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.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

The Avery case test results are IN -- and Zellner is "under scrutiny"

Maybe we all need a break from going around in circles on the Ramsey case. I certainly could use one. While I don't have the time to investigate all the many notorious crimes to have hit the headlines in recent years, at least two, aside from the Ramsey case, have gotten under my skin. One is the Amanda Knox case, which has, thankfully, been resolved. The other is the murder of Teresa Halbach, for which Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey are currently serving time.


I've already commented fairly extensively regarding this case, in a series of posts beginning here.
If you read them, you'll see why I feel so sure Avery is guilty, and in no uncertain terms. But thanks to the very disturbing bias in the Netflix series Making A Murderer, millions of viewers have become convinced that he was "set up" by law enforcement figures embarrassed by his exoneration in an earlier case, for which he had, apparently unjustly, served eighteen years. For more details, please consult my earlier posts -- or better yet, watch the documentary -- or head for the many forums where the case is being discussed.

Avery now has a new lawyer with a stellar record for defending individuals wrongly accused and, in many cases, getting them released. I'm sure you've all heard about Kathleen Zellner, whose participation in this case has turned her into a celebrity. Zellner has declared to the world, in a very unconventional series of Tweets, that she is convinced of Avery's innocence, that she can prove it, and, moreover, that she knows who actually committed the murder. The centerpiece of her defense has been an effort to re-examine much of the forensic evidence, making use of more advanced, "scientific" methods expected to prove beyond doubt that Avery was "set up" by the police officers who wrongfully pursued him in the earlier case. The results are apparently now in. So. What have we learned?

The situation to date is summarized in a fascinating article in the Detroit Free Press, titled
Steven Avery's lawyer Kathleen Zellner comes under scrutiny. Some excerpts:

Is Steven Avery's high-profile post-conviction lawyer Kathleen Zellner all bluster?
It's been 17 months since the suburban Chicago lawyer took Twitter by storm. She vowed to prove Avery's innocence in the Oct. 31, 2005, death of Teresa Halbach and unveil the real killer. . . .
USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin reached out to Zellner late last week for comment regarding her predictions about the case and the criticism she has received from Avery supporters for not filing her long-awaited post-conviction motion in Manitowoc County court.
"Next time you hear from me will be when I file Steven Avery's motion," Zellner wrote in her e-mail response. "I could care less what Steven Avery's supporters think. They have absolutely no comprehension of the procedural and forensic complexity of this case."
Zellner did not specify when she plans to file the motion.
Nor did she report on the results of any of the tests she ordered months ago, tests that, as she assured us, were going to prove that her client had been framed.
Some are questioning her strategy in making such bold statements on social media. . . .Others wonder whether Zellner's strategic decision to seek the court's permission last August to conduct the independent scientific testing did not pan out as she hoped, leaving her in a tough spot in trying to regain Avery's freedom.
Not to mention her credibility.

Curious to learn more about how the news (or lack of it) was being received by long-time case followers, I peeked a bit into a Reddit forum to see how readers there were reacting to the article. Here are some of the responses I found:

From ScousePie:
HAHAHAHAHAH oh wow. I hope the message is getting through. She doesn't care what you guys think and is tired of being bugged about when she is going to file her motion. No expected date to file the motion but expected within 60 days. State Justice Dept. has been told testing nearly complete. Zellner had told the Post Crescent she expected testing to be finished by March, she's had the evidence for over 6 months.
From awdstylez:
Sounds like her jimmies are a bit rustled. She's the one that's been talking shit all over Twitter for damn near a year now. She's surprised that people are calling her on it and saying put up or shut up? She hyped this case hard and has since fizzled out. The problems and let downs are all her own creation.
From pazuzuhead:
(quoting Zellner: "They have absolutely no comprehension of the procedural and forensic complexity of this case.")
Lol, this is priceless. I suspect the same was true of Zellner herself before she agreed to take the case and actually started to dig a little deeper. Now, after all her confident yet harebrained tweets about how she was going to Make Avery Great Again, she's pulling a Trump, "Who knew the evidence in this case could be so complex!" The whole thing is just beautiful to watch.
More from awdstylez:
Honestly, I still lean towards his innocence. However, it's always funny to watch over-confident people write shit talking checks they end up not being able to cash. And now to see her jimmies getting so rustled over it is just icing on the cake. 
She could have came in quietly and gathered all the facts for herself, set realistic expectations, not talked so much shit, set realistic deadlines... but, no. She had to come in guns blazing in an attempt to hype her brand and now she looks like a fool. Whether someone leans innocent, guilty, or undecided, all can appreciate the hilarity of the situation.
I must say these folks are taking the words right out of my mouth. But I'll probably have more to say about both Zellner and Avery as the situation develops, so stay tuned.

[Oops sorry -- forgot to include the link to the Reddit forum.]

191 comments:

  1. Thanks for the update, Doc! Much appreciated.
    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have no problems with Zellner's strategy...but you can't just stop tweeting all of a sudden and expect no one to raise eyebrows.

    It was always going to be an impossible battle for Zellner, because in my eyes both Avery and Dassey are guilty.

    Very interesting to see what comes next.

    PS. Doc - we agree on Knox and Avery cases...didn't a certain singer (a very good one at that) once sing "2 out of 3 ain't bad" :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. For those interested:

    Here's a transcript of an interview John and Patsy gave for a journalism class of students at Patsy's Alma Mater.

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10314-Newseum-Ramsey-Interview-(J-and-P-interview-transcripts-from-Journalism-Class-visit)

    JOHN RAMSEY: "Oh, sure. We asked to testify before the Grand Jury…and we were never called. We've never been concerned about a trial, I mean, we don't want to go through that horrible, uh…disgrace. Uh, but we've never been afraid of the outcome: it would be a massacre. And uh…the good news is a Grand Jury looked at a one-sided presentation…for 13 months, and said, "No." And it takes about that much evidence to indict someone…you know. Would we want to go through that…horrible embarrassment? No. Would we? Sure. Cause we know the outcome. It would be a…in fact, I've said…I'd love to have it televised, if they ever did that…I'd love for the public to see what's been done to us."

    Surely John knew the Grand Jury did not say "NO".

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'd love to have it televised, if they ever did that…I'd love for the public to see what's been done to US."

      Spoken in typical, JR style.
      "Woe is ME.....never mind what happened to my DAUGHTER."
      You notice it's always about what "he's" been put through?
      I have no doubt that the narcissist in John would have been tickled if it went to trial and was televised. I think he would have loved milking the "victim" role for all it was worth.

      Delete
    2. I feel certain the Ramsey's knew the of the Grand Jury's decision, but I could be wrong.
      CC--The GJ's decision was sealed (kept from the public), but would the Ramsey's and their lawyers be informed confidentially of the outcome? Or were they kept in the dark, too? What's the law say on that issue?

      Delete
    3. The grand jury's findings should have remained secret, but I share your conviction that Hunter leaked them to his pal Bryan Morgan licketysplit; why not? By that time he'd given him the Rs' prior statements to review, and made a deal with them that they wouldn't be called to testify before the GJ in exchange for another interview, this one with Mike Kane and Bruce Levin of his office. No impropriety was out of bounds for Hunter.

      Delete
  4. Good morning, all!

    Zed, yes that was Meat Loaf and I love that song.:)

    I think Avery is guilty and now I am wondering about that exoneration. I have to read more about it to see what it was based on. However, didn't they match the DNA to another perpetrator who was then arrested and is now in jail? Someone who looked very much like Avery? In fact, I remember where the woman who initially accused Avery, from a lineup I believe, apologized to him after he was cleared.

    Inq - Thanks again for that link, I will try and read some of it today. I know it gets frustrating at times, because we aren't all in agreement here. I happen to love a good argument though and love this blog Doc has here, so I will stay and defend my position. :)) However, as I said, I will do some reading there, to see if anyone has any added insight into the BDI theory. Something I may have overlooked, or another take on things. It's always good to keep an open mind.

    "If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing theirs and blaming it on you. If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you. But make allowance for their doubting too".

    Good old Kipling. Wise words we can all try to live by. :)

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  5. Doc, have you posted your thoughts on the Amanda Knox case anywhere on this blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a matter of fact, yes. Beginning here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/02/another-dna-case-amanda-knox.html

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc. There is a post on the link you sent me about Bob Enyart. I've now seen him mentioned quite a bit on your blog and the internet. What's the story on him as it relates to the JBR case?

      Delete
    3. I don't have time to deal fully with the "Bob Enyart" saga, but from what I've read, and also seen via youtube, there is no evidence whatsoever linking this guy to the Ramsey case. Someone with a personal grudge against Enyart has concocted a fantasy based on pure speculation and has been pushing hard for years to get her story out. If you do a search on his name you'll learn all you need to know about this very odd development and can make up your own mind.

