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

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

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

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

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.




231 comments:

  1. Boom! This post sums up why I no longer feel the need to argue with anyone on this blog. I don't need a smoking gun, but if someone finds one that clears John, I will accept it. Until then, I will forever be convinced that JR killed his daughter. - LE

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've always had problems with the broken window part of your theory, on a number of fronts. For starters:

    You maintain that John broke the window the night of the crime, intending to go outside at his leisure the next day, remove the grate and complete staging an intruder entry, correct? And that Patsy's unexpected call to 911 forced him to quickly come up with a Plan B, further correct?

    Patsy said she made that call near the foot of the spiral staircase, on the wallphone a few feet away, as John was crouched on the floor in just his underwear, reading the RN spread out on the floor. From that point he had seven minutes before the arrival of Officer French to: (1) Race up two flights of stairs to the master bedroom, dress completely; (2) Run down THREE flights of stairs to the basement; (3) Presumably find a broom and dustpan or a vacuum cleaner (and wouldn't Patsy have heard the latter?) in that cluttered maze of a basement; (4) Clean up and dispose of the glass by some method; (5) Stash the broom, dustpan or vacuum sufficiently that it never appears in crime scene photos or on search warrant returns; and (6) Return to the ground floor in time to position himself in the foyer behind his wife, perfectly calm, composed, "cordial", and presumably not noticeably breathless. All this while somehow not attracting the attention of his wife.

    I don't believe it's possible in that period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Any attempt on his part to implicate Patsy would have been a fatal error. Once she had realized what he was up to she would have spilled all his beans to the authorities and his jig would have been up."

    But the paintbrush, pad, pen and handwriting DID implicate Patsy, as she knew very well. Yet no suspicion of John, no spilling of beans. He had other materials at hand, yet chose to use his wife's.

    "Since as far as we can tell, John used cursive a, it would make sense for him to alter his a's to look like manuscript a's, and that is what we see in the note."

    John read at least one true crime book of which we're aware, and watched crime movies. The use of all caps, block printing is a staple of that genre, yet he chose to use the sort of letter a and two turns of phrase often favored by his wife. 

    "Had all had gone according to plan, he could easily have destroyed that notepad and there would have been NO evidence linking the note to either Patsy or himself."

    I think he felt he needed the RN to lend credibility to the intruder notion. Without it, he has a dead child in his basement and no proof of an intruder at all. When LE asked for handwriting samples that morning, he handed them the very notepad on which the RN was written, yet the search warrant returns showed the collection of many "pads" and "legal pads". Again, there were other materials at hand, yet John chose his wife's.

    I see no attempt by John at any point to protect Patsy, or to divert attention from her, rather the opposite. And sorry; I don't believe in coincidences - certainly not this many.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, CC, the good news is that we can agree on the identity of the killer, regardless of whether or not either John's window story or your theory about his attempt to incriminate Patsy is credible. I'm assuming we agree on points 1-5 above, regardless of our other differences -- and those points are sufficient, as I see it, to infer John's guilt.

      Regardless, I have great difficulty buying John's window story, despite the very reasonable objections you've put forward. To accept that story as true, we have to:

      1. Discount the many hemmings and hawings, failures to recall and extremely odd aspects of that story.

      2. Discount the extreme unlikelihood that a broken window would have gone unrepaired in all that time.

      3. Discount the extreme unlikelihood that neither John nor Patsy could recall whether or not that repair had been done.

      4. Discount the fact that Linda the housekeeper denied, in no uncertain terms, any knowledge of any broken window.

      5. We must also ask ourselves why, if the edges of the broken pane had shown any signs of age (such as an accumulation of dust or dirt), the police would have felt the need to question both John and Patsy at some length, and on two separate occasions, regarding his story -- AND asked them, on both occasions, whether the window had ever been repaired. If there had been any sign that this was an old break, they would have had no reason to ask such questions.

      As I see it, your objections are based on assumptions regarding the timing of events from that morning that cannot be verified and may well be wrong. First of all, the story about John on his hands and knees beside Patsy when she made that call is contradicted by the version Patsy herself offered, in the A&E interview, which has John going upstairs to check on Burke while she runs downstairs to make the call. The bottom line is that we have no way of knowing for sure what happened prior to the 911 call. For all we know John could have been fully dressed when she made it.

      Secondly, we must remember that Patsy called her friends over after calling 911, during which time John could have thrown on some clothes and headed for the basement.

      It is also, as I see it, a mistake to assume that John must have cleaned up the glass prior to the arrival of the police. He could easily have slipped downstairs in the confusion and cleaned up in the basement while Patsy was showing them the note. We've seen various timelines regarding those events and no two are exactly the same. Everything is based on recollections made after the fact by people caught up in an utterly confusing situation. We will never know exactly when officer French went down there and the same is true for Fleet White. It was certainly possible for John to get down there before they did. He "couldn't recall" when, remember?

      As for cleaning up the glass: this was a very small portion of a very small window pane, a "baseball size" hole. There would not have been much glass on the floor, and as we know John didn't get it all. What he did collect could easily have been placed in a paper bag, which could then have been stashed in an unobtrusive corner. This could have been accomplished in 10 or 20 seconds.

      Delete
    2. This is the part where I disagree with both of you.
      I believe John did break the window that night, as Doc does - not the previous summer, as you do, CC - but, unlike Doc, I don't believe it was broken as part of a staging attempt. I don't know how/why it was broken, what I do know is that John certainly didn't want LE to know it had been broken the night the crime was committed, and I believe there is a very good reason for that - but it's one we haven't entertained. Neither story regarding the broken window really makes a lot of sense, so I can't help but feel that there is another reason why John lied about it.

      Delete
    3. Go ahead and entertain those reasons - why not. Is your thinking that he could have broken the window in order to place some things in the well, where he intended to get those things and hide them later? Or maybe he accidentally threw something that caused the window break. Whoever was down there was likely stumbling around in near darkness.

      Patsy and John did get their stories straight though, by the time they were interviewed. Both suggested it was from the breakin when John was locked out. And if Patsy wanted to embellish the story by including Linda, she may have thought either Linda would back her up, or if Linda disputed it would LE take the word of a housekeeper or a grieving family member who just might have been mistaken.

      Delete
    4. What about Burke's statement that he'd seen his father break in that way before, MsD? I rather thought that supported my position.

      Delete
    5. Honestly, I doubt Burke's story. It's unlikely that John would have crawled through such a small space if he had Burke there to do it for him, don't you think? Or, better yet, he could have simply waltzed on over to the neighbor's house to retrieve the spare set of house keys - after all, if Burke was with him this particular time, it obviously wasn't after a late night business trip, so he wouldn't have had to worry about waking up his neighbors. Regarding the time he was alone, why - out of any window he could have broken to climb through - would he have chosen the tightest, darkest, spot.....in the middle of the night, no less? And how many times are we expected to believe John left his keys - along with his garage door opener - somewhere? Where did he leave them? Why didn't he retrieve them upon realizing he didn't have them? He said it happened at least twice - once with Burke, and once after a business trip, when he was alone. The CEO of a billion dollar company who is so scatterbrained, he keeps losing his keys? Doesn't seem to remember - both times - that his neighbor has a spare key? The self made millionaire who fails to have his basement window repaired (well, the second time he broke the window, he failed to have it fixed. Of course, he obviously "remembered" to get it repaired the first time....or else he would not have needed to break it a second time, would he?)
      Nope, I don't buy it.

      Delete
    6. Good answers MsD. So, why didn't John want LE to know the window was broken the night the crime was committed?

      Delete
    7. You make, as always, good points. I personally would not send my child through a broken window to fall X-number of feet onto broken glass, but I take your point. Mine is, simply, that if you discount this part of Burke's Dr Phil story you must also dismiss his allegations about himself and his father, the flashlight, and their nocturnal ramblings. All in or all out, MsD.

      My point is simply that it makes no sense for John to break the window that night and hope to be able to finish the staging the next day. Makes more sense to me to do it ALL Thursday, when no one would hear or see.

      The non-key thing doesn't concern me. He left his keys in his car because he entered the house by using the remote to drive into the garage, then entering the house via a connecting door. I travel a great deal for business and do the same thing.

      I don't think anyone, including Burke, frequented the train room, and I don't find it far-fetched that the broken window went unnoticed. Look at the drawings of the basement again: the window in question was around a corner, and not visible from the door to the train room, which was apparently kept closed, in any case. The big washer and dryer were outside, as was Patsy's wrapping station. No reason for LHP or Patsy to notice a broken window at that location.

      Always fun to compare ideas and spar with you, MsD.

      Delete
    8. If you are saying Patsy didn't notice the broken window then you will either have to acknowledge she lied to the investigators (and embellished the story) or she was gaslit. Which is it.

      Delete
    9. I don't like the term "gaslit". I find it melodramatic, pejorative and wholly unnecessary.

      John had broken in before, in at least two locations. It's hardly a stretch that when John said "Aww, honey, doncha' remember when I had to break in and you cleaned up the glass?" that she would buy into it, wholeheartedly.

      Delete
    10. "If you discount this part of Burke's Dr Phil story you must also dismiss his allegations about himself and his father, the flashlight, and their nocturnal ramblings. All in or all out, MsD."

      Yep, I agree, and I have to say I'm "all out" when it comes to both of Burke's stories. I never trusted Burke's account of his and John's "nocturnal ramblings" - this CRUCIAL piece of information only came to light during the Dr Phil interview, until that point John had denied any knowledge of the flashlight, now, twenty years later, we have Burke freely admitting the two of them used the very flashlight John had never even seen before? Why such a massive change in the story now? If Lin Wood thought it was a problem that Burke's account placed the possible murder weapon in John Ramsey's hands that night, he would never have allowed this part of the interview to be aired - Lin works for both Phil, and The Ramseys, after all - so we can assume that nothing said on that show was "off the cuff" or unexpected.....therefore, my guess is there was a damn, good reason this new piece of information - a MAJOR detail that completely contradicted John's previous accounts - was casually introduced during the interview as though it had been the official story all along.

      "My point is simply that it makes no sense for John to break the window that night and hope to be able to finish the staging the next day. Makes more sense to me to do it ALL Thursday, when no one would hear or see."

      I agree - it doesn't make sense, that's why I don't buy it. However, I don't buy his account of when/why the window was broken either. Therefore, I think there is another explanation for the window, but revealing it would place him squarely at the scene of the crime the night JB was murdered, so he had no choice but to lie about it. The *why* is a mystery, but I've wracked my brain. I do think the broken window is key though, hence the need for John's cover story.

      Delete
  4. That is good news, Doc, and always true. We absolutely agree on the foundational premise, and I never fail (I hope) to give you credit for separating "the Ramseys" into two discrete entities, and for pointing out that the handwriting analysis that "cleared" John is entirely bogus.

    For the rest, I find it entirely to your credit that you're not as cynical as I.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think John may have had two plans in mind from the beginning. If Patsy had followed the ransom note instructions, he may have went with plan A-similar to the one laid out in Doc's theory. If she balked at not calling the police or refused to leave the house, he needed a back-up plan.

    He knew he would be the likely suspect if JB's body was found in the house, so he implicated Patsy by using her items. I think he further implicated her when he told his adult children that he found the body at 11 a.m. knowing they would most likely share this information with authorities.

    K


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He knew he would be the likely suspect if JB's body was found in the house, so he implicated Patsy by using her items."

      I concur.

      "I think he further implicated her when he told his adult children that he found the body at 11 a.m. knowing they would most likely share this information with authorities."

      What a devilishly, intriguing idea! Perhaps John is even more dastardly than I'd ever given him credit for!

      Delete
    2. I think he was desperate and put himself above everyone else. If he committed this crime, not only did he end his daughter's life, but he allowed Patsy to exist under this "umbrella of
      suspicion"..as well as Burke, and all the other people he's named as suspects over the years. That's pretty evil to me.

      I could be wrong about John's guilt, but I don't think so. It would almost be easier if there was another explanation that wasn't so ugly.

      K

      Delete
    3. Agreed, K. I'll go a step further with regard to Burke: I think John exhorted him to do that Dr Phil interview, knowing exactly how socially awkward Burke is, and how that would make him appear in a bad light on national television.

      Delete
    4. Very possible. I wondered if John suggested his clothes.

      Burke looks like a normal guy for his age in candid photographs.

      K

      Delete
    5. "It would almost be easier if there was another explanation that wasn't so ugly."

