One More Time -- the Case Against John Ramsey

As so many times previously, I now feel the need to once again outline the case against John Ramsey. But before I do, I must remind everyone that

1. As with so many cases, this one is circumstantial. If there were a smoking gun, we wouldn't be here.

2. There is no point in demanding proof that John was having an incestuous sexual relationship with his daughter. No such proof exists, admittedly. However, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. It is also important to realize that incest, and the need to cover it up, is the ONLY motive ever offered in this case that makes any sense at all. Bed wetting as a motive is a huge stretch, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. Sibling rivalry on the part of Burke might make sense if it weren't for the difficulty in assigning a motive to the sexual assault, "garotte" strangulation and phony ransom note, as no parents in their right mind would go to such bizarre and disgusting lengths to disguise what could have been reported as an accident.


Now to the case itself:

1. The simplest way to demonstrate that John and only John could have committed this crime is that presented in the first two posts on this blog. The demonstration is based, first of all, on certain known and undisputed FACTS. And second of all on very clear logical inferences based on those facts.

2. When all the known facts are considered, it becomes clear that no intruder could have been present, as no intruder scenario makes sense. Logical inference: in the absence of an intruder, the crime must have been committed by a family member.

3. It is an undisputed FACT that Patsy Ramsey called 911, while the body of her daughter was lying hidden in the basement. Logical inference: If Patsy and John were collaborating to cover for either themselves or their son, that call would not have been made when it was. Once we realize that the note was intended as staging, then it becomes clear that the warnings in the note were intended to provide an excuse for NOT calling the police right away. If Patsy and John had been covering for Burke, then all three would have been in on it and nothing would have been simpler than wrapping the body in a plastic bag, placing it in the trunk of John's car, and waiting until dark for him to dump it in some remote wooded area. If John's car had been spotted, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom. The FACT that Patsy called 911 despite the warnings in the note tells us she could not have been in on any plot to stage a kidnapping and could certainly NOT have either written the note or known that it was fake. This tells us that the only one who could have written that note was John Ramsey. And the only motive for John to have taken such a huge risk would be to point away from the fact that he is the one who murdered his daughter.

4. On the basis of the above, it is not difficult to rule out Burke as the killer. If he were the one who struck his sister and the parents decided to cover it up by staging a combination pedophile attack and kidnapping, then, as argued above, the 911 call would not have been made when it was. Far more likely, it would have simply been reported as an "accident" and that would, basically, have been the end of it. To argue that Burke was also involved in an incestuous relation with his sister, that he was responsible for the sexual assault and strangulation, takes us into truly bizarre territory, for which there is neither evidence nor much in the way of logic. And if one would want to argue that these otherwise sensible parents would decide to cover for him by writing a phony ransom note that might well implicate THEM, then the question of Patsy's 911 call must be raised all over again. If she were involved then she would not have made that call, as explained above. Yet the need to cover for Burke has been offered as the only explanation as to why both parents would want to collaborate on a cover-up. Well, if both parents were collaborating, then the early 911 call cannot be explained. Leaving us with a situation in which John decides to cover for Burke without informing Patsy. Why on Earth would he have wanted to do that? The more one considers the facts of the case, the less likely it becomes that Burke could have struck that blow, not to mention the sexual assault and strangulation. And if he had been responsible for all these things, there is no way his mother would not have known about it.

5. The logical analysis presented above should, imo, be more than enough to convince any reasonable, intelligent and open-minded person that John Ramsey is the only one who could have carried out both the crime and the coverup. But there is a considerable amount of additional evidence also pointing in the same direction:

6. The handwriting evidence, as presented here.

7. The considerable evidence of prior molestation, as presented in books by both Cyril Wecht and Steve Thomas.

8. John's failure to report the open window he found in the basement, which he closed without telling anyone until months later.

9. John's disappearance for over an hour, shortly before he "discovered" the body, after everyone else had been herded into one place by detective Arndt.

10. The presence of fibers from John's shirt in JonBenet's underpants.

11. The stonewalling of the Boulder police, a tactic that could only have been engineered by John, since Patsy was, by all accounts, a heavily medicated "basket case" during that period.

12. John's patently phony story about breaking the basement window months earlier, as analyzed in some detail in a series of blog posts, beginning here. Aside from all the many unlikely aspects of this tale, the existence of a broken window was denied by Linda the housekeeper -- nor is it credible to believe that this window would have gone unrepaired over a period of months, especially considering the presence of workmen in the house at the time. As should be clear to anyone evaluating his story with a critical eye, what it really amounts to is a kind of alibi, pointing away from the far more likely possibility that John broke that window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder breakin.

Other aspects of the case that clearly point to John are strewn throughout this blog and in my book. Of course, I could be totally off base and John might be completely innocent. I certainly hope so.