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.

Saturday, August 26, 2017

The Case Against Burke

There is no case against Burke. Fingerprints on a bowl are not evidence. They could have gotten there at any time. While estimates vary, the chances that JonBenet ate pineapple immediately prior to the assault are very slim. The remnants were found in her intestine, not her stomach, meaning they had already been digested. For a detailed report on the various timing estimates, see this JBR Encyclopedia entry. Moreover, according to the book by Paula Woodward, remnants of cherry and grape were also found, suggesting that she had eaten fruit cocktail, making the bowl of pineapple irrelevant.


More important is the fact that the entire case against Burke, as outlined in Kolar's book and the CBS special, is based purely on assumptions. The most significant, of course, is the widely held assumption that both Patsy and John collaborated on the pedophile/kidnap staging. Since Kolar and the CBS team assume that neither Patsy nor John could possibly have had a reason to murder their own child, and since we have no reason to believe that one would want to cover for the other in any case, it's not difficult to understand how Burke could emerge in their thinking as the most likely culprit. Their theory is reinforced, moreover, by the notion that the only possible motive, in their minds, would have been sibling rivalry.

To put things into perspective, allow me to quote from an earlier blog post:
As I understand it, John was in fact the prime suspect until an unexpected thing happened: he was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a team of handwriting "experts." Consequently the case was thrown into disarray where it has remained ever since, because once John is ruled out, the only possible alternatives to the scenario I've offered above are too fantastic and literally beyond belief to present in court. Not too fantastic, however, to be widely accepted by a great many people following the case, including some experienced law enforcement veterans who should know better.
In other words, the truly bizarre notion that Burke could have bludgeoned his sister, with his parents deciding to cover for him by an insane act of overkill, penetrating their beloved daughter's vagina, strangling her with a garotte-like device and staging a kidnapping by composing a long and complicated, hand-written "ransom note," is only one of the fantastic theories concocted out of sheer desperation, in an effort to solve a case that can never be solved so long as John Ramsey has been "ruled out."

And if you prefer to assume that frail, nine year old Burke not only bludgeoned but sexually assaulted and viciously strangled his sister, the theory becomes even more bizarre. Since there is NO evidence suggesting that Burke did or could have done any of this, there is no case to be made against him. The only good reason to even suspect him is based on the assumption that no other explanation seems possible. Once John is ruled back IN, that assumption no longer holds, and there is no longer any reason to suspect either Burke or Patsy.

235 comments:

  1. In a news conference in the spring of 1998, then-Chief Mark Beckner said Burke was not a suspect. In a May 1999 press conference, then-DA Alex Hunter reiterated that Burke was not a suspect.

    Only James Kolar, who never worked the case, and who self-published his book, advanced the BDI theory, predicated on sibling rivalry and "SBP" - childhood Sexual Behavior Problems, based on a book he had read rather than any actual evidence that Burke displayed symptoms of that affliction.

    The golf club incident that supposedly illustrated Burke's violent tendencies was related to Pam Griffin by Patsy Ramsey as an accident that occurred in Charlevoix.

    The so-called scatological issues are also based on one incident according to Nedra Paugh, when Burke was six and his mother was in Boston being aggressively treated for Stage IV cancer, and he was likely afraid of losing her.

    The books BDIers point to as indicative of Burke's behavior problems are "The Hurried Child - Growing Up Too Fast", which more accurately describes JBR with her bleached hair, heavy make up, and provocative pageant costumes and poses. The second book, "Why Johnny Doesn't Know Right from Wrong" is about schools who give children the "wrong" books to read, and the necessity of parents reading the proper ones to their offspring and setting a good example, thus giving them a "moral education". How these somehow implicate Burke in the minds of BDI proponents is a mystery.

    What we really have here is one DA's investigator (for seven months in 2001) who self-published a cockeyed theory based on no evidence in a blatant attempt to make money on the murder of a child, and one network's ratings grabbing "docuseries" based on that book. No real facts, no real evidence, just money for all the participants, including CBS's script-following "experts".

    The whole thing is a travesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: Kolar was Lacy's investigator from July, 2005-March, 2006.

      Delete
    2. DocG ~ Different case, do you know anything about the Darlie Routier story if so your thoughts?

      Delete
    3. The fly screen on the window the alleged intruder used to enter was cut with a knife that belonged to a knife block inside the kitchen, so unless the intruder stole the knife on a previous occasion in order to break in, someone in that house cut the screen to stage it to look as though an intruder used this as the point of entry. Not to mention, Darlene never awoke whilst her boys were being brutally killed, even though they were lying on the floor beside her - which, (maybe incidentally, maybe not) was her idea. The phantom intruder made sure to inflict multiple, violent stab wounds on the boys, but only slashed her throat ("hesitantly", according to the forensic report), missing her carotid artery, before fleeing. She picked up the knife the intruder dropped in the laundry room whilst she was allegedly chasing him, then exclaimed to the 911 operator that her prints would subsequently be on the knife (a strange thing to worry about after you just found your children murdered). The blood splatter on her clothing was consistent with someone who was standing over the boys whilst they were being stabbed, the bruising on her arms was consistent with defense wounds (kicking) from one of the boys (only one fought back, the other died immediately).

      The jury believes Darlene Routier murdered her sons, and all subsequent appeals have failed. I agree with them. Of course, motive is a sore point for me.....each boy only had a $5,000 life insurance policy - less than the cost of the funerals. But, established motive or not - as is the case with John Ramsey - the evidence overwhelmingly points to Darlene.

      Delete
    4. But I'd love it if Doc considered writing a blog on the case.....there are many who believe in her innocence.

      Delete
    5. CC, respectfully, I’d like to offer some information about James Kolar and his book. Apparently some do not know that Kolar used his own money from his retirement fund to publish this book, to hire first amendment attorneys to scrub anything which might trigger a lawsuit. He made an early decision to recoup his retirement funds, and donate anything above that amount to a national children’s charity. Whether folks here think he got it all wrong is beside the point, and another discussion. From everything I’ve read about him, both from his colleagues (Lacy an exception) and from journalists, his integrity is really beyond reproach.

      Delete
  2. I'm glad Kolar took us away from the Intruder did it theory, (the cobweb and no stun gun) but he really didn't connect the dots leading to Burke as perpetrator, as a cover up is just not reasonable, logical, or believable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No one, to my knowledge, embraced IDI other than Lou Smit, Mary Keenan Lacy, and the Ramseys, hence no need to credit Kolar with discrediting it.

    Well? C'mon Zed, J, EG, and other errant BDIers - Doc gave you logic, I gave you facts...where are your refutations?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I used to naively think Patsy and John somehow collaborated together, given how common Patsy-did-it is or used to be. No intruder theory made sense. Everybody seemed to agree she wrote the note. Steve Thomas said she had not changed her clothes and he found this suspicious, it was her paintbrush used to strangle JonBenet, and so on.

    However, John had the suspicious finding of the body and going 'AWOL' on Arndt. John had the obviously fake story to explain his breaking the window.

    My interest in the case predates when Burke-did-it was ever popular, and so I never made the connection between John and Patsy somehow collaborating on the murder and covering for Burke. I suppose it seems to me whoever wrote the note committed the crime, and Burke could not have written the note.

    And that's where I stood, mystified until Doc untangled so much of this case. Of course, it makes no sense to not change your clothes after committing the crime. One would shower, like John did. Of course, it makes no sense to use your own paintbrush, your own notepad, your own phrases, and so on. Indeed, the note really does nothing for her, and gives John control. In short, when John is ruled back in as author of the note, poor Patsy was a patsy. i don't really see the reason for suspecting Burke when one concludes both John and Patsy collaborated on the murder; but surely whatever reason there is dissolves when John alone is involved in the note and thus the crime.

    Doc untangles more than he has to. The manuscript a, probably the only feminine part of the note. makes a lot more sense if John was tracing from a computer font. The margins of the note are maintained awfully well for somebody who is not tracing. I must say I am still a bit mystified for when John could have written the note. I cannot imagine having the time to both kill your daughter and write the note the same night.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But embrace premeditation, acknowledge the likelihood that John traced the note while at Jeffco Airport for 2-3 hours on Christmas day, and it all falls into place.

      Delete
    2. I embrace premeditation with either scenario, and the scenario you give is probably the correct one. However, if the note was not written in the house, the note being from a pen and pad in the house seems so unnecessary. John also does not seem like one to be so naive as to think it was untraceable. If he was prepared to go through his window, one thinks he would be prepared to find a better source of pen and pad, even if he had to steal them. Perhaps not.

      Another option is he used the pen and pad from the house because the scenario he was presenting to Patsy involved writing the note in the house, but I cannot imagine he thought she would need convincing about the origin of the pen and paper.

      Another option still is it is part of his framing of Patsy. He used her paintbrush, say. Surely he knew that would be traceable as well. Though it is an assumption, there seems a lot more panic associated with the breaking and using of the paintbrush than the composition of the note. One can imagine him in a panic needing a stick, and so using Patsy's things to at least not point to him. It is harder to imagine him, with the time to compose the note, resort to the same tactics.

      The sheer nervousness, at least for mortals like myself, involved with writing that note in the house, just before or after the murder, seems overwhelming. From that alone I am sympathetic to the idea that he must have written it a decent amount of time before the murder. However, it was not even folded, and was from the pen and pad in the house. I cannot think of a compelling scenario where you use your own pen and pad when you have time to plan.

      Yet he did it. The only scenario which seems to work is a bit unsatisfactory. That is to say he just didn't think the pen and pad could be linked back to the house, and was more nervous about a record of purchasing paper, or about getting caught stealing some. However, he must have on some level been aware that it might be traceable, and so just to be sure used Patsy's stuff. Something like that.

      Do we know he went to the airport that day? I know he says he did.

      Delete
    3. First of all, the pen used was a generic Sharpie. There was never any way to determine whether the note was written by any pen from the house. The ink was consistent with the ink produced by a Sharpie pen, that's it. So we need not speculate as to why John would have used a pen from the house, as he could have used any Sharpie pen.

      As for Patsy's notepad, if the note were written on Christmas day, while John was at the airport, there would have been no way to buy fresh paper as the stores would have been closed. So I think John used that pad simply because it was a convenient source of paper that he could easily get rid of the following night, while dumping the body and getting rid of all other evidence from the house. So I don't think he thought much about it. Write the note, stick the pages in the pad, stick the pad in his briefcase, take it home and stash it for future use that night. When the time comes to display it on the staircase, he carelessly returns the pad to its usual spot. Why not? The note is no longer in it, and he can easily get rid of it the following night.

      Delete
    4. As for the "garrote," I don't think that was part of his original plan (assuming pre-meditation). I think he'd been hoping the head blow would be fatal, and it was only some time later that he'd have realized she was still breathing and might revive. He may have been reluctant to touch her at that point, or maybe he was afraid his prints might be retrievable, so he decided on ligature strangulation to finish her off. Patsy's brush was handy, so he used it. As with the notepad, he could have planned on getting rid of the brush handle as well, on the following night, while dumping the body.

      Delete
    5. This is what I've thought too - along those lines - but for me I think the head blow was intended to stun, render her unconscious. Then while in the basement he looked for something he could use to complete the task which accounts for the lapse in time and either found the beginnings of something home made Burke practiced his knot tying skills with (twinning stick and cord) or John came up with it himself. But it's just another one of those little details that isn't all that necessary to come to the logical conclusion of who did it.

      Delete
    6. It's the "garrote", a weapon seldom seen or used in the US (ergo, foreign), in conjunction with the "Foreign Faction" in the RN that convinced me of premeditation.

      Read the top of page 3 of the autopsy report again, wherein Meyer refers to a knot tied at the posterior of the neck. Then look at the photo of the ligature after Meyer cut it away from her neck. John didn't crouch over her supine body and tighten that cord for the requisite 2-5 minutes to asphxyiate his daughter. He TIED THE CORD IN A KNOT AT THE BACK OF HER NECK and walked away so he didn't have to watch her die, making the paintbrush "garrote" handle entirely superfluous, and strictly for staging, and far from a spur of the moment choice.



