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

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

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

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Round and Round we go . . .

Oh and by the way, as I understand it, the "scientific" tests ordered by Steven Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, were due for completion first some time in March, then "late in April." But still nothing in the media regarding these results. So I'm wondering: why the delay? And why we've had narry a tweet out of Ms. Zellner in all this time.

289 comments:

  1. Doc, have you and others on this board ever given thought to giving your considerable sleuth skills to the East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker/Golden State Killer case?

    I saw the 48 Hours episode a few weeks back (linked below), featuring the late Michelle McNamara, and have been completely enthralled. 50 rapes, at least 12 murdered. 40 years on now and still no solution for the victims (and their families) of these heinous crimes.

    The FBI has given an 85% chance that the perpetrator of these crimes is still alive. After reading through this blog a few months back, the mystery of who killed JonBenet is now solved, to my way of thinking anyway. But, the door to the East Area Rapist/Killer case swings wide open.

    48 Hours Link: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2fqgae

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question Doc. But I'll answer anyway:

    Because she has realised that both Steven and Brendan are guilty as sin!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Isn't that just the strangest case. He was found innocent after spending all those years in prison, only to be set free and then actually murder someone. It's mind boggling.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  4. Getting back to the JonBenet Ramsey case.
    When Police arrived that morning of the 26th John answered door.
    JR: "first thing I did I handed him the note said "my daughter has been taken "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there a question in there?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Mike G: Please excuse my grammar.
      For those of you this is my theory and speculations I cant do much better.
      If you were a Policeman, well trained and you arrived at a house after receiving a 911 call "we have a kidnapping" what is the first thing you would think of especially when a panic stricken father opens the door and hands you a note which on one line reads "we have your daughter" and he says ( "my daughter has been taken" why would you search the house ?
      John's (PLAN) probably thought by saying this"my daughter has been taken" then immediately the Police would not search the house even though the police searched according to reports.
      BUT someone ? And I think it was John who latched the wine-cellar door its unbelievable \why the Policeman (French) did not notice the "latch" the latch in which John Ramsey " unlatched at 1:30 pm and there was JonBenets body.
      Another thing Mike G.
      Has the time of death ever been determined or reported?
      I'm my heart , I do not believe she had been carried up to bed.
      I know at 9:30 it was little late to give her a bath and brush her hair ,but I believe it was then she had fruit and an hr later someone beat her and strangled her . 45 minutes she was smashed on the head .
      I believe she had been dead at least 15 hrs when recovered .
      I had searched (Rigor Mortis).
      When John " found" her he said her Body was cold and stiff which indicated more than 8 hrs.
      what ever.
      John knew she had been in the WC and he began to panic knowing of the decomposition which the odor or smell could have seeped through the house he couldn't hide the fact that he knew where she was.
      The Bolder PD had been in a lot of trouble but who caused it? John Ramsey .
      He contaminated the body and lied to Police. and continued to lie.
      he really should have been charged.
      He also states "ah,ah,ah,maybe a few more ahhhs and nearly chokes with his dry throat indicating that there were ssssoo many windows and doors in this house and that some one "got in".

      btw Mike, I knew you would ask me that question ,lol. JMD

      Anytime before 12am John could have gotten rid of evidence and no one in neighbourhood would have EVER suspected.
      LK asked him about the crime scene? then he tells LK "I found my daughter " as though who cares about contaminating Crime scene.
      IMO a Very well thought-out plan JMD



      Delete
    3. In My Opinion .The Ransom Note was bogus and most of us know what a decoy is.

      It is to lure or entice a person from an intended course , typically into a trap.
      John Ramsey handed the officer the R-note and said "My daughter has been taken . end of story......

      Delete
    4. oops *when discovered** jmd

      Delete
  5. I read somewhere that when police arrived at the R's house after the 911 call PR was waiting for them on the front porch. If so, one wonders why she didn't have BR with her due to fear for his safety. After all, a "foreign faction" had kidnapped her daughter during the night.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No reasonable man or women familiar with this case wonders about that at all.

      Delete
  6. LE regarded as highly suspicious behavior, John, followed by Fleet White, making post haste to the basement, after being asked to search the house, starting with the upstairs, and upon finding anything that looked out of place, not to touch it. Plan B, developed after Patsy foiled plan A, was later abandoned by John perhaps because the onset of odiferous human decomposition made the risk of police or someone else discovering JonBenet too great. Another possibility is that John discovered something incriminating missing on his person---something he feared he may have dropped while staging the crime earlier that day. One or two seconds was all he needed to spot, retrieve, and pocket some such item before White poked his head inside to see what was happening.

    But what about the door to the wine cellar? It was latched shut and left that way when Officer French tried to open it. Did Fleet White latch it shut later that morning after he closed it? If John later snuck inside to do the devil's bidding, might he have left the latch in the opposite position from which he found it...a position, that should police find the body before John did, could be confirmed as opposite to the position it had last been left in, by the only person known to have entered the wine cellar that morning---Fleet White?

    Fleet White saw John as he was entering the room. But did he see him as he approached the door? Did he perhaps see John unlatch a door that shouldn't have been latched, or open a door that should have been latched? Before going to the basement, did John unsuccessfully try to get Fleet to check upstairs, so that if he (John) was later questioned whether or not he had to unlatch the door before going into the wine cellar, he could more safely reply---"I don't remember---and get away with it.

    I like my theory because it doesn't require someone other than John confessing to be falsified. Then again, it may already have been proven false, in which case, the theory was never mine to begin with. Doc...anyone....could I be on to something?

    Mike G.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike G is commenting on the actual case...I don't believe it :)

      Delete
    2. Mike G Great post on May4th@ 4:29am it was a great help . Thank you.


      Delete
  7. According to the Boulder Police Department, the JBR murder case remains an open investigation. No one has been charged with the crime, tried in a court of law and convicted. As the late Patsy Ramsey said, "There is a killer on the loose." Therefore, no theory regarding the case should be entirely dismissed, including IDI. IDI should be contemplated again and again. My thoughts on IDI: The kidnapper/killer of JBR was possibly a young white male of medium height, slim, with dark brown hair. It's likely he resided in the same Boulder community as the R's and had visited their home or broken into their home and spent some time there familiarizing himself with the layout of rooms. He could have managed to hide there for days and watched the R's as they went about their daily routine. While lurking there he could have composed and wrote his lengthy and rambling ransom note on the most available R's paper, using one of their pens to do so. He may have found a convenient place in the house to secret the note away until the night he would leave it on the spiral staircase. His main objective was possessing the child for his own pleasure, but he was also determined to extort money from "fat-cat" JR. The intruder possibly heard JR boasting about his $118,000 bonus, or he may have simply seen the bonus listed on an old check stub -- an amount that to the intruder was tantamount to a small fortune. On Christmas Day the intruder walked up to the R's house while they were away visiting their friends (the Whites). Once inside he concealed himself in a seldom used room (the wine cellar?) and waited until darkness came and the R's returned and eventually retired to their beds. Quietly he crept up the basement stairs, eased into the hallway and placed the ransom note on the spiral staircase, then he stepped into the bedroom of JBR. The girl was sleeping peacefully as he clasped his hand hard across her mouth and lifted her and carried her swiftly down the stairs and into the basement. By the time he reached the bottom of the basement stairs she was fully awake and had started to scream, but after the first scream he shot her with a stun gun he'd brought along. While she was incapacitated he tried to stuff her body into a suitcase he'd brought from another room in the house and in which he planned to conceal her body as he exited the home. However, JBR was slightly larger than he'd anticipated and he couldn't fit her into the thing. What to do now? No way was he going to walk out of that house carrying the child in his arms. And the girl was rallying from the effects of the stun gun, so he struck her on the head with his flashlight. He decided to take his sick pleasure with her there in the basement and began fashioning a crude garrote from a handy paintbrush and some cord which had been tied around some painting supplies. Once finished with his horrific act, he re-dressed JB and wrapped her body in the blanket in which she'd been swaddled in her bed. Lastly, the intruder placed JBR's pitiful deceased body in the wine cellar. On the way out he latched the door of the room, thinking it might hinder the finding of the body, thus giving him more time to remove himself far away from the crime scene. If she wasn't discovered within 24 hours, he might still make that promised phone call and arrange for the ransom money. He departed the house, walking out as he had walked in, and ran through the back alley and to his waiting car or nearby home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What was he wearing? Universal Precautions ?
      He did not leave any DNA behind? finger prints? no evidences at all??

      Why did he chose to kill JBR ? why didn't he kidnap John?
      According to the R-note he hated John , John was the one who had the money? How did this person Know the family had gone out to friends ? and how would this person know that they would be back at 9:30pm? did John Hire this person? so many questions,
      according to Burke he had gone to basement.to play with his trains?
      Wasn't Patsy up during the night? and she did not hear Jon Benet scream? or run into anyone? or did she sleep through -out the night as John said he had .
      I agree it is a large house , Parents on top floor , children on second , kitchen/dining/ living/ area on first. Then you have basement. yep a 5 bedroom house .it was not a palace but it is a large house . and a stranger might even get lost or disoriented unless he had been using a flashlight to get around .again if he ran in the back alley I am sure k9s would have picked the scent or foot prints in snow or frost.
      you are saying he tried to get her out of the house by the suit case and window?
      There were many doors in the house all he had to do was to pick one , and he had a car waiting? He would have ran through the alley with a child ? (not trying to be funny ) but wouldn't she had wet her under wear?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous: You do realize there is pretty much no basis for what you are saying? SSC

      Delete
    3. That was directed toward the first anonymous poster about the intruder theory. SSC

      Delete
  8. 1) He, the intruder, was so familiar with the Ramsey routine he knew their dog would be across the street at the Barnhills, that very day/night and wouldn't be home barking at him.