      I've said that all along, too, K.
      I accept JDI because it really is the only, logical, conclusion one can draw after reviewing all of the details, but I don't like it. Often I lie awake at night trying to make another scenario "fit", but it always comes back to John, unfortunately. I wish JB's death really was an accident, because the thought of her very own father - the man who is supposed to love and protect her above all else - brutally ending her life solely as a means of making his own life easier, then allowing Law Enforcement, along with the public, to point the finger at her grieving mother - then later, his nine year old son - is really just too awful to comprehend. If this is true, John Ramsey is not only a man who abused and brutally murdered his beautiful, six year old daughter, he is also an icy cold, cunning, manipulative, sociopath who was willing to sacrifice his entire family, and that is chilling.

      Delete
    6. Chilling, indeed, MsD, but too real, too often. I promise you, in my brief career as an ASA, I saw worse. And once you accept that, it's not much of a stretch to accept my theory of premeditation, and the deliberate implication of Patsy.

      This man was, and continues to be, the worst kind of evil

      Delete
    7. Unfortunately, CC, I do agree with you.

      Delete
  6. Went back and read your Aug. 8 2012 thread Doc regarding John's excuses for the broken window. How could he not remember what he used to break it - especially since he said he thinks it just happened the previous summer? I can remember each and every time I've either locked myself out of my car, whether I called AAA or called a neighbor, when I locked myself out of the house and shifted the patio doors in back to get in, or climbed through a bathroom window by taking the screen off and that was years ago. The reason you would remember is it's sort of an extra-ordinary event, getting locked out. Especially if he walked around to the back and chose the basement window to gain entry. That doesn't seem like the kind of thing a CEO would do - get himself all dirty or risk injuring himself on cut glass and jumping down in the window well and onto the basement floor. He tells Lou Smit he thinks he used his foot to break the glass but he doesn't really remember. Mostly what stands out is he has an excuse for everything he is questioned about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, exactly. Nothing about that story is convincing. He can hardly remember even a single detail with any degree of clarity.

      Delete
    2. The window story is most likely bogus. As Castor and Doc mentioned, John would have certainly remembered details about an event like that. I think LE really let him off the hook there instead of pushing him more on this story.

      However, this doesn't mean John killed his daughter. It means John was involved in whatever happened that night.

      Delete
  7. off topic, if anyone here follows missing persons cases, two in the news this week. A 10 year old cold case in Missouri of a teen, Kara, her remains have been identified this week. Also in Aruba, human remains found due to a tip, testing to see if they are Natalee's.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1) "If you discount this part of Burke's Dr Phil story you must also dismiss his allegations about himself and his father, the flashlight, and their nocturnal ramblings. All in or all out, MsD." CC

    2) Why such a massive change in the story now? If Lin Wood thought it was a problem that Burke's account placed the possible murder weapon in John Ramsey's hands that night, he would never have allowed this part of the interview to be aired - Ms D

    Ms. D:

    A) Burke's talk about the flashlight, and John's subsequent admission to Dr. Phil he "may" have used it to help Burke to bed that night were originally aired, and by "originally" I mean...one time only.

    B) Subsequent reruns of both "original" interviews were either highly redacted versions or are only available as incomplete "snippets" on You Tube. Even written transcripts people on here have pointed us too, such as those on reddit, have clearly been edited.

    C) I wrote Dr. Phil (twice) and CBS requesting transcripts of John's "original" interview with Dr. Phil specifically referencing my interest in what was said about the flashlight and John and Burke's "nocturnal ramblings". No replies.

    I think the only logical inference we can draw from these facts is that either Wood or CBS somehow screwed up and scrambled to "make things right". The question is, "right" for whom? The flashlight can be damning to CBS, by casting suspision away from Burke, and damning to Lin Wood by casting it toward John.

    Without "cherry-picking" things Burke said to support my theory of who done it, I felt Burke was being truthful about his late night encounter with John involving the flashlight, but not so truthful about the argument he heard his parents having, from where in the house it seemed to eminate, or whether it even took place at all.

    Mike G














    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've posted these links here before. They appear to be original versions of the three-part interview. FWIW, I've only been able to find Dr. Phil's mention of JR using the flashlight that night.

      Part 1:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t5yrf

      Part 2:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4t8or5

      Part 3:
      http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4tzof8

      Delete
    2. Curiouser and curiouser. One has to wonder, then, where Dr Phil got that information, as in the context of that interview it was either BR or JR, was it not?

      Given John's 20-year reluctance to even admit to owning the damned thing, my money's on Burke, and Daddy was surprised and Lin Wood appalled and quick to edit.

      Delete
    3. But it's such a MAJOR bombshell - the possible murder weapon John had never even seen before (allegedly), and now we have a witness placing it right in his hands the night of the murder! Why didn't Dr Phil pounce on that, and why hasn't more been made of it?! When I heard Burke say they used the flashlight, alarm bells were going off in my head in all directions....yet nothing has been made of it. Why???

      Delete
    4. First of all, it wasn't the murder weapon, as I know you know - she died of ligature strangulation.

      Secondly, as HKH reminded us this morning, neither John nor Burke spoke those words - only Dr Phil. Clearly he was quoting either Burke or John, imo, the former. Unless you in AU have a better source, my fav Aussie Pit bull?

      Delete
    5. True, CC, the flashlight wasn't the murder weapon.....but it was certainly a key element used during the commission of the crime. And by Burke conceding - if not being the one to announce it directly - that his father used it that night, it makes John a liar, if nothing else, and one would have to wonder why he would lie about such a detail. Dr Phil obviously had been told previously that the flashlight had been used by the two of them, he brought it up during the interview, and Burke certainly didn't correct him.

      Delete
    6. "Secondly, as HKH reminded us this morning, neither John nor Burke spoke those words - only Dr Phil. Clearly he was quoting either Burke or John, imo, the former. Unless you in AU have a better source, my fav Aussie Pit bull?"

      I'm lost.., what do you mean by "those" words, CC? And what did HKH remind "us" of?

      I'm asserting that JOHN, in his original aired interview, and IN HIS OWN WORDS, TO DR> PHIL, conceded that he might have used the flashlight that night after discovering Burke downstairs playing with...whatever toy he was playing with. I'm not using the word "might" in an attempt to quote as accurately as possible, the exact words John spoke. I'm using it because, regardless of what "those" exact words were, the more important thing that struck me, was the manner in which John spoke them, as if a) the fact that he "might" have used the flashlight was really no big deal at all, yet b) he knew what he was acknowledging was remarkably different from his earlier testimonies. Remember, it's not just the flashlight that's disconcerting; it's the fact that prior to this interview, John had steadfastly in asserted that both JonBenet and Burke went immediately from the car to bed after they all arrived home from the party. One version had Burke playing with his toys IN HIS BEDROOM before he actually jumped into bed and turned out the lights. But NEVER before had John talked about "discoverying" Burke DOWNSTAIRS later---AFTER everyone else was asleep---playing with his toys.

      So John....did you break the window months earlier or not? Did you have it repaired or not? Did you check all the windows and doors before the police arrived or not? Did you tell Linda Arndt you found the basement window open or not? Were you standing next to Patsy when she called 911 or not? Did you read the ransom note spread out on the floor below the stairs or not? Did you consider the kidnappers warnings or not?

      And now add to all this...had you ever used the flashlight police found on the counter or not? Was there some other non-maglight flashlight in the house your brother had given you or not? Did Burke go directly to bed, or to his bedroom, from the car, or not?

      Did you feed, afterall, JonBenet some pineapple in a bowl with a serving spoon her mother would never have given her, or not?

      Did you kill your daughter, or does that escape your memory after all this time too?

      Mike G



      Delete
    7. Well said Mike G. I agree.

      There was one thing that never seemed to escape John's memory though. That he had been "eliminated" as the writer of the note. He brought that up many times.

      K

      Delete
    8. Another thing regarding the flashlight.

      What happened over the years that would cause John to change his story? THE GRAND JURY INDICTMENTS.
      John now knew that no one bought the "intruder" theory. He also knew a neighbor had reported seeing strange lights in the house that night. He had to account for that. So, now we have a new story about taking Burke to bed with a flashlight.

      Delete
    9. "John now knew that no one bought the "intruder" theory. He also knew a neighbor had reported seeing strange lights in the house that night. He had to account for that."

      The GJ indictments happened in 1999.....John stuck to his original story until 2016, so that certainly isn't the reason. He is still selling the intruder story, and will continue to until he takes his last breath, even if new tests identified his DNA right inside his daughter's genitalia. And he has never tried to account for the "strange lights" seen in the house by a neighbour, because that proves nothing, except that someone was clandestinely moving about the house that night, which fits perfectly with the intruder narrative. The "new story" only proves that he has been lying for twenty years, and admitting to that isn't beneficial to him in any way.

      Delete
    10. I follow you Ms D. What are your thoughts on this flashlight story? Do you think Burke might be wanting to tell the truth about what he knows?

      K

      Delete
  9. You beat me to it, Diamond lil. I was going to mention the Natalee Holloway case as well. They're still waiting for the test results, but the remains were found after a friend of a friend of Joran van der Sloot's told a story of Joran and his father burying Natalee in an Aruban park. If those remains are hers, what an amazing break in the case. Goes to show what's possible with the passage of time. I think there are definitely family members or even friends who know what happened the night JBR died and have been silenced by loyalty or money or both. Who knows what the world might find out after John dies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I had no idea the Dr Phil transcripts on reddit were incomplete, Mike; sorry to have misdirected you.

    The only direct quotes from the Dr Phil interview on reddit today were made 11 months ago by a contributor calling himself Fred J Ward, and I've e-mailed him asking for a transcript, or for access to a recording of the show, if he made one in real time.

    I'll keep you posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred replied, very promptly, and he too only has snippets, so I posted a general cry for help to the JBR folks on reddit.

      This IS interesting, Mike, and I share your curiosity, and your suspicions.

      Delete
    2. Swim up-stream, CC. :)

      Delete
    3. You are, as always, a gem, H. I think I saw your posts on JBR reddit, under part of your real name, which was a relief...I've speculated several times - Helen? Hilda? - much, much better! ;-)

      Delete
    4. You know, I recorded the Dr Phil interview on my DVR, but deleted it after about six weeks because I needed the space.....damn it!

      Delete
    5. LOL. No problem, CC.

      You must be a very thorough reader. I think I've only commented on Reddit a few times. My big mouth is all over Topix though. ;)

      Delete
    6. Heloise? Hannah? Hildegarde? Happy to be wrong! I don't have time to be as thorough as I'd like, H. I was looking for information for Mike G, happened to see you.

      Delete
    7. LOL. It's Heather. I was thinking of switching it up here to match my Topix and Reddit usernames anyway. ;)

      Delete
  11. The key question to this case is whether or not this murder was planned or spontaneous moment of rage?
    For me, there is no question that this wasn't planned for the following reasons:
    - Had this been planned, the practice RN, along with pen and paper would have been removed.
    - Windows and or doors would haven been unlocked to give the appearance of a break in.
    -Then the big one is that there is no way that a person could deliver a head blow with a flashlight or other large object with enough force to crack a skull but not have any signs of blood. So, had this been planned, the murderer wouldn't take the risk of leaving such a bloody crime scene.
    So, if it wasn't planned, then we have a spontaneous act of rage that took place that night. JBR taking a piece of pineapple or playing with Burke's toy would be reason enough for a boy who was rumored to be troubled, to lash out with a swift swing of a flashlight, rendering his sister brain dead. This scenario is more plausible than a father who chose 6 hours before the family was supposed to be on a flight, with wife and child sleeping upstairs to shut his daughter up for good. The Ramsey's had just left a party with a lot of people and there has been absolutely any evidence to suggest that JBR was going to talk or rat her Dad out. That is 100% a fabrication.

    If the story was that JR got her out of bed to molest her, why would he do so 6-7 hours before leaving on a trip where they would be with family and she wouldnt always be in his sights? Is it maybe that there simply was NO MOTIVE? IMO, there was no motive and this was an act of rage.
    Regarding the 911 call by Patsy with the body in the house, there is an explanation. The Ramsey's had a scheduled flight that they would have to cancel. They would have to let family in Michigan know why they wouldn't be attending. JBR was dead, there was no changing that. So, they couldn't tell people she was sick and then all those people later find out she was murdered. It would be too suspicious. No, the only solution was to take charge, call the authorities and hope there 3 page RN would fool the authorities, giving them time to dispose her hidden body at a later date.
    This post is long and I am rusty from not writing on here in a while, so my apologies for the rambling.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? The practice note is evidence of...what, exactly? Nothin', honey.

      Leaving a door or window unlocked is hardly evidence of a break-in, just sloppy security.

      What possible difference would a little blood make? The "intruder" could have been assumed to have her to subdue her.

      But I maintain that it was planned, and that the flashlight blow was intended as an act of mercy.

      I don't think he woke her to molest her. I think her woke her to cover prior molestation by killing her.