      Delete
    7. I guess I sympathize with those who learn the note was written from paper in the house and conclude that the note was written in the house, after the murder. I agree that ultimately, the note is too well done to be rushed after the murder, and that John did not seem to think much about where his paper came from. Perhaps he was going to destroy it. Surely he had to destroy the ransom money somehow. However, he still used Patsy's stuff just in case. This somewhat contradicts his plan to destroy it, but it also fits a pattern for John, such as with the paintbrush. Then again, the paintbrush was probably in a rush, and so then maybe one should conclude the note was rushed too.

      The more I think about the crime the more I come around to agreeing the 'garrote' was not some bizarre sex game or prep for beheading but because the head blow did not work to John's satisfaction.

      While I am sympathetic to those who question the timeline due to the note being written on paper from the house, I am lost at how it implicates Burke.

      Even worse for the pineapple or the marks on Jonbenet. Let's say they came from train tracks. Is the train room not a likely place for her death? Is it not the place to lure a kid for presents? Is it not where the window was broken? She could have fallen on the train tracks after the blow to the head.

      As for the pineapple, probably the most chilling thing for me in this case is hearing John explain to Lou Smit how he thinks the pineapple was used by somebody she trusted to lure her to her death. I respect if somebody doubts this was John relaying details of the crime, but that is how I interpret it. Get the flashlight, tell her theres a surprise for her down stairs, feed her pineapple, say there's another surprise in the basement, maybe he tells her to draw a heart on her hand, and then when she's looking down at her hand he strikes her with the flashlight. She falls on the train tracks. I cannot imagine a Burke theory explaining the facts as elegantly.

      Delete
    8. Actually, Doc, this is what ST said in his book about the Sharpie:

      We were then brought up to date on a
      new discovery. Crime scene techs at the
      house had recovered three Sharpie felt-tip
      pens from an orange metal container on the
      kitchen counter beneath the telephone from
      which Patsy had made her 911 call, not
      far from where the ransom note tablet was
      found.

      That was exactly the sort of physical evi-
      dence we needed, and I thank God that Pam
      Paugh didn’t carry it away, because the US.
      Secret Service eventually determined that
      one of those pens, a pre-November 1992
      water-based ink Sharpie, was used to write
      both the practice and actual ransom notes.
      The Secret Service, which maintains a huge
      database on inks because of its federally
      mandated assignment to chase forgers, told
      us, “The ink [on the notes] is unique in
      the collection of approximately 7,000 stan-
      dards from the Ink Library.”

      That meant that whoever wrote the notes
      used that exact pen from that cup. They not
      only left the pad behind but, when they fin-
      ished, neatly put the felt-tip pen in its con-
      tainer.


      Delete
    9. Well, it''s possible John could have simply grabbed a handy pen from that cup without thinking much about it.

      However, I must say I'm skeptical regarding the Secret Service "database." The Ramseys were not rare Sharpie pen collectors, so I think we can safely assume that the pen in question was purchased from a place that sold many other similar pens. So it would be a huge coincidence that the pen used for the note would have contained such a rare type of ink.

      Many bits of information emanating from Steve Thomas have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. He is certainly not the most reliable source imo.

      Delete
    10. Okay - up above - CC - garrote. It wasn't entirely superfluous, weren't strands of her hair caught in the paintbrush handle/stick and cord wound around the stick indicating it was used to twist and tighten?

      Delete
    11. No. As Doc has already explained, there were hairs caught within the hitches used to create the knot on the paintbrush, indicating that knot was tied right on top of her as she lay facedown, already unconscious or dead, and not something Burke had left lying around.

      Look at the crime scene photos - hair is clearly visible in the knot on the paintbrush handle, and the separate double knot that actually killed her when tied at the back of her neck can be seen as well.

      Delete
    12. And you're absolutely right, as usual, Heather. The ink came from one particular Sharpie of the three in the container, and the Secret Service Ink Library and its chromatographic testing of ink is very much a reality, as anyone who cares to google it can see for himself.

      Delete
    13. Thanks for the confirmation, CC.

      I'm obviously not an expert on forensic ink analysis. However, I'm not sure "unique" necessarily means "rare," as Doc surmised. It may just mean identifiable.

      Delete
  5. Burke was never a suspect and rightly so...he only delivered the head blow.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And the golf club incident was not an accident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to whom? Judith Phillips?

      You can't say the golf club incident was not an accident.


      Delete
    2. Proof please, Zed.
      An assertion without evidence is also what is known as "an opinion".

      Delete
  7. It would certainly be easier to write the ransom note while out of the house. He could have traced a "font" like Doc has suggested. He obviously was confident that Patsy wouldn't recognize his writing, so he must have used some method.

    The fact that it was in Patsy's pad doesn't create a problem for me because I've always thought that was a deliberate choice.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And John using Patsys pad (outside of the house) is just plain ludicrous. Come on people. John would not have used anything from the house if that was the case. This was NOT premeditated and there was no plans for their daughter to die that night. I would start believing intruder before I started believing that.

      Delete
    2. John would not have used anything from the house unless getting rid of those items was part of his plan. Patsy calling 911 when all the evidence, including the body of his victim, was still sitting in the house was NOT part of the plan, obviously. If she had not made that call, then he'd have dumped the body and gotten rid of all the other evidence the following night. Regardless of whether the crime had been premeditated or not.

      Delete
  8. And despite what you all say, the pineapple and the train marks are two of the best pieces of PHYSICAL evidence in this case. The 911 call, another piece of physical evidence gives us little option to conclude that was a staged phone call.

    Nothing in Docs or CCs post even comes close to making a good case study as to why Burke couldnt have delivered the head blow. Move along people, nothing to see here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pineapple might or might not be meaningful evidence. But anyone could have been with her when she ate it. And the train tracks are no more significant than Lou Smit's stun gun. We have no way of knowing whether they were used to produce those abrasions. And just because they belonged to Burke tells us nothing about who might have poked her with them (assuming she was poked at all).

      Delete
  9. Right. Besides her and Burke eating it may have just been a shared snack that's all. They all had a specific place at the breakfast table. Does anyone know where the bowl was placed. Was it between Burke and Jon Benets chairs or just one of theirs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bowl of pineapple was at Patsy's place.

      Delete
  10. "Just ludicrous"? ". . .not an accident"? And no rebuttal about the books that you touted only yesterday as being evidence of Burke's guilt?

    I gave you facts - you give me opinions. Do better, or take your own advice and move along.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Facts?? Please go back to law school.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It struck me too, CC, that The Hurried Child seemed more fitting for JBR than BR, but given that Nedra was 100% on board with JBR being groomed for big things in the pageant world, do you think she would have done anything to make PR rethink her decision to involve JBR in pageants? I'm not saying it couldn't have been meant for JBR, but I find it unlikely given that it came from Nedra. That said, even if it was meant for BR, it isn't proof that BDI, just that, as I suggested earlier, "something" was going on with BR long before the night of Dec. 25th.

    I'm not familiar with the second book, but it appears that people who use it to advance the BDI theory aren't aware of its contents.

    Thanks for answering my LE warrants questions, by the way! ��

    ReplyDelete
  13. The books are not needed for the BSI (Burke started it) theory in any way.

    There is literally zero evidence John delivered that head blow. Zero. That is a fact. But for CC it is probably an opinion.

    There is a lot of circumstantial evidence for Burke, which is more than any other theory has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you have coined a new phrase now Zed - the Burke Started It or BSI theory. It's replacing the Patsy Started It anger-over-bedwetting theory. I just would like to warn you that the more people that become involved the harder it will be to solve.

      Delete
    2. Not a new phrase. I have used BSI on this blog for ages now

      Delete
    3. But sometimes, you don't merely believe that Burke only started it, do you, Zed? You posted this only a couple of days ago (emphasis mine):

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

      Be honest, you like to keep your options open, don't you? That way, you can never be wrong. We find out John killed JBR: "Oh, I said that all along!". Patsy? "I knew it was Patsy who killed JB!" Burke? "I told you it was Burke who STRANGLED her!" Brilliant, Zed.....your theory is so vague, you'll always be right!

      "There is literally zero evidence John delivered that head blow. Zero."

      There is, "literally, zero" evidence that ANYONE in the house delivered the head blow, so you'll have to do better than that.

      Delete
    4. "BSI":

      Bull Shitting Ignoramuses :)

      Delete
    5. "Ages" being one month, Zed. Possibly two.

      Delete
    6. Ms D and CC, I first started the BSI acronym on this blog many, many, many months ago. I recommend you getting your facts straight before making any incorrect statements.

      Ms D - And I don't understand why you quoted my post above. Yes, I believe when John and Patsy found her they believed Burke had indeed KILLED her (from the headblow and nothing more).

      Once again, all along I have said I agree with quite a lot of Doc's theory. I simply believe Burke delivered the headblow because we can clearly rule out premeditation and the circumstancial evidence points to Burke as being the most likely suspect. Plus I think a clear case can be made for ruling Patsy in as the 911 call was clearly scripted.

      Delete
    7. I've been reading and posting here for 5 years, have excellent recall, and that's an outright lie. You've been posting here only since last September's CBS crap, at most. You started your "BSI" bullshit about 2 months ago.

      Delete
    8. Nope, you didn't say her parents BELIEVED he killed her.....you said he killed her, it's there in black and white, and you've said it more than once.
      Why would they "believe" she was dead.....has it never once occurred to you that both John and Patsy would have taken her pulse before deciding to strangle/sexually violate her (just for good measure), Zed?

      I don't know why you're addressing me in regards to starting the BSI acronym - I never said otherwise. I know you coined the acronym, because you're the only person here who believed "Burke Started It", most people have the common sense to know that, upon finding your child unconscious, you call for an ambulance, or - at the very least - check for signs of life before deciding that murder is the best way to cover up for an accident.


      Delete
  14. I don't believe it was premeditated. The RN would not have been written on paper and pen from the house if it was.

    Zed, I am with you--except I believe the R's found JBR dead already. Had they found her unconscious, they would have called 911. I believe it was some sort of "play" that turned into a horrific accident, and not sure how many were involved.

    We all know the facts of this case are few. The "proof" can be found in the behavior of the R's after the fact.

    Using common sense think of the following:

    1. If you had the money/the means, (or even if you didn't) would you ever stop looking for your child's killer?
    2. If your daughter was kidnapped, would you interfere in LE questioning the only possible witness to the kidnapping?
    3. Would you, yourself, not question him?
    4. Would you let your other child leave your side without being personally escorted by LE?
    5. Would you not insist that the FBI be involved, roadblocks, APB, etc.
    6. Would you not search every nook and cranny of that house?
    7. Would you not cooperate fully with LE?
    8. Would you refuse to take a lie detector test given by LE?

    I can list several more things, but you get my drift.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think all of the things you have listed EG can also apply to one person who did it all who did not wish to be found out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I agree Castor. Which is why I think they were all involved. However, I do not believe the R's would cover for each other, but they both would cover for BR.

      EG

      Delete
    2. That's not agreeing with me then EG, because what you just said is antithetical to what I just said - one person vs. all involved. But I'm nitpicking, so I'll stop - for now.

      Delete
  16. Whether you believe BDI or JDI, you have to leave Patsy out of it. She was asleep. She didn't write the note. She didn't hurt her daughter or make any decisions on any cover-up.

    John's mindset from the moment that Patsy made the 911 call through at least mid-afternoon when he attempted to flee to Atlanta, was that he was, at any minute, about to be arrested and he had to mask that visceral fear first and foremost. Linda Arndt saw that face up close and feared for her life (as, possibly, did Patsy, as Doc has postulated).

    All of his earlier coolness with Linda Arndt, his tooling around in the kitchen fooling with the mail (during which he was surreptitiously eyeing the police and friends, pondering loose ends, while looking for his opportunities to finish cleaning up the mess he had created during the horrific hours of the prior night), and then his disappearance to finish whatever movements of the victim's body and final [un]staging of the basement scenes at the window and in the wine cellar were needed, were acts of complete desperation under massive pressure.

    Had there been a story between John and Patsy, as cohorts, that he wanted to protect and keep consistent, he would have been by her side that morning while the police and friends were there querying and consoling Patsy, just as he was right by Patsy's side after he got free from that first day and became more and more emboldened with each passing minute after escaping arrest that first day.