    2) The intruder was so familiar with the Ramsey's routine that he knew they would be at a party from - what time - to what time? And that no one would forget something and come back home, spoiling his hiding place as he lingers indefinitely in their home.

    3) He was so familiar with the Ramsey's that he really has no plan, he instead searches the house and happens on a pay stub in the amount of $118,000 and thinks, hey, that's a good amount to ask for - even though he knows this family so intimately and knows they are worth at least 6 million. He forgot his own flashlight, so he used theirs. He knew right where they kept it. They didn't even remember where they kept it, but he knew.

    3) He's not only a kidnapper, but he's a pedophile as well. What are the chances of that? He kidnaps, and he violates - with, a paint brush handle or his finger? Very gratifying and satisfying for a pedophile.

    4) He also takes the time to stage his scene, he breaks a window - when exactly - after he has killed her or before? Picks up glass, takes the rest of the paint brush handle with him and pieces of cord and tape, he's "thoughtful" - in that he has selected clean new underwear from somewhere and redresses her, wipes her down and

    5) spots her favorite white blanket and barbie doll nightgown in the drier and even though he's so very pressed for time, he carefully wraps her up and secrets her away to the wine cellar room. He's thoughtful too.

    6) Now for his getaway. Out the front door? Or slides through the basement window without disturbing the cobweb

    6) He's also picked a taser stun gun that must be one of a kind as it doesn't line up with the burn marks on her back - and although stun guns make a lot of noise and once zapped with one a small girl would likely scream - no one heard that either.

    Jameson, is that you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what I mean about stating things as fact that have not actually been demonstrated.

      - There's no evidence that the flashlight in the kitchen was involved in the crime, or that it even belonged to the Ramseys. And what makes you think the Ramseys didn't remember where they kept their flashlight?

      - There's no conclusive evidence that JBR's underwear was changed that night or that the underwear she was found in was "new".

      - There's no good reason to think that the blanket and nightgown found in the WC were taken from the dryer that night.

      Delete
  9. Then you are saying JohnI. that one theory is as good as the next. Not very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Inq, did you get a chance to read about the wire in the basement (Burke's quite the sailor)? I found that possible detail interesting - the wire being a guide for knot making.

      Delete
    2. For the last time (hopefully): there was a LOT more to the construction of that device than the tying of a couple knots. That's not the sort of thing you learn in Cub Scouts, sorry.

      Delete
    3. Lil can you send the link again? thank you.

      Delete
    4. Yes, here it is Inq, it's a guest entry with several photos in the entry
      https://shakedowntitle.com/2017/05/01/burke-is-quite-the-sailor/

      I see by DocG's post that the knots aren't to be discussed again , but this entry does mention a bit about the boy scout manual, and I don't believe anyone here has inside information as to what Burke learned from his sailing tutor or camping instructors/guides.

      Delete
    5. YW. You and me may be the only ones interested/open to reading another person's ideas that aren't focused solely on JDI. Maybe J, EG or Zed might find it worth the short read. We do know LE did take the wires (among numerous other items) into evidence.

      Delete
    6. Darn, ^ you and I

      Delete
    7. It was interesting Lil. And with pictures, which makes it even better. I thought the special knot was a clove hitch but calling it a prusik knot hitch gives me something else to look up now.

      Delete
    8. The prusik knot was mentioned here along with a boy scout badge back in 2015 irrc but the search function doesn't work as well for me on my phone. I wasn't going to dig thru 300+ comments to find it, lol. The knots have been discussed since the pics were available for viewing. I think only later that some looked at Patsy's correspondence along with Burke's interests and hobbies that others could suspect that one didn't need to be in the Navy to fashion the cords in the way LE discovered them.

      Delete
    9. I read it, Lil.

      I think you may be missing Doc's point: It's not that the knots are complicated - I sail and know how to tie up to a cleat using hitches - it's the fact that the knots were attached to a piece of wood, and intended to suggest a garrote, or half garrote, a killing device, something Scouts are presumably not taught to fashion.

      Delete
    10. I read some of James Lofton's dialogue, as well, when you suggested it a few months ago - I remember when he posted here last fall in the first flush of you BDI folk. He was always very complimentary of me :-), so I thought he deserved at least a brief perusal. I drop in on Jameson, Topix and Miss Marple's site too, from time to time.

      I love information and facts, and I'll take 'em anywhere I can get 'em.

      Delete
    11. Lil,

      Thanks for posting that link. Just read it and found it very interesting. Just adds to the BDI theory, which I believe is the only one that makes sense and answers all of my questions.

      I agree with Zed, in that JBR and BR were playing some kind of game that somehow turned into an accidental killing. I think things got of hand and went too far. It was not premeditated murder and BR is not a murderer.

      As for the boots, I mentioned this in an earlier thread. What parent doesn't remember the shoes/boots their 9 year old child wore or owned?

      The parent's behavior in all of this is the most telling for me.

      EG

      Delete
    12. Aww, Lil, that's not really fair. I read everything I can on this case, regardless of the author's preferred theory. I saw that link on Topix last week and read the article. I know that the person who wrote the article is adamantly BDI. He actually has been posting on Topix for a while under a different "hat" (which I accidentally discovered a month ago) in addition to the "hat" the article is attributed to. Under this other "hat" he has been a long-time, out-spoken proponent of BDI, to a fault that he ignores anything which doesn't align with his theory. I found too that he uses his different "hats" to bolster his own comments, and therefore, IMO, has lost a lot of credibility (but that's another topic altogether.)

      As far as the actual article goes, a lot of it, we've heard before. BR was a Boy Scout (and knot tying is a basic skill.) A Hi-Tec boot print was found in the WC and BR possibly owned Hi_Tec boots. I don't really see the significance of any shoe/foot print left by ANYONE who lived in the home. I guess the wire/knot concept is interesting, however, he attributes the use of this trick to certain members of the Navy. Isn't JR more closely tied to the Navy than BR? ;)

      Delete
    13. Hi ya HKH - I had posted the link on May 1st on the previous blog entry, and didn't think anyone had read it then, at least didn't comment. I was killing time while doing some laundry on Monday so posted what I had seen on topix (which I believe they pulled that thread from topix).

      I know some don't like links or info from anon posters and what have you. But it caught my eye and I did like having the pics as a visual aid with the context of the piece.

      I can accept that the wire pieces, even tho "found" near the crime scene, does not mean it has to be a "part" of the crime scene. At least it was something else to read that didn't involve 1) handwriting 2)pineapple, or fruit of any kind! lol

      And to all - thanks for the thanks, glad to have added some links (old and new) that reminded us again of what a journalist investigated, or what an FBI profiler thought, or just some details that some of us may not have known or have forgotten. (I do tend to forget)

      Delete
    14. Lil, I appreciate your links. Some of the links you have provided have been for things that I hadn't come across in my own research. I hope you didn't take my comment to mean you shouldn't have posted it. I, for one, am open to reading any information I can find on this case. Thank you. :)

      Delete
  10. A defense attorney would never offer such a detailed theory, since the more details, the easier it is to pick apart. For example, once the intruder has decided ahead of time on kidnapping there's no reason to write a hand-written note. Prepare your note ahead of time and print it out on your computer printer. Why leave evidence that could be used against you? Also, why hide the body in that remote basement room and at the same time leave your now meaningless "ransom note" where you originally left it? If he hid the body to buy time to get out of there, then why leave the note? And what's with the suitcase flush against the wall under the basement window, why would he have left it at that particular spot?

    You'd be better off simply arguing for some mysterious intruder whose ways, like those of God, are beyond human understanding. Sorry, but I'll stick with my original diagnosis: NO intruder theory makes any sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, not meaning to pick on JohnI., but the more explanations and theories for the absence of evidence only widens the net until the list of suspects becomes larger and the case more more convoluted. You can see how confusing it can get just concentrating on the three "likely suspects" in the house, but I'd rather stick with those three.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Burke applied the garotte (or tightening stick or whatever else you want to call it), then I think it was already in the basement. Maybe Burke had made it previously or maybe John had shown him how to make it. It does look awfully similar to what lil shared in her link above (thanks by the way).

    I don't believe that after Burke struck her and then prodded her with train tracks, that he thought "hmmm I might make a knot to put around her head".

    I don't believe Burke is a murderer or meant to murder her that night and I don't believe Burke thought a knot would wake her up...nor would he spend time making such a contraption whilst his sister lay unconscious/dead on the ground.