      Had Patsy not called 911, she would have believed (or pretended to believe, in your scenario) that there was a kidnapper, and her daughter's best chance was to cooperate, and not call authorities. In which case, they would have called Mike Archuleta to cancel the flight, and had him call the airline to notify the adult kids in Minneapolis - which is precisely what happened.

      C'mon, J.

      Delete
    2. How would an adult in the house know she was brain dead, and not in a coma?

      K

      Delete
    3. First off…hi CC

      Ok, so we KNOW a Ramsey committed this crime correct? So, if this was PRE MEDITATED, then why in the name of everything holy would you leave a pen, paper along with what looks like a practice note? You wouldn’t! If this was planned ahead of time, the note would have been written ahead of time and the pen, paper used to write the note, would have been disposed of.

      This argument that Doc has made and now you just couldn’t be more ridiculous. So, now a head blow causing blood to potentially be everywhere would be viewed as just part of the crime???? Ummmm is this serious? The whole point of the RN was that a kidnapping happened. If blood was found everywhere, I am not sure how that would help the kidnappers.

      The last point that we have been over a million times but bears repeating, is the idea of Patsy being allowed to make the 911 call. If John and only John committed this crime, then 911 call = Jail for life for John. Not to mention you are arguing that this was all planned ahead of time, so John goes thru all that trouble only to have his plan foiled within minutes because Patsy makes the 911 call.

      Covering prior molestation by killing her……….Patsy was with JBR way more than John and also took her to the Pediatrician. In order to buy the theory that JBR was being molested by John over a long period of time and then he killed her to shut her up, you must also believe Patsy is the dumbest person on the planet. There is no way around it…..Patsy would have to literally be blind

      -J

      Delete
    4. Hey, J-man. Miss us?

      Kolar, Thomas and former Chief Beckner have all said there was prior sexual abuse, as did Drs Meyer and Sirontak, the only two docs who examined the actual body. Without an internal pelvic exam, there's no way for Patsy or the pediatrician to know, and Beuf has said one was never done - though as you may know, I think one was planned for after the holidays, hence the motive for the murder. The prior abuse happened, J.

      It would have taken no more than a second for Patsy to punch in those three numbers - and once it's dialed, there's no taking it back - the cops WILL come, as they'd all learned at the party on 12/23. John goes to, ostensibly, check on Burke or somesuch, and BAM, it's done.

      I don't get why blood would have been an issue at a crime scene. Why is it so unlikely a kidnapper would strike a victim to immobilize or silence them?

      You do persevere, Lucy, I'll give you that.

      Delete
    5. PS - I'm not lurking here, ready to pounce. It's Friday, and as you may remember, a day I take off as a way to back, slowly, into retirement.

      Delete
    6. "Had this been planned, the practice RN, along with pen and paper would have been removed"

      Not if John was trying to set Patsy up.....in fact, I've been pondering this for the past couple of days, and I'm going to put this out there for CC: Has it occurred to you, that John may have deliberately included the alleged "practice note" in the tablet so that there would be no doubt that the RN was written on Patsy's very own pad? Hence why he was so eager to hand it over to LE? After all, the writer of the RN was sure to remove several other pages he'd scribbled on, but not that one.....why? A careless mistake, or a carefully planned act of cunning?

      Delete
    7. J:

      A crime was being staged, therefore blood would not have been an issue at all. Blood usually accompanies a crime scene....a body at the same location as the kidnapping, not so much, however!

      John wouldn't have felt it necessary to open windows or doors, as no police would be entering the house that morning to take a look around, would they?

      "JBR taking a piece of pineapple or playing with Burke's toy would be reason enough for a boy who was rumored to be troubled, to lash out with a swift swing of a flashlight, rendering his sister brain dead."
      You don't feel that silencing a victim of sexual abuse is a reasonable motive for murder? Why not? If you do a little bit of research, you'll find that, actually, it is one of the most common motives.....much more so than pineapple, in fact, (strangely enough).

      "The Ramsey's had just left a party with a lot of people and there has been absolutely any evidence to suggest that JBR was going to talk or rat her Dad out. That is 100% a fabrication."
      It's not a "fabrication", it is "speculation", and it is based on the fact that we know *someone* was abusing JB, and - as her killer was a family member - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that her killer was probably also her abuser.....which narrows it down to (most probably) the two males living in the house. We know that, in most cases like these, the adult male is usually the perpetrator, and we know that the RN wasn't penned by a nine year old boy, so it is a very obvious, logical inference to make, that her father is more likely to be the killer rather than her nine year old brother.

      "John goes thru all that trouble only to have his plan foiled within minutes because Patsy makes the 911 call."

      It had never even occurred to John that Patsy would have called 911. Why would it? She was a dutiful, subservient wife, and he'd gone to great lengths detailing what would happen to their daughter if the authorities were contacted.
      J, if you can't suspend enough disbelief to accept that John didn't factor into his plan that his wife might call 911, then how can you suspend enough disbelief to accept that two, loving, parents strangled their daughter to death rather than faking an accident? If you can't accept that sexual abuse is enough of an incentive to commit murder, how can you believe that a piece of fruit is?

      Delete
    8. Good to hear from you J. Always enjoy your posts. You tell it as it is and keep things simple. This murder was definitely a "spur of the moment" attack with a fit of rage. I can't fathom how anyone could believe this was premeditated.

      Delete
    9. Thanks Zed....I took some time off from here, but got the itch to see what was being posted. I know I am not offering anything new, but the idea that this was planned or premeditated has always been ludicrous to me.
      Besides the pen and pad of paper, the point of entry to the house is and always be the biggest reason this wasn't planned for me. Whether it be a lock that was jimmied, an open window or some other obvious point of entry, this would be the most important thing to do. The broken window in the basement was a product of it being spur of the moment. They couldn't risk breaking the window from the outside to risk a neighbor hearing it.

      Forgetting everything else, I really need to hear a thorough explanation as to how this was planned ahead of time. Because once it is ruled out, it makes the John Ramsey case a little bit harder to prove.

      -J

      Delete
  12. IMO John began the "practice note", Mr and Mrs I, and immediately realized he needed to be in complete control of the situation, recognized the need to telegraph this to his wife, and so promptly changed the addressee to "Mr Ramsey".

    There were pages torn from that pad, one directly after the "practice note"; perhaps three in total, but it's been a while, memory fails, and I'm nowhere near my notes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I definitely believe that John realized that the note needed to be addressed solely to him, but, as you believe he used her writing materials and art supplies in order to frame her, wouldn't it make sense that he also made sure there could be no doubt that it was his wife's writing pad that was used to pen the note? If there is what appears to be the beginnings of a "practice note" still attached to that pad, there can be no doubt, can there? If it wasn't his goal to frame her - why then was he so careless as to not tear out that page, along with the others?

      Delete
    2. Which brings me to another point: To all BDIs and PDIs.....do you not find it odd that Patsy seemingly went out of her way to incriminate herself by deliberately choosing to employ items that could all be linked to her? After garroting her daughter to death - whether it be to finish off the job Burke started, or to satisfy her own murderous rage - wouldn't it have been wise to then remove her paintbrush handle from the ligature and dispose of it *prior* to inviting the police over to find her daughter's corpse?

      Delete
    3. J..

      I agree with you. To believe JR would decide to molest and murder his daughter the night before a family holiday is ridiculous. Just because there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, it doesn't mean JR was the perpetrator. JAR stayed with them, slept in the room next to JR's on a number of occasions. His suitcase was found with a child's book inside of it. JBR was sent to the school nurse on several Monday's after JAR's visits. How do we know that it wasn't him molesting her? How do we know BR didn't witness it? It seems to me, the parents were on the third floor totally unaware of what was going on in the floors below them. GJ was right. Totally negligent.

      I think the parents found her dead already hours later, which is why they didn't call for help and decided to cover it up. I think the kids were downstairs after the parents went to bed, peeking at gifts, etc and something happened between them to where it got out of hand.

      The timeline doesn't make sense either. The R's claimed to have gotten up around 5:30 or so. He showered, she washed up and dressed and put her make up on, went downstairs, fussed with a red jumper, found the note, read it, called 911, police arrived at 5:52 I believe. 22 minutes from start to finish? Make sense to you?

      Question -PR claimed to have packed a bit the night before after putting JBR to bed. Did the police find any packed suitcases, or partially packed suitcases to indicate their intent to leave on vacation as they claimed? Just curious.

      EG

      Delete
    4. "To believe JR would decide to molest and murder his daughter the night before a family holiday is ridiculous. Just because there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, it doesn't mean JR was the perpetrator. JAR stayed with them, slept in the room next to JR's on a number of occasions. His suitcase was found with a child's book inside of it. JBR was sent to the school nurse on several Monday's after JAR's visits. How do we know that it wasn't him molesting her?"

      So what you're asking ask to believe, EG, is that JB was being molested by a person not living in the home, and it is pure coincidence that she was found murdered with fresh wounds to her vagina? That her molestation and her murder were not related.....even though her vagina had been penetrated directly before/after her murder? Three people were in the house that night - JAR wasn't one of them - so that only leaves John, Patsy and Burke who could have murdered her, along with inflicting her vaginal injuries THAT NIGHT, so isn't it almost a foregone conclusion that the person who killed her was the same person who had previously been abusing her?

      Why is the thought of John molesting JB the night before a family vacation "ridiculous"? Why is it any different to having molested her on a night before she had school, or any other night, for that matter? Sexual abusers are opportunists, and speaking from my own experiences as a victim, believe me, they take HUGE risks.....John was already taking a huge risk regardless of when he chose to abuse his daughter. But, trust me, that doesn't stop them - because their urges are more powerful than their fear of getting caught. John knew he probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to touch her during the vacation, and certainly not on the cruise, because of the undoubtedly close confines, so he knew this was his last opportunity for a while. In fact, this is *precisely* why I believe John took the chance that night. I'm sure he also factored in that Patsy was exhausted from the week of festivities and knew she'd be sleeping like a log, an entire floor above JB's bedroom.

      As far as the timeline, my mother takes no longer than 5 minutes to apply a full face of make up (it never fails to amaze me), so let's assume Patsy took a few minutes dressing - as everyone knows, her clothes were already laid out from the night before - then ten minutes applying her make-up, a minute - even two - fussing over the stain, we've still got a good five minutes left. If you can't make sense of a relatively straight forward timeline, with all due respect, how do you make sense of two parents risking the death penalty by staging a murder as a cover up for an accident?

      Delete
  13. Hi CC and Ms D

    I just looked up the details of the notepad per Steve Thomas's book.(according to JBR encyclopedia)

    Pages 1-12 missing
    Pages 13-16 contained doodles and lists, misc. items
    Pages 17-25 missing
    Page 26 the practice note(Mr. and Mrs. 1)and this page
    showed evidence of bleedthrough from the
    missing page 25
    Pages 27,28 and 29 were determined to be the ransom note
    pages

    He goes on to say the bleedthrough suggested possible other practice pages. He also states they never found the missing pages.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done, as always, K. If I haven't already said so, happy to see you here again.

      Delete
    2. When Patsy started writing the first RN she wrote "Mr and Mrs". But of course, she (and John who was most likely standing next to her helping her write) knew they were going for a kidnapping with a vendetta against John. So it made sense for Patsy to start again and only write "Mr". There's so many things in that letter that lead to it being a joint effort, with Patsy ultimately penning it. Couple this with the fact there was no premeditation and it had to be a fit of rage.

      Oh and of course Burke is the only person in that house to have ever strike JB. With a golf club of all things...only difference that time was it didnt crack her skull and there were witnesses.

      Delete
    3. Any particular reason why John and Patsy decided the best way to point to an intruder would be to use one of Patsy's very own paintbrushes to fashion the murder weapon, Zed?

      Any evidence at all that suggests John was dictating the note to Patsy?

      Any evidence this wasn't premeditated, when our resident lawyer sees evidence to the contrary?

      Delete
    4. Nope....
      I didn't think so. Your silence always tells us much more than you ever could, Zed!

      Delete
  14. Come over to Reddit fulltime CC. Nothing but idiots here and we could use a smart lawyer there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hate-spewing idiots remaining anonymous are called cowards.

      "See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years, you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f--kin' education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library..." Will Hunting

      Mike G.

      Delete
  15. As much as I found the CBS documentary intriguing, I really don't think Burke created that garrotte with those knots himself. Not as a 9-year-old in the middle of the night after a very busy and intense day. Anyone who has kids or has been around kids that age knows that they get very tired around 10:00 pm (if they're even allowed up that late). My 10-year-old nephew is a zombie by 9:00 pm, even on weekends and over holidays when he's not in school.