    Again, does anyone not see the stone-cold stark contrast between his complete separation from his wife on that first morning and into the afternoon, and his later sidling up next to her constantly, to both use her as a human shield once he got past the first couple of days and also to interrupt and direct, "clarify" and/or recast her/their responses in public interviews whenever possible?

    As for premeditated murder? Not a chance. No way. This was a nighttime tryst that went really wrong, with a scream, a struggle, an unintended lethal pop on the virtual egg-shell skull of the victim to quiet her with a heavy flashlight held in a lesser-used left hand by a bi-dextrous male, then a wipe-down and quick search for clean underwear in the dim light of the flashlight with a sloppy redressing of the victim, all while frantically weighing the odds for his way out of this nightmare of no return, which ultimately was to sit down and desperately scratch out an attempted snow-job on the soon to be waking mother of the victim in hopes of ultimately getting the victim's body out of the house before ever having to deal with the police, which he knew would come later, but that was secondary.

    Had this been a planned murder, there would have been much more physical planning to stage a murder and not a staging of a botched kidnapping, by at the very least fixing some physical evidence of an intruder entrance and exit (including just leaving the garage door open by "accident", and why even have a ransom note with the possibility of not being "ruled out" as the writer?), but none of that could be planned could it, since at the very least, Ramsey couldn't predict that there would be little to no snow that night?

    No, his daughter was not supposed to die that night. She also wasn't supposed to scream and resist either, but she did. As an aside, I think a close examination of the expensive forged irons in the golf bag would show damage to at least two of them from having been used in an attempt to lift and slide the grate above the infamous broken window from below, to no avail, but that is just another assumption, the accuracy of which isn't of much importance.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blow to the head was delivered from behind by a weapon held in the right hand, as can be seen in the autopsy photo of the skull, not by an [am]bidextrous left hand.

      There had been prior sexual abuse, indicating a compliant victim who probably welcomed Daddy's "special love". Why would she suddenly choose to resist and scream?

      There was nothing hasty or improvised about that RN. Every line was well-thought out and had a purpose, not the least of which would give John an entire day alone in the house to do further staging.

      Delete
    2. I am inferring from reading Dr. Werner Spitz's account below a grab of the shirt collar from the front with the right hand, followed by a quick reactive blow with the left hand when the victim released herself from the grasp and turned her head to her left during the struggle. Maybe others can see it differently, including a quick ensuing chase from behind after the release, with the blow from the right and behind with the right hand.

      "Dr. Werner Spitz, forensic medical examiner for Wayne County, Michigan, had conducted extensive studies on the wounds caused by the application of force and was considered a leading expert on the topic. He offered an opinion on the sequencing of injuries that had been inflicted upon JonBenét during her murder:

      This first injury sustained by JonBenét was believed to have been the constriction marks on the sides and front of her throat. He believed that her assailant had grabbed her shirt from the front and twisted the collar in their fist. The cloth from the edge of the collar had created the discolored, striated bruising and abrasions on the sides of her neck, and the knuckles of the perpetrator had caused the triangular shaped bruise located on the front side of her throat. JonBenét reached up to her neck with her hands to attempt to pull away the collar...

      Released from the grasp of the perpetrator, JonBenét turned and was struck in the upper right side of her head with a blunt object. Dr. Spitz would subsequently offer the opinion that the barrel of the Maglite brand flashlight found on the kitchen counter of the Ramsey home was consistent with the rectangular shape of the skull fracture."

      Kolar, A. James. Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet? (Kindle Locations 911-920). Ventus Publishing, llc. Kindle Edition.

      Black Sheep

      Delete
    3. "reached up to her neck with her hands to attempt to pull away the collar . . ." Your ellipses carefully omit Spitz's next sentence, in which he posits her fingernails caused the marks on the sides of her neck, which was one of Spitz's many erroneous assumptions. Those marks were found by the doctor who performed the autopsy to be petechial hemmorhages, and her own DNA was not found under her fingernails.

      Spitz did not see the body, and was not provided with tissue samples and slides, only the autopsy report (provided, iirc, by The Globe, which paid him for his "expert analysis"), all of which makes his analysis (which also concluded JBR had not suffered prior sexual abuse) irrelevant.

      Delete
    4. CC:

      I left three dots to show that I was "carefully" omitting something not relevant to the point, which was the grab of the neck from the front with a following blow to the head on the upper right side.

      That opinion of the struggle by Spitz has some weight in my view, separate from the explainable incorrectness regarding the fingernail issues and petechial hemmorhages, which are known.

      She could have freed her head, in other words, with a slug to the head of the perpetrator while writhing violently without ever clutching her neck. I don't really care how she managed it.

      His opinion as to what caused the triangular mark on the front of JonBenet's neck is the only one I know of by a credentialed expert. If there are others, I just don't know about them.

      Black Sheep







      Delete
    5. "His opinion as to what caused the triangular mark on the front of JonBenet's neck is the only one I know of by a credentialed expert. If there are others, I just don't know about them."

      Triangular shaped discolorations are not uncommon in strangulation victims. Here is an interesting discussion on FFJ, which includes links:
      http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10226-JonBenet-s-Skull-Fractures-The-Weapon/page3

      Delete
  17. That is absolutely the most concise and intuitive summary of this murder I have read. 100% in agreement. -Suzs

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good one Black Sheep - other than that Patsy was the ambidextrous one. But you bring up an interesting point about the window. If John had wanted to stage a break-IN, the window should have been broken from the outside, and the only way to do that would be by lifting that grate and jumping down in the wheel well, from the outside. So if you have a theory that he attempted to do so by using something from the basement such as a golf club, then I think it's an interesting one.

    John may have wanted to do a lot of things, but couldn't after Patsy called 911.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. window well, not wheel well.

      Delete
    2. Not true. Those windows opened in, toward the room, and could easily have been broken while standing in the basement, leaving broken glass on the floor.

      Delete
    3. Why would an intruder be standing inside the basement, breaking a window? To get out? Then how did he get in? (if John is staging an intruder break IN.)

      Delete
    4. You're hopelessly confused on several key points, most recently the garrote and the staging/unstaging. Why not read Doc's first two blog posts from 2012, and then perhaps use his search key to visit some key issues in the archives?

      Delete
    5. Yes, CC, but John may have known that the breaking of the window, without leaving evidence of the grate having been lifted, or any disturbance of the foliage etc. surrounding the grate, wouldn't quite cut it. So, Black Sheep's hypothesis makes absolute sense, and accounts for two things: the sound of metal scraping against concrete the neighbours reported hearing, which was the sound of John using his golf club - taken from the set of clubs he was so eager to have Pam retrieve - to, unsuccessfully, try to lift the grate.....which brings us to the second point: John knew that without any evidence an intruder had climbed through the window well, his breaking of the window minutes before in his first part of the staging, now only looked damning, hence his decision to ditch his initial plan altogether and concoct a phony story about how the broken window came to be. This makes more sense of Doc's "unstaging" theory than to presume he simply ran out of time, which has always been a sore point for me. John didn't complete his staging, thus had to "unstage", but it was for different reasons. Black Sheep's hypothesis is concise, thorough, and entirely plausible.....well done.

      Delete
    6. "Why would an intruder be standing inside the basement, breaking a window? To get out? Then how did he get in? (if John is staging an intruder break IN.)"

      Castor, the window opened "in", therefore, all John had to do was open it and break it from behind, so that the glass would fall inwards, in order to stage a break in.

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

      Delete
    8. My point was John is staging an intruder BREAK IN. How does it look like that if he's breaking the window from the inside.

      As for the garrote handle look at the picture of it again. There is a pile of tangled hair around it so imo he did not "walk away" after tying the cord in a knot at the back of her neck "making the handle entirely superfluous and strictly for staging" as you said - it was used for tightening purposes and leverage - AND for staging.

      Doc, if I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding, please clear this up for me.

      Delete
    9. Okay Ms D, I just read your comment. That makes sense, thanks.

      Delete
    10. There is tangled hair IN IT. IN THE KNOT, NOT "around it", as Doc has already tried to explain to you.

      The autopsy report references a "doubleknot" tied at the back of her neck, and it's visible in the crime scene photos. The garrote was not a true garrote and served no purpose whatsoever except to further suggest a foreign faction.



      Delete
    11. Thank you for acknowledging Black Sheep's post MsD. I am still trying to account for the metal scraping on concrete myself. I don't discount "ear witnesses" in cases (Oscar Pistorius and the neighbor in the alley - O.J. Simpson). As Doc pointed out John had approx. 6 hours that night to do more than write a note, and I don't think it out of line he would want to make a break in look more plausible by moving a grate or attempting to break the window from the outside. Thank you MsD.

      Delete
    12. You're welcome, Castor.
      When I was relatively new to the case, I believed the sound of metal scraping on concrete to be the sound of the grate being moved, but as Doc pointed out to me a while back, the grate hadn't been moved.....but whether or not John had unsuccessfully tried to lift the grate, well, that's another story. Unless, of course, there is evidence suggesting that the ground surrounding the grate had not been disturbed.....in which case, it would seem unlikely that John, or anyone else, had been near it that night. Doc knows a lot more about this matter than I do.

      Delete
  19. It's a fine hypothesis, MsD, and one that's appeared here before, and more than once. Nothing wrong with revisting it for the newcomers.

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

      Delete
  20. Okay, okay I get it. I just didn't have the sequence right of the knotted cord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what that means. You need to do a great deal more reading to contribute here in a meaningful way. Volume is not meaningful - intelligent, informed, and well-reasoned is.

      Delete
  21. Listen there is a few fatal flaws with the JDI theory. All I hear from CC and Ms D is that those who believe BSI (me, EG?) or BDI (J), don’t respond to posts and never offer any facts...when we continually do so.

    The first fatal flaw is that Patsy has to be ruled in for three reasons:

    1. Her lack of effort trying to solve the case. Any mum in this situation would cooperate with LE with all their effort and would do everything it takes to find out what happened. Patsy did not do this. And please don’t say this was due to medication, or it was due to gas lighting or that she just left this all to John to deal with. Bull$hit. Not only that, but Patsy continually “didn’t recall” information for LE. I’m not going to comment on everything because there is simply too much ruling Patsy in and I have already listed a lot of this before.

    2. Although Doc did his best to try and make a case of John writing the RN, there is just more similarities with Patsy. Experts also agreed it was more likely Patsy over John (and we know it wasn’t an intruder who wrote this). Yes, handwriting isn’t a forensic science as such, but these experts are professionals in their field although I know you love debunking their skills. Plus there is many phrases and words in this note which lead to a feminine touch. It is highly likely it was a 2 person job, with Patsy penning the note and John verbally assisting. The “Rainbow Fish Players” photo was undoubtedly written by Patsy and is the best example I have seen.

    3. The 911 call was totally scripted. It was never made “foiling” John’s plans. They agreed that the call had to occur and that Patsy was the best person to deliver a terrified phone call. But there was obvious signs in this call that lead to this being scripted...once again, I have already mentioned this before so am not wasting time listing all of these again.

    I’ll just leave this post at that for now. Patsy was “in the know” before that 911 call and was involved in the staging. Therefore, JDI is extremely slim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So often, Zed, your ungrammatical and inarticulate posts undermine anything you may have to contribute, which is short on facts and minimal at best. And, as your highly intelligent countrywoman often points out, you never address direct questions or challenges.

      You bluster and blather but bring nothing to the table other than "it is because I say so."

      Delete
    2. Typically erudite, pithy, and informative. And so you, Zed.

      Delete
    3. "I have already mentioned this before so am not wasting time listing all of these again."

      But, Zed, all you ever do is list the same SPECULATIONS over and over again.....never do you actually support any of these opinions with evidence. As we keep telling you, assertions are not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat them. Claiming "Bull$hit" is not an effective way of disproving anything, neither is "Blah blah blah".....honestly, Zed, you argue like a petulant child, and until you told me you had three children, I honestly thought I'd been too hard on you because you were probably just a teenager. One can only wonder why you CHOOSE to come here, when you can't ever really "be bothered" to bring anything to the table (or use decent grammar, as CC, thankfully pointed out.....I didn't want to be the one to do it! But, admittedly, that is an ad hom, and I try to leave the bulk of them to you, Z)

      "I’m not going to comment on everything because there is simply too much ruling Patsy in and I have already listed a lot of this before."