    So in my mind, IF Burke applied the garotte it had to have already been there and he put it over her head being silly (as kids do), maybe it tightened (as tightening sticks do), JBR screamed, Burke whacked her over the head instinctively so she wouldn't wake parents up. If that didn't happen, then yes I believe the parents did the garotte. There is a lot of reasons the parents could have done this, despite JDIers saying this is not possible.

    My 2c.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, may the Force be with you (it's Star Wars Day today). Some posit that the 'twister' as JR called it, was added after the fact, to go with the ransom note of the 'foreign faction', and that the cord was already there, and JB had already expired, when discovered by the parent/s.

      Delete
  13. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
    --Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not a numbers person, but has anyone ever thought about the probability of either JR or PR pulling this entire cover up on their own (remember they are not professional criminals), vs. the probability of an entire family (PR, JR, and BR) pulling off a cover up from beginning to end, and not at any point messing up or having any evidence come to light that definitively points to them? What are the odds of that? The intense media scrutiny? The evaluation of the evidence by so many people? The amount of professionals that have weighed in since the beginning? The amount of family, friends, house employees who could notice even the slightest discrepancy?

    I'm not saying I believe the IDI theory, but how can this at all add up? We are talking a suburban family outsmarting everyone.

    -J.P.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J.P

      The thing is they didn't really outsmart anyone. They confused everyone, but not outsmarted. And given it was someone in the house, it's very difficult to pinpoint exactly who did what...which is why there are a lot of different opinions, theories and debates on this very blog. But on the scheme of things, the intruder theory can be ruled out fairly easily so I wouldn't call anyone in the Ramsey household a criminal mastermind.

      Plus if it wasn't for Alex Hunter....

      Delete
    2. There's an old adage, JP: "Two can keep a secret if one is dead." Cliches exist because they're often true.

      Far likelier that one very desperate man could keep the secret of a lifetime than two. Or three.

      Delete
    3. JP - many have more knowledge of all the back story of the kid glove treatment given by some to the Ramseys. Not many suburban families get that.

      Just re-reading the old 1997 Vanity Fair article is still amazing. As they point out, Ramsey had more wealth than OJ. A quote in the article

      "The Ramseys' best defense attorneys are right inside Hunter's office"
      https://www.google.com/amp/www.vanityfair.com/news/1997/10/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-missing-innocence/amp

      Delete
    4. Just an add on, here is a Charley Rose interview (video and transcript) with the Vanity Fair journalist and the FBI profiler McCrary discussing the case
      https://charlierose.com/videos/12383

      Delete
    5. Thanks so much for that link, Lil. I don't think I ever viewed that interview, though I did read the article. As should be clear from only this one source, there never was any serious basis for any intruder theory and, as Bardach revealed, hardly anyone she interviewed doubted that this was an insider job. And once again, I must repeat: if the note was intended to point away from the involvement of a family member by staging some sort of "kidnapping gone wrong," it failed miserably to achieve that end.

      Delete
    6. Lil,

      Great article and I agree totally with that quote. The DA's office was working for the Ramseys, thats for sure. The big question remains---WHY?

      EG

      Delete
    7. Imo they were stumped by the same issue that (justifiably) bothered Lou Smit: why would "the Ramseys" immediately call 911 if they'd been staging a kidnapping? That's what prevented me from accepting Ramsey family involvement for a long time as well. Only no intrude theory made sense. So what the HECK was this all about?

      Until finally it hit me -- like a ton of bricks.

      Delete
  15. Ok, maybe not so much outsmarting, but then perhaps they are lucky? I, do, though, think it takes a bit of intelligence to keep everyone confused. How many experts and non experts around the world have scoured through this case? And nothing is able to come to light or be confirmed regarding the case even to this day? I guess that could be said for many high profile cases, but this has an elaborate staging, a kid, a pagent mom, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you keep insisting that John and Patsy both HAD to be in on it together, then nothing will ever come to light for you, because no such scenario makes more sense than any intruder scenario.

      The philosopher Wittgenstein pointed to the "monkey in the bottle" syndrome that prevented so many from letting go of their preconceptions. The monkey reaches its hand into the bottle to grasp a banana, but his clenched fist then prevents him from removing his hand. Unwilling to let go of his banana, he remains forever attached to that bottle and starves to death.

      Delete
    2. Just like you are attached to your JDI theory?

      Delete
    3. I am not "attached" to any theory. But when I contemplate the theory I've offered I find my hand extracting itself very easily from the "monkey bottle," thank you, because it has enabled me to reconcile all the many different elements of this case. So for me it is no longer a mystery. For anyone insisting that both Patsy and John MUST be in it together, there well never be any such resolution. Your hands will forever be stuck in that bottle.

      Delete
  16. Doc what hit you like a ton of bricks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The realization that "the Ramseys" were two separate individuals with different agendas rather than an indivisible unit - Doc's greatest contribution, right up there with re-including John, who'd been erroneously excluded because of handwriting "evidence".

      Delete
  17. That's ridiculous. The Patsy and John scenario not only accounts for why at least 10 professionals concluded Patsy was the author of the ransom note, but it also accounts for why Patsy corroborated John's account of the broken window and the 911 call, *better* than the "gaslighting" conjecture. The only thing it doesn't account for is your insistence that Patsy wouldn't call 911 if she was involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ten "professionals", huh? Pretty amusing coming from you, Mr. Evidence. How can you attach any importance whatsoever to a "profession" that has no standardized course of study or certification, is unregulated or unevenly regulated, is almost entirely subjective, and is largely considered junk science by the courts?

      Delete
    2. because Doc uses his own handwriting analysis as part of his argument.

      Delete
    3. I find Doc's handwriting analysis every bit as useless as the "professionals", but at least he doesn't purport to be one of their number, and his theory does not rely on it.

      Delete
    4. Yes it does. For Doc's theory to be true, John *had* to have written the note.

      Delete
    5. Of course. But never does he rely on handwriting analysis to "prove" John wrote it, as you do in a foolish attempt to "prove" Patsy did.

      Delete
    6. I didn't attempt to "prove" Patsy did, I said that the RDI theory accounts for the handwriting analysis results better than the JDI theory. If he's not relying on his own handwriting analysis then why mention it at all?

      Delete
    7. I think the handwriting analysis that Doc presented to be very compelling. Conversely, Those so called experts confused margin shifts with a bad Xerox copy.

      Delete
    8. 1) "The Patsy and John scenario....accounts for why at least 10 professionals concluded Patsy was the author of the ransom note ..."

      The Appeal to Authority Fallacy:

      This sort of error is also known as “Argumentum Verecundia” (argument from modesty). Instead of concentrating on the benefits of an argument, the arguer will attempt to append their argument to an individual of power or authority in an effort to give trustworthiness to their argument."

      Mike G


      Delete
    9. You mean like when CC appeals to the 6 supposedly "preeminent child abuse and forensic pathologists in the country"?

      I'm not arguing that handwriting analysis is scientifically valid. In fact I've argued against it before in this blog. I'm saying that Doc's theory doesn't account for the handwriting analysis result. His argument does not contend that handwriting analysis is invalid, but rather that the vast majority of the professionals did it wrong.

      Delete
  18. I think that because Burke was under the age of ten he cannot be tried for murder, not then, not ever. Patsy is dead. That leaves John - as accessory - and I believe CC cited a while back that the statue of limitations on being tried as an accessory is over - they also have no evidence but forgive me if I got that wrong CC, it was ages ago.

    What would be exceptional is if the DNA testing this year produces definitive results that the touch DNA proves nothing, that this was never a DNA case, so that Lin Wood can never again use Mary Lacy's exoneration.

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

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

      Delete
  20. Other things not accounted for by Doc's theory:

    - disturbance of leaves in the outside window well of the basement windows
    - green foliage tucked under the grate
    - packing peanuts and leaves inside under the window and in the windowless "wine cellar" room
    - the complexity of the garotte knot
    - the source of the duct tape and the rest of the roll
    - the source of the animal hair on the duct tape and on Jonbenet's hands
    - the missing paintbrush piece
    - the baseball bat outside the home
    - the Hi-Tec shoeprint
    - the palmprint on the WC door
    - the smudge mark under the basement window
    - the unidentified male DNA under the fingernails
    - the unidentified DNA in the underwear and on the waistband
    - the unidentified hair on the blanket
    - an explanation for the cause of the "stun-gun/train track" marks
    - a motive

    And before you try to explain some of these things with information from leaks by "unnamed sources" -- unsubstantiated rumors from unnamed sources are not evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can at least corroborate that the garrote and cord tied around JB's neck and wrists was not complicated. July 2003 Mike Kane on MSNBC stated:

      "I don't know where this came from that these were 'sophisticated' knots; I don't know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category. And that was not the opinion of that person. We seem to have very simple knots."

      Delete
    2. You forgot one.

      --the shots heard coming from the grassy knoll

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. For what it's worth, BR claimed ownership of the baseball bat during his interview with Dr. Phil. Here is a link to an edited version which features only the segments involving BR and Dr. Phil. Scroll down the page ( it's like the sixth post.) BR's comment about the bat is around the 22:00 mark.

      http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42511-Media-Links-Only/page17

      Delete
    4. So what? Many young boys have baseball bats! He is the only boy in the house. But anyone in the house has access to the bat.