      Delete
  6. Inq., thanks for the heads-up about the #shakedown site. It has lots of transcripts and copies of search wattants. It's just speculation on my part, but I'm starting to wonder if the whole super-short trip to Charlevois planned for the 26th wasn't just part of John's plan to dump the body later. (I think the murder was premeditated.) I don't think he ever really planned to fly to Charlevois on the 26th. They would only have stayed one night, and at a lake house with no Christmas tree and no fresh food! They were leaving to go catch the Big Red Boat, remember? Why not have Melinda and JA just come to the beautiful house in Boulder? Unless John planned to use the plane to dump JB's body in a deep lake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Duh, "warrants"--big fingers, little keypad! Am I the only one who wondered what John was up to with the rushed trip to MI on the 26th? If he planned to dump the body from the plane then this gave him the perfect excuse to have the plane filled with gas and prepped to go.

      Delete
    2. I think John overbooked his wife deliberately to ensure she'd be frazzled and exhausted, less likely to notice any unusual behavior on his part Christmas Day and night.

      I don't see him dumping the body from a small plane filled with his family and a pilot. For one thing, how would he explain JBR's conspicuous absence? Or dumping something out the door? Easier to drop her off a cliff in the Rockies under the guise of delivering the ransom to Boulder Falls or the park on Flagstaff or some other landmark

      Delete
    3. Oh, no, I meant that he would still have the staged kidnapping, send Burke and Patsy off to some friends (for their own safety), and then pretend that the kidnappers told him to use his plane to drop off the ransom (since the kidnappers knew SO much about him, they knew he was a pilot with his own plane). Then he could drop JB's body into perhaps Grand Lake, the deepest lake in CO and only about 110 miles (by road) from Boulder. He could also drop the ransom (probably in the opposite direction) saying that's where the kidnappers told him to make the drop. Whether the money is ever found or not wouldn't matter. Obviously, something went wrong because the Foreign Faction never released poor little JB. No body, much less evidence. It's just a theory!

      Delete
    4. I see. Perfectly possible, I guess, and you definitely get points for originality, Miss B.

      Delete
    5. I've thought about a "plane dump", but where would he execute one. Grand Lake is west of Boulder, Michigan is east. True, the lake is deep, but not it's so wide and long to make the risk of someone spotting his plane, or an object falling from it, negligible. Also, her body would have to be weighted down since air would still be in her lungs. Maybe over Lake Michigan?

      Delete
    6. I've thought about a "plane dump", but where would he execute one. Grand Lake is west of Boulder, Michigan is east. True, the lake is deep, but not it's so wide and long to make the risk of someone spotting his plane, or an object falling from it, negligible. Also, her body would have to be weighted down since air would still be in her lungs. Maybe over Lake Michigan?

      Delete
    7. Yes, Anony, he'd definitely need to weight the body down. (Maybe stuffed in a duffel bag w/some heavy rocks?) John was certified to fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) so he could have flown at night which would help with going undetected.

      Delete
    8. And, actually, I like your idea of a Lake Michigan dump even better. Since he had already set up (and filed a flight plan for the MI trip) with his ridiculous "let's hurry-up and fly all the way to the empty lake house" idea, then flying to Lake Michigan would have been no problem.

      Delete
  7. That is an interesting theory MissB. But the more I look into the garrotte itself, which is really nothing more than a broken paintbrush handle with a boy scout's knot tied around it attached to a slipknot isn't it possible that it could have been made previous to that night, then used that night by someone more intent on play than premeditated murder? Start with what you have, then move out from there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I think John added the "garrote" to bring in a "foreign" element. I think his mind went back to his time in the Philippines and the garotte's history there. It seemed foreign to him. Profilers say that criminals reveal themselves in the details of their crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would need to quote Nick Van Der Leek here then and ask "what foreign faction uses a broken paintbrush handle with a boy scout's knot tied around it attached to a slipknot that that would be suggestive of?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What slipknot? According to the autopsy report, pages two and three, the ligature was tied in a doubleknot at the back of her neck to cause strangulation, meaning the "garrote", the broken paintbrush attached to the cord, served no function at all, was strictly for staging and to suggest a "foreign faction".

      The "boy scout knot" is also a simple sailing knot used to tie up to a cleat, so not exclusive to scouting.

      Garrote is a Spanish word, and that method of killing was popular in Spain, and in France during WWII, to name just two foreign countries that might produce a foreign faction.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. The letter tells all that one of the Ramsey's had done this maybe both.

    Explain the 911 call?
    Had the Ramsey's followed the instructions then there is no reason the kidnappers would have harmed Jonbenet. The 911 call gives the kidnappers the go to kill Jonbenet thus explaining the dead body that would later be found.

    "If we observe you getting the money early, we might call you." Is more on John's terms, so he could go about his way to make the call and get money on his terms.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment is for the people that were talking about JR dumping the body from his plane. I read somewhere a while back that JR could not fly alone (i.e. he had to have a co-pilot) because of his eyesight. Sorry, can't site a source as it was a while ago that I read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't found any information from around 1996 about John needing to have a co-pilot because of vision problems. But a person using the name Cherokee posted on Forums For Justice in 2013 saying that John claims to have had eye surgery in 2001 after an altercation with a burglar in his new Atlanta home. (The assailant/burglar was never caught despite the home being in a gated neighborhood and having a state-of-the-art security system.) Apparently the surgery fixed any supposed issues with his eyes because he has for many years now been flying himself solo all across the country. I'll keep looking and see if I can find mention of any "eye problems" from 1996.

      Delete
    2. Minor correction: I live in Atlanta and have driven by the Ramsey's home many times as it was near my office. It is not in a gated community though the house did have a fence around it that I believe was installed after they bought this home. The house is not far from I-75 and this affluent area of Atlanta is subject to burglaries and other crime; a colleague of mine was carjacked nearby. I am a JDI person but tend to believe his story about this break-in. What I don't believe is that he was stupid enough to try and dump a body from a plane while on a solo flight or with his family on board.

      Delete
    3. I agree on both counts. No reason to doubt John's story about encountering a burglar in Atlanta. And every reason to scoff at the notion that he'd have been so foolish as to even think about dumping a body from an airplane. How do you secretly take off on an airplane? Excuse me? And what would be the point? How would that work better for him than dumping the body in the middle of the night from his car while claiming he was delivering the ransom?

      Delete
    4. I admit that dumping the body from a plane is certainly not something that most people would see as an option, since most people don't have a pilot's license and ready access to a plane. But John did and he had a flight plan filed to fly out of Boulder on Dec. 26th. No need to "secretly take off" from the airport. A simple call to Archuleta (his pilot friend) to change the time of take off would have sufficed. And I don't know that dumping the body from a plane would seem that far-fetched to John. If he later claimed that he was told to drop the ransom money by plane near Michigan, then he would also have an excuse for his plane being in the area where her body was dumped. (Only an issue if the body was discovered.) The only reason I'm even entertaining this somewhat "out-of-the-box" idea is because of the Dec. 26th rush trip to Charlevoix that he said would be "real fun"! As if! John told Smit and Mike Kane in 1998 that the family was flying out of Boulder on Dec. 26th, returning on Friday (Dec. 27th), and then leaving for their cruise on Dec. 28th. Does that make sense to you? He was up to something, even if he was just giving himself options. He also says in that interview that the ransom note said "he would have to travel a long ways, so be rested". I don't think that's quite what the note said now, did it?

      Delete
    5. It seems unnecessarily complicated to me with the Rocky Mountains High Country and any number of sheer drop-offs just 20 minutes up Boulder Canyon Drive. The family had skiied Vail, probably Aspen, Steamboat and Copper Mountain as well, so John knew the roads. Easy enough to drop her off a cliff in the dark without even leaving his car.

      Delete
    6. Oh, I agree, CC. The area around Boulder would have some great remote spots for a body dump. But the area would also have been searched, I'm sure. And then there are always those pesky hikers who might spot the body. But I'll say no more about it. I sense that my idea ticks Doc off.

      Delete
    7. Have you been out there? It does indeed have some great remote spots for a body dump. The places I'm talking about are inaccessible to hikers - sheer drop-offs, cliffs, precipices too challenging even for most rock climbers, separated from the two-lane mountain road by nothing but a guardrail. Not sure a search party could access some of those drops, even with climbing gear.

      At any rate, you've made your point, and sure, anything is possible; I just prefer simple solutions myself.