      Yes, you comment on it often, and deliver your arbitrary lists of supposed proofs of Burke's guilt, along with Patsy's involvement, but have never actually managed to support your claims with any evidence....only - yep - more baseless opinions.

      "Experts also agreed it was more likely Patsy over John (and we know it wasn’t an intruder who wrote this). Yes, handwriting isn’t a forensic science as such, but these experts are professionals in their field although I know you love debunking their skills."

      Since when did you listen to the "experts", Zed? The "experts" say JB was sexually abused - you disagree. The "experts" say Burke had no involvement in his sister's death - you disagree. It seems you only appeal to authority when it suits your argument. And, you're right, handwriting analysis is not a "forensic science", it's not a science of any kind, so the fact that these are "experts in their field" means nothing. How can one be an expert in a field that is in question? It's akin to being an expert in Tarot card reading, or in ghost hunting.

      "It is highly likely it was a 2 person job, with Patsy penning the note and John verbally assisting. The “Rainbow Fish Players” photo was undoubtedly written by Patsy and is the best example I have seen."

      There's one of those meaningless assertions again: "highly likely". Who says? Please provide your sources (I'm assuming there must be many, as you seem to know with certainty that it was a "two person job") citing the many "experts" who claim the note was dictated by John, whilst Patsy wrote.
      Then you can show us the incontrovertible evidence that it was Patsy who wrote the "Rainbow Fish Players" caption.
      As far as the note having a "feminine touch", that goes completely against your assertion that it was JOHN who dictated the note, doesn't it? But you have to maintain that he dictated it, don't you, because the many crime movie references, along with the threat of a beheading don't have a "feminine touch" at all, do they? As I said earlier.....you make sure to keep all of your bases covered.

      Delete
    4. Still patiently awaiting your response to my above questions, thank you, Zed. Don't worry though, I'll keep reminding you, lest you forget! :)

      Delete
  22. And I'm not going to explain what I mean either. You have no idea how much reading I've done with this case, how many times I've read this blog how many years I've studied this case. I'm not a novice. This is Doc G's blog - he can allow people in, or kick them out. It's not up to you to invite people to move on and leave. I have loose ends with this case as most people in here do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doubtless you can't "explain what you mean ", nor am I interested. Your idiotic remarks are a clear indication of your level of study.

      Doc won't ban anyone, ever, even an uninformed fool.

      Blather on, but expect to be continually challenged and mocked by those who have a genuine understanding of the case.

      Delete
  23. (Directed to CC, not you Zed.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Castor - are you Inquisitive (who hasn't posted on here for a while). Just curious.

    You'll get use to CC's verbal abuse and name calling. Not sure what she is compensating for...although I could probably guess a few things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course Castor is Inq. And I never name call, and have no need to compensate - nor is it relevant. As MsD has pointed out many times, you resort to personal attacks when you have no other recourse.

      Delete
  25. CC - calling the kettle black once again. This is getting old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then cease commenting, Zed, or perhaps add something of value. "Blah blah blah", might be a little too esoteric for us simpletons here. :)

      Delete
  26. I wish everyone would take a deep breath at this point and 1. stop the pointless bickering; 2. try not to go around in circles repeating the same arguments over and over. Monitoring this blog is getting tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Doc.....I could see it getting out of hand, but continued fanning the flames anyway. I'm feeling feisty today. Sincere apologies, I shall try to behave.....but it's just so damn hard, sometimes.....I mean, look at some of these comments!!! O.K, I'm off to go for a walk in this Melbourne sunshine.....Spring is almost upon us!
      Play nicely, guys. :)

      Delete
    2. It's always spring in Queensland :)

      Delete
  27. Listen, we all agree to disagree on some elements of this case. Imagine how boring it would be if we were all in agreement!

    At the end of the day we are all here for the same reason though. Because a murder mystery (despite it being over 20 years old) has sparked the inner detective within us and we continue to be intrigued by theories and any speculation surrounding the case.

    And, of course, we all hold onto some kind of hope that the case will be cracked regardless of who is right and wrong with their theories. Our theories mean little, justice/the truth means a lot.

    So a question for all - do you actually think this case will be solved and the outcome officially made public? (Regardless of who did what).

    Personally, I think 20 years is just too long and the only hope we have is a deathbed confession (or a letter) from John explaining what happened that night. Or maybe Burke will spill some kind of beans once his dad passes away. But to be honest, I am not confident of either of these things happening.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm not confident in John ever revealing anything. He's moved on, remember. He told Anderson Cooper he never even really thinks about JBR anymore. (Can you imagine Polly Klass's father saying that?) John is a fake Christian and a narcissist -- and maybe a child killer. He never believed LE, or anyone else for that matter, had any right to question him about anything. So damned what if LE was focusing on him in the beginning! Any intelligent, loving, and innocent father would recognize that as typical and logical police work, and would immediately offer to be interviewed and polygraphed until he was properly cleared. He wouldn't waste LE's time/resources making himself scarce, and thus making LE pursue him even harder.

    Anyway, I do think there's a glimmer of hope that something might break after John's death. Perhaps Burke will feel free enough to be honest, or perhaps some other family member who knows the truth will come forward. We should never give up complete hope. Look at what's happening in the Natalee Holloway case. The man who led her father to the remains was silent for years, but he finally revealed what he knew. The bones haven't been positively ID'd yet, but we know they're human and we know they're Caucasian. Things are looking positive for her family finally getting some resolution.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree Canuck. One should never give up hope. I'm waiting for the DNA testing in Colorado - supposedly a new lab was built with one of the purposes being to revisit old cases. At the very least the public could be kept informed that there are no new results.

    Zed, I think there was one perpetrator and the most likely suspect to me is John. But other points of view, like your own, J's, EG's, anyone should be welcome and not bullied into submission by one person. I don't think Reddit tolerates it and it shouldn't be tolerated here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed gives as good as he gets, and J and EG and I share mutual respect despite differing POVs.

      It's a shame you feel bullied, but honest to god, you posted three times in two weeks about the garrote handle being fashioned by Burke before the night of the murder, despite the impossibility of that being the case having been painstakingly explained to you three times by three different people. Likewise the breaking of the window from the inside.

      Surely you can see how difficult it is to remain patient in the face of what must be willful recalcitrance, if it's true you're well-read in both the case and this blog?

      Delete
    2. No one is trying to bully Zed into submission, Castor, come on now. I don't need him to share my view of who killed JonBenet, that is not my goal.....my gripe with him is his constant refusal to answer the questions that matter, or offer any evidence to back up his many emphatic assertions, which wears a bit thin over time. Doc does remove posts when he sees fit, as you are well aware of, but he also recognizes that, as adults, we don't require baby sitting. Zed, EG, J et al.....they all hold their own quite well, and do their fair share of what you might consider "bullying into submission", so let's none of us play the victim card. Besides the occasional outburst, I think that, for the most part we do respect one another's pov, and I find Doc's blog to be of a higher standard than most of the forums I've visited. We are all pretty passionate about this case, so of course discussions get heated, but as Zed pretty much said above - when it comes right down to it, we all share the same, common goal.

      Delete
    3. Well said Ms D.

      Now stop smoking that crack pipe and come over to the BSI side.

      (Kidding!) :)

      Delete
    4. Hehehe.....crack is whack, Zed!
      In all seriousness, I'd love to be on "your" side. Imagining that JonBenet died due to a sibling argument that got out of hand is far more preferable a scenario than one where her father - who is supposed to be the one to protect her from monsters like himself - murders her in cold blood solely to save himself from the consequences of the abuse he inflicted upon her. And - such a monster is John Ramsey - that after taking his daughter's life from her, he threw his dying, grieving wife under the bus, and is now content to allow the world to believe that his nine year old son killed his sister. I cannot tell you how much it eats away at me that this man walks free and, by his own admission, barely even spares a thought for his slain child. If Doc's theory is correct, and I have no doubt that it is (minus, perhaps, one or two details), then John Ramsey is evil personified. He is calculating, manipulative, devoid of conscience, and a narcissist who is willing to sacrifice anyone in his family in order to portray an image of innocence for himself. John cares about John, and everyone else, including the daughter he killed, is no more than "collateral damage". This is why I get so indignant towards those in the BDI and PDI camp.....this man has taken so much from so many, and you're all continuing to play right into his hands still to this day by placing the blame onto everyone but the man who is guilty. John mustn't be able to believe his good fortune, and I'm sure the fact he has managed to elude justice for so long just adds to his sense of superiority. This nine year old boy you are accusing of murder (or something like it, depending on which BDI theory you subscribe to) is a VICTIM of John's also! The only travesty worse than a father who rapes and kills his own six year old daughter, is one where a father allows his young son to take the blame for his own evil deeds.
      THIS is why I will continue to defend Burke and Patsy Ramsey as ardently as I do.

      Delete
  30. Zed and Canuck..

    I don't believe this case will ever be solved. The chance of that happening was lost along with the evidence that was tampered with, the body that was never exhumed, the hindering of the investigation by the R's, etc.

    And I agree with you Castor, there isn't a parent alive that wouldn't have cooperated fully, had they been innocent or hadn't been trying to protect another child. And yes, look at the Holloway case, all these years later, those parent's still looking, still working with private investigators, with police, never ever giving up.

    Question for the JDI's. If John killed JBR to silence her, wouldn't he have known that chronic sexual abuse could be detected in an autopsy? And if in most instances the perpetrator is the adult male in the house, wouldn't that be defeating his purpose?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the sexual assault the night of the murder wasn't for John's gratification, but rather an attempt to obscure the prior abuse with the paintbrush. Had he completed his plan and dumped the body off a handy cliff, he may have hoped decomposition would further muddy those waters.

      I don't believe JBR talking was the proximate cause of her murder. I think the three calls to the pediatrician after hours on 12/17 were about another vaginal infection, and Beuf suggested a pelvic exam after the holidays to get to the bottom of their recurrence. As a mandated reporter, he would have reported the abuse to CPS, and John's goose would be well and truly cooked.

      Delete
    2. CC

      If he planned on disposing of her body, why would he go through all that trouble of redressing her, cleaning her up and inserting the paintbrush into her vagina to try and cover prior sexual abuse? Besides that, John would have known no matter what he tried to do that night, nothing would have covered up chronic, ongoing sexual molestation and abuse.

      And yes, those calls are troubling. I'd sure like to know what they were about. If those calls were about a vaginal infection, (and I am sure PR would have wanted it cleared up before the family vacation), I wonder if there was any medication prescribed to JBR to clear it up. I wonder if that was checked out by law enforcement.

      EG

      Delete
    3. I don't think she was redressed. I think John was entirely mission-oriented, and rolled the oversized Bloomies and longjohns down to wield the paintbrush, wiped her because he'd learned all about hair and epithelial DNA from the OJ trial that year and from "Mindhunter", published that year as well, and on their bookshelves.

      Vaginal infections were nothing new, JBR had several. I haven't the slightest how they'd been treated. Iirc I actually looked up Monistat years ago when I first posited this theory, and found it had been de-regulated and was available OTC in 1996, but your guess is as good as mine, E.

      For the rest, no question it was a Hail Mary, but faced with the certainty of exposure, it must have seemed the only option.

      Delete
    4. "If he planned on disposing of her body, why would he go through all that trouble of redressing her, cleaning her up and inserting the paintbrush into her vagina to try and cover prior sexual abuse?"