      Delete
    5. Regarding the aluminum baseball bat found outside - Burke took credit for the bat, but it was in fact Patsy's bat from her softball team named "Mom's Gone Bad", sponsored by LM. Anyone could have grabbed it from the basement however, then tossed it outside so it's ownership proves very little. Burke lying about it though is indicative of deception, Patsy pretending confusion about it is also indicative of deception.

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

      Delete
    7. Inq, what was the source of the Patsy's bat info? And yes, if it's true, why would an innocent Patsy (Doc's contention) deny knowledge of a bat she owned? Doc's theory would demand that the bat was unrelated to the events of the evening (even though it may have had basement carpet fibers on it), because his theory (if I'm not mistaken) has John neither going outside or moving the grate at all.

      Delete
    8. Mistaken as usual. John did go outside, by his own testimony, to check an exterior garage door supposedly blocked by boxes.

      Delete
    9. The mistake is all yours, as usual. I didn't say John never went outside on the 26th. I said Doc's theory requires that John didn't go outside while doing his "partial but not really" staging of the basement window, including scooping leaves and packing peanuts from the window well into the room. The fact that John went outside for half a minute at some unknown time that morning, nowhere near where the bat was found, doesn't account for how the bat (with possible fibers from the basement carpet) got there and when.

      Delete
    10. To anon whose response to my post about the bat was "so what?" Well, yeah, exactly. BR claimed ownership of the bat. It's not a bat that no one in the family had ever seen before. Why is it odd that a bat, belonging to a child who lived in the house, was found outside? I could walk my yard right now and find sports equipment, dinosaurs, diecast cars, etc. My son often does not put these things away after playing with them.

      Delete
    11. John I., Inq's source is one of the books written by Van Der Leek. As far as I can remember, he doesn't offer anything concrete to prove the bat actually belonged to PR. Just speculation, IIRC.

      Delete
    12. It's not that a bat being outside was in itself an odd thing. What makes it possibly odd is that both JonBenet's head injury and the broken basement window could have been made by that bat, and also the report that basement carpet fibers may have been on the bat. Also it was found on the north side of the house in a spot where Patsy said the boys wouldn't have been playing.

      Delete
  21. The knot was not complicated; the palmprint was Melinda Ramsey's; Steve Thomas believed a cop left the shoeprint as many wear Hi-Tec, ordered from a cop catalogue called Gall's; the DNA under the fingernails was attributed to the improper collection of that evidence; there is no evidence of a stun gun, as the skin was not tested for the characteristic burns they leave in many layers of epidermis.

    You need to cite sources for the disturbed leaves, packing peanuts on the floor under the window and in the wine cellar, and the animal hair on JBR's hands.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You need to cite a source for "the palmprint was Melinda Ramsey's"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

      Delete
    2. I don't think you can, John, so I'll graciously go first.

      Charlie Brennan reported it in the Rocky Mountain News (he later moved to the Boulder Daily Camera). You can find the story on acandyrose under the sub-heading "Rocky Mountain News".

      Delete
    3. JohnI: Palm print(s) plural:

      12/26/96 Three palm prints found on the wine cellar door. Two palm prints identified as belonging to Patsy Ramsey (Steve Thomas p.237). Third palm print later reportedly identified palm print as belonging to Melinda Ramsey (RMN 8-23-02).

      Delete
    4. That's exactly what I was talking about when I referred to rumors from unnamed sources.

      Delete
    5. Cite your sources for your above statements before impugning mibe.

      Delete
    6. Packing peanuts: Lou Smit. Cited in many articles including this one: http://www.newsweek.com/intruder-theory-156543 , and also in the Carnes decision.

      Delete
    7. Animal hair on duct tape: cited in Woodward:

      "An examination of the duct tape by the FBI discovered a black beaver hair stuck to the duct tape. (BPD Report from FBI #1-1140.)"

      Delete
    8. Animal hairs on JonBenet's hands: also cited in the Carnes decision:

      Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape.(SMF 183; PSMF 183.) Yet, nothing in defendants' home matches the hair (SMF 183; PSMF 183.), thereby suggesting either that the duct tape had been obtained from outside the home or that it had been carried outside the home at some point. Dark animal hairs were also found on JonBenet's hands that have not been matched to anything in defendants' home.(SMF 184; PSMF 184.)

      Delete
    9. John, the list you've offered reflects how far behind you are in assessing the evidence in this case. Just about everything you've noted is drawn from observations by Lou Smit that were accounted for years ago. I'm not going to bother citing chapter and verse because all the details you've mentioned have already been covered in this blog and can also be found in the extensive literature, from PMPT to Steve Thomas's book and also Kolar's book.

      The palm print was finally determined to be Melinda's. The disturbance of the debris in the window well (mostly old packing peanuts) was probably due to John scooping it up so he could place it on the floor when staging. A few peanuts probably got caught in his shoe when he entered the windowless room. It means nothing as far as an intruder is concerned, because as you well know, the thick layer of dirt on the window sill was undisturbed, as were two spider webs. As for the foliage, Lou Smit actually admitted to John that the photo was taken after a police technician had lifted the grate. I suggest you read my blog post titled "The Lou Smit Show" for the details.

      The DNA found under JBR's nails is irrelevant, because no skin cells were found there. Not hers, not anyone else's. Nor were there any scratches on her neck. The consensus is that this DNA is due to contamination from the nail clipper used by the ME. The duct tape was probably taken from something left in the basement by workmen. The cord probably originated in gift packaging. The beaver hair may have come from the paintbrush. The hairs found in JBR's hands could have got there earlier in the day when she petted a dog. The Hi-Tec print is meaningless because all that's visible is the Hi-Tec logo. The rest of the print is obliterated, implying that it was already old when photographed. Probably left by one of the workmen who'd been busy in that house in the weeks prior to Xmas.

      The hair on the blanket WAS identified. It was found to be consistent with Patsy's hair, probably from her underarm.

      None of this is conjencture. All has been widely documented, but I'm not about to do your research for you. You have a lot of catching up to do.

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

      Delete
    11. The source was not unnamed. It was Charlie Brennan in the RMN, whose information came from the BPD under a guarantee of anonymity - and he had to have two sources, an original contributor and a confirming one, or his newspaper would not publish - and who was the source for much of Schiller's book. You quote nothing and no one but famous Ramsey apologists who had personal relationships with them - Woodward and Smit.

      Delete
    12. I *have* researched it which is why I know that your pronouncements are overstated. When you say that palm print was determined to be Melinda's, you're relying on hearsay from an unnamed source. Same with the hair on the blanket. As far as the other stuff goes ("probably due to", "consensus is that", "probably taken from", "may have come from", "could have got there from", "probably left by"), this is all pure speculation with no evidence to support it.

      Delete
    13. At least Lou Smit is a named source who actually examined the case files. Charlie Brennan is a newspaper reporter passing along hearsay from an anonymous source.

      Delete
    14. As for Lou Smit allegedly admitting that the photo was taken after a police technician had lifted the grate, please cite.

      What he actually said was "But we think a perhaps an officer may have moved that grate."

      "We think", "perhaps", "may have". That's three equivocations in a single sentence!

      Delete
    15. Woodward cited (and published) actual police and court documents. Brennan cited anonymous sources.

      Delete
    16. Lou Smit was hired three months after the murder and never saw the crime scene in situ. He viewed crime scene photos, taken hours after the scene had been disturbed, including the suitcase under the window and the grate. Doc is right; do your own research and get caught up.

      Delete
    17. Unless you can actually demonstrate when the photos were taken and that anything was disturbed before then, the distinction is meaningless. And by "caught up", you just mean accept the baseless hearsay that you keep reporting as fact, because you want to believe it.

      Delete
    18. That's not at all what I mean. I mean do the reading, do the research, smarten up or shut up.

      Delete
    19. John I: "all pure speculation with no evidence to support it."

      The speculation is all yours. If you want to argue that any of this is intruder evidence, then it's up to YOU to back that up with facts. A palm print was found that was attributed to Melinda. If you want to insist that it came from an intruder, then YOU need to provide the documentation. Otherwise it's just a palm print. A hair on a blanket means nothing unless it can be demonstrated that this hair belonged to no one from the Ramsey home. According to several reliable reports it most likely orginated with Patsy. If you want to challenge that, then it's up to YOU to provide the evidence. Otherwise, it's just a hair.

      As for the foliage, you provided only one part of what Smit admitted to John. Here's some more: "But we have had some real discussion on this and did find out that an officer had moved that grate."

      Smit nevertheless included this photo in his notorious power point presentation, a clear indication of deliberate deception.

      Delete
    20. CC - of course that's what you mean. You're satisfied with hearsay from anonymous sources. No research in the world is going to turn that into something else.

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

      Delete
    22. Doc, that doesn't help. What officer moved that grate? When? How does he know?

      I'm not arguing that anything is intruder evidence. My point was stated clearly in the OP -- your theory doesn't account for any of these things at all. You just wave it off with rumors and speculation. Why do I have to prove the palm print *isn't* Melinda's when you haven't proven that it *is*? Here you go, this is easy:

      "According to sources close to the case, a palm print on the door leading to that same wine cellar, long unidentified, is that of Michael Helgoth."

