are thin on the ground in this case, and that most of the facts are open to interpretation.

      So please - each side has their interpretation of the facts. Stop demanding proof and evidence that you know is not available.

      And stop with the double standards: it's tiresome to constantly assert that "there is ZERO proof or evidence John abused JBR", while also proudly citing studies showing that sibling sexual abuse is a thing that exists and that it's therefore possible/likely/certain/100% definite that Burke was molesting her.

      It's getting so boring.

      Delete
    3. This was no latchkey child, John I. This was a loved, cosseted and protected daughter of privilege who was not exposed to risk other than through those hideous kiddie pageants - and her mother was with her for every moment of those.

      Speaking of boring, do you never tire of taking potshots from the bushes? Espouse a theory, venture an opinion, say SOMETHING, anything.

      Delete
    4. So in other words, you don't have any basis for your claim that "it was either John or Burke" then?

      Delete
    5. Only proximity, access and logic. You have any better ideas? Or, come to that, any ideas at all?

      Delete
    6. what "logic" tells you that only males can be sexual abusers?

      Delete
    7. I see. So your Great Thought, your Big Idea is that Patsy Ramsey, who had a complete hysterectomy in 1993 because of Stage IV uterine cancer, and who told Linda Hoffman-Pugh she'd lost interest in sex ever since was lustfully diddling her daughter?

      For this we've waited lo these many weeks?

      Delete
    8. No basis -- that's what I figured. As usual, you're stating things as fact that are not fact.

      Delete
    9. Huh? I stated my logical conclusions that:

      JBR was a protected child, not at risk of stranger-predators;

      That her mother had no interest in sex and was not her abuser;

      That the 2 males in the household had both proximity and access.

      Have you paid no attention whatsoever from your safe place in the bushes? There are NO AGREED-UPON FACTS. There is precious little evidence. The best any of us can do is apply reason and logic.

      You are tiresome, tedious and a coward in the bargain.

      Delete
    10. "As usual [I'm] stating things that aren't facts"? That's a bald-faced lie.

      Delete
    11. Your exact words:
      "The child was sexually abused. It was either John or Burke, ergo it was incest."

      No "my logical conclusion is". No "in my opinion". So you're not only arrogant and condescending, but you're a liar as well.

      As for your "logical conclusions", you seem to erroneously "reason" that:

      a) nobody else but P, J, and B had access to JB
      b) sexual abuse (if it actually happened) has to be a result of lust
      c) that just because you assume something, that it's a logical conclusion

      I thought you were full of yourself before, but now you've taken to using the royal "we". That's over the top, even for you.

      Delete
    12. Oh for gods sake. It's not my opinion. The child was chronically sexually abused, according to every medical expert who saw the autopsy results and Steve Thomas, Jim Kolar and Mark Beckner as well. Do some reading.

      I don't use the royal "we". I'm not the only person here who has waited patiently for you to make a point, make a contribution, or offer anything but sniping criticism.

      I'm well read and well-versed in this case, and in the law. If that makes me arrogant and full of myself, I accept the mantle.

      What do you bring to the table?



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

      Delete
    14. Speaking of tedious....

      "It was either John or Burke" is your opinion. And an unsubstantiated one, it turns out.

      Delete
    15. Of course it's unsubstantiated. Seldom do child abusers step up and confess. Again, proximity and access. Got a better idea? Got any idea at all, about anything?

      Paragraph two: It is because it is? MHN and Ms D will have your head for that sort of argument. There are very few people who are as well-versed in the case. Ask Doc. Ask Miss Marple. Ask Diamondlil.

      I do not spew misinformation, as you know perfectly well. This from the man who commended me 2 weeks ago for noticing that Pastor Rol was heating water for, possibly, tea?

      I've never said anything remotely resembling "everyone's conversations not interesting enoughDiamond.

      Stand down, Johnny.

      Delete
    16. So you stated an unsubstantiated opinion as fact. I'm glad we could work that out. Just own it rather than trying to shift the burden. That was misinformation whether you admit it or not. No, I have no idea who sexually abused JonBenet or indeed IF she was sexually abused. Not all vaginal trauma constitutes sexual abuse.
      And don't use diminutives with me -- that's more of your trademark condescending arrogance.