    Even though the findings of the knot expert they brought in weren't disclosed to the public, I understand the knots were quite sophisticated. The documentary may have proven that a 9-year-old was strong enough to create the head wound, but I find the idea that Burke broke his mother's paintbrush in two (which would have taken considerable strength on its own) and then fashioned a garrotte with sophisticated knots all by himself in the middle of the night to be more than a bit of a stretch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who said the garotte was made that night?

      Delete
    2. It was made that night. Right on top of the victim. Her hairs were found entwined in the knotting.

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

      Delete
  16. Greetings Canuck. Mike Kane said the knots were sent out for analysis and that they were not complicated knots. As a boy scout Burke could have tied the knot around the stick at any time, not necessarily that night but yes, a rather grim picture comes to mind that it would have been used on his sister. By anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "As a boy scout Burke could have tied the knot around the stick at any time, not necessarily that night"

    No. As Doc said above, JB's hair was entwined within the knot, therefore we know, without any doubt, that the garrote was fashioned on top of a face down, unconscious, JonBenet.....I'm not sure why this business about the garrote perhaps being made at an earlier date - and just happened to be handy that night - keeps getting repeated, when everyone here should be more than familiar with the autopsy reports/photos.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, I get that MsD. But if Burke were practicing his knot tying around stick as they are taught in boy scouts, the "contraption" if you will, could have already been made, lying handy in or near the paint tray. Unless you want to suggest John had all of the time in the world to make it for staging purposes, and know just to construct, using materials that would be lying around handy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great summary Doc. I love it when you re-fuel this blog with your sensible, well-thought out explanation of the details of this case. It's like a shot in the arm for all us "addicted" to this case!


    One point that continues to confuse me is your #8 point about JR failing to report the open window. If he wanted the intruder story to stick, why would he even close the window? Isn't that where the intruder supposedly entered?

    bb

    ReplyDelete
  20. To clarify: Isn't the window where JR WANTED the police to think the intruder entered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's where JR INITIALLY wanted the police to think the intruder entered. That would have been part of his original plan. But when Patsy surprised him by calling 911 when she did, he was forced to change that plan.
      Which is why he came up with the story about breaking in earlier. If his staging had been completed, there would have been no need to invent such a story.

      What I think happened was that John's window staging could not be completed on the night of the crime, because that would have required him to actually pass through that window and also displace the grate over the window well. Doing that would have left himself and his clothing in a huge mess, which would have been very difficult to explain to Patsy the following morning. It's also possible he just ran out of time, as the alarm would soon go off, waking her.

      So he must have decided to wait till the next day, after he'd managed to get Patsy and Burke out of the house, to complete his staging. When Patsy called 911, he would have realized the police would soon see the broken window as the staging it was, once they realized that no dirt or dust had been displaced from the window sill.

      So it then became necessary to UN-stage his previous, partial, staging.

      Delete
  21. "But if Burke were practicing his knot tying around stick as they are taught in boy scouts, the "contraption" if you will, could have already been made, lying handy in or near the paint tray."

    No, it couldn't have. It's quite simple: JB's hair was entwined within the knots themselves, meaning that the contraption had to have been tied whilst it was around her throat. Had Burke fashioned the garrote previously - meaning the knots had already been tied *before* it was applied to her neck - how do you explain her hair being inside the actual knots, Castor?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for the explanation Doc. I apologize if I've asked that very question before. I forget that JR had to UN-STAGE the window because the police would not have believed there was an intruder without further staging, which he was unable to complete. Makes total sense now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Everyone here knows that I agree with 90% of Doc's theory.

    I think Doc is most likely correct in regards to John’s staging (and the subsequent unstaging). But please remember, all this proves is that John was involved. It does NOT prove John was the sole person involved.

    At the end of the day, how believable is it that John would choose to molest his daughter on the night of Xmas, hours before they are due to fly on the family plane to meet other family members?

    How believable is it that John risked thumping his daughter over the head with an almighty blow (a blow which you would expect there to be blood and lots of it)?

    How believable is it that John would wait 45min before applying the garrotte?

    Everything points to someone else delivering the headblow and then John assisting in the coverup. Could Patsy be the person to have delivered that blow? Sure. But would John really go to the lengths he did to cover for her? I’m not convinced. The most rational explanation is that Burke delivered the headblow. He was most likely with JB close to the time of her death (you can dismiss the pineapple all you want but it’s still compelling evidence). He’s the only one in the house with history of striking JB before. The strike most likely happened where JB’s urine was...just outside the basement. In the basement there was Burkes presents which had torn pieces off...Patsy bluntly lied about this, but why? There was also Burke’s trains, which made those marks on JB. There was the 45min wait...points to a nervous child afraid of waking his parents and telling them what happened.

    And despite what you all think, parents would do ANYTHING for their children. Especially parents like John and Patsy, who were very image conscious and very much cared what others thought of them. Yes, they went to extreme lengths but I have no doubts whatsoever they would do those things. I’ve seen parents do worse on the news. And maybe there was reasons for doing what they did. Maybe Burke has been “playing doctor” (or something like that) with JB and that’s why he looked up the word incest in the dictionary because his parents had mentioned that to him. Maybe the paint brush was to try and hide that evidence. Maybe Burke had put something around his sister’s head to try and lift her up after the headblow. Maybe this caused a mark on her neck so the garrotte was made to hide that. Who knows.

    I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do believe Doc is spot on with a lot of his theory. Only change is that both parents were involved and Burke delivered the headblow. What happened after is up for speculation and who did what and why we will probably never know.

    ReplyDelete
  24. PS. I forgot to mention that the unstaging wasn't due to Patsy's 911 call. It was simply because he realised how ridiculous it looked and if he didn't make up a story, him and Patsy were in big trouble.

    The 911 phone call had to occur when it did. And Patsy was a better candidate to make the call.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "And despite what you all think, parents would do ANYTHING for their children."

    Exactly, Zed.....that is precisely why they would have called an ambulance and taken the heat themselves for JonBenet's head blow.
    Problem solved, no? They then save Burke AND JonBenet. No cover up for a murder necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have a child, as do most of the posters here, Zed. Do you? If you do, then you have answered your own question - you would do "anything" to save them. So where does strangling them to death fit into this equation? Murdering one of your children to save another (one that didn't even need "saving")....quite the paradox, isn't it? And that is where the BDI argument always falls apart. John and Patsy had no motive to kill JonBenet if your scenario is to be believed, it really is just that simple. Presumably, you believe that only two alternatives existed: 1. Try to save JB and risk having Burke locked up, or 2. Brutally murder JonBenet and stage a horrific murder by a pedophile intruder who fancied himself as a kidnapper. It seems to have escaped every BDI's mind that there were obviously several other, more viable - and less savage - alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ive got three kids. And i stand by my comments. Remember you are the minority in this case. Just because the bulk of people on this blog dont think parents covered for someone, doesnt mean your theory is the most popular. A LOT of people, including seasoned detectives and LE dont find it even remotely difficult to believe that the parents covered for their son.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Newtons theory of gravity remained "popular", even among all but of few world renowned physicists, for years after Einstein debunked it with his General Theory of Relativity. Today, August 21, 2017, there is solar eclipse; the event which proved, once and for all, that the populace was wrong and Einstein was right. Take that as a sign, Zed, and all ye non-believers! REPENT and KNEEL before JDI!

      A flashlight from above eclipsed,
      the last cries from his daughters lips.
      Garrote from rope and paintbrush marshalled,
      To make complete her darkness partial.

      Mike G.








      Delete
    2. "Remember you are the minority in this case."

      You're appealing to a logical fallacy (again) - the truth is not determined by how many people believe it.

      "A LOT of people, including seasoned detectives and LE dont find it even remotely difficult to believe that the parents covered for their son."

      Actually, the good majority of LE don't believe Burke had anything to do with it....nor do Burke's doctors, not the GJ, and not those who were investigating the homicide at the time. John was actually the primary suspect, then Patsy - you know this. So, by appealing to authority - yet another logical fallacy - to strengthen your argument, you've failed miserably. At any rate, you're answering questions that were never asked, presumably in order to completely avoid answering the *actual* question, which was, in a nutshell:
      "What was John and Patsy's motive for murdering their daughter?"
      It couldn't have been to protect Burke, as we know all they had to do in order to protect BOTH of their children (a concept BDIs cannot grasp for some, unknown reason) was call an ambulance, get help for JB, and tell the authorities that John was practicing his swing with his new golf clubs and accidentally whacked JB?" (Or a similar story - let's face it, if they loved Burke enough to choke his sister to death for him, I'm sure taking the blame for clubbing her on the head would have been a more preferable option than committing capital murder, thereby risking the death penalty, don't you?) So, I'll ask one more time, Zed, or J: why do you feel it was necessary to sacrifice JonBenet, when there were other, less dramatic options that didn't involve murder, and a subsequent cover up of epic proportions? And why did they write a ransom note when they weren't staging a kidnapping, but an attack by a pedophile? Please, just stick to these simple questions without trying to derail the discussion.


      "Ive got three kids. And i stand by my comments."

      So you'd do the same? You'd sacrifice one of your children for another? Yikes...I hope they're sleeping with one eye open!

      Delete
    3. Oooohhh.....nice one, Mike!

      Delete
    4. No of course I would not sacrifice one children for another. But I would sacrifice myself.

      John and Patsy didn't sacrifice JB for Burke, although keep believing that if it makes you feel better.

      They DID sacrifice themselves though.

      Delete
    5. *one child.

      I write all my posts on my phone

      Delete
    6. "No of course I would not sacrifice one children for another. But I would sacrifice myself."

      Well then, if you wouldn't kill one of your children to save another, then even you recognize how ludicrous the idea is.

      "John and Patsy didn't sacrifice JB for Burke, although keep believing that if it makes you feel better."

      If they applied a garrote around their daughter's throat whilst she was still alive (and we KNOW she was still alive, because the cause of death was asphyxiation due to ligature strangulation), then they most certainly DID "sacrifice" her for the sake of their other child.....try and explain to me, Zed, how the two of them making a calculated decision to end her life - so that Burke would not face any heat for whacking her on the head - is not a sacrifice? I eagerly await your response.....though I sure don't expect one.

      "They DID sacrifice themselves though."

      HOW??? If they sacrificed themselves, they would have said THEY did it, no?! Inventing a story about a phony intruder, then pointing fingers at their best friends, housekeeper, and everyone else they know is NOT sacrificing themselves, it is quite the opposite! Good grief, did anyone else just read these words with utter amazement??? John and Patsy NEVER admitted to any part in this crime - John, twenty years later, is STILL blaming an intruder.....where is the sacrifice?!

      Delete
  28. The Ramsey's got home from the party around 9-9:30pm and JBR according to both parents was asleep. When they got home she was put to bed according to both parents. Assuming PR settled in, packed a little and then went to sleep 30 min to an hour later, which of these scenarios seems more likely.

    A) Burke was up playing with his toys (AS HE STATED ON DR. Phil) and had his pineapple snack. Hearing the noise, JBR went downstairs to see what was going on

    OR

    B) JR hoping that both PR and BR are asleep, goes into JB's room, picks her up, brings her downstairs and tries to molest her.

    Please answer this honestly....option A is much more plausible

    I will also argue that anybody who has kids knows that when they fall asleep in the car, even if they are brought up to bed right away, they almost every time wake up after a short while. So, even if JB was brought upstairs right away, my experience is that they wake up shortly after and will look to play, eat or just be out of bed.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ask us to answer your question honestly, J and then tell us how to answer it.....come on now!
      I'm not going with A or B, because it's a false dichotomy. Parts of A are true, as are parts of B, but neither is entirely true, and there are other, less "black and white" alternatives.

      Tell me J, why do you find it so implausible that a father could molest his daughter in a house full of people? It happens all too frequently, unfortunately.

      Delete
    2. Sibling fights happen even more.

      Delete
    3. Ms D – It’s not just that he would have molested her in a house full of people, but also the night in which it would have happened. They had a flight early the next morning, where they would be with family all day, which would be an uncontrollable environment. You already know my take on Burke and the pineapple, but I guess I bears repeating. I fully believe Burke was up at least till around 11:30-midnight timeframe playing with his toys. He said this on Dr. Phil and I 100% believe that pineapple bowl was his snack that he took out that evening when they got home. As a kid there was nothing better than Christmas and all the new toys you got, so it stands to reason that him staying up to play with all of his new toys is more than plausible. If Burke was up, then it would have to extend the John Ramsey timeline by a few more hours which is even more the reason I don’t believe it was John. Even if Burke went up to bed at midnight, it doesn’t mean he was asleep at midnight.

      But before any more discussion should take place, you and the other JDI crew need to commit to this being pre-meditated or spur of the moment. It drastically changes everything, so which one is it?