      We really have been over this many, many times, EG, but here goes again:

      If Doc's theory is correct, which I obviously believe it to be, then initially, John didn't have any cause to redress her, or insert the paintbrush into her vagina (if he ever did that at all - he may have just digitally penetrated her, but there was a fragment of the wood from the paintbrush stuck to his finger after breaking it. As Doc noted, if he used the paintbrush handle, one would think there would be many more fragments left inside of her - but what he used isn't important, it is the "why", not the "how") because he was going to dump her body and let nature take it's course, hopefully destroying any evidence. BUT.....a strange thing happened: Patsy called 911. Now, John is in a spot of bother: his victim lies naked (This is speculation only - I believe he had removed JB's clothing, which possibly contained traces of his semen/saliva etc.), bludgeoned and strangled to death in his very own basement, and it's only a matter of time before police find her body, along with the evidence of prior abuse. A dead, naked, sexually abused child lies in John's basement, and the police are right upstairs - he's screwed - so whatever chances he has to take now, no matter how bold, are absolutely necessary. He has no other choice in a house full of police waiting on a ransom call that will never come. So, in the hour and a half he was unaccounted for, I believe John went to the basement and redressed his daughter in what was only available to him in that room - Burke's long johns, which were possibly in the dryer, along with the blanket he used to cover JonBenet (with her nightgown still attached due to the static from the dryer - a very telling piece of evidence, imo) along with panties that didn't belong to her. The redressing was necessary only in THIS scenario, because kidnappers - as he was now staging a botched kidnapping, rather than a successful abduction, which of course, was his initial plan - have no need to undress their victims before abducting them. I cannot see how the redressing in the long johns and panties two sizes too big - neither of which belonged to the victim - would be necessary in any other scenario.....not BDI, PDI, IDI or RDI. Now, he has to make the method of death appear to be the work of a "foreign faction", because that is who wrote the ransom note. As JB currently lies, it's looking more like a familial homicide. This is where the "garrote" comes in to play. He takes the cord - which may or may not have been used to previously strangle his victim with - uses Patsy's paintbrush, because it is what is available to him (and because he's now thinking, if all else fails, Patsy's going to look more suspicious than he is), and makes a crude version of what he believes a garrote to look like. It doesn't function like a true garrote, but it doesn't have to, his victim has already been strangled to death - this is now just pure staging. *This* looks like the work of a "foreign faction". The interference with her vagina is not consistent with the work of a foreign faction, but he has no choice but to try to cover the prior sexual abuse - that was, after all, his sole motive for killing her. All of this took place in the wine cellar - the most remote room in the house - he then left her there and placed the blanket, taken from the dryer earlier to wrap her body in for transportation, over her body. He then went back upstairs, and was noticeably agitated from this point onward, until "discovering" his daughter dead in the basement cellar.....I'm sure spending time rearranging his daughter's cold, lifeless, body is the reason for his drastic change in demeanor.

      Delete
    5. Of course, the redundant wrist bindings, along with the duct tape on her mouth, were also placed on her dead body by John at this time, in order to make it appear as though an intruder had tried to abduct her.

      Delete
    6. Its a well thought out theory and I do like this more than PDI or IDI.

      There is still a lot of problems I have with it though.

      1. The headblow
      2. The pineapple
      3. Patsys involvement
      4. Patsys lack of doing anything for justice
      5. The RN. If John planned to throw this away when Patsy left the house it would have his fingerprints on it
      6. The loose ends. I just feel like this would have been planned so much better.
      7. Premeditation...just seems impossible to me based on the facts we know.
      8. He let Patsy get away with making the call. Surely he would have sure he was 2 steps behind her when she found it.
      9. The night this occured seemed odd.
      10. The ransom note position on staircase
      11. No evidence before and after of any sexual abuse on Johns part
      12. Patsy admittijf

      I know you will have an answer for each one of the above and whilst we are being nice to each other I will let you know I respect you (and Doc and even sometimes CC haha) for that.

      Delete
    7. Sorry number 12 was supposed to read Patsy admitting that John said ok or told her to ring 911.

      Delete
    8. Thank you, Zed.....awww, damn it, why'd you have to go and say something nice? Now I'll have to respond in turn, lol. Just kidding, I appreciate it. I will try and address your points one by one later on.....unless someone else is happy to chime in.

      Delete
    9. Okay, I thought I knew this case pretty well, but this is the first I've read that the long johns JBR was wearing were Burke's. Ms D, can you (or anyone else) please point me to where you learned this? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to know how I missed it! Thanks.

      Delete
    10. Canuck, it is shown in the crime scene photos, they have a fly front, boys. One of Burke's hand me downs. One of the former employees stated that Pasty did dress Jonbenet in Burke's clothes that he had outgrown.

      Delete
    11. Interesting, Lil. I've never seen photos of the clothes she was found wearing, just those famous drawings of her body clad in what Meyer described only as "matching longjohns". Could you direct me to the photos to which you're referring?

      Delete
    12. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/5apgm2/lets_talk_about_the_urine_stained_longjohns_with/

      Delete
    13. The long johns were boys pants, as they had a functional fly. As for them belonging to Burke, Patsy (?) said that JB would sometimes wear Burke's hand me downs, so the logical conclusion to draw is that these once belonged to Burke.....perhaps not, but it's unlikely they were purchased for JonBenet.

      Delete
  31. Geez Doc, this ridiculous sentence could have been a direct quote from the Ramsey book

    "And if you prefer to assume that frail, nine year old Burke not only bludgeoned but sexually assaulted and viciously strangled his sister, the theory becomes even more bizarre."

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ok....deep breath....Pineapple Bowl

    FACT: JBR ate pineapple before her death. There was no pineapple at party

    FACT: Pineapple Bowl was sitting out on table that night with Burke's fingerprints on it. Not John's or JBR's

    JDI believers conclusion - Burke's fingerprints probably got on there by emptying dishwasher and could have been put there by anybody.

    Logical person - the bowl was put there by Burke that night, who was enjoying his snack.

    the craziest part is that this doesn't prove Burke murdered her, but yet, it poses a problem for a person who believes JDI, so they dismiss it. Even when we see 10 year old Burke in the interrogation video looking at the picture, he awkwardly pauses and says "oh" and laughs like a kid who was caught doing something wrong.

    Conclusion - If you want to believe that Burke's fingerprints were on that bowl because he emptied the dishwasher and whoever put the bowl out that night just got lucky their fingerprints didn't stick, then more power to you. If you think the bowl of pineapple was sitting out all day and just happened to be the ONLY dish that wasn't cleaned off, then the more power to you.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll give you your pineapple bowl, J-man, and I'll throw in that Burke made it for himself when he got up after everyone had gone to bed. I doubt he cleaned up after himself, because what nine year-old does? So he left it on the table, toddled off to bed, and an hour or two later John scooped up JBR, carried her downstairs to the breakfast room wrapped in her blanket, sat her down while he picked up the flashlight and she scarfed up a piece or two before Daddy bashed her in the head. Works for me, you get your pineapple bowl + Burke, and everyone's happy.

      Delete
    2. Or.....JonBenet ate some fruit cocktail at the Whites, accounting for the cherries and grapes also found in her stomach, and the bowl of pineapple on the Ramsey's kitchen table is actually nothing more than salty, red herring.

      Delete
    3. The problem with the fruit cocktail is the source. Paula Woodward is a piss poor "journalist" in Denver, known to be buds with Haddon Morgan & Foreman and the Rs. She referenced no lab report for that information. just a confidential source, meaning a member of Team Ramsey.

      Throw on much salt, MsD.

      Delete
  33. Definitely J.

    Of course anything is possible, but the odds of Burke not eating pineapple that night are slim.

    Remember there was also the oversized spoon which indicates a child who made this. Not to mention it was pineapple and milk...which Burke loved.

    So Burke made this. Of course he could have made it, went to bed, and then John came down with JBR and she ate some.

    Firstly, I don't believe she would grab some unattended pineapple and milk...who knows how long it had been there for.

    Secondly, John and Patsy legitimately didn't know anything about the pineapple. It was probably one of the few questions you could tell they were telling the truth. After all, how was a bowl of pineapple going to foil their actions...so they answered truthfully, really not knowing how it got there.

    And lastly, the food was hardly eaten. Everyone knows that if a child makes themselves food they will eat it...especially one of their favourite snacks. So we can safely conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Burke made this snack that night and his sister was with him. Both ate at least one piece of pineapple but then Burke didnt finish this tasty meal that he took the time to prepare for himself....why????????

    Obviously something happened and then 45min later he had to wake his parents...

    The above I am damn confident of but realise some will disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Everyone knows that if a child makes themselves food they will eat it?" Not my three now-grown boys. Over the years, I'd wake up in the morning to countless half-eaten bowls of cereal, sandwiches with one bite taken out of them, and almost full glasses of milk. Thankfully, that doesn't happen any more!

      Another reason he left the snack unattended could be because one of his parents heard him in the kitchen and told him to go to bed.

      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    2. Exactly, Linda. In fact, there are countless reasons as to why Burke - presuming it was his - didn't eat his pineapple that night - if it was even prepared that night! Upon seeing a half eaten bowl of fruit upon a kitchen counter, my first guess as to why it wasn't finished is not that a violent, murderous, argument must have interrupted the eater of said fruit. I really do find most of the BDI arguments to be very silly, and not worth discussing.

      Delete
  34. Don't forget about the glass of tea with the tea bag in it next to the bowl of pineapple which Burke knew how to make in the microwave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Burke knew how to make tea in the microwave (do you have a source for that?), he'd also know to use a tea cup, or a mug.....who drinks boiling hot liquid from a glass tumbler? He would have burned his hands upon removing it from the microwave.

      Delete
  35. "The odds of Burke not eating pineapple that night are slim."

    O.k then, please show us these "odds", and the equations you performed in order to arrive at your conclusion. Were you sure to factor in all the variables also?

    ReplyDelete
  36. i wonder how burke goes on knowing what his father did.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Geez Ms D haha..."the odds" is nothing more than a figure of speech. I am not going to give you exact odds on Burke not eating pineapple that night. Stop being pretentious.

    All I meant is that the abundance of circumstantial evidence points to Burke most likely eating pineapple that night with his sister and then hardly eating the meal he made for himself. That is the most sensible theory for the pineapple.

    Did that actually happen? Who bloody knows.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know it's just a figure of speech, but I asked because I just don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. None of of us can ever know if Burke ate any pineapple that night, least of all with any certainty. We know JB did - or possibly some fruit cocktail at the xmas party, which would certainly be a game changer - but we don't know that Burke did. Many scenarios have been offered regarding the bowl of pineapple, all of them as plausible as your own. BDIs would have us believe that bowl of pineapple is some sort of smoking gun...

      Delete
    2. It's not a smoking gun...but it puts Burke Ramsey in the potential area around the time that his sister was murdered.

      The other part of the Burke Ramsey saga is that the "he was sleeping the whole time" story by the parents is such a pile of crap. I believe at some point on the 911 call you can hear him. That destroys John and Patsy's story.

      -J

      Delete
    3. You believe you can hear him on the 911 call, because in your mind, he was involved. I, and many others - try as we might - don't hear his voice on the tape, so it's really neither here, nor there. At any rate, Doc has said here many times that his being awake just means he might know more than he's telling, but it doesn't make him guilty of murdering his sister. Personally, I only hear Patsy's voice on the tape, and I've listened to it maybe fifty times.
      As far as the pineapple goes - it does NOT put Burke Ramsey in the "potential area around the time his sister was murdered". As has been said before, fingerprints do not come with a time stamp. Come on, J, you know all this already.....

      Delete
    4. "As far as the pineapple goes - it does NOT put Burke Ramsey in the "potential area around the time his sister was murdered". As has been said before, fingerprints do not come with a time stamp. Come on, J, you know all this already."

      If you want to believe the pineapple was eaten during the day and was the ONLY dish along with a drink that was left out, then let's never have another discussion. I really don't want to go to the fantasy world that may are living in. My whole argument is that the pineapple was eaten THAT NIGHT by Burke Ramsey. No, a fingerprint in itself doesn't put a time stamp on anything, but the parents knew nothing about the pineapple they claim. Burke's fingerprint was on the bowl and he told Dr. Phil he was up that night playing with his toys. So, YES MS D, I believe we can say he was up eating the pineapple roughly around the time she was murdered. The pineapple bowl is a huge problem for you, even if you won't admit it.

      -J

      Delete
    5. It's not a problem for me at all, J, and it never has been. If I honestly thought it was some kind of smoking gun, I'd be happy to consider your theory, why wouldn't I? Many innocuous scenarios have been offered regarding the pineapple - if you don't accept them, that's fine, but don't speak for me, thanks.

      Delete
  38. MsD....

    "The interference with her vagina is not consistent with the work of a foreign faction, but he has no choice but to try to cover the prior sexual abuse - that was, after all, his sole motive for killing her."

    My question to you remains the same. Are you telling me that John would not have known that an autopsy would prove chronic, ongoing sexual molestation and abuse? Do you mean to say that John thought inserting the paintbrush into her vagina that night/morning would cover up months of sexual abuse? Is that what you're saying?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  39. CC...