      Delete
    17. I did not state an unsubstantiated opinion as fact. Do the work. JBR was chronically sexually abused. The logical perps are the males of the household, Johnny.

      Delete
    18. "Could we stop playing the silly game whereby chiefly BDIs demand standards of proof or 'evidence' from JDIs that they do not demand of themselves."

      Thank you! This is what riles me up so much with BDIs - much more so than the actual theory they propose - and I have been harping on about this very thing the past few posts, though it always falls on deaf ears, because, for whatever reason, the BDIs are a bullheaded bunch.

      "And stop with the double standards: it's tiresome to constantly assert that "there is ZERO proof or evidence John abused JBR", while also proudly citing studies showing that sibling sexual abuse is a thing that exists and that it's therefore possible/likely/certain/100% definite that Burke was molesting her."

      Indeed. The double standards BDIS hold us to are unreasonable and tiresome.

      Delete
    19. Ms D...honestly I feel like head butting a brick wall when reading your comments haha. You are the only one here that does that to me.

      We BDIers are simply stating there is NO evidence whatsoever that John did it. That is a FACT. You can't show us any because there is none. And logic, as portrayed by posts in this blog, is obviously looked at differently by different people. I think logic means John did not do this all by himself and that Burke was involved. Obviously your logic tella you something different. And yes, WE know there is also NO concrete evidence for Burke, so our theory is in exactly the same boat...as I have repeated a thousand times now.

      But then you come on here and preach about logic, cherry picking, and common sense. You call us bullheaded and lack logic and much more. Honestly all the whinging and name calling is coming from the JDI camp and its mainly from you because you cannot read and understand plain English. Please think before posting...please...for the sake of all of us.

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

      Delete
    21. "We BDIers are simply stating there is NO evidence whatsoever that John did it. That is a FACT. You can't show us any because there is none."

      Didn't you concede just yesterday that evidence for ANY side is scarce?

      "Honestly all the whinging and name calling is coming from the JDI camp and its mainly from you because you cannot read and understand plain English."

      Ahhh....there's the predictable ad homs I was missing so much....but, do you have anything substantial to add to our dialogue? Something that might actually further the discussion?

      "Please think before posting...please...for the sake of all of us."

      You're asking ME to "think before posting"? Interesting. I've always prided myself on the fact that I sometimes spend an hour composing and editing a single post. I know.....why don't we "take a poll" to see who of us here think your comments involve a lot more research and forethought than my own, what do you say?!

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

      Delete
    23. Zed. It's becoming so tiresome now.

      "We BDIers are simply stating there is NO evidence whatsoever that John did it. That is a FACT. You can't show us any because there is none."

      Ok, can I beg one thing from you. Can you please stop capitalising the word 'FACT'? It really makes you look like a tiresome blowhard, and I'm sure you're not! For the tenth time: There is no evidence whatsoever that *any* individual or combination of individuals committed any or all of this crime, so what is your point? Are you saying we are wasting our time? Or are you constantly under the deluded misapprehension that JDIs think we are just overflowing with evidence and proof that John acted alone? We don't and we aren't. As Doc has spelled-out till he's blue in the face, it's a logical inference based on the few known facts. So stop making these straw-man arguments. You know full well what he have and what we don't have.

      Substantial agreement from the professionals who attended the autopsy or saw the original materials that there was long-term vaginal abuse.

      So you can decide, did little Burke smash his sister over the head in a rage over some pineapple, or did he sexually assault and strangle her to death because he was disturbed and often molested her? And when you've made your mind up on that, you can come up with an explanation for the fact that not just one but BOTH parents decided that the best response to the situation was to stage a kidnapping-gone-wrong complete with a ransom note stating that a kidnapping had taken place and JonBenet was being held by kidnappers, when it hadn't and she wasn't. If THAT was the best plan they could come up with to protect their dear psychopathic murderer son, then they were damned lucky to be rich enough to get away with it.