      -J

      Delete
    4. "Sibling fights happen even more."

      But that's not what this is about, is it?! This is about SEXUAL ABUSE, it is about MURDER! It is about two parents KILLING their child rather than choosing to save her! Good lord, your answers are always so dishonest, you dance around every question put forth to you and it is exhausting. Can you please just answer the questions I outlined above once and for all so I can stop asking, and we have somewhere to go beyond the argument which led to the head blow?! My God, getting a single, straight, answer from you is akin to drawing blood from a stone. If you're so convinced your theory is correct, then you will have NO trouble answering the very same question CC and I have been asking you for MONTHS. Your chronic refusal to address it proves it is a very sore point for you, and one that - even after months to ponder it - you STILL can't come up with a logical response!

      Delete
    5. "But before any more discussion should take place, you and the other JDI crew need to commit to this being pre-meditated or spur of the moment. It drastically changes everything, so which one is it?"

      Why does it matter, in regards to the argument, J? Some here believe it was premeditated, others don't.
      At any rate, you really have no right to be demanding WE need to commit, when I have asked the same of you and Zed since I've been here in regards to whether you believe Burke did it all - meaning his parents found her already dead - or whether they finished her off, because that DOES drastically change things, as one scenario has Burke as her killer, whereas the other has John and/or Patsy as her killers!
      Whether John premeditated it or not, his motive remains the same, as does the outcome.....but the BDI scenario is very different, depending on whether JB was still breathing or not when her parents found her, because if she was, your theory has THEM as the killers, and if she as already dead, it has BURKE as her killer! And if the latter, it also means it wasn't an accident, it was cold blooded murder, because he also choked the life out of her after clubbing her on the head, meaning her death was no accident. So you and Zed really HAVE to commit, because until you do, you can't even definitively name who you believe JB's murderer actually is!

      Delete
    6. Don’t Trump me and change the subject to Hillary. C’mon Ms D, answer the question

      Whether this was premeditated ABSOLUTELY changes the JDI theory and you know it. If it was premeditated then it wasn’t a molestation attempt gone wrong. It means he PLANNED to kill her, presumably to shut her up, correct? So, clubbing her over the head wouldn’t seem to be the most ideal way of making this a clean situation. If this was premeditated, then he would have had the note written ahead of time correct? Surely he wouldn’t have written it that night, leaving the pen and paper in the house. If this was premeditated, he wouldn’t have needed to break the window that night and would have been able to open a window, jimmy a lock or any other various options that were better than breaking the basement window from the inside. Also, I have argued that if this was premeditated, he wouldn’t have hinged his entire plan on Patsy believing the note or not. Not to mention, if the note’s sole purpose was to fool Patsy, you don’t wait till halfway thru the note to tell her not to call the police.
      So, I will answer your question on Burke, but answer my question first. It absolutely is crucial to you theory!

      -J

      Delete
    7. "Ms D – It’s not just that he would have molested her in a house full of people, but also the night in which it would have happened."

      A "perfect" night for it...his wife was in a deep sleep, after a long, exhausting week, and knowing she had to get up at the crack of dawn. As I said in a previous post, child abusers are opportunists. If they weighed up the pros and cons of when is a "good" time to abuse their victim, they wouldn't do it at all, would they now? So, the fact it still occurs means the fear of getting caught in the act is obviously not as strong as their urges, correct? Presuming, for the sake of argument, that John had already crossed that line - this night was no different to any other - except it was John's last chance to spend some "quality time with his daughter" for quite a while, making this night all the more important to him.

      "They had a flight early the next morning, where they would be with family all day, which would be an uncontrollable environment."

      I'm not sure of your point? It was always an "uncontrollable environment", as JonBenet could have spilled the beans to anyone, at any time......precisely why he killed her (and you've just answered your own question - whether he molested her that night, or hadn't touched her in weeks, it made no difference, as she was probably going to let the cat out of the bag during the vacation in Michigan).

      Delete
    8. You just ripped on Zed for not answering a question and then you completely avoided answering mine.

      -J

      Delete
    9. J, I didn't avoid answering your question - I responded to your previous post, logged out, and hadn't been back till just now. I had a harrowing day yesterday and didn't spend any time on my lap top after leaving here. But I do find it amusing that, for a year now, I've been asking you to tell us who you believed KILLED JB (not who hit her on the head, we're more than clear on that one), and you've managed to avoid answering the all important question this entire time.....now, a day and a half after asking ME a question, you're miffed I haven't answered it! It's very annoying, isn't it? :D
      Here's the thing: BDIs have always been extremely vague when it comes to what they actually believe happened - they will eagerly give us their version of events leading up to the head blow, but become evasive, ambiguous and contradictory once we get to what came after. They flip-flop on who-did-what, fabricate certain details, and avoid addressing the comments that point out the glaring holes in their theory, so I really don't feel compelled to offer a level of transparency none of you are willing to meet...when you're willing to meet the challenge, I'll follow suit.

      Delete
    10. Ok Ms D...even though you still didn't answer it...I will answer your question. This is what I believe happened

      I believe Burke was downstairs playing with his new Christmas toys and stopped to eat his pineapple with milk snack. At some point during this, JB came downstairs carrying her pillow to see what Burke was doing. My guess is that she went into his room first and seeing that he wasn’t in there, decided to go downstairs. I think she probably took a piece of pineapple that got him agitated and then went to play with his toys that set him over the top. I think he put rope around her neck to “send her a message” to not touch his toys and that’s when she clawed at the rope probably claiming it was too tight. After he released the rope, she grabbed one of his toys, officially sending him over the top which led to the flashlight clubbing her over the head which made her immediately drop to the ground.

      Burke panics and realizes that she isn’t moving, so at some point he pokes and prods her with the train tracks. After some time has passed, Burke realizing she isn’t moving but still faintly breathing, chokes his sister to death. Admittedly I go back and forth on whether John did the choking, but I will say it was Burke. At this point, he goes up and wakes up his Dad and shows him the horrific scene downstairs. With JB already dead, both John and Patsy have no choice but to cover up what was a horrible accident.

      -J

      Delete
  29. Did the police take pictures of the basement before the body was found? Are there differences in the before and after the body was found photos of the basement?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, Ms D? I wasn't aware that any photos had been taken before the body was found. Do you have a reference?

      Delete
    2. Yes please elaborate.

      Delete
    3. I don’t know how Ms D would respond, but this is what I noted. The CSI were there in the early morning taking photos of the home. I’m unsure if they also shot video at that time. BPD called this the kidnapping time period. After she was found and it became a homicide CSI returned to the home in the evening and shot photos and video. The variance in the photos is first brought up in the interview with JR in ’98. Lou Smit points out that the golf bags in the basement are seen in one position in the morning and in a different position in the evening.

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Anon.
      Inquisitive posted a link a few months ago which detailed the discrepancies in the "before and after" photos. One being the golf clubs, one *may* have involved a box of cigars being moved also, but I will have to sift through months worth of threads to find the relevant link, so it will take a while. It was a very interesting read.....it also included a discussion with Patsy regarding some photos of JB that were found in the basement (possibly in the cigar box?) and although the nature of the photos wasn't discussed, my take on it was that they weren't your standard, run of the mill, happy snaps, and Patsy couldn't account for why they were tucked away in the basement, of all places (she was asked if she had ever taken photos of JB in the basement, to which she said she never had, and it does seem like an odd location choice for a mother to take pics of her beautiful daughter in a cluttered, messy, basement. It would seem the only person who would have reason to take photos in such an out of the way location would be someone who didn't wish to be discovered.) My guess is that JB was no stranger to having her father take her down to the basement to take inappropriate photos of her, which is possibly what he was doing that night when something went wrong (presuming the murder wasn't premeditated), but the latter is pure speculation.

      Delete
    5. Interesting! So someone was in the basement moving things around- John!
      How did John and Patsy explain how things got magically moved from that morning to evening?

      Delete
    6. This is interesting D. All I remember about things being moved around in the basement that morning involved some object of Johns suggesting where the killer got the idea for the SBTC initials found on the ransom note.

      Mike G

      Delete
  30. Doc asked a very good question. "Why would John want to cover for Burke and not inform Patsy?" I'd also have to ask "Why would Patsy want to cover for Burke and not inform John?" If they were both in on a cover wouldn't that be a pretty confusing chaotic scenario? You do this, I'll do that. It makes no sense. Do we cling so steadfastly to an accident because the horror of imagining one perpetrator of such a lovely little girl and an intentional killing unfathomable?

    ReplyDelete
  31. In otherwords in any Burke did it scenario we will have to explain why there would have been a need to cover it up. Preserving family honor, keeping up appearances, holding on to one's job or not sending one's son to Juvie seems rather hollow.

    ReplyDelete
  32. A parent wouldn't murder one child to save another. However, they would cover up for a child if they found the other one dead already knowing what happened, and the consequences he'd face and the price he'd pay for the rest of his life.

    The R's know what happened that night, and will take it to their graves. One already has.

    It WAS a very chaotic scene, which is why their stories never jived. It's why their answers were vague to so many questions, therefore not committing to anything definite. "could have been, cant recall, perhaps, not sure exactly" and on and on.


    Start with the RN- They touched it, they didn't touch it. They read it all, they didn't read it all. It was on the steps, it was on the table, it was on the floor. It was everywhere, except where it should've been. In their hands. Not a fingerprint, a tear, saliva, sweat. Nothing. Clean as a whistle.

    EG




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You always speak sense EG.

      Kudos to you.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't work, EG. No matter the chaos, had they been co-conspirators they had FOUR MONTHS after the fact to make their stories "jive".

      Had they collaborated, there would have been glass on the floor, packing peanuts and debris from the window well.

      You've all apparently conceded my point that they would not risk the death penalty and so did not kill her, rather you've now decided Burke did it all, including the prior sexual molestation, have I got that right?

      Now please explain to me why they wouldn't view this with horror, recognize that their son - who had not only clubbed and strangled his sister, but in your scenario had been sexually assaulting her for weeks or months - did not need immediate, long-term psychiatric care.

      And then please tell me how they ever slept again, knowing there was a sociopathic, possibly psychotic kid who might decide to stab them one night right down the hall.

      Delete
    3. Or you, Zed. You never address challenges directly; you please feel free to explain this to me.

      Delete
    4. Also had they collaborated how did they know the police wouldn't separate them and question them individually. They would not have had time to get their stories straight on the morning of.

      Delete
    5. The story isn't complicated. They were asleep, Patsy woke up and saw the note while John was upstairs.

      -J

      Delete
    6. So do you also think John wrote the note J?

      Delete
    7. Yes, I think John physically wrote it and Patsy helped with the wording.

      -J

      Delete
    8. But then you just said above "Patsy woke up and saw the note while John was upstairs." If she helped write the note then she would have seen it before she woke up.

      Delete
    9. Correct....that is their story. Really hard to poke holes in the ole "we were asleep and heard nothing" alibi. I think the whole story is complete BS. I believe JR and PR were involved, so the story about finding it on the stairs is also crap.
      The stairs story is something they agreed upon to tell the authorities and could also leave a hint that it might be someone who knew their way around the house.

      -J

      Delete
    10. CC..

      They had four months where PR was probably totally out of it from being heavily sedated. I don't think she would've remembered anything and probably took the drugs to forget it all.

      And I am not saying that BR was some kind of a psychotic killer that they needed to be afraid of. I believe it was an accident, some type of "play" that went terribly, horribly wrong. BR had issues and as others have stated here, were often abused at the hands of older siblings.

      I also don't know if JR was sexually abusing JBR, who does? What we do know is there were several people who had access to that little girl--workers with keys, two older brothers who slept on the same floor with her. And two parents up in their bedroom oblivious to what was going on below them.

      EG

      Delete
    11. "And I am not saying that BR was some kind of a psychotic killer that they needed to be afraid of. I believe it was an accident, some type of "play" that went terribly, horribly wrong."

      But wasn't it you who stated that the only way BDI is plausible, is if Burke did it all - both the head blow and the strangulation - EG? If that's the case, you can't keep using the "accident" excuse. It would have taken several minutes to kill her with the garrote - plenty of time for the killer to change his mind - it was used with such brutality that it was deeply embedded in her flesh, so anyone with an iota of common sense has to know this wasn't a game gone wrong. The ligature was applied so tightly, that it's pretty obvious her killer was making absolutely certain she was dead. So, yes, I'd most definitely have to conclude that Burke is a "psychotic killer", and - parent or not - there's no way I'd ever sleep a wink again if I knew I was sharing the house with someone that disturbed.....someone who had already shown he had no issue with disposing of a family member!