    I am just wondering if a vaginal infection would prompt a mother to call a doctor three times in a short span of time. Especially that she had them before. If a topical cream had been prescribed for her for prior infections, wouldn't PR have had some on hand?

    A flurry of calls like that would indicate some sort of an emergency, I would think. It's a key piece of this puzzle though, I give you that. I do believe it's somehow connected here, just not sure how.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By 12/17/96 Patsy had 15 cumulative years' experience mothering - I don't see that she would have called three times between 5-6PM for a sore throat or any other pedestrian ailment, do you?

      According to PMPT, this would have been her fourth or fifth vaginal infection that year - perhaps Patsy could no longer chalk them up to dirty underwear or sloppy wiping, and was finally alarmed.

      They'd been to the Colorado Little Miss Christmas pageant in Denver that day, to which John had arrived late, and separately.

      That's the sum of my information, E - but I'm also certain those calls mean something, and this is what I've hit upon.

      Delete
    2. "My question to you remains the same. Are you telling me that John would not have known that an autopsy would prove chronic, ongoing sexual molestation and abuse? Do you mean to say that John thought inserting the paintbrush into her vagina that night/morning would cover up months of sexual abuse? Is that what you're saying?"

      I really don't know how I can possibly be more forthcoming in answering your question, EG. I've outlined it as thoroughly as I can several times in the year I've been here, but I'll give it one more go:

      Of COURSE John knew an autopsy would have shown ongoing sexual abuse.....hence his plan to stage a kidnapping in order to get rid of her body altogether - never to be found. As per CC's theory, an upcoming pelvic exam was probably on the cards, and not wanting the ongoing abuse to be discovered, he needed to eliminate the source of all of his problems. He knew the only way the abuse wouldn't be uncovered was if there was no body to be examined. He would stage a kidnapping, dump her body, problem solved.
      But, as we know, Patsy threw a spanner in the works, and what was he do to once called the police? JB's body WAS going to be found, and it WAS going to be examined, so you tell me...what were John's options? He had only two: allow LE to discover her body as it currently lied in the basement, which would almost certainly mean he'd be arrested, or, mutilate her vagina and HOPE it would create enough doubt - which it did. Of course this wasn't John's initial plan, I would imagine that is rather obvious - it wasn't a good one - but at that point, it was his ONLY option.
      So, in summary.....did John think his handiwork with the paintbrush would be enough to hide previous abuse? Probably not. Was it is first choice? No! Once LE were called, he worked with what little he had available to him.....and through sheer, dumb luck, it worked. The fact his initial plan of staging an *actual* kidnapping was thwarted, so it then (through no choice of his own) had to be staged as a failed kidnapping - with a little bit of sexual abuse thrown in, but no evidence that the crime itself was sexually motivated - created enough confusion in regards to motive (was it money? Sex? Revenge?), then add LE's incompetence to the mix, and John is a free man. He escaped justice in spite of his sloppy staging, not because of it.....but his initial plan WAS a good one, and if it had gone accordingly, we'd not be talking about the case today, it would have been just another abduction with the victim never being found, like so many others. I guess we can thank Patsy's intervention for that not being the case.....though it sure did her, and her son, no favours!

      Delete
    3. Excellent post, Ms D!

      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Linda.....I'm glad someone gets it! I've explained this scenario so many times, I'm just going to start copying and pasting.

      Why is it so hard to understand?

      Delete
    5. CC….I agree with you. A mother wouldn't make three calls within the hour to a doctor for your average sore throat. I suspect those calls hold the key in solving this case. Do you know if the doctor was ever questioned by the GJ and if so, would he able to use the doctor/patient privilege rule?

      MsD…...I find it difficult to believe that JR, with a houseful of people, would chance returning to the scene of the crime, knowing that at any moment someone could stumble upon him in the act of covering up his crime from the night before. And all JR would've had to do the night before, was cut the phone line, to avoid PR making the 911 call. Anyone's reaction to finding a note like that is to call 911. John would've known that.
      Besides that, didn’t FW search the basement with JR when he first came over. What is FW had discovered the body? He actually opened that wine cellar door but didn’t see anything if I am not mistaken due to not being able to find the light switch. What then? I think JR wanted someone to find the body much earlier than they did. And that the cover up was all done the night before.

      EG

      Delete
    6. Dr Beuf did appear before the GJ. Unless waived by the patient, or in this case the patient's natural guardian (parent), doctor-patient confidentiality survives death and subpoena (as does attorney-client confidentiality).

      I recall Hunter or one of his minions making a big to-do over what the Ramseys insisted should be an "island of privacy" surrounding the family's medical records, so it's doubtful they're on record anywhere.

      Patsy told LE she couldn't recall why she made the 3 calls, though by that time the sexual abuse had been bandied about in the press, and she'd been asked about it in that or another interview, had had time to connect it to the recurring vaginal infections, and either lied about it to protect her daughter, or was in deep denial.

      I agree it's pivotal. Frustrating, isn t it?

      Delete
    7. I'm going to guess that John was tempted to cut the phone lines, E...but then how would the (putative) kidnappers be able to call with instructions?

      Delete
    8. "MsD…...I find it difficult to believe that JR, with a houseful of people, would chance returning to the scene of the crime, knowing that at any moment someone could stumble upon him in the act of covering up his crime from the night before."

      I've already explained, several times, why it was absolutely necessary for him to do so. Taking the huge risk of possibly getting caught was still better than the other option: most DEFINITELY getting caught. If John didn't revisit the crime scene to apply the finishing touches before LE discovered JB's body, he would have had no chance at all. It wouldn't have been a difficult choice for CEO John, he would have realized the benefits far outweighed the risks. People will go to extraordinary lengths to stay out of prison.

      Delete
  40. Why didn't John simply place a pillow over JonBenet's face while she slept and dispose of her body later? IMO, the truth of what happened that night has not yet been discovered. Could there have been hidden, on-going child abuse that was slowly escalating and exploded in a murderous rage? If such was the case, and if one of the parents was the abuser and the other knew and did nothing to stop or prevent it, both parents would be charged with the crime. This could be a reason for the obvious staging. Also, the sexual assault was not necessarily done by a male. There are female pedophiles who are attracted to young girls. Schizophrenia also comes to mind. The truth will emerge slowly but surely.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why didn't John simply place a pillow over JonBenet's face while she slept and dispose of her body later?"

      What does he tell Patsy when she tries to wake up JB that morning?

      "Schizophrenia also comes to mind."

      Why? I have read absolutely nothing that indicates anyone in that house was suffering from such a condition.....could you please provide some more information as to how you arrived at that conclusion?

      "The truth will emerge slowly but surely."

      I don't think it will. It's been twenty years already. Many cases like this one remain unsolved.

      Delete
    2. Ms D...I am assuming (always dangerous) that the anonymous poster meant:

      "Why didn't John simply place a pillow over JonBenet's face while she slept AND......then hide her in the basement so Patsy wouldn't find her in the morning (she would find the RN as per his plan)".

      That is another reason why this was NOT premeditated. The headblow simply would NOT have occurred. If John was indeed the only person involved it wasn't something he planned happening that night.

      Delete
    3. Suffocating someone with a pillow may sound simple and easy, but it isn't. As soon as air is cut off the victim will be wide awake and struggling. The process will be far from instantaneous and the victim will suffer a prolonged and agonizing death while staring her attacker in the face.

      John may have wanted the victim of his incestuous urges out of the way, but she was also his daughter, for whom he undoubtedly had feelings. The easiest and most merciful way to kill someone is NOT by placing a pillow over her face and watching her struggle for breath for several minute, while her eyes are fixated on yours in horror and disbelief. The easiest and most merciful method is the one all the evidence points to: a powerful blow over the head from behind. That way, she is killed -- or at least rendered unconscious -- instantaneously, with no awareness of what has happened or who struck the blow.

      The fact that she was bludgeoned is totally consistent with the theory that John assaulted her with deliberate intent, as part of a plan conceived either that night or at some earlier date. We'll probably never know which.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough Doc. I just think for this to be premeditated there would have been at least 20 things to occur differently.

      Delete
    5. "Why didn't John simply place a pillow over JonBenet's face while she slept AND......then hide her in the basement so Patsy wouldn't find her in the morning (she would find the RN as per his plan)"

      Well he did suffocate her, didn't he? So what does it matter whether he did it with a pillow or with a cord? As Doc said, he rendered her unconscious so her death would be painless, and without a struggle, so what is the point of this argument?

      Delete
    6. One more thing to note....suffocating her in her bed carried the risk of being caught by anyone who might walk into her room at any time. Luring her down to the remote wine cellar, in a dark basement, minimized that risk.
      I would think that is rather obvious.

      Delete
  41. I've always felt the torn presents hold one of the keys to this case.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenet/comments/55xm20/the_torn_gifts_in_the_wine_cellar/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list

    ReplyDelete
  42. J and Zed, re the pineapple..Burke was asked by Dr P "did you eat pineapple w JB on Christmas night?" to which Burke replied "it's possible", followed by a flippant "do you remember what you ate 20 yrs ago?". He was almost 10. I'm sure he remembers the last time he saw/interacted w his sister. I found it shocking his answer wasn't a direct NO! So, from Burke's own mouth, it's reasonable to infer he was in the kitchen on Christmas night w JB, eating pineapple. SAM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice post Sam. If Burke didnt eat the pineapple that night and if it had no relevance to the case, I personally think he would have said no. Simple as that. But obviously Burke was very agitated/anxious in that interview and so he instead he said what he did. Which to me, basically sounded like, yes I ate it that night with my sister and I definitely remember it.

      That old Burke interview was John still trying to control the situation. Why do you think Burke gave his first interview at that time? It was because finally a program were getting close to the truth and it worried John.

      The interview was supposed to eradicate the thought Burke was involved (to those watching), but it only cast more suspicion.

      Burke even let drop about the flashlight being used that night. I bet John got angry when his son let that one slip.

      Delete
    2. Bloody mobile phone grrr...start of second paragraph was supposed to read ***that whole Burke interview***

      Delete
    3. Here's what Dr. Phil actually asked Burke:

      "Did you and she eat pineapple together at any time during the day?" (See https://youtu.be/3Q1zw-eOBFM?t=26m56s)

      He replies: "Maybe."

      "any time during the day" is VERY different from "Christmas night."

      So no, this is NOT some sort of "confession" and Burke's response is perfectly reasonable.

      Delete
    4. If it was anytime during the day, then WHY not say that at any point in the last 20 years?
      If it was that easily explained, then why in the world draw more attention to the family if it was so innocent?

      -J

      Delete
    5. Thank you for the correction Doc, but if PR stated JB ate crab for dinner at the White's and crab was not found in her body (neither were pancakes or hash), only pineapple, wouldn't it stand to reason that the pineapple was eaten by JB sometime AFTER the crab, which would HAVE to be Christmas night? I don't think it's enough to say we don't know when she ate the pineapple when the science of her autopsy tells us the timeline. Thank you J as well, I admire your posts and tenacity ~
      SAM

      Delete
    6. Zed, I also think the torn presents are relevant. PR stated they were purchased from FAO Swartz along with the Christmas gifts but held back to give Burke on his 10th birthday, 4 weeks later on January 27. Was he anticipating something for Christmas that he didn't receive? Did JB antagonize him while peaking into the gifts in the wine cellar room and it enraged him enough to hit her? The urine stains were found just outside the door to that room, suggesting that is where she emptied her bladder.
      ~SAM

      Delete
    7. "If it was that easily explained, then why in the world draw more attention to the family if it was so innocent?"

      On the other hand, how easy would it have been for Burke to lie and simply deny any knowledge of JonBenet or himself eating any pineapple at all that evening? No maybes about it. And if it was such a big deal, his parents could easily have lied about it as well.

      As for the timing, the forensic experts are all over the place on that. But since it was found in her intestine, not her stomach, then we need to allow some time between ingestion and death, no?

      Delete
    8. My belief is that the parents didn't lie about it because they couldn't possibly have known it played any significance whatsoever. In the BDI scenario, the parents help stage the crime. In a panicked state, it would be easy to overlook the pineapple bowl. Also, they couldn't have known that JB ate a piece of it and that it would show up in her autopsy. It happened between Burke and JB and only one of them was alive the following morning.

