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.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

What else?

I just spent two posts listing several things that have made people suspicious of Patsy Ramsey, offering my own take on each, and demonstrating why, imo, none can be seen as evidence of guilt, even when, in some cases, they might actually be counterfactual. I feel sure I missed some, however, so now is your chance to fill in the blanks. Those of you who are still bothered by Patsy's "lies" and "deceptions," by all means add more items to the list that's already been compiled, and let's consider them one by one.

264 comments:

  1. 1) the oversized panties. Did Patsy buy one set or two - did she open one package and put the panties in JB's dresser drawer where they were "fair game" as she says in her police interrogation, or was there only one package she was going to wrap and send out but she may not have gotten to it as she also states.

    2) JB's bedroom light. Patsy says she didn't want to turn on a bedroom light (overhead, lamp?) because she didn't want to disturb JB's sleep as she readied her for bed. When questioned how she could get her ready for bed without seeing she claims there may have been a bathroom light on. In the crime scene photos and video JB's lamp was on. Does this suggest JB never went to bed that night, or what is it's significance if any?

    3) Patsy denies Burke was present at any time during the 911 call, John states same. Yet the Aerospace engineer isolated what is believed to be Burke speaking at the end of the call, and being spoken to, by John. Wouldn't Patsy have heard that since she was the one who made the call?

    4) Three calls were made to Dr. Beuf all in under an hour. 6:28 p.m., 6:50 p.m., 6:59 p.m. to his office. Patsy attaches no significance to these calls, and claims to not have any recollection that she made them.

    5) Why did Patsy not take any notice when the kidnapper failed to call? Does that show a person who was oblivious?

    6) Patsy's failure to wait for help from law enforcement to arrive before calling her friends over brings into doubt her belief in the authenticity of the ransom note. Does that not show she knew the note was a fake to begin with?

    Thanks Doc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq, on #4, from what I gather from other mention of the calls, Patsy and John had just returned from a NY trip and both her kids were under the care of Patsy's parents for four days or so. (I know most JDI will not consider Burke, Burke's friends or even grandpa as possibly being a molester of Jonbenet).

      Delete
    2. Ok, Inquisitive, thanks. Good questions.

      1. My take on Patsy's responses to the questions regarding those oversize panties is essentially this: yes, she does seem to have been confused regarding certain details of that story and possibly contradicts herself as a result, I'm not sure. But I can't see any of that as evidence of guilt. What motive would she possibly have had to lie about those items? What reason could she possibly have had to change her daughter's panties in the first place, assuming she had anything to do with the murder or cover up? While many questions have arisen regarding responses by Patsy that might not seem appropriate, we must distinguish between vague and/or contradictory responses and out and out lies. And we must always ask ourselves whether any given response is actually evidence of guilt. This can be applied to a great many questions people have had about Patsy.

      So many people have gone over everything she's said with a fine tooth comb looking for deceptive or suspicious responses or actions without considering the more fundamental issue: are any of these things actually evidence of guilt -- would a guilty person respond or act in the same way?

      2. Since JonBenet had obviously been disturbed in the middle of the night, it's not surprising that there would be a difference between the condition of her room before and after the assault.

      3. I, like many others, hear nothing resembling any of the voices some have claimed to hear after Patsy's hangup. Regardless, I don't believe their story about what happened and didn't happen prior to that call or immediately afterward either. To me it's clear that John must have manipulated Patsy into going along with his preferred version of what happened, and this was probably reinforced by their lawyers, who would not have wanted them to directly contradict each other when testifying. I think this explains much of the confusion regarding that segment of their story. I strongly suspect that Burke knew more than he let on, that John was aware of this, and was able to manipulate Patsy by insisting that he had to be protected from scrutiny since he was so young and vulnerable. And don't forget that Patsy was out of it for weeks after the crime, so John could easily have convinced her that her memory of those events was faulty.

      4. It's hard to know what those calls were all about. CC has come up with a pretty good theory that makes sense to me, but basically it's just conjecture. It's possible that Patsy could have suspected something was wrong, and was trying to get to the bottom of it, but on the other hand it could all have been routine stuff that she genuinely could not recall because it wasn't very important. If she did suspect something she might well have wanted to keep her suspicions to herself.

      5. Certainly, if she were putting on an act, she'd have made sure to make a huge fuss when the time ran out. It's possible that by then she had read the note carefully enough to realize that the call was supposed to come tomorrow, not that morning.

      6. Once again, disregarding the warnings in the note is, for me, evidence of innocence rather than guilt. If she had placed those warnings in the note herself, she'd have made sure to obey them -- by not calling the police in the first place. It's amazing how people keep insisting that her 911 call was some kind of "Oscar winning" performance, worthy of Meryl Streep, and then going on to forget that if she HAD been putting on an act, she'd have continued acting after that call. If she'd written those warnings herself, then following them "to the letter" would certainly have been a big part of her act. As would making a fuss after the time limit for the kidnapper's call had (supposedly) expired.

      Delete
    3. To continue: both the 911 call, disregarding the warnings in the note, AND the calls to her friends, also disregarding similar warnings, suggest that Patsy could, at that point, have been more concerned with her own well being than that of her child. Assuming she had actually read those warnings (which may or may not have been the case), she may at that moment have been fearful that the "kidnappers" were still in the house, or she might possibly have suspected that something was not right with John, and that more than anything else she needed protection for herself.

      Once again, we must ask ourselves whether her actions were those of a guilty person rather than a careless and possibly somewhat selfish person. As I see it, a guilty person putting on an act would have gone out of her way to obey the warnings in the note, rather than ignore them.

      Delete
    4. Inq - #1 the oversized panties

      We know that law enforcement thought this was important enough to ask Patsy a number of times about the size. Since all the other underpants taken from Jonbenet's room were size appropriate.
      Patsy gave all kinds of reasons for her to purchase oversized panties.
      Just reading the interviews on that, it's ridiculous, to me.

      Delete
    5. So what do you think she was trying to hide?

      Delete
    6. That someone in her family was responsible.

      Delete
    7. Thank you for the explanations to above questions. I'm sure I'll have more.

      Delete
  2. One of the biggest things for me with Patsy is the call to 911 followed immediately by a call to friends. Not to mention, getting off the phone when the 911 operator is your lifeline is just insane!

    If your kid is missing and all you have is a 3 page note, then both parents should have been devouring every single letter of that note if they aren't involved. Patsy immediately disobeys the orders and then never says she goes back after the 911 call to read every word of the note. IT MAKES NO SENSE if they aren't both involved

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you here, J. To say they hadn't read every word is very difficult to believe. But then again, it was on the staircase, then it got to the floor somehow because they touched it, but oh yea, then they never touched it because there were no fingerprints. As I've stated on previous threads, that note would've been full of saliva, tears, sweat from their hands, instead it was clean as a whistle, pretty much. And I guess PR could fly because she never stepped on it coming down the stairs.

      EG

      Delete
    2. I've posted this before -
      Patsy would not/could not/did not recognize handwriting under photos in her own family photo album.

      Not recognizing many items in the house that LE asked her about

      Delete
    3. Plus, they said they found it on the stairs. Since I believe they wrote it, it might have never left the kitchen table. Small thing to pick on, but I don't buy anything they say

      -J

      Delete
    4. Yes, Patsy was evasive when it came to that handwriting. She didn't deny it was hers but said she could't tell for sure. In fact, it may not have been hers -- those captions could have been written by Burke. She may have recognized them but refused to identify them out of reluctance to say anything that might suggest that he wrote the note.

      And let's not forget that, thanks to a very observant contributor to this blog (not me) the "Rainbow Fish Players" exemplar, used so often by Darnay's "experts," wasn't actually anyone's handwriting, but originated as a series of dots, to be filled in, no doubt, by a child. The dots could have been provided by anyone close to the Ramseys, an aunt, grandmother, grandfather, friend, even a teacher.

      It's also possible that Patsy was reluctant to be too cooperative regarding that evidence, knowing full well that it was being used to "prove" she wrote the note.

      As I see it, the whole idea that she'd have written such a note in her own hand and on her own notepad, and then handed it over to the police so it could be used as evidence against her, seems totally absurd. And if she is not the one who wrote it, which seems very clear to me at least, then her failure or unwillingness to recognize those exemplars is beside the point.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure why there's been such a fuss over the lack of fingerprints on that note, as though Patsy somehow managed to erase her prints before handing it to the police. How could she possibly have done that? And why would she need to, since she would obviously have been holding it in her hands when reading it.

      And as far as sweat and tears not being found I really have to laugh over that one. Thanks to a report about no "tears" being found on the note some people have turned that into a big deal, as though they expected Patsy and John to have actually shed tears while either reading or writing it. The reference was to tears, pronounced to rhyme with "bears," NOT the tears you shed but tears in the fabric of the paper. OK? Can that finally be put to rest? I doubt it.

      Delete
    6. "(The note) was on the staircase, then it got to the floor somehow because they touched it, but oh yea, then they never touched it because there were no fingerprints."

      Neither were the prints of all of the Ramsey's friends who handled it that morning.....how do you explain that, EG? If everyone else's prints were on the note, sans John and Patsy's, only then would it be suspicious.

      Delete
    7. Police made copies. I don't know that the original was passed around to the invited friends.

      Delete
    8. Yes, I read that the original note was placed in an envelope and was sent directly to the crime lab and that copies were passed around. However, not sure if this is true or not.

      EG

      Delete
    9. So you're suggesting that the Ramseys somehow erased their prints? What's your point?

      Delete
    10. I don't think they ever touched the note without gloves. Did anyone ever see it in either of their hands? I believe it was on the floor when LE arrived.

      EG

      EG

      Delete
    11. Why, EG? Why? There would be been nothing suspicious at all about their fingerprints being found all over it. Indeed, you seem to find it more suspicious that their prints were NOT found. What on earth does it prove?

      Delete
    12. MHN

      That's my point exactly. Their prints should have been all over it, along with sweat, etc. Don't you find that strange?

      EG

      Delete
    13. I have read that friends were looking at the note that morning, Patsy said they were trying to ascertain if the handwriting looked familiar. This was long before JB's body was found, clearly it couldn't have been a copy.