      "I also don't know if JR was sexually abusing JBR, who does? What we do know is there were several people who had access to that little girl--workers with keys, two older brothers who slept on the same floor with her."

      But she had been abused right before she died, EG.....therefore her abuser had to be one of the three people in the house that night.

      Delete
  33. Thanks, Zed! I try! :)

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think that is the only explanation in a BDI scenario - that JB was already dead. Maybe it's the "cover for Burke" terminology that I find so inappropriate and trite.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John wrote the note. All we have is a small sample of his printing but it's enough. His letters all slant one way so what better way to disguise the ransom note than to write vertically. It looks to me like he's taken great pains to make each letter as straight as he can up and down. His writing sample from the old legal deposition also shows a cramped style. The ransom note has the letters cramped together. Just cherry picking the word "exhausting" has his use of the courier font a jumbled in with the other cramped letters.

    Didn't John Andrew say he recognized the movie quotes in the note? Watching movies like "Ransom" with his dad on weekends he spent in Boulder may have given John the idea to include them in the note. Not the kind of movies Patsy would have been interested in.

    The style is also dictatorial, blunt, brusque. From what little we know of Patsy could she have murdered her child or participated in a coverup and then constructed such a note - not even if it were dictated to her.

    Lastly it simply does not match her handwriting. And on what basis did Cina Wong rule out John? All she said was after looking over Patsy's handwriting she had to rule out John. Really? Some expert.

    ReplyDelete
  36. CC and Ms D...I have answered your questions more times than i can remember. I agree with EG and J, except I believe Patsy wrote the RN with John dictacting parts of it.

    I dont believe Burke "did it all" although I am open to the idea. I do believe he at least poked her with the train tracks and may have told his parents she was being naughty due to stolen pineapple or torn birthday presents. Due to evidence and a certain word in the dictionary (and also books their grandparents bought Burke), I am also open to the idea of Bukre having some kind of sexual relationship with his sister. Not abusive and totally child like (inquisitive kids/playing doctor etc.)

    And also since I am such a gentleman I will give you both one question to ask me and I will answer as soon as I read it. But as i said, I have answered your questions multiple times but you just refuse to read them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the questions that matter, Zed.
      Refer to my above comments.
      "I dont believe Burke "did it all" although I am open to the idea."
      It's really this simple: if Burke didn't do it all, then John and Patsy choked their daughter to death - Burke is guilty of an accident, they are guilty of murder. Now, as *they* are the ones who committed murder in this scenario, and not Burke.....what, then, were they protecting him from? Certainly NOT a murder charge because he wasn't the one who killed her, they were! So, please, just so we know where you stand (and so YOU know where you stand), think long and hard about it and commit, because JBR died of asphyxiation, so you have to decide who it was that twisted the garrote, because that is who killed her.....and strangulation is premeditated murder, not an accident. This is why it matters.

      Delete
  37. Yes, technically she died of asphyxiation and there was a high chance John did that. If you actually ever read my posts you would know I have always said that was plausible. All along I have said I agree with a lot of Doc's theory, just not who delivered the head blow.

    A head blow is something John would not have done.

    But back to the asphyxiation...do you actually think John and Patsy knew she was alive?? For all intensive purposes they thought she was dead. Not only that, Burke had killed her and poked her body (which had been lying there for over 40min) with his train tracks. Burke, the brother who had a history of striking her with objects. Burke, the brother who may have had incestual "play time" with his sister. Burke, the brother who was up after midnight with no supervision. Heck, maybe Burke had already put something around her neck (as is very common with kids) and the garotte was to disguise that.

    For people like John and Patsy, how do you think that would make them feel when that information got out in the community? They would rather die. So yes, in some ways they did this for Burke, but they also did it for themselves. So yes people keep saying the lengths people would go to for their child, but Ramseys would also go to lengths for themselves. Its just the kind of people they are.

    They invented the intruder/kidnapping story and frantically tried to make it look like something an intruder would do.

    None of that is even close to unbelievable. I have seen parents do much worse on the news.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, CC. I guess my last paragraph can be scrubbed. LHP seems to contradict her own timeline for the bed wetting. The time frame she gave investigators, as reported by ST, does not match the bed wetting information attributed to her in PMPT.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I meant to respond below.

      Delete
    3. "A head blow is something John would not have done."

      Why not? Because you say so? You're going to have to do better than that.

      "But back to the asphyxiation...do you actually think John and Patsy knew she was alive?? For all intensive purposes they thought she was dead."

      Utter bullshit! You do realize there are infallible methods of checking for signs of life, Zed? Methods two, loving parents would be CERTAIN to employ PRIOR to making such a gruesome and brutal decision.....come on now, Zed, that excuse doesn't fly. You really don't think the fact she was still warm didn't ring any alarm bells for them once they started twisting the garrote??? The mucous coming out of her nose? The sound of the air being squeezed out of her lungs as the cord was tightened? COME ON, this was their CHILD! They did not accidentally choke their daughter to death, the very suggestion is ludicrous. JonBenet was killed with intent, and the GJ agreed - the charge was first degree murder, not manslaughter.

      "Not only that, Burke had killed her and poked her body (which had been lying there for over 40min) with his train tracks"

      Oh, so we're back to Burke being the one who killed her? This is the exact kind of BDI flip-flopping I was referring to in my comment to J. I'm not being picky - it really does make it hard to follow. This is why a definitive, lucid, theory needs to be put forward by the BDIs here.

      Delete
  38. J, you said this in one of your posts above:

    "Just because there was evidence of prior sexual abuse, it doesn't mean JR was the perpetrator. JAR stayed with them, slept in the room next to JR's on a number of occasions. His suitcase was found with a child's book inside of it. JBR was sent to the school nurse on several Monday's after JAR's visits. How do we know that it wasn't him molesting her?"

    Just out of curiosity, how do you know JAR spent the night at the Ramsey's on "a number of occasions?" Furthermore, how do you know that JBR's Monday visits to the school nurse specifically coincided with the weekends JAR stayed there?

    If no information is available to confirm the claim that JBR's Monday visits to the nurse occurred after JAR's weekend stays, IMO, there is another way to interpret this information. A CEO father would be busy working during the week. The weekend is more likely when he would have time to interact with his family. Therefore, I don't think it's illogical to consider that that JBR's Monday visits to the nurse could point to JR as her sexual abuser.

    Here's something else. (This isn't in response to J's statement, but it's in the same vein.) I was rereading parts of ST's book the other night. LHP started working for the Rs 14 months before JBR's murder. LHP said that JBR wet the bed every night for the first six months that she worked there. Then the bed wetting stopped, only to resume again about a month before the murder. I'm really curious as to why the bed wetting stopped and what made it start again. I think it's important to note the PR and BR were constants in JBR's life. PR was a SAHM and BR was JBR's younger sibling--they were always around JBR. JR, on the other hand, worked, traveled, etc. There were times when he was absent. Also, going by LHP's timeline, the bulk of the time that JBR was not wetting the bed, falls during the summer months. Did PR often take the kids to the lake during summer vacation, while JR stayed home to work? I don't know the answer, and this is all just speculation, but still something to think about, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello HKH..

      That was me who stated the above. I found that information awhile ago on either acandyrose or websleuths or one of the other sites. I also read that the school refused to provide the records and the DA refused a warrant for them, and so the information was never investigated properly.

      And as I've stated on here many times, I don't know who was sexually molesting JBR. Of course I agree that in most cases it's the adult male in the house, statistics show that, I am sure. However, in this particular case there are too many other possibilities and the parents were clueless. JR was wrapped up in his business and PR in her pageants and public image. LHP said PR went into rages whenever JBR wet the bed. Maybe the R's should've realized that something was wrong between both kids--BR having scatological issues and JBR wetting the bed nightly.

      You do make a good point about the bed wetting having stopped. I wish we knew more about that, specifically. What does that coincide with? JAR's visits or JR's return to the house. The tragedy is so much information was withheld which hindered the investigation.

      EG

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, EG. Apparently, I'm having a hard time keeping my replies straight. ;)

      OK, I searched to see where that information came from. It was in ST's book. He said, "She [JBR] went to see the school nurse twice in December, both times on a Monday after a weekend."

      I'm not sure if two Monday visits to the school nurse are enough to indicate anything of importance. I do remember reading somewhere (maybe in the Bonita Papers--so it might not be 100% accurate) that teachers reported JBR had developed a clinginess to her mother sometime in Dec. of '96. LHP told investigators that JBR had started wetting the bed again a month before her murder. All of this together, if true, might be significant.

      (Just a quick note, I had said before that LHP contradicted her own time frame for the bed wetting. However, both ST and Kolar report LHP offering the same time frame. PMPT is where LHP is quoted as providing different information about the bed wetting. Therefore, I'm not sure if LHP contradicted herself or Schiller got it wrong.)

      As far as LHP saying PR got angry over the bed wetting, I believe this statement was made after she found out the Rs implicated her in the murder. LHP didn't disclose this information initially (as far as I know.) If she had, I think ST would have been all over it, and used it to support his theory. I don't remember reading any such information in his book (and I couldn't find any when I went back and searched.) In fact, in an article I read on the subject, LHP said it was ST's book which jogged her memory and made her recall PR taking JBR into the bathroom to punish her for bed wetting. While I'm inclined to believe the statements LHP made early in the investigation, I'm very skeptical of her latter claims.

      As far as the Rs realizing there was something wrong... as a parent, I don't think bed wetting by a six year old would immediately set off an alarm. It would warrant a trip to the pediatrician, and depending on how long it had been occurring, possibly tests to rule out any medical issues. I certainly wouldn't automatically think my child was being abused. However, what would concern me would be if my child had remedied the problem, gone months without an incident, and suddenly started wetting the bed again.

      I'm not so sure BR had scatological/toileting issues (at least at the time of JBR's death.) Kolar points to some very flimsy evidence to support this idea. He states that BR was still wetting the bed in 1993. BR would have been six at the time. This is the same time BR reportedly smeared feces on the bathroom wall. All of this coincides with PR's first bout with cancer. The remainder of Kolar's "evidence" is total speculation. He says that fecal matter was observed in p.j. pants found on JBR's floor, which were "thought" to belong to BR. He also cites a box of candy smeared with feces. He stated during his Reddit AMA that he as far as he knew the p.j. pants nor the candy had ever been collected or tested. He also speculates that perhaps the feces, reportedly found in JBR's bed by LHP, belonged to BR. There is nothing to indicate this was the case though. IMO, if BR had scatological issues there would have been much more evidence of it. LHP was present in the home three days a week (I believe,) yet she didn't report any incidents of BR having such issues.

      Anyway, yes, I would really like to know what caused JBR to regress in her bed wetting.

      Delete
    3. I never mentioned JAR. I don't believe John Andrew had anything to do with this

      -J

      Delete
    4. I know. I'm sorry, J. I mixed up EG's response to you as a post written by you.

      Delete
  39. The increase in bed wetting might have something to do with an increase in pageant competitions. Patsy downplayed the competitions by saying they were a sometime thing, but the schedule may say otherwise. I remember viewing her schedule online some time ago and will try and find it again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a timeline that includes at least the December pageants on acandyrose.

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I thought I had seen it somewhere.

      Delete
  40. I really appreciate the way everyone here is still interested in this case. It means she will not be forgotten. So although we may disagree on who did what and when and how, I think we can all agree that we hope one day justice will be served. And that's my corny comment for the day.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I am well aware that the Linda Arndt discussion is one that has been had on here numerous times, but he is such a crucial part of this whole case and I think it is worth discussing again.

    In her TV interview she gives a very detailed description of not only what she witnessed at the Ramsey house that morning, but also her observations. When describing JR carrying JB’s lifeless body upstairs, she talks about the specific observations in regards to John and his behavior. She never says out loud that she felt it was John Ramsey, but says the whole line about counting how many bullets she had on her, presumably because she was scared of John. In the interview she still has a sense of being terrified, almost like in a moment where you always know where you were when something horrific happened. She seemed so thoroughly convinced of John’s guilt

    Flash forward to 2006 when LA went to visit Patsy shortly before her death. The stories that are out there are that after talking to PR, LA changed her mind on who she thought killed JBR and even apologized. There is so little information on this that I am curious if it was ever confirmed, but if she did change her mind, then its shocking for me. In her TV interview she even reiterates that there isn’t a shadow of a doubt she knew the killer was in the house, probably meaning JR.