      There you go, it's now attributed to an intruder. Do you believe it just because I said "according to sources close to the case"? You shouldn't.

      Delete
    23. I don't believe anything you say.

      You've spent no time reading this blog, devoted none to serious reading or research. You make no significant contribution other than to parrot Ramsey apologists, but feel free to critique everyone else.

      Jameson still has a website; I'm sure you'll be more comfortable and more welcome there.

      Delete
    24. Woodward (not Paula) and Bernstein cited "anonymous sources" with a second, corroborating source and managed to bring down a criminal in the White House.

      Charlie Brennan is an investigative reporter of similar impeccable reputation.

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

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

      Delete
    27. I don't care if he's Mother Freakin' Teresa -- he's reporting what somebody told him. That doesn't make it true. The cops leaked a bunch of false stuff to the press throughout the investigation.

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

      Delete
    29. The first is patently false and the second not going to happen.

      Very well, then. Blather on.

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

      Delete
    31. You address no "actual issues" that have not been addressed many, many times here since 2012.

      Your reading and research is scanty, at best, and it's you who devolves into insults and criticism when challenged.

      Again, you bring nothing to the discussion and clearly take nothing from it. I'm hardly trying to bully you from this site, since I just invited you to blather on.

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

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

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

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

      Delete
    36. I've not made it personal - you have - my comments are welcomed, well-received and solicited. Only petty, jealous men resort to your sort of tactics.

      Again, and finally, yap on, but try to make it pertinent to the case, and leave off attacking me personally.

      Delete
    37. John I.: "You bring nothing but misinformation and arrogance to the discussion. How about *you* run along?"

      You may not like CC for whatever reason, John, but that statement is far from accurate.

      Delete
    38. Doc said the knot on the stick was complex. No it wasn't. Could have Burke made this? Absolutely.

      Delete
    39. Sorry, but things were getting out of hand and I felt it necessary to delete several posts because they got too personal. Please, everyone, stay on topic and avoid personal disputes.

      Delete
    40. John I, it's clear to me that you are either uninformed or unwilling to accept any findings that challenge your view of the case. HOwever: regardless of whether or not any of this evidence can be verified, the fact remains that there is NO conclusive evidence pointing to an intruder. The DNA evidence may have appeared that way to Mary Lacy, but subsequent analysis has proven her wrong.

      As for the window grate, the spider web on that grate was ssen to be undisturbed, as was another web found just outside the window sill. The dirt on the sill itself was undisturbed. The police who examined that window first hand (unlike Smit who only saw photographs) concluded that there was "no sign of forced entry." So why bother to argue about some foliage seen in a photo that, even according to Smit himself was taken AFTER a policeman had lifted that grate?

      Delete
    41. I have explained by quoting evidence and testimony why I don't accept the unsubstantiated claims. An undocumented claim made by "anonymous sources" is not worth the paper it's printed on -- especially given the history of false leaks from the Boulder PD. There is no "subsequent analysis" proving Lacy wrong about the DNA, just more "it could have been" arguments. It could have been the person who packed the underwear. It could have been cross contamination at the morgue. It could have been a mixture of multiple DNA profiles.

      As long as we're doing "it could have been": a spider *could have* woven a new web overnight on the grate. An intruder *could have* had a key, found the key under the pedestal, or have come in another unlocked window or door.

      And Smit didn't say the photo was definitely taken after a policeman had lifted that grate. He said it may have been.

      Delete
    42. Zed - how do you know that Burke could have made the garotte knot? Just because he was in boy scouts?

      Delete
  23. I sincerely believe Doc that logic can be used to rule out any intruder scenario. But I think that those that cling steadfastly to a JDI theory make a leap in intuition because the original logic isn't tied to the family dynamic - of which we know precious little. We have no idea what went on in the Ramsey marriage, or how Burke really felt about his sister, if the Ramsey's weren't getting along and whether John may have thought Patsy was pushing her daughter too hard but had his own self business interests at the forefront and chose to leave the child-rearing to her. Guilt. Should have done more to protect her - and not just about setting his house alarm. We have bits and pieces of evidence but what is lacking is motive. Because we don't know the family dynamic. So if we choose the correct system of logic it must be applied in a logically intuitive way based on the family dynamic of this particular family. From what others observed if that is all you have. If you believe John was molesting his daughter then you have your motive, partially. If you believe Burke was resentful, disturbed and jealous you have your motive, partially. But Patsy is more complex as we have brushed off Hercule's comments because he has used the Steve Thomas model which we feel was off the mark. Bed wetting is not a strong enough motive - or Patsy's Christmas frazzled state. Yet there are many clues to suggest that Patsy was involved somehow - fibers from her jacket found on the sticky side of the duct tape, fibers from her jacket which "were also matched to trace fibers collected from JonBenet's wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and wine cellar floor" (James Kolar, Foreign Faction).

    What was her role - many believe she wrote the note - how much of the staging was she a part of. Linda believes Patsy broke the basement window and Patsy says she herself "uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass." She thought she did but she missed a piece or two. Patsy telling partial truths.

    Just can't imagine an apparently "doting" loving mother doing anything at all to her daughter? Easier to think she just wrote a note or found a note or did nothing? What do you really know about Patsy Ramsey? Two of the palm prints on the wine cellar door were Patsy's, one Melinda's. Not unusual to find a palm print on one's own door in their own house, but how unusual would it be to have one's jacket fibers round on the sticky side of the duct tape, or entwined in the cord used to kill JB? What would have been Patsy's motive?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given the multiple locations of those fibers it would seem that Patsy's jacket was some sort of wooly/fuzzy fashion blend suitable for Colorado winters that shed easily.

      Having hugged, lifted, undressed her daughter for bed and tucked her in over the course of the afternoon and evening, her jacket fibers were all over JBR, and the child's face, body and nightclothes were the source of those found on the duct tape and other basement locations - secondary transfer from fibers on JBR herself.

      Delete
    2. "So if we choose the correct system of logic it must be applied in a logically intuitive way based on the family dynamic of this particular family."

      All the knowledge in the world of the "family dynamic" won't help to solve this case, Inq., as you should know by now. You could hire a team of psychiatrists, social workers, anthropologists, and what not, and they would not help you get any closer to the truth of this case, because no matter how "sick" the family dynamic might have been, it can tell us nothing about who actually committed this crime, and why.

      Which is why I've chosen to stick with the facts and the logic, free from any trace of speculation or assumption, regarding the "family dynamic" or anything else. No intruder theory makes sense. There is no conclusive evidence of an intruder. And if "the Ramseys" were in it together, the 911 call would not have been made when it was. Patsy made the call, John did not.

      That, for me, is sufficient. And while my theory raises all sorts of legitimate questions, I believe I've been able to account for every single one without reaching a dead end. I could, of course, be wrong, but at least I've managed to avoid building a case on the sort of assumption and speculation that has characterized literally every other approach.

      Delete
    3. Just the assumption and speculation that if the Ramseys were in it together, the 911 call would not have been made when it was.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough, Doc.

      As for an intruder theory, I agree, none of it makes any sense. Lou Smit made up his mind within weeks primarily based on his misplaced instincts regarding John,(as did Douglas who was hired by John's attorneys) and was probably cleverly manipulated by John playing to Lou's devoutly Christian beliefs. He wasn't even asked to testify in front of the Grand Jury, he had to petition the court to be allowed to do so. Naturally we should consider all possibilities,(and have), but I think the intruder scenario has been tested and disproved, at least here on this blogsite. Nothing was left behind in the house from said intruder.

      Delete
    5. If you make a certain set of assumptions, an intruder theory makes sense. Just as if you make a different set of assumptions JDI makes sense. Ditto for BDI and RDI. It's all about the assumptions.

      Delete
    6. So, what is your take on who did this, John I.?

      Delete
    7. My opinion in order of most likely:

      - RDI
      - IDI
      - PDI (alone)
      - JDI (alone)
      - BDI

      Delete
  24. I don't believe the evidence, or lack thereof, will ever bring us to the truth. Palm prints, hairs, fibers, shoeprints, etc, if they belong to a Ramsey, they would expect to be found in, on or around JBR.

    IMO the proof of their guilt can be found AFTER the murder took place. Just look at their behavior. I don't think you need to be Sherlock Holmes to conclude whodunit.

    Their inconsistent statements, their "I don't recalls", their unwillingness to cooperate with police, their attitudes during their depositions, and on and on. That's where you will find the answers. And yes, there is SOME physical evidence but even that leans towards Ramsey's cover up. Mainly the RN, devoid of fingerprints or anything else that should have been on it.

    The only reason the R's weren't arrested is because they knew people in high places. PERIOD. The DA's office was in their pockets, its SO obvious that it's sickening.

    And I know none of that can stand up in a court of law, but I am sure there are a lot of people sitting on death row with a lot less evidence against them.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rs weren't arrested because there is insufficient evidence to have reasonable suspicion of their guilt.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure you must mean "probable cause", Johnny, do you not?

      Delete
    3. I agree John, but as I said, there are people sitting on death row with a lot less circumstantial evidence against them, than the R's had. Difference was, their investigations were not compromised by interference or influence. The R's had an advantage, and were treated with kid gloves. Surely, you see that?