      Delete
  3. Ms D - you wrote this to me in the last blog and thought it would be easier to write here

    "So.....I'll give it one more stab, and I do hope you'll respond, J:
    What was John and Patsy's motivation behind garroting their daughter to death when, if Burke didn't actually kill JB, sparing him from a murder charge couldn't have been their motive? Postulating that they presumed she "was already dead" isn't a possibility, because we all know there are sure fire methods of checking for signs of life, which of course would have been performed before making such a drastic decision. According to your theory, Burke didn't murder JB - John and/or Patsy did - and as they had no reason to want their daughter dead, you need to present a convincing motive for why they both made the decision to kill her anyway. Thanks."

    It honestly is a really good and fair question. I have never written Burke off as being the one who actually garroted her. Yes, I know he was only around 10 years old, but I believe he definitely would have been able to tie it. The only other explanation is that I fully believe she was completely brain dead, so she was essentially dead already. Not to mention, we have no clue how much BR did to her (i.e -poking, prodding, abusing, etc.) I know its not a good answer, but that's what I got.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. -J and while he(Burke) was in the process, he was drooling and with a runny nose and probably peeing in his pants ,after smashing his sister upstairs down basement where ever he thought umm maybe torturing her some as well, maybe I will light up one of Dad's cigars , and I'll open the window let the smoke out ? and with great strength he snapped both ends of the paint brush, found a nylon rope and made a garrotte cut it and tied it SO F***en tight around her neck and tied her arms above her (autopsy photos) Jayus you would need to be a strong person unless two people were committing this horrific crime PLUS he used his knife to cut cord , and bludgeoned his sister with an object that caused an 8-1/2 inch cracked skull and with a force that only the strength of Goliath could administer , oh and don't forget he dragged her in the wine cellar ran to dryer found the blanket great ! "I knew there was a blanket in dryer" covered her wrapped her like a papoose walked out and stood on a chair and "latched" the door.
      licked his lips and said "now I will go to bed and wait and gloat over all the commotion. hehehe" Burke is innocent!!!!! and IF he had been near the Ph: while the 911 call was being made so what! a nosey little guy A concerned child wondering what happened to his sister? I don't believe Burke was a jealous child , in fact ,if you read JRs interrogation (interview) "always put Burke to bed"and there is much more .
      SO ... now that he is older, he may remember what occurred that night or morning have you watched the interview with DR PHIl? was he lying?
      Until now.. it will be a huge surprise should Burke confess.
      remember the strangulation came first? it wasn't the blow over pineapple ,

      Delete
    2. "...bludgeoned his sister with an object that caused an 8-1/2 inch cracked skull and with a force that only the strength of Goliath could administer..."

      I so wish you hadn't included that comment, because now, every other valid point contained in your post is going to be ignored. As every BDI will tell you whenever they have the chance - the CBS program (you know....the one all BDIs hang their hat on. The one that converted millions of staunch PDIs/IDIs into rabid BDIs on the basis of a piece of pineapple) showed it was possible for a nine year old to deliver the blow that cracked JB's skull open. "Possible", in the BDIs mind, equals "unequivocally", therefore this will be the only part of your comment that is addressed by J, Zed, et al. The illogical parts of said theory never get a mention, because they cannot (will not) ever be explained in a manner that doesn't involve complete and utter suspension of disbelief. So, naturally, the couple of things BDIs believe are proof of guilt (a bowl of pineapple, along with feces smearing - both of which may or may not be attributed to Burke, but who cares?) are brought up ad nauseam. Their conclusion is based upon these two things alone, so throw in the fact a nine year old *could* have delivered the blow, and you've got yourself a little boy who murdered his sister.

      Delete
    3. Are you insinuating that I think Burke had delivered the blow ? (what do you mean I wish you hadn't included that comment" and that my other comments would be ignored ??? what is your reason for this comment?
      Back to Burke, this is a 9 -year old child we are talking about , why in the world would a child in the wee hrs after midnight? strangle his little sister and 45 minutes later smashed or deliver a severe blow to her head ?it doesn't make sense, he must have been very EVIL, blocked inside for many years , knowing the crime he had committed knowing their son had harmed his sister in this manner and to shield him?
      It must have been very difficult to sleep at night knowing you had a killer in your house.
      unless they (Parents ) were in denial ,
      Who knows he could have done something more drastically to the parents while they were sleeping?
      The parents looked well, rested and happy and even though I did not see any grieving for JB, imo. I have been looking at pictures of JR, BR and PR together-(after the murder) , they look very happy, would you be happy remembering that your son murdered your beautiful daughter ? if knowing for certain he had committed this heinous crime , the kind of person I am? I would have notified authorities and had him committed no bones about it...
      When Burke was acting like a rotten spoiled kid before the murder , why didn't they get help for him or did they? yes,I see where he has had a Dr. was this before or after the murder? I need to search,
      And this is for you... MsD.. why is it you are always correcting my comments? analysing , criticising as you have done to many bloggers ? I say it like it is!! whether you like it or not, I may not put in the fancy words as you do and my vocabulary may be of third grade, but I understand what you are saying , you are trying to be or tell us you are more educated ,I may have (gone through school) {in one door and out the other} but I am not stupid.
      I feel in my heart , yes it is possible for a 9 year old to deliver such a blow , but in this case I do not believe Burke is responsible .
      I have watched the demonstration on TV , imo it was phoney.
      Do you really want my opinion and theory? much much different than others , just one more , I have seen Burke smirk at the funeral video's) and certainly the smiles on DR Phil show , which does not make him guilty,.. {that's my opinion on Burke}
      now, on who killed JBR? (all things will be uncovered)

      Delete
    4. "Are you insinuating that I think Burke had delivered the blow ? (what do you mean I wish you hadn't included that comment" and that my other comments would be ignored ??? what is your reason for this comment?"

      I gave my reasons - in detail - above. You mustn't have read through my comment properly if you have to ask that question. I, like you, do not believe Burke killed his sister, so there is nothing to argue about.

      "The parents looked well, rested and happy and even though I did not see any grieving for JB, imo."

      Patsy couldn't even feed herself after JB's murder. She was an emotional basket case for months.....nope, no grieving there!

      "And this is for you... MsD.. why is it you are always correcting my comments? analysing , criticising as you have done to many bloggers ? I say it like it is!! whether you like it or not, I may not put in the fancy words as you do and my vocabulary may be of third grade, but I understand what you are saying , you are trying to be or tell us you are more educated ,I may have (gone through school) {in one door and out the other} but I am not stupid."

      "Always correcting your comments"?! I think you have me confused with someone else....I offered ONE response to your scathing attack on the other bloggers here (though, as you are one of many using "Anonymous", how the heck can I know which one I'm ever responding to? Can you at least sign off with some initials in order to prevent confusion?) where I mentioned your grammar, but I was being purely ironic (you were belittling the mentality of everyone here on the blog), so playing the victim is a little hypocritical, don't you think?
      Please copy/paste ALL of these times I have corrected you. Such an accusation warrants proof.
      As far as analyzing and criticizing other bloggers, this is a BLOG for heaven's sake, THAT is it's purpose! That is what most of us are doing, if we didn't, we wouldn't be participating in a discussion, would we? Shall I repost the scathing comment you posted a few days ago in order to refresh your memory as to why I may have responded to you as I did? If it wasn't you who posted said comment, then I have no idea why you feel targeted by me, as that is the Anonymous I responded to in a "salty" manner, as Zed might say.

      Delete
  4. Dunno if it is a lie or not but this always bothered me. This and the following comments as well...

    Larry King: If it was a pedophile, was your daughter sexually abused?

    Patsy Ramsey: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that.

    John Ramsey: We don't know.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her answer bothers me. It is like she defends the 'intruder'. It tells me she knows exactly who abused her. IMO

      Delete
    2. yep...its just another extremely odd comment made by her.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Agree, Anonymous. "Patsy: I don't believe there is conclusive evidence of that." Sounds like a rather clinical or legal way to express yourself on something that should be really unbelievably shocking and disturbing.

      Delete
    4. I agree to an extent. I think there's a genuine question to be asked though: so much if the "evidence" against Patsy consists of grammar, word choice, mannerisms, odd behaviour. Are some of us rather too willing to take what might be evidence merely of her oddness or peculiarity as evidence of guilt or guilty knowledge?

      Delete
    5. MHN

      Obviously, we can't take any of that into a court of law, because she didn't ask what we thought she should or didn't act in a certain way. However, it's bothersome because it's puzzling and has to be taken into consideration along with facts and evidence of this case, I believe, to get the bigger picture.

      EG

      Delete
    6. I think both Ramseys were taking that information as a reference to the allegations of prior abuse, an issue that both obviously would have been reluctant to discuss in public, though they may well have discussed it privately. And Patsy was right, the evidence was not conclusive. It's been suggested by certain "experts" that the chronic erosion of the vaginal wall could have been due to something like too many bubble baths for example. And since Patsy was obviously not eager to deal with the possibility that her husband could have been abusing her daughter, she'd have gratefully been willing to accept any innocent explanation offered by anyone.

      Delete
    7. "The only other explanation is that I fully believe she was completely brain dead, so she was essentially dead already."

      Her parents couldn't have known she was brain dead - they may have suspected it, but when you consider the fact their beloved, six year old's daughter's life was at stake, there is no way they wouldn't have made absolutely certain, wouldn't you agree? No, that explanation doesn't fly.

      "Not to mention, we have no clue how much BR did to her (i.e -poking, prodding, abusing, etc.) I know its not a good answer, but that's what I got."

      The fact you admit you don't have a good answer surely must make you wonder why that is? As long as you can't offer a plausible motive for why two parents would commit murder when there were clearly, better alternatives in order to "fix" the situation, then BDI cannot be accepted as a viable scenario. A convincing motive on the part of John and Patsy is integral to BDI, it falls apart without it.