      -J

      Delete
    9. My thoughts exactly J.

      Sam - yes, I think the presents are more likely than stolen pineapple. Patsy clearly fabricated a lie around these presents and you have to ask yourself WHY??? (and then everything else falls into place).

      Delete
    10. It's funny how you think that fruit, or unopened presents, are a more plausible motive for murder than sexual abuse. I'd like you to go through the crime annals and see just how common a motive sex - and the subsequent fear of exposure - is, as opposed to wrapped gifts and pieces of fruit, then apply Occam's Razor, along with a liberal dose of common sense, to your supposed "logic".

      Delete
    11. You dont even know WHO was abusing her. SO, you believe it to be JR and based on simply your belief,the person you believe was abusing her was also shutting up his daughter even though there isn't one eyes witness or piece of evidence to say she was going to spill the beans.

      -J

      Delete
    12. But I do know that she was abused right before she was killed. And, as we all know there was no phantom intruder, that leaves us with only Patsy, John, or Burke who could have abused her.....and because she was murdered shortly thereafter, naturally, the logical inference to draw is that her abuser is also her killer. I rule out Patsy as her abuser for two reasons: a. statistics show us that a mother inflicting sexual abuse upon her daughter is extremely rare, and b. It would be unlikely that Patsy would keep taking JB to the pediatrician for vaginal infections if it was she who was the one causing them. JB had also become very "clingy" towards her mother in the last few months of her life, suggesting she was not afraid of her, but rather looked to her for protection.
      I rule out Burke because a. It is extremely unlikely that a pre-pubescent, nine year old boy, who showed no outward signs of being sexually curious, was abusing his sister, and b. Because all of the other elements of the crime point to an adult having murdered JB, and as I have said dozens of times - the likelihood of her abuser and her killer being two different people are slim, due to the fact she was abused directly prior to being murdered. Couple that with the fact that the adult male in the house is almost always the culprit in such situations, along with the fact that 911 was called before the staging was complete (which doesn't work for BDI, RDI, or PDI), and we have no plausible suspect left but John Ramsey.

      Now, you still failed to answer my question.....how common a motive for murder is a piece of fruit or an unopened present?
      How common is it for two people to stage a murder to cover for an accident?
      More importantly, how common is it for a nine year old to be a criminal mastermind, capable of outsmarting every investigator assigned to the crime? I guarantee.....every other instance a child has committed murder, they are the number suspect within hours, and have been taken into custody within a couple of days, because they do NOT have the smarts, nor the experience, to fool seasoned detectives or child psychologists.

      Your theory involves so many people, so many unlikelihoods, so many unprecedented aspects, that it not only demands we believe the unbelievable, it also defies all common sense and logic. Even with your alleged pineapple and torn presents evidence, it still cannot work.

      Delete
  43. Doc, yes, we need to allow some time between ingestion and death. But if crab was not found in her system and Patsy stated she ate crab for dinner, is it a reasonable inference to conclude the pineapple was eaten sometime after dinner, Christmas night? I apologize if the question is redundant for the blog,
    SAM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do we know that JBR actually ate the crab at the White's? I know the Rs made kind of a big deal about Priscilla preparing her a plate, but I can't remember if anyone said they saw her eat anything.

      She wouldn't be the first child who was too busy playing to eat at a holiday gathering.

      Delete
    2. Paula Woodward had access to police reports that have still not been made public, and according to her, the final word on the analysis of the food remains found in JonBenet's intestine was not only pineapple but also cherries and grapes -- items found in fruit cocktail.

      While Woodward is not the most reliable reporter in the world, I find it difficult to believe that she could get away with lying about a police report. So, regardless of how suspicious the prints on the famous bowl of pineapple might seem, it looks to me like that bowl, and its contents, have no bearing whatsoever on this case.

      Looks like JonBenet got hold of some fruit cocktail at some point, possibly without anyone else knowing about it. Or maybe one of the children at the White's party snuck some out of a pantry or fridge and shared the treat with JBR without telling anyone. Stranger things have happened.

      Delete
  44. "In the Ramseys' dining room, just steps away from the kitchen, the police had found a bowl with fresh pineapple in it. Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine was in near-perfect condition-it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

    Based on the condition of the pineapple in her intestine, the experts estimated that JonBenet had eaten it an hour and a half or two hours before she died, most likely after the family returned home that night. However, one Boulder medical examiner stated it could have been eaten as early as 4:30 p.M.- before the Ramseys left their home for a dinner at the Whites. If JonBenet had eaten the pineapple after 10:30 P.M., that made the approximate time, of death not earlier than midnight."

    Not sure if this is helpful, but found it on ACandyRose website.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks EG...I was aware of this.

      Sometimes in a case like this you have to use the KISS method (which I've mentioned many times before). Of course, anything is possible, but for this specific aspect of the case JonBenet most likely ate this a couple of hours before she died. That is the most rationale explanation based on the evidence and the experts interpretation. How anyone can say otherwise defies belief.

      Given this dish was most likely made by a child and also had Burke's fingerprints on it...one really has no option to surmise that Burke and his sister were together, eating pineapple, 90min to 120min before she was killed. Is that a fact? No. But it's about as close as any fact on this entire case.

      Of course JDI'ers will say that if the above is true, then Burke and his sister ate the pineapple, went to bed and then John woke her up later...which of course is possible but is still going too far off on a tangent for my liking.

      Firstly, we know that JonBenet actually wasn't killed until approximately 45min after the head blow (even if for all intensive purposes the parents already thought she was dead....sorry just to add that in for Ms D haha).

      So let's minus 45min off 90 to 120min. This gives us 45min to 75min.

      Which means, based on the examinations from the MAJORITY of the EXPERTS who examined the pineapple in her stomach...the headblow to JonBenet came 45min to 75min after she swallowed that pineapple. And remember, Burke is with his sister when she swallowed that gorgeous piece of fruity evidence. Burke has not even gone to bed yet and suddenly the timeline is looking extremely tough to consider that John was the one to deliver that headblow.

      And given the torn presents in the basement, which I feel very strongly about (how can anyone say that Patsy told the truth about those presents.....) I have no doubts that Burke and JB were down there tearing away at those...and this probably lead to the headblow (not the stolen pineapple). The timeline for John is now gone and you have Burke, with a weapon, in the basement....

      Game of Cluedo anyone?

      Delete
    2. "Sometimes in a case like this you have to use the KISS method (which I've mentioned many times before)"

      Your theory is the antithesis of "keeping it simple" though, Zed. Let's be real here. Your theory involves THREE, different killers - along with TWO, separate, crimes, for God's sake! One of the killers being a sadistic, murderous child, and the other two being absolute morons, who think that staging a kidnapping whilst leaving the dead body in the house, is a good idea! Throw in an unnecessary, vaginal assault just for good measure, even though it completely goes against the motive they've just outlined in the phony ransom note, and you have the single, most, convoluted theory in crime history. There is absolutely nothing in your scenario that is "simple".....not even logical, rational, or remotely plausible.

      "Of course, anything is possible, but for this specific aspect of the case JonBenet most likely ate this a couple of hours before she died."

      No one claimed otherwise, Zed. JonBenet had pineapple in her stomach, and no one here has ever disputed it. But she could have eaten it *before* she left for the Whites ("as early as 4.30 p.m"), or she could have consumed it *at* the Whites (refer to my posts below).

      "Given this dish was most likely made by a child and also had Burke's fingerprints on it...one really has no option to surmise that Burke and his sister were together, eating pineapple, 90min to 120min before she was killed."

      It has already been established that JonBenet could have eaten the fruit as early as 4.30 p.m, so please stop making things up to bolster your tenuous theory.

      "Is that a fact? No. But it's about as close as any fact on this entire case."

      Jesus, Zed, that is the most ridiculous thing you've said on this blog to date. Something is either TRUE, or it is NOT. You can't have something that is "CLOSE to a fact", are you kidding me?! And to suggest that the only thing we "know" (according to you) in this entire case, is that Burke and JonBenet sat together and ate pineapple after coming home from the Whites is absolutely false. Doc has outlined the many facts regarding the case.....that you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less true. You don't have to arrive at the same conclusion as JDIs have, but you can't simply dismiss what IS known either, simply because it goes against your theory.
      I've said it before.....you seem to have a real problem with the definition of the word "fact". You tend to be of the belief that an emphatic opinion is the same as a fact, but when you come across an actual "fact", you dismiss it as "ludicrous", or "bullshit" if you can't work it into your theory.


      "Of course JDI'ers will say that if the above is true, then Burke and his sister ate the pineapple, went to bed and then John woke her up later...which of course is possible but is still going too far off on a tangent for my liking."

      We're "going off on a tangent"? Says the man who has the most convoluted theory of all? Good grief...

      "And remember, Burke is with his sister when she swallowed that gorgeous piece of fruity evidence."

      The more times you say it, doesn't make it any truer. EVIDENCE please, Zed! PROVE to us that Burke was standing right alongside his sister when she consumed the pineapple - or fruit cocktail (with the latter completely destroying your entire argument).

      "And given the torn presents in the basement, which I feel very strongly about (how can anyone say that Patsy told the truth about those presents.....)"

      Uhhh....because no one can prove otherwise, and personal opinions don't count for anything?




      Delete
  45. Zed, I concur completely
    ~SAM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The exact material in JonBenét’s stomach and intestines was first discussed with experts at the University of Colorado on October 15, 1997 (BPD Report # 1-1156), more than ten months after JonBenét was killed. Their reports about the contents of her stomach/ proximal area were given to the Boulder Police Department more than a year later in January of 1998, (BPD Report #1-1349) one year after JonBenét’s death. And that’s when the mystery deepened and the misconception about what JonBenét actually ate was discovered.

      According to previously unreleased BPD reports, laboratory testing revealed that JonBenét also ate cherries and grapes as well as pineapple. Remnants of cherries were found in the stomach/ proximal area of her small intestine.

      “Another item besides pineapple was cherries.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) In that same report: “Another item besides pineapple was grapes.” (BPD Report #1-1348.) Another report expands on the grapes, saying “grapes including skin and pulp.” (BPD Report #1-349.) The food described resembles what is included in most cans of fruit cocktail.

      The new information wasn’t released publicly, and the pineapple-only myth with its handy bowl of fruit on the kitchen table of the Ramsey home continued to be circulated."

      Woodward, Paula. We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of JonBenét Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Location 1861). Easton Studio Press, LLC. Kindle Edition.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc.
      Clearly, everyone here missed your first post regarding the fruity remnants in JB's stomach. Now, can we finally put this to rest? There is nothing to suggest JB ate any fruit from the bowl on the kitchen table. It's more likely that, shortly before leaving, she had some dessert at the White's containing pineapple, cherries and grapes, or perhaps she drank some punch (I don't know about you guys, but I often put a can of fruit cocktail in my punch).

      Delete
    3. If the fruit she consumed was in a drink, it would also explain why the fruit in her stomach appeared "poorly chewed". It's consistent with the evidence (all three fruits found in her stomach are found in tinned, fruit cocktail - a common ingredient in punch - and more often than not, one will swallow the small pieces without chewing), so I'm going with this theory.

      JonBenet drank a glass of festive punch at the White's Xmas party.

      Delete
  46. Doc? Quoting Paula Woodward? You have a post entitled "the gospel according to st Paula" that is devoted to her inconsistencies and misstatements. She collaborated on her book with the Ramsey's for whom the pineapple evidence was clearly a problem. She cites "experts" and a lab in Colorado to support the notion of fruit cocktail. Is that written in any of the autopsy reports?

    ReplyDelete
  47. LOL Anonymous I just laughed out loud. Nice comment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was me Zed, forgot to sign my name, long day. ~
      SAM

      Delete
    2. Wait...it's ok for you to post 500 blogs about John Ramsey being the killer or 50 posts about the Window, or another 50 posts about how it couldn't be BR. BUT, we can't talk about a crucial piece of evidence like the pineapple.

      Note - If it goes against bloggers theory, make topic go away.