    What’s the point of all this? Well, the person who was there when the body was found and witnessed everything that morning changed her mind on who she thought did it. So, barring PR confessing, which I don’t believe, then it makes BDI that much more interesting.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except there is not one iota of evidence to suggest Linda Arndt ever changed her mind.
      Linda said that the she and Patsy "had a heart-to-heart connection", and that she showed "courtesy and empathy to someone who really had a lot of tragedy.....Knowing that she was dying, that was the impetus I needed to finish, to fulfill the promise that she asked of me.....And one of the things she demanded of me, she looked me in the eye and grabbed my hand and said, 'Promise me, promise me you will stay on this case and you will find out who did this to JonBenet."
      Now, if Pasty had been covering for Burke all these years, I very much doubt that, on her death bed, she'd be begging Linda to find JB's killer.....don't you?

      Delete
    2. Linda Arndt didn't change her mind. Check out her tweet to Lin Wood last year after the CBS documentary came out.

      https://twitter.com/Lindaarndt18

      Linda has been blackmailed into silence by the conjoined pro-intruder legal authorities in the Boulder police and DA's office, and John's attornies, with Lin Wood at the helm.

      Mike G







      Delete
  42. I said:

    "A head blow is something John would not have done."

    Ms D reply:

    "Why not? Because you say so? You're going to have to do better than that."

    My reply:

    Come on Ms D, use your brain. I know how much you love using long words so I know you have some smartness hiding in there. Unless John could see in the future and knew that the headblow would not cause blood then the theory is utter crap. John would not hit her over the head with all his might, knowing he would have to spend half the night cleaning up blood. Plus he would not have hidden that kind of evidence.

    KISS. Keep it simple....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew you were going to bring up the blood issue, Zed, so I initially covered why that wouldn't be a problem in my original post, but then decided to delete it because we've been over (ad nauseam) why it would NOT have been a problem at all. John was staging a CRIME SCENE - blood often accompanies a CRIME SCENE. Yet, here we are again.....I have no desire to explain it one more time to those who refuse to hear it the first four times. Doc, I'll let you take it from here!

      Delete
    2. Ms D...you and Doc and everybody can say it till you are blue in the face. The nature of the head blow doesn't speak to somebody silencing her on purpose. It is much more plausible that it was done out of a moment of rage. This argument about "blood being part of the crime scene" is just so ridiculous. The whole point of the RN would be to get money if this was done by kidnappers. Having a puddle of blood on the floor wouldn't help their cause claiming that she was unharmed but wouldn't be if they didn't cooperate. C'MON!!!

      -J

      Delete
    3. "Having a puddle of blood on the floor wouldn't help their cause claiming that she was unharmed but wouldn't be if they didn't cooperate. C'MON!!!"

      Neither does leaving the BODY of the person the kidnappers are asking the ransom for in the house! C'MON!

      Delete
  43. And you think he could remove all trace of blood from his clothes and leave zero evidence??

    So John was going to stage a kidnapping with a shitload of blood? This theory just gets more and more bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, the head blow might not have been premeditated. We have no way of telling for sure whether it was or not.

      Secondly, assuming there was premeditation, it looks as though the Maglite could have been chosen for a reason, as it's made of relatively soft aluminum, less likely to cut the scalp open than, say, a golf club or baseball bat. John had been in the Navy and may have learned the characteristics of different types of weapons, either as part of his training or from fellow navymen who had had such training.

      Thirdly, as Ms. D has pointed out, the presence of blood at the scene is not inconsistent with a kidnapping, as the kidnapper might well have assaulted JBR prior to taking her with him. As for blood on his clothing, he'd have had ample time to clean up if all had gone according to plan.

      Regarding the question of whether or not the Ramseys thought she was dead prior to strangling her: according to the autopsy she would still have been breathing and her heart would have been beating, i.e., she would have had a pulse. And as you know very well, Zed, there were no scalp contusions, no blood, thus no way of telling how serious the head blow had been. For all they knew she could have been revived.

      Delete
    2. And I think, for me, that is the flaw in the Burke did it scenario. If Burke had known he did something terrible, waited a bit to see if she was going to move (the train tracks), then ran to tell Patsy or John, why would they think the way to handle it would be to write a kidnap for ransom note, choke her out (further?), move her body, and put duct tape over her mouth? It's just very irrational. But before that Burke was sent back to bed, where he has remained in a state twenty years later of denial. That explanation is about as far from simple as it gets. But I'm open. Maybe EG can explain how that kind of scenario is possible.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry Doc, but at some point you have to commit to whether this was premeditated or not. It completely changes the case and absolutely matters. There are a ton of questions that need to be answered depending on which way you go. I'm not sure why it's so hard to have this question answered by anybody who believes John did it.

      -J

      Delete
    4. It's the same way with the BDI scenario though J. Either one has to commit to Burke strangling his sister with such force that the cord was embedded in her neck (beyond "play") or explain how a parent would think that would in any way help their son or themselves.

      Delete
    5. Castor with all due respect, it gets very tiring with the deflection game. The site was started on the theory that JDI, yet to this day, the people who believe JDI won’t say whether or not this was premeditated or not. Everybody seems to dodge the question…I am not sure why it is so difficult. Simply my opinion, but I believe Burke hit her over the head and strangled her. There is your answer

      -J

      Delete
    6. The strangulation came second, so wouldn't Burke's rage have dissipated after the head blow?

      Delete
    7. "It's the same way with the BDI scenario though J. Either one has to commit to Burke strangling his sister with such force that the cord was embedded in her neck (beyond "play") or explain how a parent would think that would in any way help their son or themselves."

      Exactly Castor, and I have been saying this very same thing for almost a year here on this blog. Yet, still, no one has offered a logical explanation as to why the Ramseys would have believed that finishing off their daughter and staging a kidnapping but opting to leave the body in the house would have, in any way, been the best course of action to take. Leaving the body in the house directs the investigation TOWARDS the occupants of the house that night, not AWAY from them, and that certainly doesn't help Burke (or anyone else in the home that night). That is why it is absolutely infeasible to believe for a second that JB's body being found in the home was ever part of the plan.

      "Castor with all due respect, it gets very tiring with the deflection game."

      "Deflection", J.....seriously? You and Zed have been loathe to answer simple questions regarding your theory for as long as I've been here, and I believe this is because: a. BDIs like to keep their options open (Burke *may* have twisted the garrote, but Patsy *may* have done it, John *may* have done it, both John and Patsy *may* have done it - no one will commit because they like to have the option to be able to switch it up so they can go with the scenario that better suits their particular argument at the time), and b. They like to have us believe JB was killed by a blow to the head, as that makes their argument so much easier to defend, so they really don't like to discuss the asphyxiation element of the crime. BDIs have been "playing this game" since the CBS special aired, and until you posted your above comment ("I believe Burke hit her over the head and strangled her"), you'd never clarified exactly what it was you believed, J. But, now that you have conceded you believe Burke did it all, therefore it wasn't merely an accident (thank you for that.....it's Zed's turn now, because it makes a HUGE difference as to who it was that disposed of JB when discussing the case), you might have some further explaining to do regarding why it is that John and Patsy went to such lengths to protect a sadistic, psychopathic, murderer who was filled with so much rage, he choked the life out of his sister, and could have done the same to his parents at any time.

      Delete
  44. I believe it was premeditated.

    ReplyDelete
  45. For those who are JDI why do you think John waited 45 min to 2 hours to strangle JonBenet after the head blow?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Does anybody know how it was determined that jonbenets head injury was caused by being hit on the head rather than a serious fall into something? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I'm sorry Doc, but at some point you have to commit to whether this was premeditated or not. It completely changes the case and absolutely matters. There are a ton of questions that need to be answered depending on which way you go. I'm not sure why it's so hard to have this question answered by anybody who believes John did it." J

    The commitments on this case have been made. Explaining why or even if there was a 45 minute interlude between the head blow and death by strangulation is not necessary to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, who killed JonBenet. Was it necessary to explain how or when Scott Peterson killed Lacy and Connor to convict him.

    Like Scott, John's verbal and behavioral peregrinations through the years, combined with the circumstantial evidence in this case, provide sufficient probable cause to have him arrested and tried for first degree murder, CC's dissent notwithstanding.

    Mike G.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent news, Mike. I'll get on the horn to Stan Garnett ...just as soon as you show me some evidence that will prove my case BARD.

      Scott Peterson had a girlfriend = motive. Scott Peterson took his boat out in San Francisco Bay the day his wife went missing, and her body was later found in that same bay = means and opportunity. See the difference?

      Show me a similar chain that can connect the sexual abuse to the RN, the head blow and the ligature strangulation, and that these circumstances were committed by John and only John.

      Can't be done, and without it filing would be irresponsible.

      Delete
    2. But CC, you yourself have provided us with an excellent motive: incest and fear of exposure during JBR's next pediatric exam. And yes, Peterson sailed his boat in the same body of water where his wife's body was found. But John was actually PRESENT in the house at the time his daughter was murdered in that same house. Peterson's nautical excursion could have been coincidental, but John's presence at the murder scene is an indisputable FACT.

      While the sexual abuse can't be directly tied to the note, the only person who could have written that note was John Ramsey. And the only reason he could have written it was to cover for himself, as I've demonstrated countless times. Since we know Patsy could not have been involved (or she would not have called 911 at that time) and Burke's involvement is hardly worth discussing (thanks Ms. D, CC, Castor et al.), the only other possibility is that mythical "intruder." And since no intruder scenario makes any sense at all, we are left, in NO uncertain terms, with John.

      I do, therefore, think a strong circumstantial case is possible. The real problem is not the evidence pointing to John, which imo is abundant, but the confusion in the mind of so many regarding Patsy's role. It never seems to have occurred to anyone investigating this case that "the Ramseys" were never joined at the hip. And no one involved in the investigation has ever questioned the verdict of the "experts" who ruled John out.

      So it's not the evidence, but the huge obstacle presented by certain unfounded assumptions that has made the case unmanageable. Those assumptions are firmly fixed in the minds of almost everyone following this case and, as with so many fixed ideas, there is a huge resistance even to the most reasonable arguments.

      "It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain.

      Delete
    3. Where the investigation should pick back up is a reputable handwriting analyst or two re-analyzing the ransom note. As far as I have read we have no idea why John was ruled out. Once he's ruled back in and a statement is issued to that effect, the case could have new life.

      Delete
    4. Your chain of circumstances are actually only logical suppositions, with which you know I agree. But the minute Stan gets past his opening statement and tries to introduce one link in that chain as evidence - for example the motive being sexual abuse committed by John - Bryan Morgan jumps up and shrieks "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence", and is promptly (and correctly) sustained. Likewise the RN, the so-called garrote, and the broken window.

      And then the judge orders a directed verdict and throws the whole mess out.

      Delete
    5. It has to be taken one step at a time. Let's first get him ruled back in.

      Delete
  48. I see no need to "commit" to either premeditation or spur of the moment assault. This is not a game of Clue, but a real life crime. The key to this case is logical evaluation of certain key facts, NOT speculation about what might or might not have happened. It's the facts I've stressed in the first two blog posts that point to John as the guilty party. John's lies regarding the broken window are an important corroborating factor.

    As for the rest, all we have is speculation. There are no facts helping us determine whether or not the assault and coverup were planned in advance, so there is no point in my "committing" to one scenario or the other. I've presented arguments supporting either possibility on this blog, but there is no way to tell for sure which is correct. Therefore I see no need to commit to one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this serious? This website proposed a theory…a good, solid theory. I do not agree with the outcome of your theory and that is ok, but to say the FACTS got you to the outcome just isn’t true. Of course there is speculation….if if it was just FACTS, then there wouldn’t be a need for your site would there? If your theory was simply based on FACTS, then John Ramsey would have been arrested already. CC said it above in regards to there not being evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to one suspect. Yes I am BDI, but by no means will I argue that it is a fact that he did it. It is the spirited debates that make this site what it is and keep people coming back, so let’s not act like we are above answering a very simple question Doc.

      My belief is that it being premeditated vs. spontaneous act of rage is what changes everything about the way we look at this case. It’s one of the main reasons I shifted from my belief that JDI to Burke. It changes one of the key pieces to any crime and that is MOTIVE. I always struggled with motive in regards to John, so when I came to the belief that this was a spontaneous act, it made me realize there wasn’t a motive. For the JDI crowd the motive is either a) covering up for his molestation and shutting her up or B) sexual abuse act that was happening that night that went wrong. Others might disagree, but to dodge the question makes me wonder why do we even bother coming on here? Unless I am wrong Doc, you aren’t law enforcement….you aren’t testifying under oath. You obviously have a theory as to whether this was premeditated or not, so why not just say it?

      -J

      Delete
    2. No, J, I don't have a theory regarding whether or not the crime was premeditated. Nor is such a theory necessary. As I see it, the arguments I've presented here, which include both possibilities, should be sufficient to prove John is the one who killed his daughter. All else is speculation.