      My point is, J, if you're insistent that "Burke Did It", then you really have to take it all the way in order for it to work. We've established that two, loving parents would have no reason to murder their child (especially in such a cruel, vicious manner) if there was even a remote possibility of saving her. Therefore, surely the only logical explanation (I use the term loosely, but it is the only possibility in an otherwise, illogical theory) is that JB had already been strangled by the time her parents found her, and it was patently obvious to them she was long dead. Once a motive on the part of John and Patsy is removed from the equation, BDI gains more credibility. I don't subscribe to this theory but it's the only BDI scenario that is worth considering: Burke either killed his sister with intent - from the head blow to the strangulation - or he had no part in her murder at all.

      Delete
    8. Or, if may add Doc, that ANYONE was abusing her daughter - on her watch so to speak.

      Delete
    9. Doc,

      I agree with you here. PR didn't want to believe there was sexual abuse, therefore would cling to any other explanation for the damage found. That makes perfect sense to me.

      EG

      Delete
  5. I am on a roll.

    I have watched and read a lot about the 911 call and Burke. I can't make out exactly what he says "what did you say" "What did you see" but my conclusion is that Burke was absolutely by John and Patsy when the 911 call was made. There is not an innocent explanation for the parents lying about this. If you want to argue that you can't be certain it was Burke's voice, I beg you to look more into it, because the evidence is there.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've listened to every raw and enhanced version I could find. I was excited. I wanted to hear it. I genuinely wanted to be convinced. But even so, I wasn't. Could that muffled sound be Burke? Possibly. That's as far as I could let myself go. It could (possibly) be Burke.

      So can I agree they lied about this, based on the enhanced 911 call? No. That muffled sound is not proof enough. And I think too many people hear what they want to hear. I really expected the CBS show to blow us away with that audio. The whole scene where they listened to it was clearly fake, of course every one of them knew in advance what was purportedly to be heard on the audio, they weren't investigating this case fresh as the cameras rolled. That scene was one of many that left me profoundly disappointed and unconvinced.

      Delete
    2. MHN

      I agree with you here, 100%. I also listened intently expecting to hear BR clearly, but I couldn't hear anything except muffled movements--won't even say voices.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Agreed, EG. Which is not to say I believe Patsy to have been innocent with 100% certainty. There are clearly legitimate and valid questions to be asked of certain statements and actions. But what I do get tired of is hearing the same old fallacies regurgitated over and over: that it's unbelievable for her to have hung up once the 911 call handler had reassured her someone was on the way. As has been explained, sometimes people hang up. Sometimes people believe that even that they HAVE to hang up so the the dispatcher can then summon help. Patsy didn't have an injured person on her hands, and neither was there an OJ Simpson pounding at the door. She phoned to summon the police, she had been assured they were on the way. The 911 call handler was not in any sense a lifeline.

      What do you think might have been achieved by staying on the line until the police arrived?

      Delete
    4. I don't feel PR hanging up so quickly is that strange, but I do think calling friends over a bit odd. Unless you expected them to search the house with you looking for JBR, but that wasn't the case. The only one that went looking on his own, as far as I've read, was Fleet White who claimed he saw nothing in the WC, mainly because he couldn't find the light switch.

      EG

      Delete
    5. Yes, MHN, not an issue for me that she didn't stay on the line with the operator, but it is for some. As for the tail end of the call I think we have experts that agree a young voice was heard, a stern male voice was heard, and of course the "help me Jesus" of Patsy. Certainly you aren't going to be able to make anything out straining to hear something on youtube. And agreed, the CBS special where they are listening to the tape looked staged for our benefit. Whether you can make out what Burke may have said or not is not so much the issue as that both parents say he was not downstairs at all. If he was, that's a problem. For the record as well, I think Patsy was very emotional and distraught, that was not faked. Her daughter was dead. If she was faking then it would be very difficult to keep it up all day wouldn't it. Of course she cared. But her actions in the investigation can be called into question on nearly every issue from doctor calls to prior abuse to reading part of the note or most of the note, etc.

      Delete
    6. J - what is interesting to me concerns the tap dancing done by the Ramseys, their attorneys and such when they learned that the 911 tape would be sent off for testing, and then what was said by the Ramsey team as the tape was used during the grand jury. And Burke himself stated that the voice sounded like him.
      So regardless what others hear/can't hear, it was a concern from the representation and the parents.

      Delete
    7. Hey Lil - Exactly, it's the odd behavior surrounding the call and their words after to police that just add to the puzzle. If Patsy wasn't involved, then it didn't matter if it was John or an intruder who did it. In that moment, her daughter is kidnapped and all she has is a Ransom Note. That's it! You would be looking for any clue and furthermore, the FIRST thing I would be screaming to police and DEMANDING an answer is "WHO THE F IS S.B.T.C????" If Patsy isn't involved, then WHY in the world doesn't she seem to care about who signed the note?

      -J

      Delete
    8. J - oddly, didn't both parents say they never read the entire note? We know Burke told Dr Phil he never did. Since we know the letter was directed to John, and if Patsy bothered to get around to read the entire thing, you'd think she'd be interrogating John as to who HE knows to have this happen. Think how people react now to their significant other getting a text or call or email.

      Delete
    9. I agree, J - When you add up all of the odd behavior, it's downright strange, to say the least.

      Doc - My shopping list is more rumpled than that RN was and that's just holding it while I walk around a store. I can't imagine how it would be if I was screaming, crying and carrying on with it in my hand. Very hard to believe there was nothing on it. Unless of course, you never touched it without having a pair of gloves on and you placed it neatly on the floor where they claimed John read it. Can't imagine why you'd read a note on a floor either when you had a house full of counter tops and tables.

      EG

      Delete
    10. So that's the crux of it, isn't it EG. If there were no prints on the note, and if Patsy came downstairs and managed to step over it so there were no shoe prints on it either, then we could make a logical assertion that she did not pick up the note, nor did she put it back on the stair steps, or hold it to her while calling 911. If you already know what's in a note what would be the need to handle it again. Same with John. He didn't spread it out and knee down in his underwear and read it either. IMO

      Delete
    11. "I can't imagine how it would be if I was screaming, crying and carrying on with it in my hand. Very hard to believe there was nothing on it. Unless of course, you never touched it without having a pair of gloves on....."

      EG, refer to my earlier comment. Several people handled the note at the Ramsey's that morning and none of their prints were left on the note either.....were they wearing gloves also?

      Delete
    12. It just reminds me of the episode from Tales from the Darkside - A Case of the Stubborns. There are those that are not going to budge to include any participation or involvement by Burke and Patsy. And those that believe it had to have all three being involved.

      I posted before that Patsy and Burke's DNA was found on the pink Barbie nightie on the blanket found in the WC.

      Many think that blanket came straight from the basement dryer and then placed on Jonbenet.

      But the JDI's will have "innocent" explanations how the DNA survived the wash and dry cycle. I don't know if it was "degraded" or not.

      Delete
    13. Ms D - scroll up, replies were made pertaining to the handling of the note.

      Delete
    14. Ms D - Here ya go.

      Ms DA pril 5, 2017 at 3:22 PM
      "(The note) was on the staircase, then it got to the floor somehow because they touched it, but oh yea, then they never touched it because there were no fingerprints."

      Neither were the prints of all of the Ramsey's friends who handled it that morning.....how do you explain that, EG? If everyone else's prints were on the note, sans John and Patsy's, only then would it be suspicious.


      diamondlilApril 5, 2017 at 3:33 PM

      Police made copies. I don't know that the original was passed around to the invited friends.


      AnonymousApril 5, 2017 at 3:41 PM

      Yes, I read that the original note was placed in an envelope and was sent directly to the crime lab and that copies were passed around. However, not sure if this is true or not.

      EG

      Delete
    15. You don't know for a fact that it was straight from the dryer. It could as easily have come from her bed when she was taken or walked downstairs, may not have been washed and dried in days.

      Delete
    16. I never stated it was a fact. I try to post things that are unknown to be fact as "allegedly, or some gave statements, or some report", rather than making things absolute with no facts or links to back them up. Many things were noticed and put into reports but not everything noticed was gathered and taken into evidence and tested.

      The point STILL remains that FACT DNA/tDNA was found tested and put on record that what was found on the pink nightie that was stuck. So, no "foreign" DNA from any "intruders" were found pertaining to that item. Of course, those that believe intruder/s will say they wore gloves, or JR wore gloves....

      Delete
    17. Exactly, Inq. PR said she came down the steps and the three pages were laying side by side. Did she jump down the remaining steps to avoid stepping on it? I don't think that's likely.
      Then it somehow ended up on the floor where JR crouched down to read it while PR was on the phone. Well, if they never touched it, did it miraculously float all by itself from the step to the floor? I don't think that's likely either.

      I wonder if anyone actually saw either one of them holding it. I believe it was French who saw it and picked it up wearing a glove, and placed it in an envelope, handed it over to another officer and told him to get it to the crime lab immediately.

      EG

      Delete
    18. Lil - I didn't know that - that Patsy and Burke's DNA was found on the pink Barbie nightgown and white blanket? I missed that post. How did you find that out?

      Delete
    19. On the little nightie. It's been online and referenced many times.
      Not sure when it became public knowledge. May have come out during the same time that yes, Burke did own a pair of hi tek footwear.

      Delete
    20. And speaking of DNA testing - what's the holdup?

      Delete
    21. So much of your information comes from posters on other blogs, Lil. Can you reference another more credible source for the DNA on the nightgown and blanket, and them having come straight from the dryer? Like LE, or LHP or one of the parents?

      Delete
    22. Many of my links have other links included within the discussion, where the info gets linked to the books by the detectives, parents, etc or has links to the online police interviews. Those that doubt the previous links I have posted over the months and are still interested in proving or disproving the information can do a search with Kolar's book, acandyrose, or any site they might believe is credible.
      LHP has discussed with machines were typically used to wash particular household items.

      Delete
    23. ^Which machines.

      Again, the DNA is on the Nightgown. I never said any family DNA was found on the blanket. The nightgown was found stuck to/clinging to the corpse blanket.

      I have posted news links as well in regards to the lawsuits, documentaries, etc. but if you'd rather have south park links that is Mike's dept. But I can link to Rihanna or Lady Gaga or Shooting Star, Jackyl....