      Delete
  13. Seems their decision was not to wake children up first. This is what I found . Don't know if this is the truth.
    5:30am JR awoke.
    Defendants asserts they awoke around 5:30am.
    And proceeded to get ready for their trip.
    JR took a shower while PR puts same cloths on she had worn the night before.
    JR reportedly awake before Patsy and DRESSED after shower.
    (wasn't he later during 911 call @ 5:42am in his (shorts) on his knees reading note?
    5:33am Patsy awoke ,puts on make-up went to second floor.
    (childrens floor) to rinse a jumpsuit belonging to jonBenet.???
    Did not wake children .
    @ 5:42 911 called by PR.
    PR says JR was on his knees reading the note , OKAY!!
    Usually a man (husband ) Innocent , and cool and probably worried as well, would have said "Wait" don't call 911 as yet she may be hiding?
    Its possible some one is pulling a prank? because according to note it was (IMO) totally ridiculous.
    and another thing . had JR been Innocent HE would have called 911 seeing his wife in such a hysterical state and knowing his daughter is missing probably shaking uncontrollably and unable to hold the phone. (speculations)
    BUT He didn't did he? why? the operator would have notice his poor acting , and felt there was ("something not right" ) as she detected in PR 's voice .
    another thing .
    Had these two been innocent the first thing BOTH would have done was to check through the WHOLE house together .
    Then.. NO JonBenet . Than call 911.
    The Rnote said "we have your daughter " so they had no reason not to check everywhere,
    It should have been easy For PR she stored much of her crafts down basement.
    Burke had his train set down there.
    As I recall one of them saying a (playroom as well?
    My opinions.








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would an innocent person upon receiving a note saying "we have your daughter in our possession" have any reason to think she was still in the house?

      Delete
    2. Who cares? John was a guilty person who had reason to fear Patsy might find JonBenet before the police arrived. Patsy didn't search the basement, not because she believed JonBenet stood no chance of being there, but because John beat her to it.

      Delete
    3. I actually agree with you in this instance, John.

      I am aware that the comment above is from a JDI, but PDI/BDI/RDIs often cite that the Ramseys not searching the house upon finding the note is an obvious sign of their guilt. Nonsense. This note clearly wasn't written by a nine year old, or a six year old - the only two in the house that night who would be "playing a prank" - so there would have been absolutely no reason for the person reading the ransom note to believe this was anything other than a genuine kidnapping. The note said, in no uncertain terms, that JB had been abducted, which means she had obviously been removed from the premises, therefore the natural course of action is to call 911 immediately, not dilly dally by searching cupboards and under beds!

      Delete
    4. This made me laugh.
      Quoting you.{{"so there is no reason for the person reading the Ransom-note to believe this was anything but a {{"Genuine"kidnapping}}" have you read entire note ? IT just didn't (Doesn't) make sense!!!
      Had Jonbenet been kidnapped. It must have been shortly after she had gone to bed.
      In the note..(we have your daughter) WHERE? where did the kidnapper take her ? did he or the group of "individuals" or the two gentleman watching over her" take her from the house ? and than killed her? and brought her back? PR found the note @ around 5:30 am."which means she had obviously been removed from the premises"
      According to the Letter yes!
      Anyone who has any brains after reading this need to believe it was a fake.period...
      IMO it was bogus.
      Wasn't JR an intelligent person ? and to believe this ?
      The reason he believed this is because he knows the person who composed it Right??
      Whether or not JR believed she had been kidnapped he and patsy should have checked basement regardless.

      Maybe he would have come upon the kidnapper trying to leave with JonBenet still alive? or bring her back dead .



      Many people have played Practical jokes on one another and serious ones at that.
      But, I do not believe the children wrote this absolutely NOT!!
      It is obviously some one close to JR knew him quite well. Or JR himself.
      A person, having excellent penmanship can easily forge someone else hand writing or printing.
      Speculation......
      Between 12:am and 2am everyone was asleep. except JR of course. It wouldn't have taken him very long to do the unthinkable.

      Now after such a brutal act.
      While Burke and PR were asleep.
      At this time during the night JR is going to write a ransom letter?
      "I don't think so"
      " Mr Ramsey" and then in the note *John* at least 4 times .It would take at a bit of time to compose this note.

      You would have to be a very evil person and not afraid of being caught.
      I Believe, Patsy did not know about the R-note until she found it.
      Then, IMO it had been written elsewhere. could have been done in an office any where in the house.
      When no one was around.
      We don't really know do we?
      The sharpie pen and paper belonging to the house .
      While reading the note obviously JR or PR did not recognize the paper used to write it.
      Someone took the time and concentrated to make it look like PRs printing or cursive writing .
      some writing analyst have said it looks PR have written this R'note .
      Many of her letters matched and it is because a very CLEVER person has copied her printing.(hand writing)
      when I(print) out my grocery list.
      my husband prints exactly like I do . its just the way we were taught in elementary
      aside from that .
      JR knows something .
      He is the "Wolf in Sheep's clothing"

      And why not search under beds closets and cabinets behind sofa's?
      I had been babysitting my G-daughter(years ago) when she was two .At one point I could not find her she had fallen asleep in laundry room behind cloths hamper , wow! did I Panic...so we just never know what children will do,

      Delete
    5. Unless you're suggesting that a six year old who could not read wrote that RN, your statement that ". . .we just never know what children will do" makes no sense. Many of your statements contradict one another, and your "facts" are often incorrect, as evidenced by your frequent self corrections. It's difficult to understand what point you're trying to make in your postings - you seem to accuse John while simultaneously talk about a kidnapper he may run into in the basement, assert that he wrote the RN yet at the same time insist he should have searched the house.

      You say you're not in the U.S. so perhaps this is a language problem? In any event, you're very confusing (or confused), and I'd suggest you refrain from laughing at Ms D, who is well read in this case, articulate, and has the advantage of making sense.

      Delete
    6. Thank you, CC. I too only see contradictions, assumptions based on incorrect details, and rambling, incoherent diatribes that, after reading three times, still can't make heads or tails of. You assert one thing, then completely undermine it with your next sentence. I have no idea what your theory is.

      "And why not search under beds closets and cabinets behind sofa's?
      I had been babysitting my G-daughter(years ago) when she was two .At one point I could not find her she had fallen asleep in laundry room behind cloths hamper , wow! did I Panic...so we just never know what children will do"

      Tell me.....did you also stumble upon a ransom note the morning you couldn't find your granddaughter? If not, I fail to see the relevance, or the point you're trying to make.
      When a child is missing - you look for them, of course. When you find a ransom note informing you your child has been abducted, you call the police.
      I'm not in any way trying to be rude or difficult - I simply don't follow any of what you're saying, and clearly, I'm not the only one having difficulties.

      Delete
  14. Hello John1, JMD here.
    answer to your question , that's it!
    I am surprised the police stayed in the house ,
    I would think they would have left and got back in their Vehicles and had an alert issued for (MISSING six year old Girl ) with the rest of the information .
    I understand they were needed to check doors ,windows etc..


    Remember she had been kidnapped she was not in the house..... .
    Why bother to check the house?
    This is the Reason JR and no one else ... met the Police at the door.
    JR: "I handed the police officer the R-Note and said,
    "My daughter has been taken"
    Yeah! why would an innocent loving Father think she was in the house? hmmmmm.
    So it was settled.

    He , Patsy probably Burke at 5:30 am could have search the basement.
    But at the moment after reading the R-note according to PR it didn't take her very long to dial 911 and call (SETS of friends) the instruction note had warnings which she and JR ignored, Right?


    PR said she didn't read all of the note , she must have had it in her hand or nearby where she read to 911 operator (S.B.T.C Victory!I believe it was JR signature ( S sorry B bitch , T take C care!!'just my assumption '
    or was kneeling near John whatever .
    Really, I do not believe a word that came out of their mouths especially in their interviews .
    Yesterday, I took the time to read word for word the ransom note (letter)
    and also read the account of the analyst.
    This was no way a ransom note and as crafty and intelligent as JR was, he would have spotted this R- NOTE as being fake.

    Reports are that he didn't write the note .
    IMO, he did .
    He planted it on the stairs just so PR would find it and tried .play head games with her .

    This is why my theory was that they Both should have searched the entire house.
    If they were innocent.
    JR didn't immediately go to basement he waited. making it look like he was searching when Friends and Rev.. some people say Priest?
    He must have been intelligent enough to remind his wife we cannot call friends , apparently they washed kitchen floor countertops , name it.
    He knew where to find JonBenet. @ 1:11pm or so.
    and after he found her ? he said "we've been asked to leave the house that is why I called my pilot"we wanted to go home' JESUS!! he had three homes . didn't they live in Boulder for 6 years? until the unthinkable.

    Reports Police said "you are not going anywhere '
    JR had no choice but to give it up.
    The decomposition was going to be great.
    JR admitted her "skin was cold and she was stiff"
    I believe(imo) when she was found she had been dead more the 14-15 hrs. ( have read up on that as well).

    JR (I believe ) contaminated the crime scene and should have been charged.
    I don't care if it is family ... you DO NOT Interfere.
    Yeh yeh.
    I heard him telling his sob story about how he felt when he '"Found"" her.