      Doc's argument, in my opinion, makes more logical sense of the few undisputed facts. If you want motive for his actions, we know that someone had been messing with the poor child. It does no good to whine 'we have no proof it was John!' No, we don't. So what? Someone did it, and we're theorizing. It's not illogical or inconsistent to claim it could've been the adult male in the house with access to the victim. Could've been Burke, sure. But based on our reading of the totality of the evidence we think it was John. Disagree, sure, but don't whine around mewling for proof or evidence that nobody has on either side.

      So please..."please...for the sake of all of us" stop complaining about JDIs defending the JDI position, and tell us what you think Burke did, and why you think the parents reacted the way they did.

      Delete
    24. You *did* state an unsubstantiated opinion as fact, little CC. You said "it was either John or Burke". "Do the work" is not a substantiation, it's just arrogance. Everybody thinks her *own* opinion is "logical", sweetie, that doesn't make it any less of an opinion.

      Delete
  41. People- new folks and legacy folks to this site alike. Call me crazy, but I've been reading here day in and day out. What keeps getting lost, from my perspective:
    - If it's Burke...why didn't John nor Patsy call 911 asap before/without the strangulation, without the garrote. Save the girl!?!?!?! It's NOT Burke!
    - If it's Patsy...why did she call 911? She wouldn't have! Patsy calling 911 only focuses the attention on her. Per John's earlier directives, Patsy calling 911 just messes up his plans (but, helped him in the long run.)
    Listen. I've read, seen and heard everything on this case. I was a total BDI until I came to Doc's site. Then...common sense kicked in. It all made sense. I know that we won't all ever agree, but Doc's theory is the best and the most sound of the bunch. That's all I've got right now. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Candace. It's nice to see common sense prevailing :)

      Delete
    2. Each to their own Candace. Funny how people see things differently. Common sense tells me that there's no way John did this all by himself.

      Delete
    3. Ain't it marvelous everyone, the growing list of 'ma'am's" to chose from when asking just for the facts!

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. Guess what, Zed? Even if the JDI theory falls completely apart, that still doesn't make your theory any more plausible.
      You keep spouting this same sentence over and over again: "There's no way John did this all by himself", yet give us ZERO evidence (other than your own, arbitrary, percentages of certainty) Burke did this "by himself", or with the help of anyone else.


      Delete
  42. Burke's interviews to me at age 9 seem too clueless and he comes off like he doesn't know what happened. That's a reason I believe Burke probably didn't commit the crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ruling out Burke for that is ludicrous. Its even possible that at the time Burke delivered the head blow and was then told to go to bed (only to believe intruders actually did it). Ruling Burke out for that would be very naive in my opinion, but of course you are entitled to your own opinion.

      Delete
    2. If Burke is smart enough to fool seasoned detectives and child psychologists (the "professionals" you hold in such high esteem, I might add), then he's smart enough to know that it is just too much of a "coincidence" that his sister happened to be murdered by a pedophile intruder the very night he whacked her over the head, don't you think, Zed? Give the boy some credit.....after all, you are so very fond of claiming just how clever and mature he was for his age.

      If ruling out Burke is "ludicrous" based on the above mentioned interviews, so is "ruling him in" based on the same interviews - which is what many of you have done.

      Your logic has failed you once again.

      Delete
    3. He didn't "rule out Burke". He provided one reason to believe Burke probably didn't commit the crime. But you can provide lots of reasons to believe he did, can't you Zed? And none of them would be "ludicrous", and none of them would be "naive", would they?

      Mike G

      Delete
  43. For many years I was PDI, but I had only ever read Thomas's book.. Then after reading Doc's theory, I was leaning toward JDI. But as I've read through info on this blog I have come to strongly believe Patsy knew what happened. And obviously John knows what happened too. So then I was thinking that Patsy would never cover for John so it must be BDI. But very recently I began to wonder if there is a scenario that doesn't involve Burke, yet both parents know what happened? Any theories on that? -M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now this is a VERY good post...good work M. I have also thought about this as I cannot even remotely entertain the idea of Patsy not knowing that night. Plus based on hard evidence, Patsy undoubtedly wrote that RN. Now Doc has tried to demonstrate that John wrote that note, and Doc is well within his rights to try and prove that. But nothing on here has come close to me thinking John wrote that. He was ruled out and I believe rightly so. Saying that, I do believe he sat with Patsy as she wrote it and mentioned many of the things to put in it.