      Delete
    24. I don't doubt you, and though I've read everything available, my RAM, as I've mentioned, is pretty full. Would you do me the courtesy of providing a primary source for the DNA and blanket/nightgown, since you put so much stock in it?

      I'm willing to believe, It's just hard to discount the possibility of innocent transfer from Patsy making the bed or Burke sitting on it.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    25. Ok, folks, please calm down. John's DNA wasn't found on the blanket either. And we know he handled it. So what's the big deal about it not being found on the nightgown?

      And what's all the fuss about the lack of fingerprints on the note? A guilty person in such circumstances would have made sure to handle it that morning, just in case his or her prints were found on it. If Patsy went out of her way not to handle it that would have been smart because the "intruder's" prints might have been on it and she wouldn't have wanted to obliterate them with hers. On the other hand if she DID handle it, so what?

      I've already tried to explain the difference between something that might look suspicious or deceptive and something that might actually imply guilt. Handling or not handling the note is neither suspicious nor deceptive and clearly has no bearing on guilt -- so why all the fuss?

      Delete
  6. So what is Patsy's reason for killing her daughter? Cause the whole cover up for Burke business ain't cutting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RS:

      These are reasons PDIers proffer, for why Patsy killed her beautiful daughter.

      1 Because John was giving HER the sex SHE wanted.

      2) So JonBenet wouldn't have live as an adult who had been abused by a father.

      3) Because JB objected to her vagina being digitally penetrated by Patsy. The piercing "scream" heard by the neighbor, was JonBenet's frightened reaction to seeing and hearing a vibrating Hitachi Magic Wand produced, powered on, and ultimately used by a mother, not as a carnal weapon for pleasure, but as a blunt instrument weapon for murder. To this day, neither the Magic Bullet JFK was shot with, nor the Magic Wand JBR was bludgeoned with, have been identified or discovered, and while it is unknown what statistical correlation between PDIers and belief in a second gunman exists, no studies have been done.

      4) For wetting the bed.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. 5) Because Patsy and JonBenet had a tiff about what JB was to wear to the Whites earlier on in the evening.

      Delete
  7. I think you misunderstand RSmith. Very few in here think Patsy killed JB - only Hercule staunchly stands by it that I have read. No, I think the controversy here is whether she knew nothing and John acted alone, or whether she knew something and helped coverup with John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet for years and years most following the case became convinced that Patsy had killed JonBenet -- by "accident" of course. Hardly anyone ever even suggested Burke until Kolar's book came out.

      Delete
    2. Enough did think Burke before Kolar's book and the boy becoming of legal age that Lin Wood brought lawsuits against journalists/rag mags to get them to not mention Burke.

      Delete
    3. Inq - speaking if Patsy knew anything

      Smoking questions

      She was asked by LE if anyone smoked. She said no.

      However, John on a tv interview said that Jonbenet would chastise him if he smoked or drank a beer.

      John admits to smoking Cubans but not the other brand found.

      Cigars were given out during Patsy's early birthday party just the month before where Patsy smoked a cigar.

      Patsy in her book wrote about stopping at a convenience store to buy a pack of cigarettes where Jonbenet used to walk to...

      But she tells LE no one smoked.

      Delete
    4. In one of the books I read, it said that Patsy would chain smoke during the interview breaks with the police.

      Delete
    5. She bought the pack of cigarettes *after* JonBenet was murdered. She explained her reasoning for this. There is no evidence she smoked cigarettes before the murder. If she smoke a cigar once or twice, it would not be a lie to say to LE that she "didn't smoke". I have smoked on two or three occasions in my life, but certainly consider myself a "non smoker". Answer me this: If there were some kind of cigarette/cigar evidence that somehow connected Patsy to the murder scene - to the point where Patsy felt it necessary to lie to LE about her smoking habits - then why the heck would Patsy have mentioned her smoking in their book???

      Delete
  8. At least part of Patsy's story can be corroborated by a disinterested third party - John Fernie - who parked in the alley on arrival, walked all the way around the house and then read the entire note through the glass kitchen/rear door WHERE it was lying spread out on the floor, just as Patsy told LE John had arranged it to read, and only feet from the wallphone she used to make the 911 call. All she need do to read the signature to the 911 operator was look down.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought it was stated that from Mr. Fernie's vantage point looking through the windows the spiral staircase was not visible, where Patsy claimed she first stepped over the note and where it was pointed out as being to the police officer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Fernie's testimony is that it was on the floor, facing the other way, and he read it upside down through the glass door, then ran around to the front, knocked and was let in.

      Delete
  10. Ms D - you asked me two threads ago what HKH's great original thought was a few months ago, and I couldn't recall. Doc just reminded me: She's the one who realized the "Rainbow Fish Players" handwriting was a connect-the-dots exercise done for a child; you and Doc and I all congratulated her at the time, and I still think it a singular exercise in creative thinking, so obvious when you know for what to look, yet folks have been looking for years, and we all remained oblivious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, CC (and you too, Doc, for the mention up-thread.) I was a little stumped at first when I read your comment two blog posts back. It feels good when others think you've contributed something meaningful to the discussion.

      Delete
    2. Ahh, yes, I remember the post regarding the "Rainbow Fish Players", and it was indeed very astute on your part, HKH. Well done, if I didn't say it already. :)

      Delete
  11. You BDIers seem deluded on one salient point: We're talking murder here, FIRST DEGREE, PREMEDITATED MURDER. Both could - and likely would - have been charged with that and conspiracy to commit, while their nine year old could be charged with nothing, NOTHING. And COLORADO HAS THE DEATH PENALTY, had it in 1996.

    Yet you seriously think these two intelligent, educated people would take that risk to save face, or prevent their son from getting the psychiatric help he would clearly need had he done what you suggest.

    We're not talking about them backing Burke up on a "dog-ate-my-homework story to teacher. Get real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am 100% convinced Burke was involved.

      I am 100% convinced John was not involved by himself.

      Delete
    2. ...and so is LE / experts who have analysed the case...

      Sorry, but you're sounding quite salty CC.

      Delete
    3. Surely that's my privilege?

      Your "experts" were well paid hacks hired by CBS to make a piece of entertainment to boost ratings, nothing more. There was no "new" or "independent" investigation, it was just a ripoff of Kolar's book, and probably boosted it's sales.

      You're being incredibly naive, Zed. Real people do not risk their lives for absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    4. Not naive at all. Thousands upon thousands upon people around the world believe that everyone in that household was involved. Just because a few people on a blog say otherwise I must be naive? Puh-lease, don't insult me.

      Kolar had already formed his opinion before CBS. CBS experts proved that a boy could have delivered enough force to deliver the headblow (which a lot of people on here said was not possible). Handwriting experts say Patsy most likely wrote the note (which I 100% agree with) and both parents were indicted as being involved.

      I am sorry, but John "doing this by himself" is just being naive.

      Delete
    5. Your naivete lies in your unquestioning belief in that CBS piece of for-profit garbage and your refusal to acknowledge that no person or persons in their right mind(s) WOULD RISK THE DEATH PENALTY under the circumstances you outline, for absolutely nothing.

      Believe what you like. It flies in the face of good sense and good judgment, but that's your privilege.

      Delete
    6. Pfffttt...you are kidding.

      I believed everyone in that family was involved long before the CBS documentary came out. CBS just added to my belief...especially the head blow segment. Stop getting so salty over CBS. And yes they are experts. To say they are not is just pure saltiness.

      The Ramseys absolutely would cover for their son...Ill repeat that thousands upon thousands around the world believe in this...so maybe your good judgement monitor needs recalibrating.

      Delete
    7. You need a thesaurus and a short course on capital punishment in the U.S.

      Delete
    8. "You BDIers seem deluded on one salient point: We're talking murder here, FIRST DEGREE, PREMEDITATED MURDER. Both could - and likely would - have been charged with that and conspiracy to commit, while their nine year old could be charged with nothing, NOTHING. And COLORADO HAS THE DEATH PENALTY, had it in 1996.
      Yet you seriously think these two intelligent, educated people would take that risk to save face, or prevent their son from getting the psychiatric help he would clearly need had he done what you suggest."

      ^^^This, from a lawyer, Zed......who just so happens to know the way the law works, funnily enough......and you post this as a rebuttal:

      "I am 100% convinced Burke was involved"

      Seriously???


      Wow. I'm gobsmacked. You offer NOTHING in the way of a counter argument, but instead resort to your, oft used, arbitrary percentages? What do they MEAN, Zed? Do you sincerely believe those "100%" and "99%" you love to include in around "99%" of your posts somehow validate your argument? Instead of offering random numbers, why don't you at least attempt to address CC's point instead? Why don't you tell us how much more you know about the law than she does?

      And this "salty" business....I agree with Zachary. What's with the repetition of this phrase? It's yet another means of shifting the blame onto the person you're arguing with, by implying they're the one with the problem (CC doesn't have a valid point - she's just "salty") and you hope no one will pick up on what you're trying to do.
      Well, it isn't working. I know a logical fallacy when I hear one, and yours are becoming more and more frequent.... your deflection techniques are as transparent as cling film. I'm actually dumbfounded....I knew you didn't ever particularly care for facts or evidence, but you seem to have really taken a few steps backwards here. Every response you offered above is painfully juvenile, surely you could at least pretend you're interested in what others have to say here?

      Delete
    9. I am interested in what others have to say...but it seems all the JDIers do on here is whinge about "logical inferences" (when their own inferences are severely flawed) or "logic" (when their own logic is severely flawed).

      I am all ears if someone is able to convince me that John did this alone...but I have not read ONE good argument on this blog which indicates he was. I have read MANY good arguments that indicate John was involved (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but that is it.

      I don't have to offer a counter argument because I have offered so many reasons why it was NOT John alone, yet the JDIers continue to preach about how everyone else simply has to be wrong and resort to calling our logic flawed and naive.

      So, yes, I am 100% convinced John did NOT do this alone...and the circumstantial evidence backs this up. I am very happy that LE agree with my line of thought...something which obviously drives JDIers up the wall by some of these comments I am reading.