    He {JR} is the one who latched and unlatched the door .
    When he and officer French went down to the basement.
    Why didn't JR go along with him and direct him to the door with the latch.
    As of today it still haunts Officer French the fact that he didn't see the latch.
    You can dwell on this on this post John 1. excuse my (typos)
    BBL


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am surprised the police stayed in the house."

      I believe it was Ron Walker (FBI) who, upon reading the ransom note for the first time that morning, turned to another officer and said..."this is no kidnapping....this girl is already dead." I'm sure the officers at the house had their doubts too, which would explain why they didn't fly out to their cars and put out an APB.

      John Ramsey's house, wherever it is, should be picketed by protesters holding signs calling for his arrest and justice for JonBenet. It needs to be loud and organized and seen on National Television.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you 100% anonymous@5:20pm .If I was living in the U.S. I would certainly Join the protest.
      Authorities know where he is and he cannot hide .
      Even though he had been exonerated.
      I see no reason not to question him again.
      the (FBI)RW was correct. jmd

      " we have your daughter in our possession" "the two Gentleman watching over her" she is safe and unharmed" "when you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag"
      This was telling the police to look for the kidnappers. In the mean time she is dead.
      in the basement. *%#@^.

      Delete
    3. I need to correct s a line I had posted at 2:21pm.
      Why would a innocent loving father think she was in the house ?" sorry I made an error.jmd

      Delete
    4. Hasn't the new DA declared nobody is exonerated?

      Delete
    5. I think what Garnett actually said is that Lacy's exoneration of the family was inappropriate and not binding on his office. He also said he knows who did it (as did Beckner), and he'll indict if the evidence - including new DNA testing - comes together. Since neither Burke nor Patsy can be charged it seems obvious to me there's just one man left standing.

      Delete
    6. FYI Anon at 5:20 - John lives in Moab, Utah and owns Redtail Aviation. Have at it.

      Delete
    7. "He must have been intelligent enough to remind his wife we cannot call friends , apparently they washed kitchen floor countertops , name it."

      I'm not quite sure what your first point is, but as far as the cleaning of the kitchen, who said John and Patsy washed the floors etc.? From what I've read, it was the Ramsey's friends who were invited over that morning who cleaned up the kitchen area - and clearly not very well, as there was quite obviously still that incriminating bowl of pineapple, along with the bagels bought over that morning...in fact, quite a few of your comments call for sources to be cited.

      Delete
    8. I did not comment on bowl of pineapple which was apparently found in the dining room.
      I was referring to kitchen the stories in which I have read.

      Yes at 53 years old .
      A very smart man . his wife was ill at the time or in remission.
      He allowed her in a panic (out of breath) to call 911. Instead of consoling her and calming her .
      and as I said both should have searched the entire house but according to him the threats(note) gave him a reason not to .
      don't fret. (All things will be uncovered)
      I need to get away from this crap because I do not and did not believe a word from their mouthsJMD

      Delete
    9. thank you MsD, and many of your comments call for sources to be cited as well.

      Delete
    10. correction ...***their friends helped clean kitchen**** is what I have read.jmd

      Delete
    11. If Garnett really *knew* who did it, he would have already charged that person. Unless he's in the habit of "knowing" things before he has evidence for them.

      Delete
    12. Not true. He can have personal knowledge based on available evidence without having enough of the latter to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom.

      Delete
    13. That's a weird definition of knowledge.

      knowledge:
      "true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion."

      If he can't demonstrate this "knowledge" beyond a reasonable doubt, then it's really just an informed opinion, not knowledge.

      Delete
    14. The "informed opinion" of the highly respected Boulder County DA (Google Stan Garnett au.news.com for the quote) and the equally well-thought-of former top cop, Mark Beckner (you can find his "informed opinion" and his assertion that there was prior sexual abuse by googling Mark Beckner Reddit AMA) are good enough for me.

      But hey, knock yourself out with your semantical gymnastics and pedantry. We've all got your number: you're just a critic who never wrote a play, an habitual naysayer. Rap on.

      Delete
    15. And here we see CC's proof by arrogance instead of evidence on full display. Again. [yawn]

      Delete
    16. Oh stop, John, for your own sake. I cite sources, chapter and verse. I know this case inside out, as well as if I'd prepped it for trial myself. All you're managing to do by attacking me is making yourself look small, petty and jealous.

      There is little available evidence, and what exists is open to interpretation. Disagree with mine, as you please, but instead of attacking everyone else's position, why not take up one of your own, make your best case?

      Delete
    17. Yeah, I'm jealous that you know the case so well you thought Patsy had uterine cancer. Get over yourself. Why don't you attack others' *positions* instead of attacking others *personally*? Your "chapter and verse" citations amount to "Brennan heard. Thomas thought. Garnett must have known". At least be honest about it when you're speculating instead of attacking the messenger.

      Delete
    18. Yup, said uterine instead of ovarian, ya' got me. Reported what Brennan printed accurately, and he was incorrect, got me again. That's two out of god knows how many thousands of comments over who knows how many years. I'm sure there are more - I don't claim to be omniscient or infallible, just well-read.

      Don't recall saying "Thomas thought. . ." Or "Garnett must have known". I typically phrase things as " Garnett told au.news.com in a December 2016 interview. . ." Or "Thomas reported that Officer Wickman saw 'Mindhunter' on John's side of the bed during the 12/27 execution of the search warrant".

      Of course I'm speculating; given the dearth of evidence and its ambiguity, it's all any of us can do, which is what makes your constant demands for "evidence" all the more ridiculous. THERE IS PRECIOUS LITTLE, AND IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

      Really John, have you no thoughts of your own to post?

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

      Delete
    20. OK, sorry but it's time for me to step in here and start deleting personal attacks before they take over the entire conversation.

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

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

      Delete
  15. Oops!!
    I would need to search . Not sure that JR went down to basement with officer French???? jmd.

    ReplyDelete
  16. New thought. Maybe the Ramsey's assumed that the cops would find JB. And then use the excuse of her being dead by them calling the police and ignoring the ransom notes orders. Which they could then say that they didn't read the entire note before calling 911. IF John killed her, he still couldve led Patsy to believe that Burke did it accidentally but that they needed to protect him and their reputation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were the Ramsey's defense attorney, and this was the prosecutor's opening argument, "I rest my case" would be mine.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. "IF John killed her, he still couldve led Patsy to believe that Burke did it accidentally but that they needed to protect him and their reputation."

      Geez....and Burke never once said to Patsy, "Hey mom, it wasn't ME who killed JB, it was Daddy!"?
      Tell me - what was in it for BURKE to continue with such a ruse?!

      Delete
    3. I just don't understand why Burke has to always be a part of all of these theories when they actually work better *without* him.
      Blame James Kolar, and CBS, I guess.....because, you do realize the investigators, along with Grand Jury, didn't believe Burke had a damn thing to do with his sister's death?

      Delete
    4. Because John being the only one involved is simply absurd.

      Delete
    5. Can you actually contribute to the discussion, Zed, rather than waste everyone's time with a pointless, passively aggressive, smug, one word remark? Your "Lol" did absolutely NOTHING to further the discussion, and, honestly, just makes you sound juvenile.
      This is a blog, not Twitter. We're supposed to engage in civilized, mature, dialogue, not offer mono syllabic retorts that add no value to the conversation whatsoever.

      Delete
    6. Well, at first I felt inclined to jump in here and defend our Ms. D, but I can see that she handled that quite nicely all on her own!

      Delete
    7. Thank you, MissB.....I always enjoy reading your comments. :)

      Delete
  17. CC, was it possible that Burke could have been tried as an adult for the murder of JonBenet? I'm curious because I have seen offenders that were too young to be tried as an adult but were nonetheless upgraded to adult status. I was wondering, could the same principle be applied to a 9 year old child who about to turn 10?
    -Baker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The process whereby a child can be tried as an adult is called "direct file" (meaning that rather than juvenile court charges are direct filed in circuit court), and the threshold age in Colorado is 10, so no. Direct file is seldom used, and in my experience only for deliberate, premeditated murder.

      Delete
    2. I can answer that one.....no. But CC may be able to tell you the specific qualifications that are required to try a young person as an adult in the state of Colorado and much wiggle room DA's have when deciding.

      Delete
  18. If the Grand Jury indictment didn't accuse JR and PR of murder, and could not indict Burke for first degree murder, who did they think committed the murder? It sounds like the GJ believed it was someone close to the family. But who would be close enough to the family that JR and PR would be willing to protect? Is it possible that Don Paugh didn't really travel back to Georgia on Christmas Eve? Why would he fly Stand By? He also worked at Access Graphics. Did Lockheed Martin get involved to protect their good name? It is interesting that there is so little information on Don Paugh. I have only found one photograph of him. I have to wonder how much about him has been intentionally hidden from the public. -Baker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is only one interpretation of the Grand Jury decision that makes sense.

      First, it's clear that they rejected Lou Smit's intruder theory, or the Ramseys would not have been indicted at all.