      But to get back to your question, I do sometimes wonder if maybe Patsy came downstairs to find Burke and JBR in a comprimising situation. Maybe they were doing sexual stuff without even understanding it was sexual. Maybe Patsy became panicked and hit someone with a torch in anger. Who knows...could be heaps of ways this panned out. But I agree Patsy was involved, absolutely. It is possible that John and Patsy knew without Burke (as I said it could be heaps of things which lead to what happened), but common sense tells me Burke was somehow involved...I just don't know to what extent (miminum or maximum).

      Delete
    2. Interesting thoughts Zed, thank you for sharing. This is such an interesting case! -M

      Delete
    3. Patsy "undoubtedly" wrote the note? Well, that's simply and demonstrably untrue. There is plenty of doubt, even if you entirely disregard Doc's study. So you start with an untruth, good start.

      "Maybe Patsy became panicked and hit someone with a torch in anger".

      When you say "someone", do you mean John? Merv Pugh? Bono? Isaac Asimov? Or did you by any chance mean JonBenet? Why did you say "someone"?

      So now you're suggesting that having been given stacks of books to help parents cope with weird troubled pervert kids, Patsy's first reaction when she catches them red handed is to grab the nearest heavy item and hit the victim of the abuse over the head hard enough to shatter her skull?

      And the faculty you credit for this possible scenario is "common sense"?

      Keep it coming. I'm enjoying this.

      Delete
  44. If the note was written by someone with a grudge against John Ramsey, wouldn't it be easy as hell to determine the identity of this person? Yes, it would.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Zed...Thanks for posting that info from Kolar's book. I haven't read it yet, but I just might now. This only strengthens our theory that BDI, as it shows a possible cause for his behavior before, during and after.

    PR was a doting mother for sure, and she would definitely have called 911 if she found JBR injured. That's just plain common sense. However, if she found her murdered and knew BR was somehow involved, she'd hesitate to do so. Would all mothers do this? NO!!! But PR wasn't like other mothers, was she. She was obsessed with appearances, status and prestige. Just read her Christmas letters that were full of how perfect her life was--the successful husband, the brilliant son, the beautiful, smart and talented daughter. etc.

    There was something going on in that house that they didn't want anyone to know about. So, they covered it up and kept denying everything. They could pull it off because they had people in power in their pockets.

    I've done extensive reading into Alex Hunter and how the R's lawyers were privy to information in the DA's office and knew everything that was going on. This isn't the norm in any investigation and it's criminal. I blame AH for this entire travesty. Call it bribery, call it wanting to playing politics, call it whatever you want. Bottom line, the DA's office has the blood of JBR on their hands. I really don't know how they got away with it or how they sleep at night.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would you expect to read in a family's annual Christmas letter penned by a member of said family? Of course they are only going to portray their family in a positive light. Lots of people include these kind of letters in their Christmas cards. The typical one usually reads something like this...Johnny got straight straight A's this semester and his teacher says he's a joy to have in class. Susie spends most of her free time volunteering, is the captain of her basketball team and continues to maintain a 4.0 GPA, yadda, yadda, yadda...

      Since a Christmas letter certainly doesn't solidify that someone is "obsessed with appearances, status and prestige," I have to wonder why people have this perception of PR. What is it based upon? Specifically, what has led people to believe that PR valued "appearances, status and prestige" above all else?

      Delete
    2. HKH, I agree with you. It's common in Atlanta where Patsy was from to send newsy, upbeat, somewhat braggy Christmas letters. In fact I struggle to write one myself that doesn't sound boastful about my kids but is positive and provides news to those we don't see often. Those around here who knew Patsy considered her to be a friendly, outgoing, and generous person. I feel sorry for her because while sick with her cancer, her selfish husband could not even accompany her for her treatments. What a jerk! Atlantan

      Delete
    3. Agreed, HKH. I was going to say the same thing - what do people expect Patsy to have said in her Christmas letters? "Walked in to find the hubby in Jonnie B's room the other night with his pants around his ankles, wowee, that was a shocker! Caught Burke smearing excrement on Jacques' chew toy again.....damn, that kid loves poop, bless his little heart! The children are doing abysmally at school - the boy is an anti-social bastard and JonBenet looks like a hooker in the making. P.S: You still owe me fifteen bucks and your breath stinks. Merry Christmas!"