      And I don't care that CC knows more about the law than me (I never wanted to be a lawyer)...the facts of this case simply indicate that John did not do it alone. It's as simple as that. Stop being so salty Ms D.

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

      Delete
    11. Can we please stop already with the personal insults? My hand is getting tired from pressing the Delete button, which I really don't like to do. Please stick to the case at hand, OK?

      Delete
    12. Zed, I respectfully disagree.

      Better, Doc? I've already had one post deleted that, as far as I remember, contained neither a personal insult nor any obscenity, so I've deleted the one above as a pre-emptive gesture.

      If withering sarcasm is unwelcome, then frankly I have nothing else I can bring to the party. I'm English, Doc, it's in our DNA. We're all Basil Fawlty, we don't know how to speak C3PO!

      Delete
    13. My problem is that someone says something insulting to someone else and then that person feels obliged to respond and then the first person responds to the second person's response, and so on. And the insults start flying right and left.

      Meanwhile, here I am innocently watching TV or out on a date or working on another project or sleeping the sleep of the just -- and no sooner do I return to this blog then I'm finding a royal flame war rather than a sober debate. Your posts are more than welcome MHN, so I'm willing to cut you some slack, but I feel sure you're smart enough to see my problem.

      As for your being British, I have no problem with that, unless you insist on using the word "to" as an all purpose proposition, which drives me nuts. :-)

      Delete
    14. Sorry, I meant "preposition." Oh you know what I mean.

      Delete
    15. You have "other projects"!? So you're cheating on us, Doc? :(

      Delete
    16. Zed, like it or not, the true bills are evidence that the Grand Jury didn't believe Burke killed JonBenet, and as you so often like to tell us.....they were privy to a lot more information than we are. So, are you saying that, even though there is a wealth of evidence that proves - "100%" - Burke killed his sister, the GJ were oblivious to it? Or that they simply ignored it? Knowing that Burke, due to his age, cannot be the unnamed person the Ramseys allegedly offered assistance to, you have to accept that either the GJ were idiots and the true bills are bullshit, or you're wrong.

      Delete
    17. "Thousands upon thousands upon people around the world believe that everyone in that household was involved."

      Yet another logical fallacy from you, Zed ("argumentum ad populam")
      Thousands upon thousands of people around the world also believe the holocaust never happened.....does that mean it must be true?

      Delete
  12. Can someone point me to the connect-the-dot exercise regarding the "Rainbow Fish Players" handwriting? I don't know what you all are referring to. Or re-explain please. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/11/more-handwriting-evidence-part-3.html

      Delete
  13. I'm now on a computer which makes it easier for me to cut and paste and put links up then by phone.

    Info on the DNA -

    "Horita indicated that Touch DNA testing had discovered traces of genetic material on the pink Barbie nightgown found in the Wine Cellar with the body of JonBenét. This Touch DNA belonged to Patsy and Burke Ramsey.
    Foreign Faction, Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet, James Kolar, page 414"

    Lawsuit filed in 2000 against authors of a book naming Burke as the killer
    http://jwarchive.tripod.com/05092000JW-RamseySueWindsor5107.txt

    1998 radio interview transcript of Peter Boyles show interviewing one of the Ramsey housekeepers - Linda Wilcox
    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/07211998lindawilcoxon-pb.htm

    Links to all police interviews of parents
    1997 Interview with John Ramsey
    1998 Interview with John Ramsey
    John Ramsey Interview 08/29/2000 in Atlanta, Georgia
    Patsy Ramsey Interview with Boulder Police 04/30/1997
    Patsy Ramsey Interview with Boulder Police 06/23/1998
    Patsy Ramsey Interview 08/28/2000 in Atlanta, Georgia

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/2uympt/reposting_all_police_interview_transcripts_with/?st=j15qs6s3&sh=dbf5c37e

    News station with copy of the Bode report mentioning
    THE BARBIE NIGHTGOWN tests
    I posted this link on November 4, 2016 on the Corner and it was published on Nov. 3, 2016
    http://www.9news.com/mb/news/investigations/jonbenet-ramsey/decoding-the-dna-reports-in-the-jonbenet-ramsey-case/347217323

    all links/quotes/sources above have been posted on Cheri's Corner for the Missing
    in the Unsolved Crimes / Cold Cases forum.
    http://www.cherigriffiths.com/phpbb3/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=194

    these are just some of the links I have on just the 4th page on one thread on the Corner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the important ones? The ones that corroborate that the blanket and nightgown were fresh from the dryer and that P and B's DNA thereon was not an innocent result of sharing a home?

      Delete
    2. from my news link above -

      "The first report, dated March 24, 2008, shows the results of testing on the long johns JonBenet was wearing. According to the report, the analysts who did the lab work believed the DNA on the outside of the long johns was “likely” a mixture of genetic material from JonBenet and at least two other people. After accounting for JonBenet’s DNA, the analysts concluded “the remaining DNA should not be considered a single-source profile.”

      *****The second report, dated May 12, 2008, shows the results of testing on JonBenet’s nightgown. That testing, according to the report, was inconclusive on many fronts.****

      The final report, dated June 20, 2008, shows the results of a comparison of the DNA found on the long johns with the Unknown Male 1 profile. According to the report, the Unknown Male 1 was not an exact match for the DNA found on the long johns.

      Following stories Oct. 27 and 28 on 9NEWS and in the Daily Camera, these documents have been released to other media organizations.
      You can see the documents below: "

      The documents are shown at that link. The *** is to Note that this IS about the Pink Barbie Nightgown, which was written about back in 2012 by Kolar and who knows how many others.

      Delete
    3. CC, yep just another "coincidence" that their touch DNA was found but Johns not. Is there an emoticon for eye rolling on this blog?

      Thanks for the post lil.

      Delete
  14. Again: And the important ones? The ones that proved the blanket and nightgown were fresh from the dryer and the DNA thereon not an innocent result of sharing a home?

    ReplyDelete
  15. CC April 5, 2017 at 10:06 PM
    And the important ones? The ones that corroborate that the blanket and nightgown were fresh from the dryer and that P and B's DNA thereon was not an innocent result of sharing a home?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Cherry pick what you want to CC. You can do a google search if you so care to think that a fresh blanket or a worn and filthy blanket make such a big difference in your belief that John was the only culprit.

    Facts are facts - DNA/prints of Burke and Patsy on bowl and glass
    none of John's or Jonbenet's who also lived in the house

    Jonbenet's and John's DNA/tDNA were not found on the pink Barbie nightgown

    Nobody's prints or usable prints found on the flashlight

    and on and on - I keep seeing all this name calling, and it is coming from ONE camp - the JDI camp. That camp is the one that keeps calling experts in their fields 'hacks' and worse, have maligned the police, the detectives, medical examiners with ugly labels.

    I think I will bow out and just go read at Topix, they are actually becoming less toxic to read than here. They may disrespect each other, but they tend to lay off the scientists and law enforcement hate speech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So. . .that means no, right? Ya' got no source for the dryer?

      Delete
    2. Forget about the dryer, CC. John's prints weren't found on the blanket either and, as we know, he handled that when he found the body.

      Delete
    3. The JDIs are the ones doing all the name calling?
      Sorry, lil - I respect you - but that is utterly, demonstrably, false.

      Delete
  16. The ransom note seems to me one of the most bewildering pieces of evidence in criminal history. Frankly, it's what's keeping Doc's version of events from holding up in my mind. JDI theories generally require John to be a master manipulator, but if his aims were to stage a kidnapping and prevent Patsy from calling 911, the note makes no sense. It's way too long, rambling, and full of movie-style contrivance to be considered genuine by any serious investigator. Further, it doesn't even mention not calling police until page 2, and then only briefly before turning to descriptions of the captors and other things that should be irrelevent to his scheme. If the ransom note was written by John, he was planning for an incredibly improbable reaction to the note from Patsy (which he didn't get) and incredible incompetence from law enforcement (which he did get).

    In thinking about the note, I was reminded of a time back in elementary school when a friend and I "staged" a kidnapping of his little brother by having him hide under the bed and placing a cliche, poorly written, ransom note outside for his mother to find, demanding such remunerations as chocolate ice cream. His mother saw through the note immediately and (rightfully) gave us all a very stern talking-to. In truth we hadn't really expected the plan to succeed, but we had fun imagining the fantasy scenario.

    This note, to me, reads like somebody playing a much more disturbed game of pretend. Of course, the idea of a psychopathic intruder is out for all sorts of reasons, and the composition/vocabulary is clearly beyond Burke's ken. However, the classmates of one John Andrew Ramsey are known to have said he was "obsessed" with JBR and many initially suspected him. Additionally, if indeed JBR was experiencing chronic sexual abuse, JAR would have been the most stastically likely perpetrator of that abuse (adult known to the victim with frequent but irregular access). Now, I am not at all saying JAR murdered JBR; his alibi is obviously rock solid. However, it could be that he authored the note as part of a fantasy that he may or may not have planned to ever actually enact, and that Burke was aware of the note (perhaps because he either participated in or knew of JAR and JBR's "games"). Heck, maybe it was in that suitcase along with the Dr. Seuss book and the semen-stained blanket. It's even possible that the garrote was another sex-game implement fashioned by JAR prior to the murder. In any case, this origin of the note leaves open several possibilities:

    1) The note was left on the staircase prior to the murder, with JBR consentually agreeing to "play hostage" before things go wrong and Burke kills her.

    2) Burke kills his sister in a fit of rage or molestation incident gone wrong, remembers the existence of the note and leaves it there in an attempt at staging a kidnapping.

    3) Either parent kills JBR for whatever reason and begins the staging, Burke is present/aware (and probably ordered to bed immediately), recalls the note and leaves it on the stairs unbeknownst to the parent doing the staging, believing he is "helping".

    In all of these scenarios, neither of the ramsey parents is actually aware of the note until christmas morning, which gels better with everyone's behaviour in the ensuing investigation, for me.


    ReplyDelete
  17. Good morning!