      Second, it's clear that Burke could not have been the "third party" the Ramseys allegedly assisted, as the indictment would not have included "Murder in the First Degree." A nine year old in Colorado is considered incapable of formulating the necessary intent. Also, as we know, Burke was never considered a suspect by either the BPD or the DA, so no arguments to that effect would have been introduced into the proceedings to begin with.

      In view of the above, it looks to me as though the GJ decided that either John or Patsy had killed their daughter, but since there was no way to determine who did what, they were forced to come up with a lesser charge that could apply to either or both. In other words, in their minds, either Pasty assisted John or John assisted Patsy.

      Imo Hunter wisely decided not to prosecute because, with no way to determine who did what, he would have had no choice but to indict on some lesser charge than murder, which would have been a travesty.

      Delete
    2. Far more of a travesty was to do nothing at all. But in fact something was done - the verdicts handed down were suppressed. If not for Charlie Brennan to this day we might not know what those indictments were. That Kane directed the Grand Jury queries, he himself was disgusted at the outcome. Was he at odds with his boss, Hunter? And now look what we have, Alex Hunter the third in Stan Garnett, who would rather finish out his term and not put together any kind of case. If he is hoping for DNA results (takes approx. 21-70 plus weeks) is he hoping for another intruder theory to go along with them? Meanwhile nothing gets done for the actual victim in all of this while John and Burke line their pockets with lawsuit money. I commend you Doc for at least trying to appeal to Stan Garnett in the opening dialog of this blog with your letter. Kolar tried as well. I suppose when the people want this to go forward, it will. Until then many people have a vested interest in keeping it an unsolved case.

      Delete
    3. Without all 18 pages of the GJ findings it's impossible to know if there was sufficient evidence to prove accessory to murder one beyond a reasonable doubt - but clearly the GJ thought there was at least probable cause.

      Accessory to murder one, if it involves participation in the crime or its cover up rather than just concealment, carries the same penalties as first degree murder itself - in Colorado that means life without or the death penalty - no small matter.

      I think Hunter should have gone for it if he possibly could, in hopes Patsy would turn against John when she learned about the prior sexual abuse. But Hunter was disinclined by temperament, skill set, and nerve to take an aggressive approach.

      Delete
    4. I've always been confused at how the GJ decided on murder in the first degree given that they couldn't even determine who did it. How is that possible?

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

      Delete
    6. Because JBR died of ligature strangulation, Gumshoe, a process that takes 2-5 minutes, clearly long enough to be a deliberate act rather than an accident, and hence first degree, premeditated murder.

      Delete
    7. Ah, that's right. Thanks.

      Delete
    8. Yes, thanks, CC, for reminding us. And by the way, the reference to first degree murder also tells us that the GJ rejected Steve Thomas's theory that she was killed "by accident" and that the strangulation was "only" post-mortem staging.

      So. It would seem as though they rejected:

      Lou Smit's theory.

      Steve Thomas's theory.

      James Kolar's theory.

      But hey, they never mentioned DocG's theory at all, so THAT one is still on the table, no? :-)

      Delete
    9. Did they're ramseys ever try to sue Steve Thomas? If not, why?

      Delete
    10. Given Garnett's and Beckner's recent statements I referred to yesterday, I'd say it's the only theory left on the table.

      Damn Doc, I was enjoying having been named blog queen by John I for the few minutes it lasted! ;-)

      Delete
    11. The Rs sued Steve Thomas and his publisher in 2001. The lawsuit settled for an undisclosed sum, as did those against Court TV, The Star, The Globe and others.

      Delete
    12. I agree with Doc that the logical assumption is that the GJ thought either John or Patsy did it and the other one was an accessory, but there's nothing that precludes a finding that a third party (not Burke) committed the crime and both John and Patsy covered it up.

      Delete
    13. The fact that Patsy *didn't* turn on John when she "learned" about the "prior sexual abuse" is a good indication that she did not suspect John of abusing Jonbenet. Unless she was gaslit about that too.

      Delete
    14. If the jury had concluded that a "third party" was involved, that would certainly have had an important influence on the entire proceedings, leading to further investigation of who that third party may have been. Since we see NO sign of anything like that, I think it safe to conclude that the GJ rejected any such theory and focused exclusively on John and (or) Patsy.

      Delete
    15. And yes, John, I agree. I feel sure Patsy never suspected John of abusing their daughter. When confronted with evidence of prior abuse she was clearly at a loss as to how to explain it. Foolishly, her questioners never followed through on that, questioning her instead on whether or not she herself had ever been abused. What a farce that investigation was.

      Delete
    16. Would it be correct to say that grand juries don't do their own investigations, and furthermore that we don't know what evidence was presented to them?

      As for the sexual abuse, Patsy reacted like any rational person would: she asked to see the evidence. And guess what? Tom Haney didn't have any.

      TOM HANEY: Okay. Ms. Ramsey, are you aware that there had been prior vaginal intrusion on JonBenet?

      PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not. Prior to the night she was killed?

      TOM HANEY: Correct.

      PATSY RAMSEY: No, I am not.

      TOM HANEY: Didn't know that?

      PATSY RAMSEY: No, I didn't.

      TOM HANEY: Does that surprise you?

      PATSY RAMSEY: Extremely.

      TOM HANEY: Does that shock you?

      PATSY RAMSEY: It shocks me.

      TOM HANEY: Does it bother you?

      PATSY RAMSEY: Yes, it does.

      TOM HANEY: Who, how could she have been violated like that?

      PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. This is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

      TOM HANEY: Take a minute, if you would, I mean this seems -- you know, you didn't know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

      PATSY RAMSEY: No, I absolutely did not.

      TOM HANEY: Okay. Does--

      PATSY RAMSEY: And I would like to see where it says that and who reported that.

      TOM HANEY: Okay.

      PATSY RAMSEY: Do you have that?

      TOM HANEY: Well, I don't have it with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot of material, and we surely didn't bring all the photos, but--

      PATSY RAMSEY: Well, can you find that?

      TOM HANEY: Yeah. Because I think it's pretty significant?

      PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's damn significant. You know, I am shocked.

      ELLIS ARMISTEAD: To be fair, Tom, that's been a subject of debate in the newspaper whether or not she represented what is true as a fact. I don't want you to alarm my client too much here about whether or not it's absolutely a fact. I just think that should be mentioned to be fair to my client.

      Delete
    17. I think in this particular case John, the BPD did have the evidence, but did not want to tip their hand in giving it to Patsy. The job of the interrogator is to get the suspect to divulge information on their own - not hand it to them.

      Delete
    18. No, John, that's not correct. Grand juries have broad subpoena powers and are often used by prosecutors as investigative bodies.

      The 6/98 interview you quoted was held at the Broomfield Police Departmen, and Haney and DeMuth did not have the results of the six forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse experts with them to present to Patsy - though imo they should have, or should have invited her to the BPD to read them - done anything, in fact, rather than veer off into questioning her about her own possible abuse.

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

      Delete
    20. CC:

      Once they had those results in hand, were they EVER presented to Patsy? Could it have been done in a way to circumvent Ramsey attorneys? Nothing would have been illegal about an investigator suddenly popping into Patsy's booth at an Atlanta restaurant and surreptitiously gaining her confidence and showing her the results....no? Is it simply because John's handwriting ruled him out that this was never done?

      Mike G

      Delete
    21. I don't know, Mike, but I doubt she ever saw it. I think the attitude Ramsey investigator Armistead took in the 1998 interview John I quoted was probably the party line adopted by her husband and her attorneys - that the sexual abuse was an unproved allegation given much coverage by a salacious press, and not something she should give any credence.

      Delete
    22. Especially when we have at least 7 other doctors saying that prior sexual abuse is inconclusive.

      Delete
    23. "In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." (Steve Thomas, 2000).

      Wecht, Spitz and Lee were not among the panel. Beuf never did an internal exam. Doberson said only that he needed more information. Gardner thought there should have been bruising on her thighs and mouth from being forced - never a contention. Sirontak from Denver Children's, consulted by M.E. Meyer, concurred with him. Detectives Arndt and Harner, untrained observers at the autopsy, found it obvious and reported it as well.

      Delete
    24. Thanks, CC. While prior molestation is not strictly speaking a fact, all the signs were there and the possibility seems very strong. Strong enough imo to be presented as part of a circumstantial case against John. What strikes me as especially interesting, however, is Thomas's unwillingness to put two and two together and come out with four (i.e., John Ramsey as the most likely molester).

      So convinced is he of John's innocence that he feels it necessary to point to the distinction, made by only one of these experts, that "the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused." I find that conclusion astonishing. On what basis could one make such a distinction -- other than one's prior conviction that Patsy had to have been the abuser.

      Elsewhere in his book he quotes a pal from the FBI as asserting that the vaginal wounds were consistent with staging rather than sexual assault. So, which is it: Patsy physically abusing her daughter on a regular basis, or penetrating her vagina on the night of the crime to stage a pedophile assault?