      EG

      Delete
    4. IDI or JDI are both far-fetched. People make this case way more complex then it needs to be.

      The circumstantial evidence, logical inferences and behaviors of family members mean it was either:

      1. John and Patsy involved
      2. John, Patsy and Burke involved

      Pretty simple stuff.

      Delete
    5. Sister EG is preachin' tonight! Agree with your post, ty

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

      Delete
  25. oh gosh, got a chance to read down thru and saw some of the posts removed, c'mon now - as it's said in Shakira's song "no fightin'"
    https://youtu.be/DUT5rEU6pqM

    "Ladies up in here tonight. No fighting. We got the refugees up in here. No fightin', no fightin' Shakira, Shakira I never really knew that she could dance like this She makes a man wants to speak Spanish
    Como se llama, bonita, mi casa, su casa
    Shakira, Shakira" or I guess it could be Kreayshawn - "one big room, full of bad b*tches" https://youtu.be/6WJFjXtHcy4

    Namaste

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trick is Lil to read those comments before they get deleted.

      Delete
    2. Lol! Gotta get quicker on the draw, I see. :-)

      Delete
    3. Maybe so Doc, but it keeps things interesting - as long as I'm not on the receiving end of it:-)

      Delete
  26. Ah ha! Thought I had this link up on my phone (previous posts from tonight were on the pc)

    This is for John I. since he mentioned the blanket upthread and the dryer

    Source- housekeeper, LHP,talking to the press after the grand jury had ended
    Paper- Denver Post
    http://www.rense.com/general11/benet.htm

    Ripley's Believe (Her) or Not

    so while some things seem like an "urban myth" as JR would say, there does exist actual *named sources* for what has been discussed on this case.

    Or you can think like Thomas Jefferson "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How in the world would Linda Hoffman-Pugh know that the blanket came out of the dryer recently? She didn't. She's guessing.

      Delete
  27. Lil, I read on acandyrose that the blonde hair on the aluminum bat has been revised to a single carpet fiber from the basement floor rug. Seems like they knew that from the beginning. Was that one of the revisions from Steve Thomas's book?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey ya Inq, irrc Steve originally listed two bats outside, said to be corrected to a single bat *and a golfclub* with the golf club having a hair. So don't know if his revision was after acandyrose updates or prior.

      (was at the rim fire range today, gorgeous weather, and then my brother called tonight and ruined my day) so the shirt I wore today was appropriate "I use to be a people person, but people ruined that for me"

      Delete
  28. Doc - check out Zellners latest tweet.

    Still saying he is innocent but the overall tone of her tweet is lacking the confidence her previous tweets have had.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually ill just post it here. She tweeted:

      Would not still be rep. SA if the test results proved his guilt. Winning takes a little longer than losing. #Makingamurderer #inittowinit

      Delete
    2. Stevens niece also tweeted:

      Test results are back for you & everything looks great.. relief finally for you #YAYMAMAAVERY #NoMorePain

      Delete
  29. Good morning, Everyone!

    Zed--Is the niece's tweet saying he is now cleared?

    Doc - Great job, once again removing nasty comments. :)

    Lil - Good to see you post! Loved your Jefferson quote! :))

    I watched that Casting JBR on Netflix and didn't like it. Am trying to figure out why they even did it. It added nothing, leaned towards PR did it, I believe but offered no proof other than her bring a frazzed, overwrought mother. Any thoughts? Did anyone get anything out of it?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found that show offensive. Bad taste to the nth power.

      Delete
    2. As for the Avery test results. If they are "back" and they exonerate him, I feel sure Zellner would be tweeting that loud and clear to the world at large. And she would certainly have called a press conference by now. It's not enough for her to claim they don't prove his guilt. The point of the tests was to prove his innocence.

      She can always claim the tests weren't definitive, the testers were biased, etc. Doesn't matter. Reasonable doubt no longer applies. In an appeal, the burden of proof is on the defense.

      Delete
    3. My thoughts on Casting JB was it was a disappointment. I thought since it was a Sundance film for Netflix it would be handled in more of an artistic way at least, since all other attempts to portray the crime - if documentary style shows nothing we don't already know - and if pointing to one perpetrator or the next opens network television up to lawsuits. I think we would have a better film if Roman Polanski directed the film or the late great Stanley Kubrick. But it did show opinions, which is what we have in here - opinions and speculation as none of us have all of the evidence, nor all of the crime photographs, and as Beckner says what we think we know is mostly inaccurate. Baseball bats and golf clubs case in point.

      Delete
    4. Hmmmm so basically the niece tweeting what she did is meaningless, we have to wait to see what Zellner does with it?. You're right Doc, I would think she'd be screaming it from the rafters.

      Don't you think it's odd that he was exonerated for that crime years back which he didn't commit, only to get out of jail and murder someone? Geez, I mean talk about straaaange!!.:( Yikes!

      EG

      Delete
    5. Avery was exonerated on the basis of DNA from ONE hair. I'm not at all sold on the tactics of the Innocence Project, as imo they place far too much importance on DNA. Those results can easily be contaminated and even faked. So no, I'm not totally sold on Avery's prior innocence.

      Delete
    6. I agree about "Casting JonBenet". I didn't see the point. Is there really ever going to be the actual documentary they were purporting to be producing, or was it a sham in order to produce this hodge-podge?

      Delete
    7. Avery was definitely innocent the first time!!! I can't even believe that would be debateable.

      Delete
    8. Zed....I know he was exonerated...BUT don't you think it's strange that he would kill someone after that? What are the chances of that happening?

      I tend to agree with Doc on this one--it's too much of a stretch for me to believe that after having spent years locked up and then exonerated, that you'd kill someone when you got out. It makes absolutely no sense.

      EG

      Delete
  30. I agree "Casting JBR" was utter junk.

    If Zellner proves that Avery is innocent, I'll join the JDI camp ;)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Doc, or anyone, perhaps you can help me out here regarding the pink "barbie doll" nightgown, found "on" (I'm not going to say stuck) the white blanket in the wine cellar room. Here are my questions:

    1) Was it a nightgown for JB's doll - or was it life sized, as in hers. John only says it looks shiny, and could belong to her doll.

    2) Was there blood on it or not. I have a picture of it where it looks like a large stain - either washed and dried or as is. Why would it be included in the wash if it did not have blood on it or if it was simply a doll's nightgown. (That's two questions).

    3) Was the white blanket taken "from the drier" as the myth goes and if so, what was the barbie nightgown doing in the wash along with the blanket? Or was the nightgown just placed on top of the blanket?

    4) do we know if the blanket was washed and dried before being wrapped around JB - or is that a myth too - that it was taken from the drier and wrapped around her.

    I will look up my address of the pink barbie nightgown photo and try and post it here. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. photo:

    www.forumsforjustice-org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5204&d=1478666169

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Link does not work

      Delete
    2. Try this one:
      http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5204&d=1478666169

      Delete
    3. That link works John, thanks.

      Delete
  33. I thought it might not since I took it off the internet. I have it saved on a jpg file but that's on personal email. Of course googling it, "JonBenet's pink barbie doll nightgown" will pull it up, but not sure anyone wants to go to the trouble. It appears to be a stain, lower right side of nightgown (left of camera).

    ReplyDelete
  34. Inq - I don't think it's ever been determined if this was JB's nightgown or the life-sized doll's. John just said that he remembered the Barbie doll having a "shiny pink nightgown thing on it". Patsy said that JonBenet's Barbie nightgown was different and had a big Barbie face on it.

    The Carnes decision in Wolf v. Ramsey says that the nightgown had JB's blood on it.

    Police reports just said that the nightgown was next to her body, not clinging to the blanket. The rest of that is all Linda Hoffman-Pugh's speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do you think its possible JDI and wanted Patsy to think Burke did it without coming right out and saying it. He wanted Burke to pretend he was sleeping and whisked him off to tthe Whites house so he couldn't be questioned by anyone. So Patsy thought Burke did it all this time but didn't want,him,to live with,the trauma of killing his sister but,he actually didn't

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or Patsy did it and medicated Burke that night,possibly saying something like "what have you done?" leaving him with doubts about what he heard, or saw, and gave the impression to John that Burke may have done it so he must be protected from there on out, not questioned, not even talked to about it so that what you have now is a nervous young man in his 20's who has doubted himself all of these years. And a father who even considered his son may have done it. (fictional account, Joyce Carol Oates, "My Sister, My Love").

      Delete
    2. Meant 20 years later. Burke is 30 something.

      Delete
    3. YES! And he said to Burke "We're not speaking to you" during the 911 call for Patsys benefit as to make it appear he was angry with him.

      Delete
    4. Might be less complicated just to go with Doc's theory.