    Doc - First things first. Don't check your blog when you're out on a date. :)

    "The four pages released indicated the jury felt that both the Ramseys permitted a child to be "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey" and rendered assistance to a person "knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

    CC - are you saying that because the GJ said the Ramseys assisted in aiding someone who committed first degree murder, they couldn't have meant Burke because a 9 year old couldn't have been charged with first degree murder? Am I understanding you correctly?


    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a little more complicated than that, but yes, that's my opinion.

      Bear in mind that in a roomful of 50 lawyers you're likely to get 100 opinions, but I think I'm on firm ground here. In addition to being unable to charge Burke, shielding of a minor laws would make any evidence of Burke's participation inadmissible, meaning there would therefore be no evidence to substantiate the charges against the parents.

      Delete
    2. I am assuming the GJ knew that BR couldn't be charged, so why didn't they name JR or PR as the killer/s? Why the accessory charge, or did they suspect someone else?

      And do you think that's why AH didn't bring charges? Because the GJ wasn't clear in who they thought committed the crime?

      I am trying to figure out, based on those true bills, what the GJ knew. It's confusing as hell. Or maybe to me, because I know nothing about the law.:)

      EG





      Delete
    3. They did know that, yes. A prosecutor usually presents his case to the GJ along with a sort of menu of charges from which they may choose and his recommendations. I'm assuming they did not see enough evidence to charge outright murder or were confused as to who did what, intended that Hunter indict both and hoped one would turn on the other or it would get sorted out at trial. Indictments can always be amended, and had one turned, the other could thus be charged with murder.

      GJs do not have to be unanimous; majority rules, and their standard of proof is only probable cause, not the more stringent beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial. It's very, very unusual to impanel a GJ and then not indict on their true bills. I have no idea what moved Hunter to do what he did other than lack of trial experience and a weak stomach.

      You may want to look at "Grand Jury" on acandyrose. It has a partial list of witnesses, which may help in your analysis.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, CC.

      This just struck me. What we have here is basically the jury with each of us having our own opinions as to whodunit. We are deliberating, with each group trying to convince the other. I guess we'd be deadlocked as in hung? :)

      Just curious, do any of your colleagues think BDI? You mentioned 50 lawyers having 100 differing opinions. Or do they feel as you do regarding murder charges and minors law?

      EG

      Delete
    5. I don't discuss the case outside this blog. My interest probably stems from having lived in Boulder for six years and having a daughter not much older than JBR. And the legal issues.

      There would be no dissension on whether or not a minor could be charged - they can't. The lawyerly issue would be whether the crime exists independently of the minor who committed it, and I don't think it can.



      Delete
    6. CC

      Thanks again for your responses. I do appreciate your taking the time to explain things and I do see your point regarding BR not being able to be charged with anything.

      I just find the R's behavior so suspicious, and I'd love to believe that JDI because it would be the logical assumption to make. However, I am just not convinced. Maybe what MHN wrote way back up there, that I don't want to believe that a white collar, successful businessman with a sweet wife and two beautiful children could commit such a heinous act.

      It's easier for me to believe that BR, playing some stupid game (and I don't mean sexual) with the garrote, somehow got carried away and before you know it, she was dead. It's hard to believe parents would cover something like that up, without getting their son help, but PR was so hung up on image, etc. In her Christmas card/letters to family and friends, it seems as if she wanted to portray the R's as the perfect family.

      Or maybe it's what Inq wrote in the way some of us think. I tend to be more emotional than logical and try to look at things in a common sense sort of way.

      This case just has me crazed.

      Just rambling and thanks for listening.

      EG

      Delete
    7. No, you can't believe any of it EG because you are likely normal, the Ramseys were not. They were all about pretense. What's not normal is writing a note after finding your daughter dead, pretending to want to know who could have done it but not help the investigation by clamming up until their attorneys felt they were good and ready to give interviews. What's not normal is pitching their case to national media outlets and giving interviews there, which were controlled, and not cooperating with the police, then taunting the police for not doing a good enough job. What's not normal is suing everyone in sight who expressed any opinion that did was not favorable to them. Suing in behalf of their son as well hoping for ever bigger payoffs. What's not normal is treating their daughter in life as an object, then covering up her death and masterminding a defense that would ensure that the truth is never gotten to and justice will never be served. I don't think you are emotional EG. You are logical. And that is why the actions taken by this family in the aftermath have neither been normal, or logical. What you are sensing is your logical mind telling you that all was not right with this family and that a little girl was a victim of their genteel facade covering up the greed that comes of overnight wealth and success and blind ambition and a neglected resentful son.

      Delete
    8. Thanks so much, Inq...this case has a way of driving one crazy. I am waiting for the light to go on so that I can see what the JDI's see, but I just can't get there.

      I agree with you--there is just so much that doesn't jibe with the R's. I can't look past their behavior and inconsistencies and just concentrate on evidence or in this case, lack thereof.

      I feel that their "I don't recalls" and their "it might have been's" just too hard to look past without seeing major deceit.

      EG

      Delete
    9. You're welcone, E. I feel strongly that the law should be easier to understand and accessible to everyone, so while I don't want to seem to lecture I do want to help those who are interested.

      Delete
    10. I'm always extremely grateful for the information you share on the legal aspects, CC, it's always welcome and eagerly absorbed.

      Delete
    11. As I see it, Hunter didn't indict because he knew very well that he had no case. And I commend him for that. The BPD had already pushed John very hard to get him to cut a deal and hand Patsy over on a silver platter. Because she was the one they were after (NOT Burke). Which he wisely refused to do because he needed Patsy on his side, he needed for the two of them to be linked together as one. As long as everyone accepted that he'd be home free.

      If this had gone to trial they'd have had no choice but to zero in on Patsy (because John had been "ruled out"), and since there was NO real evidence against her, not even the handwriting evidence, as Hunter was forced to concede, he'd have had no case and it would either have been tossed out by the judge or defeated by the jury.

      Delete
    12. As I recall from PMPT, Hunter hired a forensic doc examiner from the Secret Service, someone with stellar credentials, in the hope that this guy would testify that Patsy wrote the note. Instead, he concluded the opposite: there was "no evidence" Patsy wrote it.

      I think this decision was the turning point for Hunter, because he realized that, after discovery, the Ramsey lawyers would be sure to put this guy on the stand -- and how do you argue with the Secret Service?

      Forget about reasonable doubt, because on the basis of that testimony alone there would be no case at all.

      Delete
    13. E.G. - I understand why you want to believe that JBR's murder was just an accident, covered up by loving parents who were just trying to do what they thought was best in a horrible situation. I would like to believe that was true, too. But I think all the facts put together so carefully by Doc on this blog show that wasn't the case. Also, I've been reading on several websites about the characteristics of sexual child predators. On the site hareachingout.wordpress.com (and other sites), the characteristics listed are nearly identical to those of average American men: married, religious, working. We want to think of sexual predators as the scary, shaggy haired man in a windowless van, but he's usually just an average guy. He's the fella you know from church or the friendly neighbor who invites you over for barbeques. When these monsters are unmasked, everyone is shocked, often even their wives and family members (except for the young ones they've been secretly abusing). We like our monsters to be obvious and easy to spot, but sometimes they just aren't.

      Delete
    14. And let me add one more thing. When we consider all the many reasons for suspecting Patsy that I've listed and responded to in recent blog posts, not ONE could be expected to hold up in court as evidence against her -- and many would not even be admissible.

      Delete
    15. The GJ, obviously, felt there was insufficient evidence to charge either or both Ramseys with murder, so certainly Hunter was correct in not pursuing that.

      I do, however, think a case could have been brought for endangerment leading to death and accessory to first degree murder, and Hunter should have indicted on those true bills. I believe those charges were based on the evidence of prior sexual abuse; the GJ thought John the guilty party but had no evidence. Had both Rs been charged with both counts they would have had to mount completely separate defenses, a united front would have been impossible, and had Patsy been confronted with the opinions of the six medical experts, she might well have turned on John in disgust and revulsion and provided enough evidence to nail the bastard for murder and had all charges against herself dropped in the bargain.

      That's just my opinion, but It's clear to me that GJ had some sort of play in mind when they issued those very carefully worded true bills.

      Delete
    16. Doc- you posted that Hunter had the Secret Service check Patsy's handwriting with the RN and they found "no evidence" that she wrote it. Do you know if he had them check John's handwriting?

      Delete
    17. According to the reports I've read, all four forensic doc examiners hired by law enforcement, plus the two hired by the Ramsey lawyers, concurred in ruling John out. I believe that included the Secret Service guy, but I'm not sure. Problem is that NONE of what happened among this group has ever been made public and no one in the media, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to investigate how or why that conclusion was reached.

      We don't know how much time they spent going over the various exemplars, what the exemplars were, whether this was a unanimous decision, whether anyone expressed any doubts, nothing. As far as I can tell that decision was just accepted as gospel and never questioned by anyone associated with the investigation or the media. VERY strange!

      Delete
    18. "And let me add one more thing. When we consider all the many reasons for suspecting Patsy that I've listed and responded to in recent blog posts, not ONE could be expected to hold up in court as evidence against her -- and many would not even be admissible."

      Agreed. And the same goes for your reasons for suspecting John. You can't convict someone on the basis of a "logical inference" made about the purpose of the ransom note and who called 911.

      Delete
    19. Yes you can. Logical inference is the very heart blood of any circumstantial case. And when you compare the reasons for suspecting John with the reasons for suspecting Patsy, the differences are huge. Many of his lies, obfuscations and misdirections have no innocent explanation, while all of hers do.

      Delete
    20. Circumstantial cases are great, big fun to try, and often very successful.

      The problem with yours, Doc, as I've pointed out before, is that the circumstances in this case do not lead incontrovertibly to just John. They lead to a Ramsey, true enough, but that's all; wishing and hoping and all the logical inferences in the world do not improve the evidence.

      Delete
    21. Innocent explanations don't prove much beyond the creativity of the person making them.

      Delete
    22. If that's the case, John, then by all means find the flaw in the innocent explanations I've provided. That's what those blogs were for.

      Delete
    23. I've already provided my response, CC, in an earlier comment, quoting the renowned barrister Horace Rumpole: "That's for the jury to decide, your Honor."