      Delete
    25. Huh. It was my impression Thomas utterly misunderstood the remark he tried to hang his PDI hat on: The medical expert was drawing a distinction between the sexual assault committed the night of the murder and ongoing [sexual] physical abuse.

      For the rest, it all comes back to your original insight - that once John was ruled out no one looked at him as a suspect again. It's endlessly baffling.

      Delete
    26. This panel was not "pediatric experts". Jones was a professor of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics. Rau and Wright were county medical examiners. Only Meyer and Sirotnak actually examined the body. But if there was prior penetration of her vagina, John wasn't any more likely to be the culprit than anybody else. He had no history of molesting his other children, no child porn was found in his possessions, etc. Prior vaginal penetration doesn't even necessarily indicate sexual abuse.

      Delete
    27. I know who and what they are, but apparently Steve Thomas does not - it's a quote from his book.

      Delete
    28. Makes you wonder what else Steve Thomas got wrong -- like the "Mindhunter" thing. But aren't you the one who claimed that Steve Thomas's publisher must have fact-checked the book and therefore we can rely on what he said?

      Delete
    29. I pointed out that reputable publishers like St. Martin's Press employ fact checkers, and queen or no, you can hardly hold me responsible for their level of competence. And that was, after all, the point, was it not?

      But you keep right on picking nits, John; that's your forte.

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

      Delete
    31. But those fact checkers were your entire argument for believing the story that "Mindhunter" was on JR's nightstand.

      Delete
    32. Nah. I've read it in other sources as well - Kolar, PMPT, John Douglas, others - enough of 'em to satisfy myself (not to take into court, mind you, just enough to satisfy me personally). But nothing satisfies you. Carry on, John; do what you do. No one minds.

      Delete
    33. Actually there's no mention of Mindhunter in Kolar or PMPT, but I'm glad you are satisfied (it doesn't take much) and thrilled to have your permission to carry on. It means more to me than you know.

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

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

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

      Delete
  19. James Kolar's book, and also theory, was not published until 2012, Grand Jury: 1999, so not likely they would have had his theory to reject, Doc. I would be most concerned over the current D.A. doing nothing, other than issuing statements that reinforce the status quo of doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GJ rejected any idea that Burke committed murder, as did the BPD and the DA's office, as Doc just explained at 8:51, thus rejecting Kolar's theory well before he advanced it.

      Just what is it you'd have Garnett do?

      Delete
  20. I honestly don't think Garnett can do anything. He has not demonstrated any commitment in his whole tenure to do so. But issuing statements that he is waiting for the DNA and some other evidence to come together may placate a few people but surely not all? I think it will take someone outside of the political system of Boulder to put political pressure on Garnett to have him reopen the case and start over. It's obvious he doesn't wish to revisit the can of worms that would have him end his term on a sour note. But he's no hero. I certainly don't know the legalities involved in re-questioning John and Burke but "waiting" around for something to happen means nothing is happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Precisely my point: He can do nothing without sufficient evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. He can't, responsibly, indict, and he certainly cannot compel either John or Burke to submit to questioning, nor can the BPD.

      He's ordered new DNA testing, though I find it highly doubtful that will give him what he needs, barring a finding of identifiable epithelial cells in the vaginal swabs, a long shot. He's stated publicly he knows who did it and is willing to indict if the evidence does come together.

      He is, in fact, considered "a hero" by Boulderites and outside observers, who frequently characterize him as a "rock star" for having brought charges in a number of cold cases that languished under his predecessors and for his willingness to try cases himself.

      Your criticism is unfounded.



      Delete
    2. What exactly could this new DNA evidence prove? Any other details on it?

      Delete
    3. None.

      I gave you my best speculation: "touch DNA" in the form of skin cells in her vaginal swabs. Short of that, there's no smoking gun in sight.

      Delete
    4. If skin cells had been found in the vaginal swabs, that would have been huge and the case would have been solved long ago.

      I think the real significance of the re-examination of the DNA evidence stems from the realization that what Lacey thought she had has turned out to be a mixed sample, i.e., a composite from two or more people. If that's the case then it isn't surprising that no match was found because no match to any individual could possibly have been found.

      In principle, what's implied is that every single person whose DNA was tested is going to have to be retested and everyone who was ruled out on that basis would have to be ruled in again until the new tests are complete. I say "in principle" because this would be a huge undertaking and I wonder whether Garnett or anyone else would want to undertake a total re-investigation of ALL possible suspects all over again.

      A worst case scenario would be the very real possibility that the DNA might turn out to match a perfectly innocent family friend with whom she could have had a perfectly innocent contact at some point prior to her murder. That person's life would immediately become a living nightmare for sure.

      Since I'm convinced there was never any intruder, I feel sure the DNA evidence is an innocent artefact, and therefore have no hope that this re-examination will lead to anything of any significance.

      Delete
    5. CC: Can I get your e-mail again?

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. oceanview2519@gmail.com

      Delete
  21. I'd like to enlarge on yesterday's remarks about James Kolar for the information of the BDI contingent that has bought into his book and theory, not that it will sway them in the least:

    Kolar was a cop in December of 1996, but was not working in Boulder at the time of the murder. He never set foot in the crime scene, and by his own admission never worked the case, only ran down one lead the following year. He was an investigator for DA Mary Lacy for seven months, and his only exposure to the Ramsey murder came from reports he read during that time.

    He knew full well that Burke was not under suspicion and had been cleared by the DA and the BPD. His allegations about some childhood sexual disorder from which Burke suffered were entirely his concoction, and had no basis in fact.

    When he couldn't find a mainstream publisher for his book, he self-published, imo to turn a buck as Steve Thomas had done, but he was so spectacularly unsuccessful the highly litigious Lin Wood never bothered to bring suit against him.

    When CBS went looking for a new angle for their 20th anniversary special, they lit on Kolar. . .and we all saw the results of that - a self-styled "documentary" that wasn't, and millions of people suddenly convinced, sans evidence, that Burke killed his sister over a piece of pineapple.

    Now that, Inq, is a travesty.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I do agree - that it would be lacking in insight and disingenuous to attribute a motive in JonBenet's death to some kind of food fight. The CBS special was silly, IMO, but there are a few in here that it meant something to. They feel that the experts were real experts in their field and that their recreation looked real. But we really don't know anything about the Ramsey family. How could we? Or what goes on inside a marriage, or a family dynamic between siblings that are strangers. Yet we have all made certain assumptions regarding the family that has led us to consider what little evidence is available and put together certain theories that seem plausible but are really nothing more than speculation. I think there were heroes in the case that tried their best to conduct sound investigations but sadly none of it went anywhere. I read there are two part time investigators on this case now but what is there to turn up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't referring to the pineapple motive, but to the undeserved hell Burke Ramsey's life has become thanks to Kolar's baseless book and that irresponsible CBS program.

      Delete
  23. Burke has managed to be left alone for 20 years give or take. What could we learn if he were questioned thoroughly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I despair of you, Inq, I do. This kid's life has been, essentially, ruined since age 9, more so in the last 6 months by lemmings like you who bought into a half-baked notion by a crap cop wannabe insider out to make a buck, and a crass network with precisely the same goal, yet you blather on about food fights and questionings that are never going to happen and never should. Have you no moral compass?

      Google "inappropriate smiling". I did. Burke has a disorder known as "Social Anxiety", hardly a surprise after the shit he's had to live through.

      He gets high marks from me for making it through Purdue and creating any kind of life for himself, despite people like you.


      Delete
  24. Stay your hand for a moment on that delete key, Doc. My little rant is not a personal attack on Inq, though I continue to hope for more from her, as she obviously wants to make a meaningful contribution, and you well know I encouraged and tried to help her at the start. I'm addressing Zed and EG and J and the whole troupe, and I've bitten my tongue for months.

    We're talking about a CHILD. Another Ramsey child, another victim, cleared by the police, the DA, and the grand jury, a kid who's been badly damaged but has made his way in the world nonetheless.

    I know kids kill. I sat behind one in the third grade who attempted to poison an entire family and got two. I saw the prosecutions of several while an ASA. I'm not a naif. BURKE WAS CLEARED, folks. Early, and often.

    Inq spoke yesterday of John and Burke "lining their pockets". Just what is it you think Kolar and CBS are doing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I sympathize with you view of Burke, CC. But I wish you'd make your diatribes more generic. As you say Inq isn't the only one here who suspects him. And outside this blog they are legion. It's OK to complain about a particular type of dogmatic thinking but not so OK to single any one person out.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Doc. You know I get it. Do what you gotta do.

      Delete
    3. " I'm addressing Zed and EG and J and the whole troupe, and I've bitten my tongue for months."

      Since when have you ever bitten your tongue here, CC? On the contrary you continue to try and belittle or badger anyone with a differing opinion.