      Time to take a break from this site for a while. BDI, I don't need to keep repeating myself posts after post. Keep up the good fight ZED

      -J

      Delete
    3. You did in fact talk about your "crucial piece of evidence." Ad nauseum. No one is going to shut you up. But I see no point in continually repeating yourself post after post, as you say. After a certain point it just gets tiresome.

      Delete
    4. Well, I'm not arguing that I only use the facts ma'am or only use logic and then completely ignore logical evidence.

      You should be thrilled that a BDI person will be off here so you can bring more to the JDI camp.

      My simple point Doc is that you have literally posted your theory on the window or the 911 call easily over 500 times on here. The pineapple bowl is very bad for your argument, so I understand wanting it dismissed, but the best argument you can use is that Burke's fingerprints got on there by emptying the dish washer. I obviously love the spirited debates with most people on here, so when the day comes when Burke is found to be the killer I will come back here to check in on all of you.

      Until the next major development, CC, Ms D, Zed, EG....good luck. Talk to you down the road

      -J

      Delete
    5. Actually the traces of pineapple found in her system have been an important part of my argument from the start, since there is no way JonBenet would have accepted any food from a stranger, thus weakening the intruder theory. By accepting the new evidence revealed by Woodward, I'm forced to retract that argument. As I now see it, the pineapple evidence most likely has no bearing on the case and thus no bearing on the intruder theory.

      Woodward's revelation has no bearing on the Burke did it theory either, for reasons that go way beyond any speculations regarding fingerprints on a bowl or some sort of tiff between siblings. Regardless of what anyone might think about that bowl of pineapple, there is no way his parents would have covered for him in such a bizarre and disgusting manner, as should be obvious.

      Delete
    6. "Wait...it's ok for you to post 500 blogs about John Ramsey being the killer or 50 posts about the Window, or another 50 posts about how it couldn't be BR. BUT, we can't talk about a crucial piece of evidence like the pineapple."

      Actually, we talk about the pineapple all the time, J, so let's be honest, rather than resort to playing the victim card, shall we? As far as Doc posting about John Ramsey being the killer - it's HIS blog, and he proposes a JDI theory, so what do you expect?! You make a choice to come here to argue with the author - whom you know you don't agree with - even though there are many BDI forums out there. If you began your own BDI blog, you would defend your theory and post counter arguments to any other theory being offered.
      Come on now, be reasonable.

      "Note - If it goes against bloggers theory, make topic go away."

      You've been saying that very same thing since I began participating on this blog a year ago....yet, here we all are still arguing the BDI theory, proving your statement to be completely untrue. Doc has indulged your alleged pineapple evidence for as long as I've been here, so either you're lying, or being just a tad paranoid.

      Delete
  48. Quite remarkable you posted that Doc! And Ms D of course chirps in with her usual approval, despite that post being a load of drivel.

    Pineapple was found in JonBenet's intestine. A bowl of mysterious pineapple is found on the table in the Ramsey house. Conclusion: Hmm... she must have eaten fruit cocktail at the White's house. LOL.

    Full credit to CC...who posted this above, which I wholeheartedly agree with:

    "The problem with the fruit cocktail is the source. Paula Woodward is a piss poor "journalist" in Denver, known to be buds with Haddon Morgan & Foreman and the Rs. She referenced no lab report for that information. just a confidential source, meaning a member of Team Ramsey."

    CC hit the nail on the head. This whole "fruit cocktail" was made up by Team Ramsey. Why would they make this up? Hmmm...maybe they started to realise just how troublesome the pineapple was for them. Even the Whites have adamantly stated they did not serve any fruit cocktail at the party.

    As Anonymous stated...none of this was in any autopsy report as well. Team Ramsey 1 Ms D & Doc 0.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many good reasons to be skeptical of Woodward's interpretations of certain evidence, as I made clear in my review of her book. But her revelations regarding the fruit cocktail ingredients come directly from police reports. She even provides very specific references. I can't imagine how she could have gotten away with falsifying direct quotes from such a source.

      Sorry to rain on your parade, folks, but it looks like you've been barking up the wrong tree.

      In any case, and however you might want to spin the pineapple saga, you've had plenty of opportunity to make your point and repeating yourself won't help. You're convinced she ate pineapple from that particular bowl and that somehow proves Burke bopped her over the head. Because after all what other possible explanation could there be. It's so very logical those police reports must be wrong. I get it. Can we now please move on to some other less well worn topic?

      Delete
  49. You're all overlooking fruitcake, a holiday favorite (for reasons that passeth understanding), which contains all those fruits and is often set out on a sideboard or buffet - particularly if it was a hostess gift from a guest. If Priscilla had been asked only about fruit cocktail, she may have forgotten about any stray fruitcake lying about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've considered the fruitcake before, CC, but, from my own -
      albeit limited - experiences making fruitcake (only twice in my life - I despise the stuff), the recipe has never called for grapes, or pineapple.

      Delete
    2. Must be a regional variation, MsD. Here it can contain damned near anything (though it's supposed to be candied fruit) INCLUDING a tin or two of fruit cocktail. Noxious stuff, fruitcake.

      Delete
    3. Ahhh, I see......well then, it seems very likely that JB ate fruitcake at the Whites. On Christmas day, what kid doesn't partake in a slice of sticky, syrupy, blow-fly studded, months old cake, covered in thick, bitter, marzipan?
      That, or xmas pudding.....not sure if it's traditionally served as a festive dessert in the U.S, but we serve it here (it is equally as foul as it's cousin, the fruitcake) with custard, and money is placed inside.....were any quarters retrieved from JB's stomach?! ;)

      Delete
  50. Fruitcake, fruit cocktail, fruit salad....you can try and think of as many different foods the White's could have served. The fact is, they have stated they served no fruit at the party (I will try and find their statement if I can). Sorry to travel the roundabout one more time, but the OBVIOUS explanation is that JB at the pineapple found at her home. Any other story is simply grasping at straws...sorry but I just can't make that clear enough. The experts who DID examine the pineapple in her stomach stated it was most likely eaten 1.5 to 2 hrs before her DEATH. Again, that rules out the Whites.

    Once we have established the above, it is a VERY safe bet that Burke was eating this with his sister...and based on the timeline it leaves little opportunity for John to strike his daughter on the head. Then there is the presents which I won't mention again. In fact, I won't mention this topic again because you are right, I have made up mind. And it's a decision based on clear facts and logical inferences. The end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's assume you're right, and JB did eat a piece of pineapple from the bowl photographed on the table.....she may have done so before she left for the Whites. Regardless of what *you* say, Zed, the *experts* - whom you hold in such high esteem when it SUITS you - say she probably ate it in the two hours before her death BUT could have eaten it as early as 4.30 p.m, making it entirely plausible she ate none of it upon returning home, which doesn't place her and Burke together in the kitchen that evening.
      JonBenet's fingerprints are not on the bowl, so I find it more likely that the contents inside her stomach came from another source. At any rate, the pineapple proves absolutely nothing, and if that's all BDIs have to hang their hat on - and it seems to be - then I suggest you "go back to the damn drawing board"!

      Delete
    2. That is all BSI'ers have to hang on? We have an abundance of circumstantial evidence which nearly makes it impossible to ignore Burke as the reason both parents were involved that night. Man I wish the truth would come out. It would actually be extremely satisfying to say "I told you so".

      Delete
    3. Hahaha, Zed....I feel the same way. I know John Ramsey killed JonBenet, but I don't think we'll ever know the truth, honestly. If it were to come out though, all hell is going to break loose on this blog, huh?! Fun times...

      Delete
  51. I disbelieve Paula and her "lab reports", firstly because they would not have come directly from the BPD, but from Team Ramsey, and so are not to be trusted. Secondly, because Meyer's autopsy report describes the pineapple as having "sharp edges" and portions of the rind - not a feature of fruit cocktail, but perfectly possible in a bowl of it, fresh.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Totally in agreement with this. I took an extra step of looking up the book written by the forensic botanists who analyzed the contents of her intestine. They only list pineapple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you supply a reference for that book? I wasn't aware of it. In any case, the police reports Woodward refers to are based on subsequent examination of JBR's stomach contents by an independent lab that supposedly did a more thorough job than the medical examiner who produced the autopsy.

      I appreciate your suspicions of Woodward, CC, which I share. But she references very specific police reports, it's not just some rumor fed to her by team Ramsey or anyone else. If she falsified those quotes she'd be in a whole pile of trouble. And I see no reason for her to take such a huge risk over some pineapple evidence.

      This whole brouhaha over a bowl of pineapple is a perfect example of why I chose to stick with the undisputed facts of the case rather than bicker endlessly about bits of "evidence" that might or might not be relevant. The facts I cite at the outset of this blog are not in question -- and, as I see it, very simple straightforward inferences based on those facts lead us directly to the culprit. All else is conjecture.

      Delete
    2. I didn't read the book, but someone referenced it on Topix a couple months ago, so I looked it up. This was the only snippet I could find about JBR.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=lGCdBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=botanist+david+norris&source=bl&ots=dvqPMSbmlB&sig=ndV-ylrzxh4GxOfXAI-eNiusSmQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjg8ZWPp4LWAhWmz4MKHbNuDzgQ6AEIQDAF#v=snippet&q=jonbenet%20ramsey&f=false

      Delete
  53. Re premeditation: those who say that if the crime were premeditated there is no way John would've used the pad from the house - what would be more risky: using a pad from the house and disposing of it, or being found on CCTV and till-receipts buying a pad and sharpie identical to those used in the RN a week before the crime, a pad and sharpie for whose whereabouts you cannot now account?

    That said, if I'm John and I did it, whichever pad I use, that pad is safely in the garbage at some distant spot before the crime takes place.

    Good to check-in and see Zed still arguing the same old points - the 911 call being obviously scripted etc. All mere opinions, offered by people who have clearly sat down and micro-analysed every word, and deduced what an innocent parent would or should or would not say, without any experience in these matters, and without comparing Patsy's choice of words to a body of other authentic 911 calls. In other words, a worthless, subjective, and entirely unfounded personal opinion.

    See you next decade, folks. Hugs to all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's really good to hear from you, MHN! This blog is sorely missing your (always) well thought out, rational and logical arguments.....please consider coming back to play with us again very soon?!

      Delete
    2. Well thought out, rational posts? Right...

      Because it would have been so hard for John to buy a notepad/pen from a store without CCTV.

      I am fine with people believing JDI...but you are really grasping at straws when you say JDI with premeditation.

      In regards to the 911 call...what a load of bollocks. Any mum who was grieving for the loss of a child would NOT hang up the phone. You would hang on to every word the Operator said. The 911 call is clearly fabricated but hey, I guess we all hear want we want to hear.

      Delete
    3. "In regards to the 911 call...what a load of bollocks. Any mum who was grieving for the loss of a child would NOT hang up the phone. You would hang on to every word the Operator said. The 911 call is clearly fabricated but hey, I guess we all hear want we want to hear."

      As MHN said: nothing more than "worthless, subjective, and entirely unfounded personal opinions."

      How many 911 calls from the mother of a kidnapping victim have you listened to, Zed? Thousands, obviously, as you are clearly an expert on the subject.....so, I want PROOF that panicked mothers don't hang up the phone, not just a "because I say so". I want cold, hard, EVIDENCE showing that Patsy's call was fabricated, because it has ALWAYS sounded genuine to me, even when I was RDI!
      We certainly "do hear what we want to hear", don't we Zed? You're not exempt from any of your own, sweeping, generalizations, remember that.....that is why opinions don't matter, only facts.

      Delete
  54. DocG, I appreciate your willingness to consider Woodward’s reports. I know these are referenced, numbered police reports. But you’ll note there is no source. According to Steve Thomas, Hunter’s office was sharing many reports with the defense attorneys who in turn shared them with John. I don’t believe Woodward would alter any reports. HOWEVER, would JR alter a report? Did Smit tamper? Thomas claims Smit did manufacture reports from pure speculation.

    Elsewhere in the book, if you look at some of the details – the explanation for sexual abuse and DNA, it’s horrifying that she thinks she has the facts correct. That’s not speculation, btw. The DNA excuse for an intruder has been blown up. And the segment referenced regarding abuse is a couple of lines from the autopsy about the physiognomy of the vagina being normal. Wecht read and interpreted from a different paragraph in the autopsy and explained it better than anyone. JonBenét had healing injuries.

    ReplyDelete