      Delete
    24. And by the way, there is more than enough evidence to tear John's broken window story to shreds. That in itself should be more than enough to establish his guilt. And if his lawyers would want to implicate either Patsy or Burke, let them try.

      Delete
    25. Oh and by the way, I'm presuming an unbiased jury made up of young people who've had no prior exposure to the case -- if that's possible.

      Delete
    26. There is little or no evidence to charge anyone beyond a reasonable doubt, including the fact that John may - may - have lied about the window.

      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.

      Delete
    27. CC, thumbs up!

      Doc, the flaw is that your innocent explanations are just conjecture. Whatever evidence you think you have against John (which really is nothing) could be conjectured away just as easily.

      Delete
  18. Question for the group:

    Anyone find it extremely peculiar that JBR's pediatrician (Dr. Beuf) was called to the Fernie's on the 26th? I can't think of a less likely person I would call if I were in the Ramsey's shoes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps because he was available to prescribe medication for Patsy. It was the day after Christmas, I imagine finding a Dr would be difficult.
      What do you propose is the reason?

      Delete
    2. Why? He was Burke's pediatrician too, who knew how he'd react to his sister's death, and Patsy would be comfortable with Beuf - she saw him with JBR almost monthly. He seems a practical choice.

      Delete
    3. MsD, I have no idea. It just strikes me as very odd and I have not seen any comments made about it. He can prescribe Patsy meds without having to be present with them all day as if he's part of the Ramsey clan. And couldn't Patsy's own doctor just as easily have prescribed meds? Just seems like there is more to it.

      Delete
    4. Gumshoe,

      Speaking from experience, when my husband passed away, our pediatrician called me to make sure my youngest son was okay, and also to ask how I was doing. So, no, I don't think that's odd.

      EG

      Delete
    5. Gumshoe, are you maybe thinking "damage control"? in calling Beuf?

      Delete
  19. You have me curious now Gumshoe. What time was Dr. Beuf called to the Fernie's, and who was at the Fernie's house during the time he would have been there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure Inq. I will look into it. I believe he was there when the detectives showed up for an impromptu interview and told them Patsy was too medicated.

      Delete
    2. That's some interesting points Gumshoe. If she was already medicated when he arrived then what would be the need for a child doctor to provide here with more? Yes, please do look into the time he was called and/or arrived at the Fernie's, who else was present, etc. Burke was over at the White's wasn't he on the 26th? What would be the need for the Pediatrician. I appreciate your questions now, more than I did, for what it's worth. So please keep asking them.

      Delete
  20. Hunter really sticks in your craw, doesn't he, EG? That's the second time you've mentioned him, or asked me about his lawyering, in the span of just a few days. He bugs me no end, as well, but I'm curious - what is it that bothers you so? What does a layperson see? What do you see?

    ReplyDelete
  21. He bugs the heck out of me also, CC.
    Speaking for myself only, I don't like him because I put the blame squarely on AH that JB's killer walks free. The case should have went to trial, isn't a prosecutor supposed to proceed according to the recommendation made by the GJ, if not, what is the purpose of having a Grand Jury to begin with? That the GJ went over the evidence for thirteen, long, months, found there was probable cause, and Alex Hunter refused to prosecute just doesn't seem kosher. The man lacked balls, or he was corrupt - perhaps a bit of both - either way, his decision not to indict the Ramseys led to JonBenet not receiving justice, and that is unforgivable.
    Add to that the fact he sealed the GJs findings, essentially allowing the public to believe there wasn't enough evidence for an indictment, and I *really* don't like the guy, I think hes unethical and weak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A prosecutor's first obligation is to pursue justice. Yes, if one goes to the trouble and expense to convene a grand jury, one damned well follows its recommendations.

      I doubt corruption, but agree with the rest: I had bigger balls than AH when a prosecutor, and I have none at all.

      Thanks, D. Looking forward to hearing from others.

      Delete
    2. Agreed MsD. Why not leave it to the finders of fact, instead of making some weak-kneed judgment call on his own. He did that (Hunter) all through the investigation. One should hold the Boulder District Attorney's office liable for obstruction of justice along with key Ramsey apologists among some members of the BPD (not all).

      Delete
    3. Good morning!

      CC- AH bothers me the most because he should've done his job and followed through with the GJ's findings and I am left wondering why he didn't. I know you've mentioned his not having a backbone, etc., but I wonder if there was more to it. Was he looking out for a possible political future, OR was he told to stand down by someone higher up?

      The R's knew people in high places, and from the beginning I believe the police were told to treat them with kid gloves, which hindered the entire investigation.

      Doc's response was that AH knew he didn't have a case, and in a way he is right. However, the R's might have turned against each other if charged and we may have gotten the truth.

      EG

      Delete
  22. Anybody else? MHN, EG, Miss B, Gummy, Doc? I'm genuinely curious to see if I'm alone, howling in the wilderness in a fit of professional pique, or if this guy appears to you as he does to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, CC, the political set-up in the US is of course different, so as a Brit I tend to reserve judgment on Alex Hunter.

      That said, I think he was cowardly. I think he was placed in an awkward position to some extent by having cops who wanted to hold a body for ransom, and so he had to play politics from day one. But I think he was cowed by the strength of will, the high-powered lawyers, and the media campaign John and Patsy were willing to run. He knew he had to have, perhaps, a more air-tight case than would usually be the case, and he was scared, probably rightly, that he didn't have one.

      But at the end of the day I can't escape the feeling that his decision was all about Alex Hunter, not about a murdered JonBenet.

      And I think that's backfired. His name is forever linked with this debacle, and I'm kind of glad.

      Delete
    2. By the way, yes - that was me 'reserving judgment' on Alex Hunter. What a blabbermouth I am, sorry.

      I just think he owed it to that little girl to roll the dice.

      The best thing you can say about AH is that at least he never made a fool of himself by publicly exonerating the Ramseys because of some highly inconclusive touch DNA.

      Seriously, Boulder, where do you get these DAs?!

      Delete
    3. And now MHN we have Do-Nothing D.A. Part 3, in Stan Garnett. Kolar wrote him in 2011 stating "Somewhere in between your campaign visit to Telluride this last fall I had inquired by email if you thought anyone would ever be prosecuted for their involvement in the death of JonBenet. Your response indicated that Boulder Police had not yet presented a theory of prosecution to your office.

      He goes on to practically beg him to reopen the case (this was 14 years after her murder) and encloses his "Theory of Prosecution". No response from Stan.

      According to www.westworld.com October 29, 2016 this: "Garnett could possibly make an effort to repair the reputation of his office by seeking the release of the rest of the eighteen pages he turned over to the court - something he claims he can't do on his own because of Lowenbach's (the judge) order." And as I mentioned previously he's concentrating on marijuana laws at present, he's very busy - and just as ineffectual as his predecessors in getting justice for JB. They all just wanted it to go away. This, MHN, is what happens over here on the "left coast." I know because I live on the left coast.

      Delete
    4. I thought you said you live in Florida?

      Delete
    5. Question. OJ Simpson vowed to hunt down the true killer of Nicole and Ron, and his investigation took to golf courses near and far in search of the killer. Since the passing of Patsy, has John Ramsey ever made any public appeal that LE should continue searching for the killer, should keep the investigation alive? Or has he, like the DA, been happy just to let it disappear quietly from view?

      Is there even a pretense, still, of wanting to know the truth?

      Delete
  23. I have a question about the ransom note and Patsy's notepad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the start-up practice page "Mr. and Mrs." was thought to precede the three pages the actual note was written on. There was bleed-through from prior pages onto this "start-up" page left in the pad, thought to have been practice pages as well.

    Do we know if the "Mr. and Mrs." page was also written with a sharpie pen in the same writing style as the ransom note? If so, it's hard for me to believe it was left in the pad accidentally. How could you tear out the pages before and after it, missing just that one page?

    It just seems obvious to me that the start-up page was deliberately left in the pad. Am I missing something?

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc will know, but I have some dim recollection of someone - Patsy? - suggesting it was the beginning of a draft invitation of some sort.

      Delete
    2. Thanks CC.. I thought I had the same recollection , but stated by someone other than Patsy. She was asked in one of her interviews if she had told someone that she had written those words and she said "No".

      K

      Delete
    3. Good to see you back, K. You were MIA for a while there. What do you think of AH?

      Delete
    4. Thanks CC. I've been following. I think this site is fascinating. How we all come to various conclusions, with much of the same information. Maybe we represent a typical jury.

      AH? When it comes to Boulder politics, I'm lost.
      But I do believe he misled the public. Don't like that at all.

      If he honestly didn't think they could win on any charges, maybe he did the right thing. I'm not sure what the purpose of the grand jury was. To
      get information?

      K

      Delete
    5. Partly. A GJ can be a powerful investigative body. They can subpoena records and witnesses, and because they operate in total secrecy - that's the theory, anyway - they can get other, better information than a police department can. They can also, through the prosecutor, offer immunity, no small thing.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    6. Funny you should mention the practice note, K. I started searching yesterday, trying to determine if the R's friends were examining a copy of the RN that morning, or the actual RN. The first thing that popped up was JR's deposition from the Wolf vs. Ramsey case. (JR said he was given a xerox copy of the RN sometime that morning, but that's not really the point of my comment.) When asked a question about the RN, he said:

      A. The whole thing was peculiar. We were addressed as "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," and then they switched to "John" personally [...]

      That sentence gave me pause and made me think--practice note. It also struck me as odd that he got it wrong. Most of us have poured over that RN and could probably repeat much of of it's content, word-for-word, especially the first line or two. I suppose many arguments could be made for why he stated it was addressed, "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey," so it doesn't really point to anything. I just found it kind of interesting.

      Delete
    7. So it is. I've always thought he changed the salutation from "Mr and Mrs I" to just himself to make it clear to Patsy that he was to be in charge.

      Another good one, H!

      Delete
    8. I read that a couple of months ago, HKH, and it gave me pause also....I, like you, am not sure it means anything, but it did get me wondering.