      Doc, again my utmost respect for keeping things fair and balanced. :)

      EG


      Delete
    4. Admittedly not often since the advent of you intractable BDI folk last September. Facts, reason and logic simply do not seem to work with your lot: Burke was cleared by the grand jury, the then-DA, and the BPD. And THOSE, EG, are the facts and the real bottom line.

      Delete
    5. +1 on what Doc and EG said.

      Delete
    6. Just because CC is direct and does not back down in a disagreement or argument, it does not mean she is badgering or belittling. I don't see her remarks as such. If you want to keep on speculating about Burke to no avail, go ahead. I don't find it helpful. We need to fully vet Doc's theory because this is his blog, but I'm not here because of a you interest in what if stories. I can speculate using my own wild imagination without any help. I want to understand fully what this case looks like when John is ruled back in.

      Delete
    7. I agree.
      CC is merely succinct and direct, which I appreciate, as do many others here. She is, no doubt, simply sick of repeating herself over and over in regards to Burke's position, which is that - whether BDI's are willing to accept it or not - he was cleared by the GJ and the BPD, et al.
      Since the airing of the CBS special last September, this place has, sadly, seen a drastic decrease in quality, which is why I don't come by so much these days. That damn special was the worst thing that ever happened to the case, and has only served to further obstruct justice being served.

      Delete
  25. I understand the frustration. Essentially, "they", whoever you think did it, got away with it. An elaborate coverup was implemented for murder. Money and sway ruled the day with little thought for their own child and taking responsibility for her death. Many people, the entertainment industry, the PR firms, Ramsey himself has profited from her death.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Also I believe Kolar did an excellent job, in his book which he began writing in 2009, of dispelling the intruder theory. Wasn't it Kolar who discovered and pointed out the old undisturbed cobweb in the window well? He also took away Lou Smit's "stun gun" theory by investigating how stun gun marks didn't line up with the marks on her body. Just the fact that Lin Wood calls Kolar's book "nonsense" elevates the book imo. I would call "Death of Innocence" nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good morning everyone!

    CC....the entire family was cleared, so what's your point about Burke being cleared? You still think JDI and he was cleared by the DA's office.

    Inq...I agree with you about Kolar and you're right. If Lin Wood called it nonsense, it must have hit a nerve. That's Lin's job--to delegitimize anyone who dares to even suggest a Ramsey was responsible for the murder. Even if they're expert in their field, they become no nothings. It's all bluster and it's what lawyers do. :)

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, EG. The DA's office that cleared Burke was Alex Hunter's. Patsy and John remained "under an umbrella of suspicion" throughout his tenure. It was Mary Lacy who exonerated the entire family based on touch DNA.

      Delete
    2. Bottom line, they were cleared.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Wasn't the JDI theory rejected by the GJ based on their verdict?

      Delete
    4. The present Boulder County DA has characterized Lacy's exoneration as premature, and an error, and nade it clear it is not binding on his office; so no, they have not been cleared.

      Neither JDI nor PDI was rejected by the GJ.

      Delete
    5. Well, PR is dead, JR remains alive, well and FREE, and so I think Mary Lacy's letter clearing them has held up nicely, along with AH's decision not to indict. Worked out well for the R's, I'd say. That's about as cleared as anyone can get.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Nope, no honorary law degree for you, at least not today. ;-)

      Delete
    7. Darn it, CC! And here I thought I was a contender! :)

      I'd make a terrible prosecutor. I'd throw them all in jail. I know everyone deserves a defense, but I have a hard time seeing some of these criminals being represented. Even though I know it's their right. I am always more concerned with the rights of the victims and wonder why they're usually forgotten about, except by the Prosecutors and their families of course.

      EG

      Delete
  28. IF Burke has been wrongfully accused (in print and on television) we still need answers. He offers up staying up late that night and sneaking downstairs. Shouldn't that put him very near a time of death - or assault? What did he hear, what did he see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Inq. If Burke offered new revelations into this unsolved murder, than he needs to be questioned thoroughly. I hope that happens. I do sympathize with him and what he has been through, but damn, being awake and sneaking downstairs could shatter the iron clad timeline John and Patsy were sticking to. `Suzs

      Delete
    2. Thank you Suzs. That is what needs to be done - a re questioning of Burke - and then John. Look for inconsistencies, see if their stories jive, etc. from the night before (staying in the car or going in to the Stines) whether JB was asleep and had to be carried inside or whether Burke saw her awake, and then what he heard from his bedroom that morning. There are already inconsistencies in what Burke told the social worker on videotape, and his accounting of that morning to Dr. Phil regarding Patsy running into his room or not or whether he heard nothing until his father explained it all to him.

      Delete
    3. I can't imagine any inconsistencies would prove anything at this point, 20+ years later. Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    4. There is no legal mechanism whereby John or Burke - or anyone - can be compelled to sit down for questioning short of being subpoenaed for trial.

      Delete
    5. . . . or being subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury.

      Delete
  29. Inq...I will repeat what I said in an earlier thread. We won't find the answers in the evidence or lack thereof. It's in the behavior of all parties before, during and after the murder.

    Suspicious at best, criminal at worst.
    Money, clout in the community, corrupt DA's office, etc. all came together in a perfect storm, so to speak, and enabled the guilty to walk free.

    EG

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. Timeline of events www.denverpost.com/1999/10/16jonbenet-ramsey-case-timeline-1999/ shows dedication, leads were followed up on Janis, DNA swabs were taken, Ramsey's countered with delays, misdirection, March 7, 1997 John ruled out as writing the note, Lou Smit brought in, Lou Smit quits, Thomas quits, Grand Jury convened, then October 13, 1999 it's over - Hunter announces no charges will be filed. Done. John can continue to blame the BPD but how odd no one not an older brother or sister or Aunt wants to find her killer. The phantom intruder.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The crime scene was not sealed off People were milling about unwatched. No one kept order it was like an open house. Also Fleet should have seen the body the first time. Only because it was not there! Did he latch the door when he left. Was it in the same position when John opened it and found her. Of course not he couldn't remember so he ran ahead of White so,he wouldn't see the door

    ReplyDelete
  34. CC- Can a 2nd grand jury be called on the Ramsey case? Or is that a one time only per crime kind of thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Garnett could empanel another GJ. There's no limit of which I'm aware, though I tend to agree with Minnesota Linda - not sure it would produce anything new or worthwhile 20 years down the road.

      Delete
  35. I propose a 4-hour, 2-part television documentary focusing only on the ransom note.

    Part One: Handwriting analysis.
    a General overview of the forensic science of handwriting analysis.
    b) Review of experts deployed and methods used in the Ramsey case.
    c) Conclusions drawn by those experts.
    d) Panel composed of today's experts discussing those conclusions.

    Part Two: The Ransom Note
    a) Relevant facts. (e.g pad used, pen used, where found) No discussion of "when written", "when read and by whom", etc. No assertions such as "the person who wrote the note murdered JonBenet")
    b) It's purpose. (in the context of "known facts", no "speculations" drawn from non-existent or implausible inferences.)
    c) Statement Analysis. (General characteristics of its author without naming names...e.g. John used the word "hence" often. The $118,000 sum, because of John's bonus, is fair territory for "someone in, or familiar to, the family" type "suggestions".
    d) Final Conclusions. (e.g. "Santa could have written the ransom note. John could have written the ransom note. The person who wrote the ransom note likely wanted the body disposed of before the police were called."---all acceptable.)

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And don't forget to include there were no fingerprints on the note - which to me was a "screw-up" (as in not thinking ahead) that fingerprints would not be unusual at all but the lack of prints is suspicious. Picking up the note and thoroughly reading it before panicking and calling the police, would be what most people would do don't you think Mike? Both of them. Kneeling on the floor reading it is also ridiculous - which I do not buy that story one iota.

      Delete
    2. I'd stick as much as possible to the indisputable facts. Yes, there were no fingerprints on the note, but as Doc has pointed out, that is not at all unusual. That it might be unusual in the context of lack of John's fingerprints elsewhere throughout the house is exactly the type of speculation I would want to avoid. That Patsy found the ransom note, called 911, and later admitted she had not read the warnings, provides enough information for viewers to later draw their own conclusions regarding Patsy's culpability. I would not introduce conflicting statements or testimonies (such as who told who to call 911) unless they had a direct bearing on the "experts" analysis of ransom note. Even then I would be very circumspect.

      By sticking to this script, I think viewers could easily walk away believing John has avoided scrutiny by being "ruled out" as the writer of the ransom note, without anyone on the show actually saying it or accusing him of murder. It would be impossible for John to sue the show's producers if the implications of the material presented, and the matter in which it was presented, invited logical inferences to the exclusion of those suffering confirmation bias. This would be no simple task, but I believe it could be done.