      Delete
  36. Thank you for answering John. So if there was blood on that particular nightgown, found at the crime scene, why was it left there. Was she wearing it before she was redressed? Did it have anything to do with the crime? It was at the crime scene - either it came out of the drier with the blanket, or it was "gone and gotten" and put there as an act of caring for the body, by the killer, which I doubt. If the picture is accurate (and not photo-shopped) the stain is visible, and would have survived a washing or at the least been visible under CSI lighting used to detect blood. So what's the difference? Both Patsy and John were lying about what she wore to bed, or just one is lying as the other one wouldn't have known. And, that there was more blood than we thought, before the wipe down. Both of them want to distance themselves from that nightgown, "it's shiny" or that her Barbie nightgown was "different" than the one in the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  37. We don't even know for a fact that she *was* re-dressed. There's no evidence that the blanket came out of the dryer either. Or that either were "gone and gotten" after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  38. You are right John. Not factual to say she was redressed. No evidence the blanket came out of the dryer, and no evidence that if the blanket did not come out of the dryer that it was "gone and gotten" (including nightgown) after the fact. We do, however, have the Ramsey's wishing us to believe an intruder put oversized panties on her and wrapped her in her white blanket and placed her pink Barbie doll nightgown somewhere next to her in the vicinity of the wine cellar room. And I find that, not only not factual, but preposterous.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That the thing -- there's no good reason to think she wasn't already in the oversized panties with a white blanket wrapped around her when she went to bed. And for all we know, the Barbie nightgown was already in the basement. There's no need for an intruder to have deliberately sought out those items.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think you can propose a counter point to every point, John. That's easy enough to do, especially with a 20 year old case got off track from the moment officers were called to the scene, thinking they had a kidnapping, not a homicide. But I'm unclear whether or not then you will be able to make any headway at all to solve this mystery, in this particular discussion group. By not proposing any theory of your own and only refuting point by point every other hypothesis what is your point being in here? Do you see what I'm saying John?

    ReplyDelete
  41. My point in being here is to discuss the case and the evidence. As I've said before, I don't believe the case is solvable, but I am interested in knowing what the evidence actually is, and perhaps more importantly what it is NOT. Isn't it kind of important to *know* that JonBenet was actually re-dressed before arguing that it must have been a family member because an intruder wouldn't have re-dressed her? Would you agree that the truth is more likely to be the explanation that best fits *all* of the evidence and with the fewest assumptions as possible? Why are so many people so willing to repeat rumors and myths as truth without being willing to examine the sources of the information?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right the case will never be solved unless someone talks and not likely to happen because he's the only one that knows the secret (John)

      Delete
  42. Okay, but when sources are cited it doesn't seem to be enough - for you. You asked yesterday about the palm print on the wine cellar door. A source was provided. But you didn't believe it. Steve Thomas has done the investigatory work on much of this case so if he is cited then I would assume we can believe him. If he corrects himself later, we can believe that as well. So let me ask you a question. You said you are interested in knowing what the evidence actually is. How do you propose going about about that. Leave re-dressing her out of it. I agree, "could have" won't cut it. But at some point when sources are cited you need to acknowledge them, or cite your own sources to disprove them. Please. That's a request.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

      First of all, Steve Thomas (as far as I know) never identified the wine cellar door palmprint. The source is actually "Charlie Brennan said that anonymous sources said". What's to acknowledge? That's not evidence, it's a rumor.

      Delete
    2. According to The Reuters Handbook of Journalism, anonymous sources must have confirmation from at lesst one and preferably two other, independent sources. Brennan's were from within the BPD, and I see no need to hold him to some mythical higher standard merely because you're never satisfied.

      I see you removed your incorrect remark about reasonable suspicion vs probable cause - a wise decision.

      And yes, I'm quite sure I'm a lawyer. . . and you are not.

      Delete
    3. First of all, John, your pedantic dismissal of any and all evidence of Ramsey culpability, regardless of how well documented and widely accepted it might be, makes it all but impossible to take your argument seriously.

      Secondly, however, you seem to be missing the point. What your argument boils down to is the fact that literally all the evidence in the Ramsey case is inconclusive. Not that the palm print can't be attributed to Melinda (that's pretty solid), but that all the evidence put together tells us really nothing of any real value about what really happened and who did what. If we relied ONLY on the evidence there would be no basis for any possible solution to this case. Is THAT your point? If so, I agree.

      Which is why I decided, some time ago, to turn to a logical analysis instead. As I see it, the intruder theory fails, not because there is no (incontrovertible) evidence of an intruder, but because NO intruder theory makes sense. NO intruder would have done all the things this "intruder" is alleged to have done. End of story.

      And as you must realize by now, the same reasoning has led me to point the finger at John rather than either Patsy or Burke.

      So, very oddly, as far as the evidence is concerned, we do agree, at least in principle. If you really want to play the role of devil's advocate, I suggest, therefore, that you concentrate on the logic and stop nit picking over all the problems you see with the evidence.

      Delete
    4. There's nothing pedantic about pointing out that certain claims about the case are false or overstated. What exactly is "solid" about the Melinda attribution? Do you have something other than "Charlie Brennan said that anonymous sources said"? The problem with logical analysis is that it relies on unproven premises. Zed has a logical analysis too -- it just starts with different assumptions. What exactly are the things this "intruder" is alleged to have done? Other than kill JonBenet, I mean?

      Doc are you intending to allow only CC's personal attacks to remain? She's blowing smoke again, and has absolutely no clue if there were any independent sources.

      Delete
    5. Ye'er whining

      Delete
    6. "The problem with logical analysis is that it relies on unproven premises."

      OK. Excellent! You are, finally, addressing the logic. So let's get down to it.

      The most famous of all logical arguments takes the form of a syllogism:

      1. All men are mortal.
      2. Socrates is a man.
      3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

      Infallible, no?

      Well, not quite. Because there is really no way to prove that the premise is true in all cases. Some men might not be mortal. And if that were the case, then we can never be absolutely, 100% sure of the conclusion.

      My argument can be stated in a similar form:

      1. No one staging a kidnapping would call the police before the body of the victim is removed from the premises.

      2. Patsy called the police while the body was still on the premises.

      3. Therefore, Patsy could not have been staging a kidnapping.

      Here too, the initial premise could be at fault. Perhaps, under certain circumstances, someone might want to call the police while the body of his/her victim is lying in the basement, waiting to be discovered.

      The ancient syllogism is convincing, however, even if the premise might not, strictly speaking, be true, because it's so difficult to imagine, from past experience, how it could be false.

      The same can be said of the premise behind my syllogism. Strictly speaking, and in violation of just about everything we know about the history of crime, it might be possible for someone to both stage a kidnapping and call the police in such a manner as to subvert that staging.

      I don't find it likely, however, that any human can live forever. And I don't find it likely that anyone would stage a kidnapping in such a self-defeating manner. That's what, for me, makes the argument so compelling.

      "Zed has a logical analysis too -- it just starts with different assumptions."

      What would you say they are? As far as I can tell, BDI is based solely on (dubious) evidence, not logic. Burke's fingerprints were found on a bowl containing pineapple; his sister ate pineapple that night; therefore Burke must be the one who assaulted her. Sorry, but that's not really logic, but a totally unsubstantiated assumption. But maybe Zed would like to chime in to explain the logic behind his version of BDI.

      As for CC, her responses reflect a certain degree of impatience, but I don't see a personal attack.

      Delete
    7. This is for the blog's lawyer.
      CC, I was trying to find out the SoL on sexual offenses against a child and recognize I could be misreading this, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. The labs currently have much more sensitive DNA testing, and Garnett has sent through a number of items from several cold cases for retesting. I’ve no idea what pieces of evidence they might retest in the Ramsey case. But it did occur to me the coroner took internal swabs from JB. The second paragraph below mentions no SoL when there is discovery by DNA evidence. Would this have any meaning for this case, should they discover someone’s DNA on one of the swabs?

      Pre- 2006 Law -Section 16-5-401 (1) (a), C.R.S. This Applies to Crimes Committed BEFORE JULY The bill took effect on July 1, 2006, and applies to offenses that were committed on or after July 1, 1996
      Colorado law prior to the 2006 legislative session. If no time limit exists for a specific crime, prosecution may commence at any time. The crimes having no limit on commencing prosecution in Colorado are murder, kidnaping, treason, and forgery.1 Prosecutions for attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any of the aforementioned crimes are also not subject to any time limits.
      The Prosecution of sexual assault must commence within 10 years of the crime’s commission or, if the victim is a minor at the time of the offense, within 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18. ***There is no time limit for the prosecution of sexual assault if the identity of the suspect is determined by forensic DNA evidence. *** The time limit for most other felonies is three years after the commission of the crime.

      Delete
    8. I've thought since he announced further, more sophisticated DNA testing that Garnett was after epithelal cells on the vaginal swabs, and that his intent might be to pursue the case in Federal court, as the law you quoted is based on 18 U.S.C. 2241-2251, or somewhere in there. Didn't know Colorado adopted it in 2006, but that's great news, and yes, it would apply.

      Delete
    9. Epithelial cells; sorry. I'm on a phone too.

      Delete
    10. Don't know what Colorado's sentencing guidelines are, btw, but at the Federal level child sexual abuse will get you 30 or 40 years to life in some cases.