      Actually, there are problems in assessing both possibilities, problems I've already gone into on this blog in some detail. If John had decided to murder JonBenet on the night of the crime, or alternatively, attacked her in a spontaneous act of rage, or, as Wecht thinks, a perverted sexual act, then the length and complexity of the note becomes a problem. (This is a problem also if you want to assume the note was written on the night of the crime, to cover for Burke.) Would John have had the time to compose such a long and carefully crafted note, and would his memory have been good enough to recall the movie quotes included? While this poses a problem, it is certainly not insurmountable. The crime probably occurred around 10:30 or 11 PM. Patsy discovered John in the shower around 5:30 AM. So he would have had over 6 hours to work on the note and any other staging.

      If the crime were premeditated, we have to explain why paper from Patsy's notepad was used rather than paper from some outside source. I imagine that CC would explain that as a deliberate effort to implicate Patsy. I have a lot of trouble with such an explanation. The use of Patsy's notepad associates the note with the Ramsey household, not Patsy specifically, as anyone in that house could have used paper from that pad. And I see no reason why John would have wanted the police to see the note as originating from the Ramsey home as that would include him as well as Patsy as a prime suspect. Also, I just don't see anything he'd have had to gain by implicating Patsy. Finally, when asked whether he thought Patsy could have written the note, he responded, very reasonably, by pointing to the fact that Patsy's writing was neat, while the note was sloppy.

      So no, I don't see that as a reason for using Patsy's pad. And for a long time I was convinced that the crime could not have been pre-meditated or the pad would not have been used. On further thought, however, I realized that John could have used the pad purely as a convenience, since his plan could have included getting rid of it before the police were called.

      For more on this possibility, see https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/07/premeditated.html

      More details are discussed here: https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/premeditation-revisited.html

      While there are problems with both theories, none are insurmountable, so I see no reason to favor one over the other.

      Delete
  49. C'mon, J-man. I'm committed to premeditation. Bring on your "ton of questions".

    ReplyDelete
  50. I think I can make a damned good case for it, one that covers all the bases, though I've only published it here piecemeal. If this is the burning issue you think, maybe Doc could dedicate a thread to the topic and we can all shoot it out. Is there sufficient interest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You already had a chance to present your theory as a guest blogger, CC. And if you want to extend that theory and respond to certain objections, that's fine with me also. Send me your post via email and I'll be happy to put it up.

      Delete
    2. You mean the sexual abuse thing? So I did, and it was kind of you to let me ride my favorite hobbyhorse; wasn't angling for another opportunity. I thought you could post your nay, and I'd chip in with my yea. In any case, let's wait, see if anyone gives a damn - this may be exclusively J's issue.

      Delete
    3. I would like to hear it CC. Under the definition of premeditated murder "....crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so..." (Webster's) he could have considered the timing and method while lying in his bed pretending to be asleep that night (not necessarily while pretending to clean his plane). I think it would be really interesting to hear your ideas.

      Delete
    4. Hi CC...I appreciate your willingness to take a side and answer questions. Regarding premeditation:

      - Whether or not the note was written ahead of time, why would he leave the pen and paper in the house, along with a scribbled practice note?

      - Why not jimmy a lock, break window or offer any other point of entry than the basement window?

      - There is absolutely not one account of JBR telling anybody she was being molested, so why the hurry to shut her up?

      -Why not pick a better night when neighbors wouldn't be staying up later for the holiday and draw immediate attention first thing in the morning by having to cancel the flight?

      I probably will have more questions, but this is a start

      -J

      Delete



    5. Whether or not the note was written ahead of time, why would he leave the pen and paper in the house, along with a scribbled practice note?

      I believe he was not adverse to implicating Patsy.  He had, after all, other choices in writing materials, but used hers; he could have dumped the pad and pen at Jeffco Airport or anywhere along the Boulder-Denver Turnpike,  but instead took them home and returned them to their usual locations.


      - Why not jimmy a lock, break window or offer any other point of entry than the basement window?


      Because that basement window was as far from his sleeping wife as he could get, and if he closed both the basement door and the door to the train room there was little chance of being heard.  It's also possible that the basement windows,  below ground level and covered with a grate, were not on the security system.

      - There is absolutely not one account of JBR telling anybody she was being molested, so  why the hurry to shut her up?


      On 12/17 Patsy called the pediatrician three times after hours.  I think JBR had yet another vaginal infection, and Dr Beuf finally suggested a pelvic exam after the holidays, which would have exposed the chronic sexual abuse.


      -Why not pick a better night when neighbors wouldn't be staying up later for the holiday and draw immediate attention first thing in the morning by having to cancel the flight?


      He had overbooked Patsy with parties and packing and family trips, ensuring she'd sleep very soundly.  In addition, he was a chronic workaholic, but  did not work Christmas day, and so had time to compose the RN at Jeffco.


      Delete
    6. I agree with you CC about the notepad. Thirteen pages were missing from that pad except for one. The incriminating one...the practice note. It's a very big stretch for me to believe that was an oversight.

      K

      Delete
    7. Clarification...should have said start-up practice page.

      K

      Delete
    8. CC- I very much appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. Obviously I disagree, but your answers are well thought out.

      I do need to follow up with you on your overall theory. Do you believe he had more staging he wanted done and the 911 call screwed it up? Some of your answers make me think you thought he had done what he needed to. Just curious

      -J

      Delete
    9. Yes. I think the RN was a blueprint for his plans. He'd get PR and BR out of the house for their own safety, giving himself all day on the 26th to stage an intruder and dump the body over a cliff in the Rockies while pretending to deliver the ransom.

      Delete
  51. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/24/human-remains-found-in-search-for-natalee-holloway-belong-to-female-eastern-european-descent-tests-show.html

    Off topic, apologies, news today human remains found in Aruba are female, further testing to continue. Re: natalee Holloway cold case

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anyone else think the "accidental" 911 call from the Ramsey home a few days prior the crime was John's way of determining how much time he'd have between the call and officers knocking on his door?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rs wrote in "DOI" that Fleet made the accidental 911 call. To attribute the call to someone who could easily refute it, if untrue, doesn't make much sense.

      Aside from that, I don't see why JR would have any need to determine LE's response time.

      Delete
    2. JR was attempting to undermine FW, so who knows whether that was true or not. But there are insinuations in DOI which were not disputed until much later. One of the claims in DOI was that it was FW’s suggestion to go on CNN. Actually the connection and arrangement with CNN was accomplished through JR’s friend Westerfield, who knew an executive at CNN. It was not FW’s suggestion. That was an R fabrication which the Ws’ revealed in a later interview with journalist Alan Prendergast.
      -NS

      Delete
    3. To be honest, NS, I haven't read DOI. I'm only aware of the snippets others have posted on the forums over the years. Therefore, I can't really comment on the bulk of what the Rs said in DOI.

      The question still remains--why would JR need to know LE's response time?

      Delete
  53. Folks, I'm here every day reading, listening, absorbing all of the discussions, comments and occasional vitriol. When Doc does one of these general, let me revisit and summarize my theory posts...it never fails to make me step back and ask how and why his POV compelled me to change my perspective from firmly BDI to firmly JDI. I'll recap my step-by-step conversion...where I started...
    1. Burke did it all. My position before Doc's site.
    2. Nope, Burke couldn't have done it all. Cover up is way too sophisticated.
    ***Backtrack***
    Q: Maybe Burke delivered head blow?
    A: Nope. Parents would call 911.
    3. Eliminate intruder. (I always felt this was the case, but as I elimated Burke due to Doc's reasoning, I did revisit intruder notion.) No intruder.
    4. Down to John or Patsy or some combo of both.
    5. Every time that I convinced myself it was Patsy, alone, the sexual aspect of the crime hovered unaddressed.
    6. When I considered John alone (my first-ever time to consider John, after reading Doc's book) and accepted that perhaps some of the handwriting analysts got it wrong...it all became simple, clear and sensible.
    I know this flow doesn't track for everyone, nor does it address the minutiae that a lot of you will discuss until the next solar eclipse, but it convinced me.
    All of the Burke scenarios are so complicated. Zed, et al, I do hear you. But, it just gets so complex. With too many people involved. It's tiresome even thinking how they'd pull it off. Why can't it just be John, pure and simple? Why does it need to be more complicated than that? Up thread someone mentioned the K.I.S.S.principle - I agree! That is all. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, in reality things ARE often complex. Doc's theory is popular because it is much easier to finger John Ramsey as the murderer. If this were a detective novel with fictional characters we could apply Doc's formula and viola! Case solved. Oh wait...this isn't a detective novel. These characters are/were real. Ignoring the human element of this case will not give us the truth.

      Hercule

      Delete
    2. . . . viola! Case solved. Oh wait...this isn't a viola. This is a French horn.

      Delete
    3. I just wet my pants. I'm sorry Hercule, but that was pretty funny.

      Delete
    4. Thanks. Now if MsD just wakes up in Melbourne shortly and spews more coffee on her keyboard, my mission will be a success.

      Delete
  54. We all know the DA's office denied most of LE's requests for records (phone, financial, school, etc.) at the beginning of the investigation, but does anyone know if LE has requested record warrants from Stan Garnett? Mary Lacy was too afraid of Lin Wood to ever approve such requests, but thankfully she's gone now.

    Could LE request those warrants again and, if they were granted, does anyone know if those records even still exist? (As in, do American telephone and credit card companies keep data for 20+ years?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only phone records of which I'm aware were for John's cell phone, which were missing the entire month of December, ostensibly because he'd lost his cell phone.

      Sure, Canuck. LE could subpoena the phone carrier or credit card company, but I've no idea what, if anything, that would produce at this late date.

      Delete
  55. I still believe they were all in on it, there is something shady about each and every one of them. I believe Burke did deliver the head blow. Here is my twist. The reason they didn't called for an ambulance is John Ramsey had been abusing her. He knew the abuse would be uncovered, hence the reason for the staged molestation(hoping to cover it up). Patsy is unaware of the abuse but John convinces her they must not call for an ambulance, they must cover this up otherwise it will get Burke into serious trouble. John gets Patsy to drafted the note whilst he takes care of things in the basement. They run out of time to dispose of the body as they had to appear they were still on schedule for their trip. The plan is Patsy finds the note and phones the police, she highlights to everyone she only read the first line, therefore deliberately missing the Ransom note warnings. Missing these warnings covers their story of why she was murdered and dumped in the house

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jane...great post. Really interesting! Keep posting please

      -J

      Delete
    2. Well, Jane, talk about a dysfunctional family. The father is abusing the daughter AND the son is so resentful he clubs her over the head. So now we have two crimes to solve. In other words: if your pet theory is contradicted by the evidence then find some way to complicate it until it can be made to fit. I've seen similar interpretations of the intruder theory, where the intruder comes prepared with his ransom note but for some reason decides to copy it into Patsy's notepad by hand. Or the intruder gets bored sitting around waiting for the Ramseys to appear, and so decides to write a 2 1/2 page ransom note just to keep himself occupied.

      Sure, anything is possible. But there is a difference between any old doubt and reasonable doubt. Since there is NO evidence linking Burke with ANY aspect of this crime -- and John's abuse of his daughter would, in itself, be an excellent motive for murder -- why complicate things with a theory based purely on fantasy?

      I'll add that your theory completely sidesteps the most important factor in the case: Patsy's 911 call, which is totally inconsistent with her involvement in the staging of a kidnapping. You stage a kidnapping by getting the victim out of the house, NOT storing her body in your basement.

      Delete
    3. We all gloss over the little fact that NOBODY has ever been arrested for the murder of JBR. It's easy for somebody to say that it's inconsistent to stage a murder with the body in the house, however she was hidden in the basement, found by John and the Ramseys have gotten away with it. What if that was their plan? Does it seem logical to get the body out of the house? Yes of course. But these aren't criminal masterminds we are talking about

      Also:

      -You have ZERO evidence John was abusing her. Siting statistics about what is usually the case doesn't necessarily apply to this case
      -You have zero evidence of who hit her over the head and now we know that Burke could have delivered the force necessary
      -Pineapple was in her system....the pineapple bowl didn't have Johns fingerprints on it. So, unless you are arguing he used gloves but forgot to put it away, that is not in the JDI's favor.

      -J

      Delete
  56. To me, this case centers around sexual abuse.

    Look at it a different way. If JB had, one day, gotten mad and hit Burke over the head with one of her trophies, or pushed him and he lost his footing and fell down the stairs, would either parent have not called 911? JB caused it, Burke's unconscious, still warm but can't find a pulse. Of course, two loving parents would have called 911.

    At least one adult in that house did not call 911 for JonBenet though. One adult did not want to give her the chance to live, however slight. Why not?

    K


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

    ReplyDelete