      Question for everyone: What networks and advertisers might be targeted to support such a one-of-a-kind type....shall we say "inquiry", rather than, "documentary"? DNA home analysis machines? Home security systems? Famous crime novelists latest books? Victims of sexual abuse programs?

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. Ok lets stick to facts. John was ruled out of writing the RN. Yes it's not an exact science blah blah blah but the odds of John writing that note are extremely slim.

      Delete
    4. Mike,

      The ID (Investigative Discovery) channel might do it. Also, John Walsh's new show - The Hunt. As far as sponsors go, you've named some good ones. Advertisers geared toward children, whether food, toys, keeping kids safe, etc might be interested. I wouldn't ask Dole Pineapple though. ;) Couldn't resist that one. I know, my bad!

      EG

      Delete
    5. "Ok lets stick to facts. John was ruled out of writing the RN. Yes it's not an exact science blah blah blah but the odds of John writing that note are extremely slim."

      As Burke was also ruled out as having any part in his sister's murder, Zed - let's not forget that pesky, little, detail.
      So where do we go from here? If the "experts" doing the "ruling out" are correct, then John didn't do it, nor did Burke.....and we're left only with Patsy.

      Once again, your own logic defeats your argument.

      Delete
  36. I know you are serious Mike and I will give you my suggestions momentarily. Of course I bring up the lack of prints because if you are going to stage a crime scene and try and make it look as though an intruder wore gloves to write the ransom note (since it's coming from your very own pad of paper with other notes on that pad containing your prints) you also have to stage the "discovery" of that note (shocked! scared! running around! shouting for John and JB!) and you don't pick up the note? You barely read it? You see the words "kidnap" and "behead" and whatever words you tell LE you saw before you checked the house and called police? You never once picked up that curious piece of paper on the stairs, nor did your husband who was used to reading documents and business papers and files all day long? This is what they didn't foresee - that it would be normal to have their prints there. I'm just saying there were places they screwed up, which has them be under that invisible umbrella of suspicion 20 years later, things that could have nailed them initially if not for the other perfect storm of being understaffed at Christmas, political in-fighting, and what the monied can accomplish by stalling and misdirecting. They made mistakes.

    Mike, I'd find a network that has done crime recreations relatively well - HBO. It would have to be presented as a "what if" it happened this way, complete with actors playing handwriting analysts, well known actors playing the Ramseys (a la Pacino playing Phil Spectre and DeNiro playing Bernie Madoff) to give the episode(s) credence. Since it would be a fictionalized account - and said so with disclaimers let Lin Wood say it's hogwash, who cares. Look how many people thought there was a conspiracy to kill JFK after Oliver Stone's movie? They are still out there too. I would do it that way. If enough people believe something they will get organized and decide to put pressure on the Boulder D.A. and that's really what you want isn't it? If you present it as an inquiry you will have Lin Wood all over you. It has to be smoke and mirrors to fool enough people to take action.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As for the commercials I would have Maglite be represented,the Korean paintbrush manufacturer, and Sharpie pens. Sorry, I couldn't resist :).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Does anyone know if Nathan Inouye was at the Stine residence on Christmas night when the Ramseys supposedly dropped off gifts? - Baker

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Supposedly he said he was in California with his family at the time, but I don't know if that has ever been verified.

      Delete
  39. The lack of prints on the RN doesn't mean much. It's not that unusual to not be able to lift discernible prints from paper. That doesn't mean that nobody touched the note.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi John. Yes, I've read that synopsis as well - however the Colorado crime lab lifted their own print from the note, and there were Patsy's prints throughout the pad of paper on other notes. The absence of either of the Ramsey's prints on the ransom note I think is of interest. I suppose we could extent that to the Maglite as well - if both Burke and John handled it, why wipe it? I think whoever used it wanted these things wiped to indicate an intruder would have not left prints and to me indicative of staging and therefore, suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with you Inq...no prints on that note, saliva, tears, sweat..nothing. Highly suspicious.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  42. Metal is different from paper. The lack of prints on the flashlight is much more significant.

    ReplyDelete
  43. o/t- for those in the US, have a safe Memorial Day weekend and much respect to all those who have served. Just yesterday an Alabama serviceman's remains were flown home. He had been MIA since 1950 during the Korean War. He was finally identified and will be buried at Elmwood Cemetery.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm surprised to see that hardly anyone seems interested in discussing the Steven Avery case. That's fine with me, but I was sort of hoping we could take a break from the Ramsey case for a while, as we don't seem to be getting anywhere at this point. I'm hoping things will get more interesting as the lawsuit progresses, but God knows how long before the next phase begins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can believe what Steven Avery's cellmate said Steven confessed to, there's another explanation as to how the key ended up where it did...
      https://rockfordadvocate.com/fellow-inmate-says-steven-avery-confessed-to-killing-teresa-halbach-14163/
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. I agree Doc - we're going over the same old ground on the Ramsey case. So a break is necessary. I know nothing about the Avery case as I haven't followed it, but would love to discuss the McCann case, if you have an interest in that one. Thanks, and thank you Lil for acknowledging those who have served on this Memorial Day weekend. My daughter was and always will be, a Marine.

      Delete
    3. The "abduction" (my quotes) of Madeleine McCann, the 3 1/2 year old little girl who was abducted from their parents while on holiday in Portugal several years ago - taken from her bed, but her twin brother and sister were left sleeping. Mom and Dad had this habit of joining their other doctor friends for dinner a short distance away every evening and leaving their children sleeping unattended in their cribs from usually 8-11 pm, alone which was fine until the fifth and last night when Madeleine is abducted, only some think something else happened to her. It's interesting in that there are SOME parallels to the Ramsey's handling of a child murder and coverup, not identical, but same similar MO was employed.

      Delete
  45. Avery/Dassey case is an open and shut case in my opinion. Its only getting so much attention because of the documentary.

    I do believe that the key "may" have been planted (can't decide) and I also think Teresas brother and the police may have found the vehicle earlier after trespassing. The manner in which the vehicle was found and the behaviors of her brother and ex boyfriend do lead me to believe they have found it earlier. But thats it. Avery did it, he talked Brendan into doing it. Brendan confessed to a friend and the police and its simple as that. Lock Avery up for good.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Very Bizarre theory involving John....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc1-q8dMYk8

    ReplyDelete
  47. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1702436

    More on the same....

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answered your e-mail, Mike. I'm actually not working next two days - check your inbox if you want to chat on the prospective project.

      Delete
  48. CC, does this...

    https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3560138
    (Ramsey vs. Spitz)

    or this...

    https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3576347
    (Ramsey vs. CBS, et al)

    offer any indication of when we might hear something on either case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For some reason I can't access those sites, H. You know what you're doing and what you see - can you summarize them for me?

      Delete
    2. My assumption is that both cases are still in the discovery phase - depositions and interrogatories - or possibly the Detroit judge has ruled on both defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Is that what it looks like to you?

      Delete
    3. I found the site CC.

      Try this:
      https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3576347

      Here are some important dates you may be able to explain further. I'll see if I can open the Answer to Motion and get back.

      Result: Reviewed by Court
      04/03/2017 Status Conference Scheduling Order, Signed and Filed
      04/06/2017 Order Extending Time, Signed and Filed
      04/17/2017 Order Adjourning Mediation and Settlement Conference, S/F
      05/10/2017 Order for Miscellaneous Action, Signed and Filed
      05/23/2017 Answer to Motion, Filed
      05/25/2017 Praecipe, Filed (Judicial Officer: Groner, David A. )
      06/28/2017 Motion Hearing (2:00 PM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)
      01/22/2018 Case Evaluation - General Civil
      03/05/2018 Settlement Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. Trying to open any of the above takes you to the same place.

      https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/ViewDocumentFragment.aspx?DocumentFragmentID=10532658&CheckDocumentGroups=0

      It appears Witness Exchange and Discovery Cutoff is on 08/09.
      Case Evaluation Month is 10/17. A settlement conference must take place within 42 days of 10/31/17.

      Comments: (1) A11 summary disposition motions to be filed by:
      (2) All responses to be filed seven (7) days prior to motion date‘
      (3) A11 pleadings should include fax numbers.

      I don't know CC. My best guess is that if CBS and Burke don't settle by 12/12/2017 or so, it goes to trial for which no date has yet been set.

      Mike G

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Mike. Still can't open it, but can make some deductions based on your list.

      That's the CBS case, and it appears to be chugging along, albeit at a typically glacial pace. It would seem Defendants' initial Motion to Dismiss was denied, the first pre-trial settlement conference was fruitless, and the parties are conducting discovery, and, it would seem, arguing about its scope. The Praecipe is interesting, as that's a judicial order to a defendant to appear and show cause why something should or should not happen.

      Thanks, H. Good catch, as ever.


      Delete
    6. Most importantly, I'd guess there's a tentative trial date, and it's about a year away - also typical in big bucks cases with multiple defendants.

      Delete