      Delete
    11. Doc, your logical argument is valid (in that the conclusion follows from the premises), but it's not sound. The premises have not been shown to be true. It's nothing like "all men are mortal". What exactly do "we know about the history of crime" as it relates to staged kidnappings? It's not enough to say that you've never heard of such a thing -- that's the black swan fallacy. You posit that nobody would write a ransom note and then leave a body in the house, but the counter to that is that nobody would kill a child and leave a note saying "ha ha, I killed your child". Perhaps the note's purpose was only to stage the presence of an *intruder* and to provide an excuse for why the parents didn't immediately search the house top to bottom and find the body. Or conversely if it was a kidnapping gone wrong, with the RN written and placed on the stairs in advance, then why take the risk of going back to retrieve the note afterwards?

      Delete
  43. Why is it so crazy to think that one or both parents staged a kidnapping gone bad? If the killing was unintentional, I can't imagine they'd be capable of dumping her body somewhere. Perhaps this was their only option.

    I struggle with the 'fact' that John gas lighted Patsy on the basement window. You really think that she'd be willing to go along with a lie and tell police that John broke the window earlier that summer when in fact, in her mind, that's how the intruder got in? That doesn't add up in the least bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I can't imagine they'd be capable of dumping her body somewhere"

      Yet "they" were perfectly capable of dumping her body in that cold, dark, filthy basement storage room. Why not pose it on her bed? If it's supposed to be a kidnapping gone wrong, it makes more sense that her killer would just leave the body in place and make a run for it than wrap it in a blanket and hide in the most remote spot in the house.

      And yes, there would have been another option if they didn't want to dump it in some remote spot -- forget about kidnapping and stage it as a pedophile assault. And if you must have a note, make it a taunting note by someone whom John had angered. Why stage a kidnapping at all unless you are planning to actually follow through on your staging? A ransom note + body in the house looks far more suspicious than a simple break in complete with broken window.

      The gaslighting is not a fact. It's a means of resolving a contradiction. If you prefer to reject the possibility of gaslighting, you are free to do so, but the contradiction will still be there.

      Delete
  44. Docs statement:

    1. No one staging a kidnapping would call the police before the body of the victim is removed from the premises.

    2. Patsy called the police while the body was still on the premises.

    3. Therefore, Patsy could not have been staging a kidnapping.

    My response:

    Pretty sure I've stated this numerous times, but here I go again. Your whole JDI theory starts off on those three points above. I really do hate to dampen theories, but really this simple "logic" is preposterous. A staged kidnapping was really their ONLY option in their minds. They needed tangible evidence to prove an intruder was in the house...hence a note. A ransom note is really the only possible kind of note that makes sense. They never would have removed the body from the house and dumped their little girl somewhere, not to mention the risks that come with doing that (they would have been definitely found out if they went this route). So yes, they absolutely would ring police with body in the house. Patsy was always going to be the one who made the call...and apart from some pretty simple mistakes, she did an ok job at this. None of your dot points can be assumed with even a tiny bit of logic.

    I am BSI or RDI as they are the most logical theories (BSI...Burke Started It is my favourite though for lots of reasons). This is based on evidence, behaviours, Ramsey mistakes and more. Any other theory (JDI, PDI or IDI) are way too far-fetched for me. I can write up another post with more details on BSI and RDI later on. I am on a mobile phone atm so hard to type.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some time ago I listed the most common objections to the notion that the ransom note was written as part of a plan to stage a kidnapping, along with my responses. Here they are again:

      1. The call was made so early because they were scheduled on an early flight to Charevoix that morning, so had no choice but to call 911 as soon as possible.

      Response: they could easily have cancelled that flight, either claiming someone was ill, or else explaining that JonBenet had been "kidnapped" and they needed time to collect the ransom and pay it.

      2. They must have had a change of heart and decided they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body in some remote place where it wouldn't get a "proper burial."

      Response: if they'd changed their minds about dumping the body and decided to call 911 right away, then they would not have mentioned the potentially incriminating "ransom" note at all, but simply reported that their daughter had been assaulted and killed while they were asleep. They would also have removed the body from the windowless basement room, since there would have been no reason for her attacker to hide it.

      3. They were in a panic and not thinking straight.

      Response: the note was not written by someone who wasn't thinking very carefully about what to say and how to say it. Just about every i is dotted, every t is crossed, the margins are strictly observed, the spacing between words is consistent and the grammar is, for the most part, faultless. Precise instructions are provided, with specific dollar amounts for the ransom and very clear timing information as to when to expect a phone call. Very specific warnings are given, in a consistent, coherent manner. The note is consistent and clearly organized overall, with a beginning, middle and end. While the writer must have been extremely stressed, he or she was clearly in complete control of his or her emotions. If, as so many assume, Patsy wrote this carefully prepared two and a half page note, it's impossible to believe she would have been so out of control as to ruin her own staging by calling the police so soon. And if for some reason she decided to call 911 anyhow, despite all the work she'd put into the note, then she would certainly have had the sense to destroy it before the police arrived.

      4. Patsy and John are not professional criminals. They got confused and made mistakes.

      Response: Sorry, but John Ramsey was the very successful CEO of a billion dollar business, dealing with major tech companies such as Lockheed and Sun Microsystems. While he may not have had any criminal experience, he certainly would have understood very well that calling the police with a dead body hidden in a tiny, remote, basement room and handing them a "ransom" note written by his wife was not the way to stage an effective kidnapping scenario.

      5. Regardless of how nonsensical it might seem to you, their staging certainly worked for them, as they were never even indicted and were ultimately "exonerated" by the DA.

      Response: while John's carefully staged kidnapping scenario was certainly undermined by Patsy's 911 call, he got lucky when the handwriting "experts" decided to rule him out, which shifted the focus to Patsy. And since there was no way to make an effective case against her, the case ultimately went nowhere. This, and not the ransom note, or 911 call, was what got him off -- very effectively supplemented by the efforts of his lawyers and media consultants.

      Delete
    2. And as far as staging a failed kidnapping is concerned, first of all I've never heard of such a thing and neither, I'm sure, did they. In that case, why on earth would they expect anyone from LE to buy it? Also, why, if something had gone wrong, would the kidnapper 1. hide the body in the most remote room of the house; 2. wrap it carefully in a blanket; 3. leave his hand-printed note behind instead of taking it with him?

      I can't believe any person with any degree of intelligence would stage in so totally inept a manner.

      Delete
  45. We are going to disagree on this one. While I agree that you can use a logical argument to argue this case you cannot apply only logic to solve the crime. There was a family dynamic in that household of which we know very little about since an image was projected by primarily Patsy Ramsey of having a perfect family, reinforced by John who sometimes "tossed a ball" outside with his son Burke yet did not help his daughter ride her new bicycle on Christmas day and a stage mother who pushed her daughter into one pageant after another yet neglected both children in their potty training and regressed bed wetting tendencies and provided very little basic structure to her children neither in training nor discipline - essential to raising healthy happy children. I don't believe either of these children were either healthy, or happy.

    Why do you not think Patsy was impaired that night? She was taking anti-depressants and we don't know what else, overly stressed and possibly drinking at least at the White's. Certainly Chris Wolf's attorney was trying to get at Patsy's drinking during the depositions.

    Although the notepad looked correctly spaced and evenly lined up what we saw was the final product. Patsy's notes were left intact at the front of the notepad but seven pages (including the ransom note) were torn out. The first page after the torn out section was the start of a note that read Mr. and Mrs. with a vertical line. The ransom note used 3 pages, the remaining 4 practice pages were never found. She took the time to practice, before the final product.

    Why leave a note at all? To send the police off in a different direction. To buy as much time as possible to allow the body to remain undiscovered as long as possible so that any evidence found on the body may be lost or degraded. Patsy called her friends over to help contaminate the crime scene - and provide a buffer between herself, the police and John.

    The call had to be made. Patsy was going to make it whether or not John gave the okay or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I prefer to concentrate on facts and logic because, as your own post demonstrates, Inq., you can't base a theory purely on assumptions and speculation. Of course, as we know, you've been all over the place and back during the course of your participation in this blog, so it's hard by now to take anything you say seriously.

      When you write "She took the time to practice, before the final product," it becomes clear that you've already made up your mind (at least for now) regarding Patsy's involvement. And if she wrote that note, then I suppose it follows (logically?) that she had fallen victim to the "family dynamic" you've assumed to be a prevalent feature of that household.

      But if she didn't write the note and had nothing to do with the crime or the coverup, then everything you've assumed about the "family dynamic" is irrelevant. Just because their might have been some psychological problems tells us nothing about what happened that night and certainly nothing about who did what. Sorry, but I'll stick with my own approach to this case.

      Delete
  46. Doc,

    I don't understand why you think just because PR called 911, she couldn't have been involved.

    People who murder family members call 911 all the time, when they have committed the crime, with the body in the house. Look at the case of Susan Smith. She said she was carjacked, screamed help me help me, hysterical. I believe a passerby called 911. Sooner or later, 911 has to be called to get the show on the road, so to speak.

    In this case, I don't think the R's killed JBR, but covered for someone else who did.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not getting it, EG. It's not the 911 call per se, but the combination of ransom note AND 911 call. The two contradict one another, telling us that something must have gone wrong with the plan that led to the writing of that note. The only thing I can think of that went wrong would be Patsy's decision to call 911.

      Delete