      Delete
  24. The Ramseys had friends in high places. Things were swept under the rug, so to speak. Happens a lot in small towns in the south where I grew up. It's not what you know, so I learned, but who you know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree totally with Ms.D's comment regarding Hunter.He should have brought charges against the Ramseys; had he done so the truth might have come out. As it is, we may never know for certain who killed JBR, but let's keep digging for information and keep publicizing the case where we can. Perhaps someday someone will remember something pertinent to the case and come forth and their testimony will expose the murderer of that beautiful, innocent child.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John and Patsy Ramsey tell their side of the story --aired March 27th,2000 @9:00 on a "Larry King Live" show
    I found it to be very interesting , just three years after the murder of their beloved daughter , google it and read it and tell us what you think? don't think JR appreciated some of the questions Larry had asked ,jmo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to Google. This transcript and many others are here: [http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682452/Broadcast%20Media#BroadcastTranscripts]. FWIW, the show aired March 28.

      Delete
    2. Wrong. It aired both the 27th and 28th, the first night with just King, the second included von Sustern.

      All one has to do is google Larry King Live March 27, 2000 to get a complete CNN transcript.

      Delete
    3. For those who are not aware, "Miss Marple" publishes and edits the JBR Case Encyclopedia, a dubious collection of "facts" that includes, in large part, unsubstantiated blog posts by, among others, Doc and myself, without my permission and despite my protests.

      She quotes Jameson and webbsleuths at length, and Jameson finds her a "great source", as, apparently, does Inquisitive. Enough said.

      Delete
  27. Thank you Miss Marple for your help, like Lil before you. I read the transcript in full a few days ago and it's rather stunning the way both Ramsey's dance around the issues. Larry doesn't "appear" (since he is supposed to be unbiased) to buy their load of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  28. CC, I recall reading of AH some time ago. He was said to have been a deal maker although in one case a judge opposed it. The one I remember was the case of young man who was dating Robert Redfords daughter who was shot, can't remember his name. AH said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute but I think Stan Garnett later ordered his arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, evie. The victim was Sid Wells. Hunter refused to indict, 20-some years later Garnett and Beckner charged Simka? Smika? The original suspect AH refused to indict.

      My friends in Boulder think a great deal of Garnett, say he's brought charges in a number of cold cases.

      Apparently his one or two conference calls A month with Jeff Sessions and the other 13 prosecutors on the president's pot committee haven't slowed him down much.

      Delete
  29. But we're talking about the JonBenet Ramsey case. To continue on with James Kolar's letter to Stan Garnett dated Jan. 3, 2011, part redacted), states:

    "With the recent passing of the fourteenth anniversary of JonBenet's murder I suspect that the vast majority of people have given up hope of ever seeing the case resolved...continue to argue that there is a course of action available to you that will ultimately clear this homicide. I believe that the information outlined in the attached materials provides your office with the best and perhaps the last opportunity to see the answers that Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy were unwilling to pursue..."

    "Enclosure: Theory of Prosecution."

    2011! It he isn't slowed down then what does coming to a complete stop look like? Doc, didn't you start out your blogsite in 2012 by posting a letter you had written to Stan Garnett? What was his answer then - four plus years ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously Garnett scorned Kolar's theory, and wisely so, since he had seen the entire GJ report and returns, all the BPD and then-DA's investigative results. No surprise that he would ignore an internet blogger as well (sorry, Doc).

      He stated in an early press conference that he had studied all the JBR case material prior to taking office. He stated last year in another that he knows who did it, and given sufficient evidence, he'll indict. In December, 2016 he ordered new, more sophisticated DNA testing.

      Given the dearth of real, admissible evidence, just what is it you think he should be doing?


      Delete
    2. What I think he should be doing is spelled out in my open letter, CC: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/12/open-letter-to-stanley-garnett-boulder.html

      And no, I never received a response from him. Understandable since I'm sure he's been bombarded with tons of tips and theories over the years.

      Delete
    3. I read your letter long since, and don't totally disagree. My question was to Inquisitive, who has been critical of Garnett, his actions, and the best use of his time.

      You cannot imagine the number of tips, theories and crank calls even the most pedestrian of cases generates. If I had Stan's ear, I'd have him read your book, though I think he's already on board with JDI.

      Delete
  30. INQ, I was just replying to CC,s question on AH. I can't answer of this 2011 letter, but I know it was last year when Garnett made the statement regarding re-testing the DNA and that he feels he knows who is responsible. He also said he would need other evidence along with the DNA results. Who knows what's going on, I would think he has the results by now but maybe is looking at other evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  31. CC, with regard to the prosecutability of a case against John Ramsey, I believe I conceded some time ago that the evidence currently available may well not be sufficient to convince a prosecutor such as yourself to indict.

    However, I do think that what I've been able to dig up should be enough to motivate a good prosecutor to delve more deeply into aspects of the case that could yield sufficient evidence. I'm thinking, for instance, of the broken window glass, hopefully still sitting undisturbed in a plastic container on some shelf somewhere. I'm thinking also of the court document hand written by John that we've all seen, but that seems to have been ignored by the investigators. I've seen no reference to it in any of the official reports, which makes me wonder if it's ever been compared to the ransom note by anyone in a position to make a difference.

    And of course a thorough investigation of the process by which John was "ruled out" could yield some meaningful results, leading to him being ruled back in, which could set all sorts of additional investigation into motion.

    We don't know enough at present regarding the allegation that fibers from John's very unusual Israeli shirt were found in the victim's crotch, inside her underpants. If that information is solid, that would certainly be evidence pointing to John, no question. And the panties were straight out of their original plastic container, so there was no possibility of innocent transfer via the laundry.

    Finally since I think most of us agree that the intruder theory can easily be refuted, the fact that the crime could only have been committed by one of the three family members in that house with JonBenet would put enormous pressure on the defense. An attempt to argue reasonable doubt on that score could easily be parried, leaving John's legal team with the unacceptable option of arguing for Patsy or Burke as the possible villains, which would be fatal to their case, as it would totally destroy John's credibility.

    There would be no need to argue for Patsy's innocence in such a setting, as it would be up to the defense to argue for her guilt.

    And finally, all it takes to prosecute is probable cause -- and a prosecutor who knows his stuff and isn't afraid to do his job (unlike Hunter).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Doc. A prosecutor doesn't bring a case unless he has evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is a lesser standard of proof, and while it's sufficient for cops to arrest and grand juries to bring true bills, it doesn't cut it for a prosecutor hoping to prevail at trial.

      Delete
    2. CC, you've ignored everything I wrote prior to the bit about probable cause. Now let me ask you a question: do you believe the intruder theory can be refuted beyond reasonable doubt? I think it can.

      And if it can, then I see no reason not to indict John. Because once the intruder theory is squashed his only other options for reasonable doubt (as in Patsy or Burke dunnit) will boomerang. Once he's forced to admit that he's been lying through his teeth, he will need to come clean about what he knows. And if he can demonstrate during pre-trial questioning, that either Patsy or Burke killed his daughter, he'll be off the hook for murder one. And the case will be solved. Win win, no?

      Delete
    3. except for one small problem: it's not "guilty until proven innocent".

      Delete
    4. Read Sun Tzu: the battle will be won before the fighting begins. It's not a matter of proving John guilty, it's a matter of prying the truth out of him.

      Delete
  32. So basically what you're saying is that if there were evidence pointing to John, then that would be evidence pointing to John. Sure, but that's a tautology. In the meantime, I don't believe you can either establish that the fibers from JBR's underwear were from John's shirt, or that the underwear necessarily came straight out of an original plastic container.

    And I don't agree that an intruder theory can easily be refuted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? As I believe I've been able to demonstrate, NO intruder theory makes sense. And as we know, no conclusive intruder evidence has ever been found. While an attorney can always argue for reasonable doubt on just about any point, that won't necessarily convince a jury. Any old doubt is NOT the same as reasonable doubt, which not everyone understands.

      Since the vast majority of those following the case do not buy the intruder theory, I don't think it would be difficult to convince a jury on that score. And once that's established then John's attorneys would be forced to fall back on either Patsy or Burke, which would be fatal to their defense. I think an enterprising DA might be willing to go for it, if for no other reason than to get to the bottom of this very vexing case.

      And don't forget, there's a lot that can be done before a trial begins. Get John in the interrogation room by threatening him with indictment, convince him that his intruder theory won't work, and warn him that his only option is to tell the truth about what happened that night.

      CC, you may be a fine lawyer, but what's needed in this case is a general, i.e., someone who understands not only the law but military strategy. Take some time to read Sun Tzu and then we'll talk some more about how to WIN.

      Delete
    2. Read "The Art of War" many years ago.

      You have no legal experience, less legal knowledge, and an unfortunate inclination to patronize.

      Stand down.

      Delete
    3. No conclusive evidence against John has ever been found either. That's the problem. The prosecution can't just say there's no good evidence of an intruder, therefore it must have been someone in the family, they have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person on trial did it. Why would you think an interrogator saying "an intruder theory won't work" is going to intimidate anybody, much less this guy?

      Delete
  33. Huh? Surely you're not talking to me?

    IDI was refuted by the GJ and everyone but Lou Smit and other Ramsey apologists. After weeks of random criticism and potshots, that's it? That's all ya' got?

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, I was talking to Doc. But If IDI was refuted by the GJ, we wouldn't know it. All we have is 4 pages with their decision to indict the parents for child abuse resulting in death and being an accessory to a crime. We know nothing else about what evidence they heard or what decisions they might have made about it.

    As far as being "refuted by everyone", I'd sure like to know how. Evidence or "logical inference"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GJ returned a true bill against the Rs for aiding and abetting someone in the commission of first degree murder. Are you seriously suggesting either or both assisted a nameless, faceless intruder in the murder of their daughter?

      Delete
    2. depends what the GJ considered to be "assistance", right?

      Delete
    3. No, not much. What kind of assistance are you implying he/she/they supplied that would merit such a charge?

      Delete
    4. Not taking reasonable precautions. Leaving the house unsecured for example. Or it could be just that they took actions to hinder the investigation.

      Delete
    5. Nice try, but the first is negligence, the second obstruction of justice.

      Want to swing again?

      Delete