      Greeting cards are always full of cheer - that's their purpose.

      Delete
    4. Ms D, that literally made me LOL. You certainly have a way with words. ;)

      Atlantan, exactly. My mom sends out one of these letters every year with her Christmas cards. She too struggles with the wording as to not sound too boastful. In fact, she emails all of us (her 4 children) a copy of the letter before she sends it out, to make sure she hasn't written anything that might embarrass us (in a braggy sort of way.) It is not written in an attempt to paint the picture of a perfect family, but rather to share the highlights of that year. Every family has problems. Most choose to share with others, the positive aspects of their family.

      I'm not sure if anyone will come back to this thread, but I would genuinely like to know, from those who claim PR was image and status obsessed, why they feel that way.

      Delete
    5. I, too, would like to know the answer to that question, HKH. Though, I suspect I already do know the answer....."confirmation bias". PDIs have a really bad case of it. Every, damn, word uttered by Patsy is seen as a sign of her guilt. Even the words she doesn't utter (take the 911 call for example) are clear signs of her guilt! People have a tendency to always blame the mother when something happens to a child, even in cases of accidents, when negligence isn't even a factor, you'll often hear things like "Where was the mother?! She should have been watching her kid better!"

      Delete
    6. While I agree with your point, JDIs do exact same thing with John. Oh he should have been crying more tears, oh he should have been comforting Patsy, oh he shouldn't have checked the mail, oh he's a man, he must have molested JonBenet...

      Delete
    7. Nope.
      I don't find his lack of tears incriminating - I find his inconsistencies and bald-faced lies incriminating.
      I do find it odd he had the presence of mind to check the mail whilst his wife was an emotional basket case in the next room wondering if she was ever going to see her daughter again. The difference between the two of her parents reactions is staggering. But, again, that alone does not imply guilt.
      He must have molested JB because he was a man? Who the hell here has ever said that? Jesus Christ that's insulting. Enough with the straw men, o.k?

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

      Delete
    9. Do you also find Patsy's inconsistencies and bald-faced lies incriminating? If not, why not?

      He said why he checked the mail -- to see if there was anything from the kidnapper. Why do you find that odd? What's so odd about a man in our culture being stoic when they are socialized to be? Why do you ignore the reports of John having his own breakdown moments?

      Lots of people here have suggested that he was a molester because he was the only adult male in the house. Search for the phrase "adult male" on this very thread!

      Delete
  46. Just wanted to chime in about the abuse. This is from personal experience so take with a grain of salt bUT a list of abusers I've unfortunately known include: a stepfather, a father and an older teenage (female) cousin who had also been abused by her grandfather. I do the think in cases of chronic abuse it's someone close to you and someone who had access to you such as a family member or careviver/babysitter. I think logically John is the most likely but of course there is always a possibility it was someone else. What keeps me in the JDI camp is that it follows more logic than the suspend my disbelief that the family would risk going to jail for their image. No one would have ever had to know it was Burke it could have stayed a private family matter due to his age at the time and they could make up a story about an accidental fall or something else. Also Docs whole idea about the ransom note is what really sold me on this theory it's the only time the ransom note has made a lick of sense... as a distraction to get rid of the evidence (body). I don't think there is any hard evidence of who wrote the note unlike zed. I also know people who have been manipulated and lied to or gaslighted if you will and it does not feel like a stretch applying that to Patsy. I often wonder if she is truly the ultimate 'Patsy' and I start to feel bad for her :( I don't think BDI is impossible as a theory but it makes much less logical sense to me at least but I guess some of us will have to agree to disagree.
    -ap

    ReplyDelete
  47. Doc:

    I suspect you are familiar with Doc Miller's conclusion that Patsy wrote the ransom note? His arguments against intruder theories rival, if not surpass, your own. If only he could be persuaded to hear you out on the ransom note! As a born-again JDI with his knowledge and connections, he may be the guy who can convince Stan Garrett, before he leaves office, to arrest John and force his confession.

    http://www.tommillerlaw.com/jonbenet-ramsey/

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete