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

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

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

The Case Against Colonizing Mars

Sorry. I'm running out of topics.

205 comments:

  1. Obviously with a case this old, we are all inevitably going to run out of new things to say. I think that is blatantly obvious already.

    JDI is the most common theory on this blog, which is expected due to Doc's theory. Elsewhere, JDI is probably the most unsupported theory. Then we have a sprinkling of PDI, BDI and RDI. Given there is nothing new to discuss, it's really like groundhog day on here and that's no fault of anyone...as I said it's natural on a 21 year old case. But going constantly around the same round-a-bout leads to a lot of tonking horns. So does anything have anything new to discuss? Something which may not have received the attention it deserved? Something overlooked? I still think there has to be something factual which will prove who was involved.

    Hercule - you have stated tou

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry hit publish by mistake. Hercule you have stated you have been involved in meetings which prove Patsy did it. You have stated you have seen evidence no one else has been privy to. If this is true, is this not anything you can share? This is a 21 year old case and surely you can provide us with something. Until then, it's hard to believe it's true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, JS, it would be refreshing if "Kolar" or Hercule could provide us with some fresh evidence to analyze. Or at least provide us with an explanation as to why they are unable to discuss certain issues.

      Delete
    2. I don't think that was the real "Kolar" Doc. But you were gracious enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. The tone was similar to the interview he gave on Reddit, but why grace us with his presence, then cut and run. Would either "Kolar" or Hercule like to educate, as you try and do, or drop innuendos.

      Delete
    3. IMHO, this was not Kolar speaking. It was just someone thinking it was clever to have the same “hat”, to push BDI theory. That poster did not even reflect Kolar’s theory accurately.

      Beckner said in his Reddit that all the clues were pretty much in the public domain, that there was little left which would make a difference in the case and that the only way it would be solved would be with a confession. In contrast, at one time Kolar suggested that once BR’s medical records were retrieved, the case could be shut down, since it would then be evident who had done the crime.

      However, last December a Grand Juror spoke to ABC 20/20. He made a claim of a piece of evidence which suggested who the perp was. From his viewpoint as a Grand Juror, this evidence was not enough to engender probable cause for a court case with charges of murder. This informed me that this Grand Juror believed one of the parents was responsible, since BR couldn’t be taken to court. Or CC can dispute my interpretation of what the Grand Juror described.

      The testimony of the Grand Juror was a reason I decided to come to this blog to hear the ideas of JR’s involvement. I am new to the JDI theory.

      Delete
    4. I have heard rumors that the evidence he is alluding to is pineapple chunks in the bowl with Burke's bite marks in them

      -J

      Delete
    5. LOL, J. Thank you for the laugh.

      Delete
    6. Yes, tsk. Kolar thinks the whole thing started with what essentially amounted to a food fight.

      Delete
  3. So, just for arguments sake, lets say Burke did eat the pineapple on THAT night and his sister sat beside him. After all, this is the most probable conclusion. And yes I KNOW it doesn't prove anything to most of you on this blog...but as I said, for arguments sake. Now we know the Ramsey's got home around 9.30/10pm after visiting the Stines at 9pm. We know that John and Burke played with some xmas toys (Burke has admitted that) and that his dad walked him to his bedroom with the flashlight. At this point the flashlight would either remain with John or left in Burke's room. The time would now be at least 10.30pm you would think. Now, eventually Burke wakes up and sneaks downstairs (I will assume the torch was left in his room and he used this as a means of sneaking downstairs. And yes, this is an assumption on my behalf). It would now be at least 10.40pm. Burke may have woken up his sister on the way down or she may have come down on her own accord. Burke then makes the pineapple dish and starts to eat. It must be close to 11pm surely. Now, let's say that Burke did NOT go down to the basement with his sister and thump her over the head. Lets say they both peacefully returned to bed. If John was involved surely he would wait an hour or so to make sure Patsy is completely asleep. Surely. So John goes into his daughters room and picks her up and takes her down to the basement. It must be around midnight and he must be super confident Patsy won't wake up. We know the garotte was applied around 40min later. It's approaching 1am and the 911 call from Patsy was 5am. To me, the timeline alone makes it extremely difficult to pinpoint John as being the sole perpetrator. The night this occurred just doesn't make sense. I know JDI will refute this and rightly so, as I have not proven a thing. Just trying to drum up some conversation around the timeline.

    The other thing which annoys me is the no fingerprints on the RN. If John planned to throw this note away after Patsy left the house (and before LE saw it), he would not have given a rats about fingerprints. Someone carefully made sure there was no fingerprints on that RN which means they knew LE would take it as evidence. And that flies completely against the JDI theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your last paragraph has intrigued me and what you say does make sense. I would extend this further to the torch also. If the torch was an object used, surely John would have disposed of this when "meeting the kidnappers". Hence, fingerprints not important as the police would never even see it. Yet, that torch had been wiped down most definitely. John may have had the chance to do this before police arrived (without Patsy noticing) but I doubt it. And you cannot wipe down a piece of paper so the RN containing no prints is very interesting.

      Delete
    2. The lack of prints on the note is a non-issue. Since both John and Patsy claim to have discovered the note on the stairs, then any trace of any of their prints would be seen as perfectly innocent. Since they both handled the note, the lack of prints must be due to the fact that prints are not always found. In fact it's considered a lucky break when they are.

      As for the flashlight, I think John wiped it down to suggest it was used by the "intruder," who would of course not want his prints left anywhere.

      Delete
  4. "Hercule you have stated you have been involved in meetings which prove Patsy did it. You have stated you have seen evidence no one else has been privy to. If this is true, is this not anything you can share?"

    Firstly, I never said this information was shared only to me. The meeting was held in Philadelphia in the winter of 1998. There were over 100 people in attendance to witness Robert Ressler's presentation. Outside that room, I have no idea how many others were privy to the information he shared. It was, however, made very clear that anything Agent Ressler discussed that day under no circumstances was it to be repeated outside those walls.

    I can tell you that based on what I know that Patsy was responsible for inflicting a massive fracture to JonBenet's skull. How exactly that was accomplished was and still is debatable. Possibilities were endless, but Agent Ressler was able to painstakingly narrow it down to only a few.

    There was clearly a struggle in JonBenet's bedroom (overturned pageant trophies along with several items of JBR's clothing littered the floor next to her closet). JBR had soiled her bed that night. Sheets were changed, washed, and replaced. A confrontation ensued with Patsy. During a tantrum, it was believed that JBR smeared feces on clothes and other items that Patsy had given her. I feel strongly that both BR and JR heard some of the commotion, but since it was not out of the ordinary for PR and JBR to have emotional outbursts toward one another, neither John or Burke bothered to investigate the matter.

    There are witnesses close to the family who claim that JBR no longer wanted to be in pageants but PR would not let her quit. This provoked JBR to rebel.

    The basement window had been broken for several months. The shards of glass in the window frame had grimy edges which indicated an old break. LHP claimed that she did not notice the broken window. When entering the room, the broken window is not noticeable unless you stand underneath it. There was a large pipe obstructing the pane of broken glass. PR included LHP in the glass cleanup story because she thought LHP would corroborate anything she said.

    If you have any specific questions I'll answer accordingly.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Ressler retired from the FBI in 1990.

      What you attended was likely a paid lecture, which, along with authoring books, and occasuinally consulting, was how he made his living in 1998.

      Delete
    2. Hercule, I tend to believe that you were in that meeting in 1998. Mainly because I can’t imagine a person making all that up just for the heck of it.

      I do have a few questions I hope you can take the time to answer.

      1. Wasn’t Robert Ressler a FBI Behavioural Scientist? I have read he worked with John Wayne Gacy and basically submerged himself into the man’s life. If so, sure he can profile persons and he analyse items (i.e. RN), but surely something like JB’s fractured skull is more aligned to a different type of FBI specialist (not a profiler like Agent Ressler). So how can he/you be so certain that Patsy delivered the head blow?? Especially when you say “how exactly that was accomplished was and is still debatable”.
      2. 1998 was a long time ago. I understand them saying that information couldn’t be discussed outside those walls back then, as they were confident the information they held would least to an arrest. But surely, two decades later, this information can now be shared?
      3. A few overturned trophies and and some clothes littered next to her closet indicate a struggle? Seriously? Well if you saw any of my children’s room today, you would think there had been a struggle. Plus if there actually had been a struggle, you don’t think Patsy would clean up the clothes and put the trophies back...sorry, but this point does NOT make sense
      4. In regards to Patsy not letting JB quit her pageants, I guess this could be true. But who cares? Doesn’t mean Patsy is going to kill her over it.

      Delete
    3. It was not a privileged, closed-door meeting with attendees required to sign NDAs, Zedless.

      Ressler had been out of the feebs for 8 years. At best, AT BEST, Herc paid money to attend a lecture by a former FBI profiler, who has admitted in many interviews he has insufficient information upon which to base a profile. Google "Robert Ressler Jonbenet Ramsey". As I just pointed out, Ressler retired 8 years before Herc claims he was involved in some triple secret meeting.

      I get that you're new here, but FYI Herc doesn't make this stuff up for "the heck of it". He makes it up in a desperate attempt to lend credence to his theory, and from a need to self-aggrandize.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for sharing the info regarding Ressler's presentation, Herc. Your story sounds credible and I'm willing to accept that you were there. However, Ressler was mixing evidence with assumptions, which is of course the problem with literally all theories of this case (mine excepted, natch :-)

      Yes, there were many things out of place in the bedroom and bathroom, which does suggest a struggle. But the poor child was raped and murdered, Herc, so we'd expect to see signs of a struggle, no? What is there about this struggle that places Patsy at the scene? Everything that allegedly points to Patsy is pure speculation. If Ressler actually had proof of Patsy's involvement he'd have shared it with the BPD and she'd have been arrested long ago. So, no, I'm not buying that Ressler had some sort of inside knowledge that could have clinched the case.

      We've been all over those "grimy edges" in the window shards, Herc, so I'm disappointed to see you bringing that up again. You posted a photo that allegedly showed those grimy edges and no one here was convinced. As I've argued many times, if the edges were actually grimy, the police would have had no reason to question both John and Patsy at length regarding that window, and on two separate occasions. Nor would they have had any reason to ask whether the window had been repaired.

      Delete
    5. Hercule, you said that you had never mentioned CC's father and insisted someone was impersonating you. However, the post in which you mentioned CC's father is the same post in which you first revealed you attended a meeting with Ressler. I'm not trying to start trouble, but you can't deny the first part of that post, if you're saying the latter part is true.

      Also, Hercule, is this the meeting you claim to have attended?

      The Daily Camera

      Updated at 10:00:05 AM MST Thursday, January 29, 1998
      Ramsey ransom note gets new look

      By MATT SEBASTIAN
      Camera Staff Writer

      Meeting in Philadelphia today, a secretive international crime-fighting organization will take a crack at deciphering the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note.

      But don't expect the group of forensic experts to solve the year-old slaying, the organization's spokesman said Wednesday.

      "The Vidocq Society has a history of investigating and looking into unsolved murders that are normally years old," said spokesman Dick Lavinthal. "However, the society is not involved in any way with the investigation of this particular crime."

      Robert K. Ressler, a famed former member of the FBIs violent criminal apprehension team, is scheduled to give a presentation today on the phony ransom note in the Ramsey case.

      "This is neither prosecution- nor defense-oriented," Ressler said. "Essentially, I'm just doing this from the outside looking in."

      Ressler said he wouldn't be dropping any bombshells, but would simply analyze the ransom note, along with some autopsy reports and other public records.

      Named after the 18th century French detective Eugene Francois Vidocq - considered the father of modern criminal investigation - the 150 members of the 8-year-old organization meet twice a month to review "long-cooled" homicide cases. Lavinthal said the group has, in the past, helped both prosecutors and defendants prove their cases.

      JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered in her parents Boulder home Dec. 26, 1996. Prior to the discovery of the body, the 6-year-olds mother found a three-page ransom note. There are no suspects in the case, although investigators have said the girls parents "remain under an umbrella of suspicion."

      Although the Vidocq members dont plan to review the full Ramsey case, Lavinthal said, any new revelations gleaned from the ransom note presentation will be forwarded to Boulder police.

      "Im sure if, for some reason, someone were to propose something that might be germane, we will make sure to communicate that to the right people," Lavinthal said.

      Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby, when told of the secretive forensic society, said he has no problem with the groups plans to study the bogus ransom note.

      "Nothing bothers me in this case anymore," Koby said.

      Delete
    6. No, I have mentioned it a few times. Apparently, that information is not difficult to find. This imposter just wants to start trouble and I have no desire for any of that nonsense.

      Hercule

      Delete
    7. That's a bold-faced lie, Herc. H is correct: You only recently referenced Ressler. Heretofore you always alleged that you were privy to case material, and implied you were, for some inexplicable reason, consulted for your special take on the case.

      You only began yapping here in the spring of 2015. Perhaps on your next transcontinental flight you'll find the time to check the archives and try to prove this latest feeble claim.

      Delete
    8. From archives of the Vidocq Society was this notice:
      "The Boulder, Colorado, Daily Camera
      received a news tip that The Vidocq Society's January 1998 meeting would feature famed international profiler and FBI Behavioral Science Unit founder Robert K. Ressler, V.S.M. presenting the Jon Benet Ramsey ransom note. Television and print reporters developing feature stories on The Vidocq Society were not allowed to hear Ressler's presentation or the vigorous question-and-answer session that followed."

      I took note that it was a closed meeting, and no press representatives were allowed.

      Delete
    9. "It was, however, made very clear that anything Agent Ressler discussed that day under no circumstances was it to be repeated outside those walls."

      What a crock of %^&*....! Did each of you sign a non-disclosure agreement before the lecture?

      You have absolutely zero credibility with me anymore Hercule. CC was being nice when she called you self-aggrandizing!

      Mike G

      Delete
  5. Welcome, Anonymous. I've been saying that for some time.

    It's my belief that the "piece of evidence" to which your grand juror was referring is the chronic sexual abuse of JBR. The ME, John Meyer, saw evidence of it, and called in Dr Andrew Sirontak of Denver Children's Hospital to view the body and confirm his findings. In addition, LE consulted six nationally recognized forensic pathologists and child sexual abuse experts in 1997, all of whom came to the same conclusion: JBR had been chronically sexually abused. Her father was the likely perp, providing him with motive when threatened with exposure.

    Lacking evidence to prove it was a particular individual, a tried and true legal technique is to indict all possible suspects in hopes one turns on another - much as one would charge all the occupants of a car involved in a drive-by, for example, to discover the actually shooter. It works.

    Had they been able to separate Patsy for a frank discussion of these findings, coupled with the threat of exhumation and the need to mount her own defense apart from her husband, may have shocked and horrified Patsy, and caused her to look at John with new eyes. But Hunter had a failure of experience and nerve, a frustrated Mike Kane moved back to PA, and here we are, 21 years on, going nowhere.

    ReplyDelete

  6. "Lacking evidence to prove it was a particular individual, a tried and true legal technique is to indict all possible suspects in hopes one turns on another"
    So, now, that we only have one of the two suspects alive, the only way to solve this case would be through confession. I don't see JR confessing, at least for now that he is still physically healthy and in his right mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He'll never confess on his own, that's for sure. But if he's questioned aggressively, by someone who understands the case and knows which buttons to press, he might well be forced into a corner and either confess or give himself away.

      Delete
    2. Do you think that would be possible? To indict him or even try him ? I wonder why they would do that?? I mean, they didn't do it when they could have but they did try and deceive the public opinion by manipulating the information and delaying everything intentionally. What do you think has changed from that moment, apart from the DA?

      Delete
    3. It would be possible if an aggressive prosecutor took the case, but only if this person were willing to reconsider the "expert" opinion ruling John out as writer of the note. No one associated with the investigation has ever shown the least sign of even considering that as a possibility. Once John is ruled back in and once the significance of Patsy's 911 is appreciated, then it will be possible to go after John in an effective manner. He will need to be confronted with all his many lies and half truths, and under close scrutiny of that kind he may have no choice but to cooperate.

      Delete
    4. Stan Garnett seems to be waiting on some kind of a breakthrough coming form any DNA finding.
      Unfortunately nowadays DNA plays a big role in the prosecution of justice and they sometimes rely only on that.
      But, there is something in the case, difficult to explain. It could have been the perfect murder for John but it wasn't for some reason and he is exposed, and probably aware that some people have figured it out by now. I hope that person shows up...someone with cold eyes, independent and resolved to prosecute JB's so evident killer.

      Delete
    5. "He'll never confess on his own, that's for sure."

      I don't know Doc. Look what Joe Pistone, a.k.a Donnie Brasco, was able to accomplish. And has someone like your favorite detective in Episode 64 ever really befriended John?

      Mike G

      Delete
  7. I am sure it has been brought up before, but does anyone think the 911 call on the 23rd is connected in anyway? The Ramseys say Fleet accidentally dialled 911, when he was supposed to dial 411. I believe 411 was directory assiatance and he was trying to order some medicine for his sick mom? Seems strange that he would do this at the Ramsey's. When the police arrived, Susan Stine spoke with an officer through an intercom and said everything was ok. The officer left without ever entering the house.

    I don't know, but something seems odd about that 911 call.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is obvious to me John committed the murder. The crime is as straight-forward as this: Whoever wrote the note committed the murder, and John wrote the note.

    Of course, one can go further: it was someone from the house, and Patsy called 911 with the body in the house, and Burke didn't write it. Not to mention the note is addressed to John, gives him control over the situation, and so on.

    BDIers or BSIers or Burke enthusiasts or whatever don't grant that whoever wrote the note committed the crime. They seem to miss that the note is an attempt to stage a kidnapping, and other than "for the lols" I don't see their explanation for the contents of the note. Ultimately, I think it's another case where John's very guilty behavior somehow saves him. It is rather like Patsy not changing her clothes. That is, John's going AWOL on Linda Arndt and apparently staging the scene even more, getting rid of evidence, or whatever exactly he did during the time, confuses the timeline of the note. Perhaps this is why Doc does not fully embrace premeditation. John does so much after the crime with police in the house, that perhaps the note was written after the crime with Patsy in the house. The same can be said for the pad and pen coming from the house.

    However, I cannot currently buy that the note was written after the crime. It's simply too long. "Make sure the note is done, then murder" seems to leave a lot less to chance than "make sure the murder is done, then pen the note" IMO. One needs a lot more time to compose the note. Also, one wants time to cleanup and stage the scene, and not just to have all that time eaten up by composing the note. If it was written that night, how could one be confident he would have the chance to finish it? Moreover, were he interrupted, the note becomes rather pointless if he had to kill Patsy too.

    How I see it anyway. Sorry to ramble on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some people have pointed to similarities in the ransom note from the kidnapping by Leopold and Loeb which happened in Chicago. Another ransom note was publicized in Atlanta for a woman kidnapped in Columbus, Georgia. Just for additional ideas I looked these up and include for anyone’s thoughts.

      From the Leopold and Loeb ransom note. Father of Loeb owned Castle Farms where JR married his new bride Jan:
      “Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you live up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by future communications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty. . .
      “Secure before noon today $10,000. This money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills.”. . .

      From the Gail Jackson kidnapping ransom note. Crime occurred in Columbus, Georgia, in 1978. Columbus is about 100 miles from Atlanta:
      “WE ARE AN ORGiNiZATION COMPOSED OF 7 MEMBERS. I’M WRITING ThiS LETTER TO INFORM YOU THAT WE hAVE ONE OF YOUR COLuMBUS WOMEN CApTiVE. . . AT THiS POiNT GAiL JACKSON iS STiLL LiViNg.” . . .Signed Forces of Evil

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

      Delete
    3. Yes, Anon. You're right. I checked them out a while ago and the similarities are striking. L&L's note seems to have served as inspiration for the Ramsey's note. The structure, content and style are comparable and that is one of the reasons I believe there was premeditation.

      Delete
  9. Punisher, I am RDI (or BSI) and i agree completely the person who wrote the note committed the crime. So not sure what you are talking about?

    Plus the content of the note is written deliberately with a purpose. Again, not sure how you can say the content has no purpose. This has been discussed many times before.

    I respect your opinion on the note being written before the crime but there is simply too many things to explain if that was true. In my opinion the note had to come after, but I just like keeping things simple. This was not a premeditated crime in my opinion. Something went wrong that night and it was a holy crap moment where a couple had to perform something completely unfamiliar to them under a lot of stress, anguish and disbelief.

    And why do you think John is the lone culprit as there is nothing implicating him alone? I have read a lot on the handwriting in the RN (including Doc's segment on this) and I am yet to see anything convincing to sway me into believing John wrote that.
    John was ruled out and rightly so in my opinion. Thats not to say John didn't have a say on this RN, as it is sprinkled with male and female annotations.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe what Kolar wrote here. There were things going on with BR that the parents were both aware of and I suspect they may have been escalating, hence PR's frantic calls to the doctor.

    This would account for PR's remark to her friend, "We didn't mean for this to happen". They covered this up to protect BR and because they felt responsible for it happening, as they didn't do enough to prevent it.

    I do believe that JBR was being sexually molested, but not by JR.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That dog won't hunt, E. Dr Beuf was a mandated reporter; had he heard of possible violence or abuse by anyone on 12/17 he was required to report it or risk losing his license.

      The aptly named Patsy believed an IDI, likely a pedophile drawn to JBR by her pageant participation and her recent appearance in the Boulder Christmas Parade, hence her remark.

      Delete
    2. EG, are you saying you believe the post on the last thread was written by the real Kolar? If so, I highly doubt it. As I commented on that thread, the person posting as Kolar used the word "faeces" which is the British/Australian spelling of the word. Kolar isn't British nor Australian. He uses the US spelling of the word in his book. IMO, this alone is enough to show that it was not the real Kolar posting here.

      Delete
    3. I don't know whether or not he was the real Kolar, I just agreed with what he said.

      Both Ressler and Gregg McCrary had some interesting takes on the RN and being experienced former FBI Profiler's, who worked on many high profile cases, and assisted in many investigations, I tend to agree with their conclusions.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Profiling is overrated, E. It was the sexy new thing in the 80s and 90s, but has since been found to bat about .500 - look it up. You may as well just roll the bones.

      Delete
  11. He hadn't examined her at that point. Perhaps, as has been stated here several times, an exam was scheduled for after the family trip.
    She may not have specified that she suspected abuse, but that JBR had yet another vaginal infection.

    Speaking of which, if PR suspected abuse and phoned the doctor frantically, do you think she suspected JR? And if so, why then, upon finding out there was indeed sexual abuse once the autopsy was performed, did she not throw JR under the bus?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does anyone know what Dr Beuf said when/if asked why Patsy called him 3x on 12/17?

      FY

      Delete
    2. EG, it didn't need to be abuse. Kids experiment. They could have been playing doctor. Or maybe it was abuse on Burke's behalf, who knows.

      The dictionary and the word "incest" indicates a child being shown this word or looking it up himself after hearing his parents speak about it.

      Delete
    3. Good point EG. Patsy says she doesn't remember calling Dr. Beuf repeatedly, likely the wheels of denial were already turning.

      Delete
    4. Zed, I do believe something was going on there, and I think PR and JR knew about it, and blamed themselves for what happened. And yes, probably BR looking up that word, because an adult wouldn't have to.

      I'd like to know the truth about that 911 call on the 23rd at the party. And of course why PR called the doctor three times within the hour on the 17th.

      EG

      Delete
    5. Lots of mystery around Dec. 23rd, EG. JB was crying and said she didn't feel/look pretty, the party ended soon after the 911 call and officer responding (party dispersed around 8 p.m.), Mr. Paugh flew home soon after on standby assuming he had booked a different flight earlier, Susan Stine doesn't let the police officer in, (don't they usually insist on coming in?)etc. But not sure how any of that would tie in with Burke.

      Delete
    6. Castor,

      Its mind boggling because if someone calls 911 here in NYC, LE enters the home. The whole Stine thing stinks too. SS impersonated a police officer and never got arrested. It's bizarre.

      EG

      Delete
    7. It is, EG, I agree. But when you start investigating people's lives there are a lot of bizarre things that crop up that may not necessarily have to do with the crime. The Stine thing stinks in other ways - they were the closest geographically to the Ramsey's and yet they weren't called over?

      Delete
  12. "Ressler had been out of the feebs for 8 years. At best, AT BEST, Herc paid money to attend a lecture by a former FBI profiler..."

    It is certainly true that Bob officially retired from the FBI in 1990. What is your point? He began working on his own and traveled extensively to give lectures. Bob was often hired to profile the toughest unsolved cases.

    You assert that I had to pay to attend this meeting? Oh dear. I nearly choked when I read that. The very idea!

    "...who has admitted in many interviews he has insufficient information upon which to base a profile."

    I have not seen that information but it certainly sounds like Bob. He was always the tight-lipped sort. He definitely would not spout his theories in interviews and risk jeopardizing the case. There was no doubt who he thought murdered JBR. Bob was adamant about Patsy and never altered that stance.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give it up, Herc. You're busted...again.

      Thanks, H, for your extensive proof of same, especially vis-a-vis the "imposter Herc" and my father.

      Delete
    2. Dorito/CC, come on, stop busting bubbles.

      Herc sounds like he went to that meeting/lecture in 1998 and it sounds like Ressler showed evidence or shared information that lead him to believe Patsy was the culprit. And Herc believed him which is totally his right.

      I, for one, don't agree because I have yet to see any evidence which implicates Patsy alone. In fact I would be astonished if this was true. I would even jump to JDI before PDI. Saying that, it's Herc's opinion and he is entitled to that. Plus who knows, he could be right as no one knows "officially" what actually happened (I do think some people involved in the case know but cannot say anything).

      Delete
  13. I'm having a problem with a scenario where John walks Burke back to bed with the flashlight. Is that some nonsense Burke made up or is it on record somewhere? There would be no need to use a flashlight in one's own home unless they were hiding their activities, or the lights had gone out. There were any number of lights that could have been turned on to "walk Burke back to bed" - hallway, Burke's own lamp was probably on, kitchen lighting, bathroom lighting, etc. John says he went to bed at 10:15, read, and turned his light out around 10:45 and went to sleep. When would he have walked Burke back to bed with a flashlight? If Burke is sticking to his "I snuck out of bed" story was the flashlight handy, or was it in the drawer in the bar area making the whole thing silly for Burke to walk downstairs in the dark and retrieve it there for sneaking purposes. Why would he have been using the flashlight in the first place when both parents were likely still up when John was helping Burke put together a toy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ask some very good questions Castor.

      Burke mentioned this on Dr Phil and I believe this is the first anyone had heard of this.

      If I had to guess, I would say the flashlight was next to Burke's bed and he used this to sneak downstairs and maybe to even wake his sister up. I think it was left in Burke's room after John walked him back after they played with some toys. Why did they use a torch when walking back? I don't think there was anything sinister behind it...Burke just liked using the torch. My kids always play with torches around the house. And at this time, Patsy and JB were in bed and most of the lights would have been off.

      Delete
    2. Could be, Zed. There is a website listing Burke's inconsistencies.

      Delete
  14. "That's a bold-faced lie, Herc. H is correct: You only recently referenced Ressler. Heretofore you always alleged that you were privy to case material, and implied you were, for some inexplicable reason, consulted for your special take on the case."

    Premature, CC. You are incorrect, as usual. Here is one of several mentions:

    http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2017/03/process-of-elimination.html?showComment=1489260066282&m=1#c8257685243090942704

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. March of this year is, in fact, recent. Prior to 2017 you claimed to be a psychologist with a "peace lily and a comfy leather chair" who had inexplicably been given special insight into case material.

      Now suddenly it's Ressler and imposter Hercs (!) to cover your many misstatements.


      Delete
    2. Impressive recall, CC. Unfortunately, your interpretation of metaphors is lacking.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. Herc, there is nothing in JB's room that indicates a struggle. A few overturned trophies and some clothes next to a closet. Really? My children's room has clothes hanging out some of their drawers and toys scattered on the floor. It's normal in a child's room. Does not come remotely close to indicating there was a struggle. And for complete argument's sake, if there was a struggle between Patsy and JB, don't you think Patsy would spend the 2min cleaning it up. I mean, she spent hours on staging yet couldn't find 2min to pick up a few trophies and clothes? And other than that, you have not presented any evidence that indicates Patsy was up that night or was involved.

      Now as you know, I believe Patsy WAS involved and that includes writing the RN. But I would love to see some kind of evidence that shows the headblow may have come from Patsy. There is lots of circumstantial evidence that points to Burke delivering the head blow, but nothing for Patsy. Come on man, show us something!

      Delete
    4. I see. So a "peace lily and a comfy leather chair" is a metaphor for...what's it to be today? An undercover CIA operative? Mark Beckner's secret confidante?

      Delete
    5. Enough with the bickering folks or else I'm going to have to sit you both in a corner holding a "time out" sign.

      Delete
    6. Nope, sorry, Herc. I was aware of that comment from March. You did not say anything in that post about a closed meeting with Ressler to which you were invited by invitation.

      So...the article I pasted up-thread, about Ressler's presentation to the Vidocq Society in Philadelphia in January of 1998, is this the meeting you claim to have attended?

      Delete
    7. You are so smart, so well-read and well-researched, Heather. You put me to shame, and I'm damned glad to have you in our tiny JDI corner. Thanks again.

      Delete
    8. Interesting group, this Vidocq Society. Have they actually solved crimes? Are they still in existence? Did they ever tender an opinion about JBR?

      Delete
    9. Thank you for the compliment and vote of confidence, CC, however, in this instance, I don't think it's well deserved. Despite my efforts to research before I accused, I was, unfortunately, duped by Gumshoe.

      I don't know a ton about the Vidocq Society, but they seem like a powerful group. It was founded by three men--a US Customs Special Agent, a forensic sculptor and a leading behavioral psychologist--in the 90's. There are currently somewhere between 82-150 members, all forensic professionals, all volunteers.

      They most definitely have been influential in solving cold cases. They cases they accept must meet certain criteria. The case must be at least two years old, the deceased must not have been involved in any criminal activity and the law enforcement agency assigned to the case must present the case to members of the society. From what I understand, the Vidocq Society does not seek out cases, they will only assist when asked.

      I'm not sure if a formal request has ever been made in the JBR case. I've read on forums that an analysis was done years ago by the Vidocq Society and the lengthy report leaked online. However, I haven't been able to verify that. Others say that, aside from the RN analysis presented by Ressler, there has been no formal investigation by the Vidocq Society.

      Delete
  15. No thoughts on the colonization of Mars?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm for it, and have a short list of those we should send. ;)

      Delete
    2. Let's get there first to make sure it's worthwhile.

      Mike G

      Delete
  16. "As for the flashlight, I think John wiped it down to suggest it was used by the "intruder," who would of course not want his prints left anywhere."

    So there were a lack of fingerprints on the flashlight? The one John all but admitted to using the night of the murder to see Burke to bed? The one an ostentatious intruder, bold enough to leave behind a trail of clues in ransom notes and cellar dwellers, wouldn't have bothered to wipe down? The one an intruder wearing gloves would have no NEED to wipe down?

    Sounds like a slam dunk...Book em Danno.

    The Committee to Arrest John Ramsey for Murder (CARMA)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, the intruder hiding in the house must have found that flashlight after John/Burke used it after 10pm haha.

      Saying that, if this was premeditated, I think John would have disposed of the flashlight all together. Given the flashlight was wiped down indicates it was not premeditated and the body was never planned to leave the house. I know Doc disagrees with me though.

      For me, if JDI it HAD to be premeditated. Given that there is too many things to align for this to be true, John or Patsy must have wiped down the flashlight after Burke told them he hit his sister over the head with it. The batteries inside the flashlight had been wiped down also!

      Delete
  17. Also, I have noticed that Ms D has not posted in a number of days so maybe she has taken a break or is done for good.

    If she is still reading this blog, I just wanted to apologise to her. We don't often see eye-to-eye and I do find some of your posts obscure and targeted, as I'm sure you find my posts also.

    But (gulp), I do think you are a smart, confident woman and I do respect you for that. And yes, I am being honest. So please accept my humble apology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, sincerely, Zed. Your apology is much appreciated, and I will offer you mine also. Let's BOTH behave like grownups, shall we? :)

      Delete
  18. Some of your comments/thoughts (like the last comment) sound sensible, Zed and make me think, honestly.
    However, I see them spread out in different threads or posts. I'm a JDI but would be interested in hearing the BSI/RFI being elaborated and explained, taken into account the elements we know and have and using process of elimination and logical inferences to reach conclusions just in the same way Doc has explained his theory in the first posts of this blog. I have always found Patsy's behavior odd but for now I see the facts of the case pointing to John as the culprit and John alone...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Marcela

      I agree it's a bit hard to follow on this blog sometimes as everything is scattered. To me, off the top of my head, these are the "top 20" reasons I think it wasn't John and why Burke had to be involved:

      1. The fact that Patsy HAD to be involved (which dismantles Doc’s theory)

      2. Sealed Burke’s medical Records. What are they hiding?

      3. The fact there is no proof that John was, is or had any fantasies about children

      4. Burke most likely ate pineapple with his sister approximately the same time as the headblow

      5. Burke not finishing the dish he made for himself. Kids usually finish something they prepare for themselves

      6. Burke went into isolation for 20 years and only came out when CBS linked him as the person who started this whole thing

      7. It has been PROVEN that a boy Burke’s age COULD have delivered the headblow

      8. Torn presents in the basement and Patsy’s obvious lie for this

      9. Incest being looked up in the dictionary – indicates a child looking this up or a parent showing him that

      10. Burke only person in the house to have EVER struck Jon Benet before (with a golf club). And there is an eye witness (family friend) who has come out and said he did this intentionally

      11. Burke shared a room with his sister but the parents split them up recently

      12. Burke had more opportunity to abuse/play/experiment with JB, then his dad did (John busy with work etc.)

      13. John was ruled out of the writer of the ransom note and after researching this extensively, I agree on this. Patsy the most likely person to have written the note

      14. Burke has admitted the flashlight was used that night and he was there when it was being used

      15. Burke’s attitude after her death was odd. He was definitely a strange boy

      16. Burke’s demeanour completely changed when he saw the picture of the pineapple

      17. Even though I struggle to understand what is being said, many people are confident there is a third person in the 911 call. Which means both parents were lieing

      18. The marks on JonBenet were most likely made by Burke’s train track toy (I have yet to see a better suggestion and the train track was a perfect fit)

      19. At least 30/40min wait after headblow before strangulation. Why? If it was John it would have been performed as quickly as possible. Suggests Burke panicked and tried to wake her up before eventually giving in and waking his parents

      20. The books that grandparents bought the parents suggest Burke did have some problems and it is highly possible he was jealous of his sister due to her paegents etc. And he definitely had a temper (see 10).

      Delete
    2. And Marcela, here is a list of options which reference NUMBER 1 above. JDI'ers have responded to these before so no need to do that again. Sorry about the long posts!!

      1. Patsy never mentioned her daughter’s name on the 911 call…which many find very odd/suspicious. Yes, I know JDI’ers response is what exhaustive study of missing child 911 call transcripts is this based on. I certainly have not performed any study on this matter and I’m not sure if LE did or not. But if a child was missing, I find it very hard to imagine not telling the phone operator WHO was missing. You would want to give them as much detail as you could. To me, this is one element which made the call seem very rehearsed.

      2. Patsy never gave a description of what Jonbenet was wearing, or height, weight to operator.

      3. Patsy hung up the 911 call instead of staying on it with the operator…one would want to hold onto any help they can get in a time like that

      4. Patsy states “What?” when a VERY simple question caught her off guard on the phone call. Indicates the question wasn’t planned for and wasn’t in her script

      5. Patsy only quickly scanned the letter and then immediately dialled 911…yet she remembered the acronym SBTC perfectly with all letters in the correct sequence. Apparently she managed to still look over John’s should and see the words on the small notepad (this notepad was NOT A4 size) and answer immediately when asked. Yeah, right.

      6. Patsy was wearing the same clothes which is very odd. Indicates she may well have been up all night

      7. Neighbour heard a female scream from the house. Most likely not JonBenet as the headblow would have rendered her unconscious immediately. Scream possibly from Patsy.

      8. Patsy never really checked-in on Burke after finding the RN (just a quick peak into his room)…a parent would not be letting the other kid out of their sight!

      9. The RN has many words/phrases that sound like a woman (I will not list all of them). Forensic Linguistic James Fitzgerald said this in his expert opinion and it’s hard to not agree.

      10. Handwriting experts believe Patsy wrote the letter (I know not all of them do…but she was considered a much better prospect than John and Burke/Intruder certainly didn’t write it)

      11. Patsy immediately invites friends over to flood the house with people.

      12. Patsy hardly speaks with John. Yet she was upset and crying, but you would be leaning on your husband for every ounce of support you could get.

      13. Refused to co-operate with Boulder police. Yes, John may have been calling some of the shots but Patsy was a grown woman and should have been doing anything to help LE find her daughter’s killer.

      14. Red fibers were found on the duct tape, most likely from Patsy’s jumper

      15. Patsy opening the 911 call with “we have a kidnapping”…a strange way to start the phone call, very matter of fact.

      16. Patsy stated she tore at Burkes birthday presents in the basement to see what was inside…hmm ok. Most likely a deliberate lie to distant Burke from being in that basement.

      17. I know it’s up in the air, but Patsy maintained that John told her to call 911 (Patsy didn’t just make this decision on her own)
      18. Despite finding and handling the RN, her fingerprints were not on it.

      19. Patsy used the words “and hence” in a Xmas card

      20. Patsy peeking through her fingers when pretending to cry (as described by Linda Arndt)

      21. No response when 10am came and went. It was unclear if the RN met “today” or “tomorrow” but either way you would be on the edge of your seat surely!!!

      22. Patsy's June 98 interview when she truly dropped herself in it, answering how she knew there was a red heart drawn on jbr's hand. She replied she saw it the next morning after christmas. She knew she slipped up. After the break likely talking with her lawyer, she needed to clear something up and said she may have read it somewhere.

      Delete
    3. Ahhh, Zed! I KNEW you were the Kolar impostor. Your first post above to Marcela confirms it. I will give you an "A" for effort though. That "sorry, folks" bit was pretty good. LOL.

      Couple of questions...

      "10. Burke only person in the house to have EVER struck Jon Benet before (with a golf club). And there is an eye witness (family friend) who has come out and said he did this intentionally"

      Pray tell, who is this eye witness? Are you talking about Judith Phillips? If so, she was not there and did not witness the incident. She claims PR told her it wasn't an accident.

      "11. Burke shared a room with his sister but the parents split them up recently"

      What is your source for this? Why in the world would parents who are millionaires make their two children, who are of the opposite sex, share a room?

      I don't agree with other points you make, but these were two you made as Kolar that I had questions about. Thanks.

      Delete
    4. Sorry HKH, Kolar is NOT Kolar. And he's also NOT me. I have only ever posted as Zed. Period. Fact. End of Story. Not sure what you mean when you say "sorry, folks".

      Yes, I am referring to Judith Phillips. And yes, I was wrong about her witnessing it. I copied and pasted those items from a document I created ages ago. However, Judith has no reason to lie and Patsy told her what happened with the golf club obviously long before JB died:

      There had been a number of unpleasant incidents between the siblings. Family friend Judith Phillips claimed Burke had hit his little sister in the face with a golf club about a year before her murder, with Mrs Ramsey telling her “things got out of hand.”
      The authors say the Ramseys’ accounts of the event were strangely contradictory, with Mrs Ramsey’s words implying an altercation between the children and Mr Ramsey later suggesting JonBenet came up behind Burke as he swung.

      Them sharing a room came straight from Patsy's mouth. Can't be bothered finding it but I'm sure with a quick google you will find it. And I doubt the parents wanted them to share a room. Maybe Burke felt more comfortable sharing a room with someone:

      According to Patsy last time Burke and JonBenet shared a room was on Christmas Eve. Its in one of the interviews.
      Patsy said JonBenet and Burke would regularly share a bedroom. It was not a big deal for Patsy. The housekeeper once walked in on Burke and JonBenet who were under the bed covers in JonBenet's bedroom.

      So I reckon Burke and JonBenet might not be strangers to each others bed?

      Delete
    5. Judith wanted her 15 minutes of fame. She wasn't very happy that PR cut her off after the murder. It makes no difference when PR told her about the incident. Judith came out with the story after the murder and you have no way of knowing that she was telling the truth.

      PR's recollection of the golf club incident was similar to JR's. Both said it was an accident. The only version where there's a discrepancy is Judith's.

      PR said she wasn't sure if JBR slept in BR's room on Christmas Eve. She said that every once in a while JBR would sleep in the spare bed in BR's room, and a time or two, BR had slept in the spare bed in JBR's room. They didn't share a room on a regular basis. I also have no idea where you got the idea that the parents had to split them up recently.

      It's funny that both you and "Kolar" got it wrong when you both claimed that there was a witness to the golf club incident. It's funny that both you and "Kolar" said that JBR and BR shared a room and the parents had recently split them up. It's funny that "Kolar" used the Australian spelling of a word, and you just happen to be Australian. Quite the coinkydinks, dontcha think? ;)

      Delete
  19. "So I reckon Burke and JonBenet might not be strangers to each other in bed?" Zed, you did not just say that. JB was 6, Burke was 9. They were children. Neither would be experimenting with their sexuality at all at that age. At age 9, 10, 11 boys like roughing around with other boys, the thought of girls or sisters as anything sexual is far from their minds. Girls do play doctor - but with other girls, and usually at around 12 when they fantasize about teen boys. Exceptions to the standard is when children are sexualized in the home, which might have been the case with the pageants, however that might have caught John's eye, not Burke's. Burke said he was not that interested in her pageant performances or her training for them.

    Her hymen was eroded, her vaginal opening was enlarged. Prior sexual abuse was suspected in which case some of it could be considered painful to her. JB's toilet issues of bedwetting could have exacerbated inflamed tissue causing her mother to think her chronic vaginal issues stemmed from the bed wetting. Not from sex play with Burke under the covers. imo

    ReplyDelete
  20. Okay, this has gone far enough. Hercule is telling the truth. I wrote the comment that included CC's father and the "secret meeting" with Ressler. Sorry, CC. The jab at your father just seemed like something Hercule would say. I must admit that I got a little carried away, lol. I've also posted a few other comments in his name. I wasn't doing it for kicks, although it was kinda fun. There was actually a purpose behind it all. I have been on Hercule's trail over the past year trying to figure out who he is and if he can be taken seriously. After feeling certain of his identity based on his many comments, I posted the information about the meeting to see if he would deny it. He hasn't and still hasn't. So I'm almost 100% positive who Hercule is. Come on, Herc, spare us the suspense.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

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

      Delete
    2. You surprise and disappoint me, Gumshoe

      Delete
    3. There is no excuse for what you did, Gumshoe. Allowing Hercule to take the heat for comments he never made is low, not to mention causing heated exchanges on this blog between CC and Hercule.

      You realize now that you can never be taken seriously again and in my opinion should be banned from posting.

      EG


      Delete
    4. Good god, this site has taken a creepy turn and I need a shower now

      -J

      Delete
  21. "11. Burke shared a room with his sister but the parents split them up recently"
    I read somewhere not that they ever shared a bedroom but that Burke's bedroom used to be the one next to JonBenets but he was moved the the other bedroom (and his original bedroom was used as a guest room for JAR).
    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, FY, that can be corroborated.

      Delete
    2. (that Burke's bedroom used to be the one next to JB's)

      Delete
  22. Wow...
    It seems as if there's a lot of impostors here as of lately. Either way, the only opinion that really really counts in this blog is Doc's and, although we don't know his identity, his account is checked so we are fine ...
    I wanted to thank you, Zed for the effort to compile in two posts the events that make you believe Burke and Patsy had to be involved.
    One of the things that resonate more with me is when Patsy was interviewed and asked about the drawing in JB's hand and she said she had seen it the morning after she had put JB to bed. Or when she was asked if she knew JB's body showed signs of chronic sexual abuse. She said she was surprised to hear that but her body language did not follow what she was saying. So, yes, there's odd behavior, possible lies, etc but that doesn't change the fact that it was Patsy the one who called the cops. That call was a big big game changer. Hadn't it been made in that moment and we would have had a perfect murder. What's important about the call is not what she said or how she said it or who she was with when she made it. The important thing is WHEN she made it. Because, if she had been involved she would have know. timing was crucial and she would have waited until everything was clear and ready for the cops to come in. That is a fact that we need to consider as one of the most important facts in this case. If Patsy wore the same clothes or not, if Burke hit his sister on the face with a golf club intentionally or by accident is information that doesn't help us solve anything. BUT just understanding that the timing of the call was crucial to put cops in the home at the same time John Ramsey was staging a kidnapping is the most relevant fact we need to focus on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Marcela Szy is there a link for Patsy's interview?

    FY

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi FY...
    Are you familiar with the A Candy Rose site?
    You will find interviews and info on the case there ...
    http://www.acandyrose.com/

    ReplyDelete
  25. I must say, Gumshoe, I am both irritated and relieved. I was beginning to think I had too much Chardonnay. When that happens my words do tend to have a longer leash, but I have never had a problem remembering them. It appears that you have too much time on your hands. Your interest in me is somewhat disturbing. There are reasons why we prefer to be anonymous on this blog and you should understand and respect those preferences.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow is right. Just popped back in to read Gumshoe's confession. Were you also the newer Gumshoe, Gumshoe? - because she took heat for having your name. What's sad is CC had a lot of respect and admiration for you. It's disloyal.

      Delete
    2. No, I wasn't. Hercule was the only other name I used. Like I said, I was trying to get a reaction from him or a denial. I needed to know who this guy was. I'm sorry that it came to that.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    3. Then I'm intrigued. Is Herc a P.I., a Detective, or perhaps Patsy's former psychiatrist? Must be someone affiliated with the case either then or now. Reading your posts from long ago I see that you are very good at digging (all of the stuff about JR and Lockheed Martin). And at least you came up with interesting and original information instead of just regurgitating what is already known or what the media came up with, or arguing with everyone's comments. It's always up to Doc who continues on here, not us.

      Delete
    4. I have good reason to believe that Hercule is a forensic psychologist from Michigan and considered to be the best in his field. A graduate of Michigan State. Same as John Ramsey.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    5. For Gumshoe P.I. and Hercule - If that's true Gumshoe then you are a good sleuth and who wouldn't want to know what he knows. He said in regard to the massive fracture "Agent Ressler was able to painstakingly narrow it down to only a few" - a few what Hercule? Instruments or causes? He also said JB had smeared feces (spelled correctly) on clothes Patsy had given her which triggered an argument - was the feces tested? All I've heard is Kolar's speculation that Burke smeared feces on JB's box of candy, which also wasn't tested. So those were my two questions for Hercule, before the blow up. I still have them if you can still answer them without breaking a confidentiality agreement.

      Delete
    6. Hercule mentioned a massive head fracture that "Agent Ressler was able to painstakingly narrow down to only a few" - blows; methods, instruments, locations? He said JB smeared feces on clothes PR had given her instigating an argument that night - were those clothes tested? Kolar mentioned feces smeared on JB's candy box that were also not tested. Were you present for the testing? Those were my questions before the argument. Still are. Thanks.

      Delete
    7. Sorry for above, I thought I had scratched it and had to start over - sorry for the redundancy.

      Delete
  26. It’s a bit of a wake-up call, that imposters on this blog and other forums still exist.

    And Doc, even if you’ve run out of titles for discussion, I applaud that you’ve continued to keep a focus on JR and that those who contribute generally offer meaningful insights.

    JR is like the octopus. The octopus has two major assets to protect itself – releasing ink to temporarily reduce vision and ability to smell, and the ability to change colors and blend into surroundings.

    One doesn’t require any great depth of insight to spot the changes in JR’s explanations and his genius for obfuscating. It’s like the octopus releasing ink. He also has had the capacity to change his persona by virtue of the media. The media showed him in his business suit, smiling through most of the interviews, talking about his ability to forgive the media (though never forgiving law enforcement who ‘persecuted’ them), and his turn to religion. He successfully has blended into the role of devout Christian and now most likely believes it. This PR creation, this false identity, hijacked the person he is. But on this blog, not so much.
    -Anon5

    ReplyDelete
  27. I just want to say that I'm sorry to everyone, especially CC and Hercule. I honestly didn't mean any harm. That's why I confessed. I felt bad because I was responsible for all the arguing. It was a cheap tactic and I promise that I won't do it again. I was, however, able to confirm my suspicions about Hercule. I mean that in a positive way. Don't worry, Herc. Out of respect to you, I won't say who I think you are. But I would like to encourage everyone here to pay close attention to anything Hercule comments. His bedside manner isn't always favorable, but this guy is a big deal. A VERY big deal. I know there are things he can't prove about this case and that's frustrating, but I'm convinced this guy knows stuff that hasn't been released to the public.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
  28. You have no credibility here, much as it pains me to say it. Herc is a fraud and a poseur, and you drank the kool aid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm deeply sorry. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. It hurts me that I lost your trust. I still haven't changed my theory about JR, but I can't help but question it now. I want to know more. If "Hercule" is who I think he is, I need to know what he knows.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    2. I'm pretty sure I know who you think Hercule is. I had the same thought even before this whole debacle. I think it was your meeting comment that inspired me to do some research. Not research on who Hercule might be, but research on the meeting itself. Taking into account that research and of some of Hercule's past comments (one in particular) made me wonder, if maybe, just maybe, he might possibly be this person.

      I'm still not convinced though. As is patently clear, people can choose to be whoever they want online.

      Delete
    3. So then....are you and Gumshoe ever going to inform the rest of us who you think Hercule is? Inquiring minds want to know!

      Delete
  29. Honestly, to me it sounds as only one person writing under different monikers trying to confuse us all. Credibility is certainly lost.
    (these two characters involved are not the only imposters here, in my opinion)
    Thanks CC for exposing them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I sincerely hope you don't believe that. I'm sorry that I've made everyone paranoid. I really don't think there are other imposters here. I had a purpose and it wasn't to confuse anyone. It was to find the truth.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    2. Aside from a certain amount of idle curiosity, I don't have much interest in who might be who among those commenting here. If ad hominem attacks are your thing, then I suppose it matters, but for me it's the content of the posts that's important, not the identity of the individuals who post here.

      We're all wearing masks in any case, including me, of course. CC got sucked in to a tiff with Hercule over some comment Gumshoe made in his name, and Gumshoe has confessed. As I see it, this shouldn't have mattered in the first place because all this personal stuff is just a distraction and has no place on this forum to begin with. If we weren't so ready to jump on one another over some personal slight, none of that would matter.

      Now regarding posters who claim inside information, once again I don't see any place for such claims on this blog -- unless the person is willing to clarify the circumstances that provided the inside information and even that wouldn't impress me very much.

      I really don't care who Hercule is or who Gumshoe is, all I care about are their thoughts on this case and whatever information they are in a position to reveal.

      Regarding Patsy's role, as we know, all sorts of people with "inside information" have claimed they know for sure Patsy wrote the note and was involved in the coverup, if not the murder itself.

      I've read just about everything these people with "inside info" have written, including the books by Steve Thomas and James Kolar, and the case they've tried to make against Patsy has NOT impressed me. Nothing any of them have come up with rises above the level of assumption, innuendo and sheer unsubstantiated speculation, garnished with amateurish attempts at handwriting analysis, profiling and "psychological" evaluation. So no, when someone claims "inside information" I'm not impressed. Let's take a close look at that inside information and then we'll see.

      Delete
  30. If John was supposed to get rid of the ransom note then why did he bother misspelling certain words thinking no one would see the note besides Patsy? The misspelling of words suggests that he planned on the note being studied by others.
    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, the note is written in reasonably good English, with no evident attempt to make it look like it was written by some street person or a whacked out druggie. The two mis-spelled words are words that are commonly mis-spelled by many educated people, including myself (thank God for spell-check), so there is no reason to assume John mis-spelled them deliberately.

      Secondly, it's not completely clear to me whether or not John intended to destroy the note before it could get into the hands of the authorities. It's possible he had sufficient faith in his ability to disguise his hand that any experts studying it would be fooled. And in fact that's precisely what happened.

      By tracing or closely imitating a computer font, which is what I think he may well have done, he may have decided he could get away with it -- and he did.

      Delete
    2. Reminder: in the one very brief handwriting exemplar of John's that exists, he spells separate as 'seperate' and occasions as 'occassions'. Clearly, he could not spell well.

      Delete
    3. I hadn't even considered that - that the two mis-spelled words weren't intentional, but accidental. Was he even tested thoroughly before being ruled out? I'm guessing the investigator's take on the ransom note would have been leaked to John's attorney so that any "self-correcting" would have been done prior to comparing John's penmanship with the note.

      I also think John wrote the note, that night, in his office, perhaps typing it first on his word processor, then tracing it as best he could, trying for a vertical lettering as opposed to his slant as indicated on the tiny sample and his cursive signature.

      Delete
    4. I'm very surprised it never occurred to you that those two words weren't intentionally misspelled, Castor. I've always been of the opinion it was an obvious mistake (if the author wanted to feign a lack of intelligence, I'm pretty sure words like "attache" - complete with accent - and "countermeasures" wouldn't have been used. In fact, the impression I have always had is that the author appeared to go out of his way to sound articulate and well educated). That John has been shown to have a problem with words containing double letters has been discussed here before, a fact that only solidified (for me) that he penned that note.

      Delete
    5. The accent mark above attaché is interesting to me as well. I would not even think of using an accent mark if I wrote attaché. I'd not include it at all but rather assume English readers would know how the word is pronounced as they read. However, JonBenet's name had the accent mark in it, so John was used to seeing accent marks being used when written.

      Delete
    6. Alas, the same argument can be made for Patsy.

      Delete
    7. Actually there is no accent over the "e" in "attache." It might look that way, because there's a hook on the bottom of the "y" in the "you" just above it that could be seen as an accent, but isn't. A similar hook can be seen in some of the other "y"s in the note.

      Delete
    8. Thanks, Doc.....at any rate, I'm sure you'll agree that language was used in the note that shows the author was unlikely trying to come across as uneducated, which suggests the spelling errors were unintentional. That John had a problem with the word "occasion" (using two "s"s) and the author of the RN misspelled the word "business", also using two "s"s, is a huge red flag. I've never understood why everyone naturally assumed the mistakes were intentional - if they were, I'm sure the author would not have limited his intentional use of errors only to two words, both of which just happened to contain double "s"s.

      Delete
  31. "So no, when someone claims 'inside information' I'm not impressed. Let's take a close look at that inside information and then we'll see."

    Absolutely understandable. Only God knows how much time and effort I've put into this case. I know you can relate, as well as many others on this blog. From the first day that I was on this blog my primary goal was to pay very close attention to everyone who posted a comment. Because your blog focuses on JR as the killer, I had a hunch that he might stumble upon your blog and become curious. That curiosity could've eventually compelled him to start commenting. I've been on lots of sites looking for anything suspicious. Very little to nothing to go on. Because most of your readers are overwhelmingly JDI, I had high hopes that would lure JR.

    Instead, Hercule comes along and grabs my attention, but from a different standpoint. The lure for Hercule was that not only did he and JR attend Michigan State, they did so around the same time. They might've even known each other. Hercule seemed to really know something, but could never explain it fully because it would require that he reveal evidence that was closed to the public. Hercule attempted to provide information that could be interpreted as speculative, therefore no one could say that he really knew. He could argue that he simply made good on educated guesses. Obviously, I didn't buy it. Hercule has given us clues to understand how Patsy could have been the killer. His moniker cleverly suggests it. "Hercule" with a slight reversal of two letters is an anagram for "Her clue". I think there must be one clue in particular that has so many FBI agents and Boulder police officers (current and former) totally invested on Patsy's guilt.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FYI...Agatha Cristie's fictional Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot, is in part based on Eugène François Vidocq's crime-fighting exploits.

      Delete
    2. You're absolutely correct. The choice of that name could not be more appropriate. Initially, I assumed the use of that moniker was based solely on Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot, but I am convinced there are multiple reasons for that selection.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
  32. Interesting take Gumshoe. Because of the anonymity this site provides, I absolutely think there are people that were very close to this case posting on here. Information that was only privy to investigators might be getting shared which could be something the key players in this case want to see.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  33. I was disturbed by the false information you posted about my father, Gumshoe, as it seemed to suggest someone had an inappropriate interest in my private life. Now you have admitted to a long-term inappropriate interest in Herc's, and I agree with him - it's disturbing. You have no business poking into anyone's anonymity.

    What matters are our thoughts and words, and the ideas we (hopefully) exchange - not who we are. Please respect Herc's anonymity, as he asked you last night, and respect mine as well.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CC - for the record, I wanted you to know I thought Gumshoe took it way too far as well. Ms D literally makes my blood pressure go thru the roof at times....like I need to step away from the keyboard for a minute :-) BUT, I never believe in personal attacks of any kind. There is no place for it and hopefully Gumshoe learned a lesson

      ----on a side note, IF Hercule IS John Ramsey.....you are a PIECE OF SH**. But, please keep posting ;-)


      -J

      Delete
    2. Thanks, J-man.

      When Herc began here two years ago he routinely denigrated anyone who disagreed with him in personal terms, calling them unintelligent or uninformed. In addition his psychological posts were often incorrect, as were the "facts" he insisted led incontrovertibly to Patsy's guilt. He never responds directly when asked about his supposedly inside information, and can never substantiate his theory.

      But hey, we can get through another round of The Poopy Pants Theory, why not? Be refreshing if he offers some verifiable facts for a change, though.

      Delete
    3. CC, I'm sorry that comment about your father disturbed you. That was not my intention at all. I had no idea that it would make that kind of impact on you, especially since you knew it wasn't true. Hercule is the only person on this blog that I have looked into. Other than tactfully using his name to post a couple of comments, I have been as respectful as I know how to be towards him and everyone else. I think that Hercule would at least have to respect my intentions to seek the truth despite how disturbing it may appear that I've been investigating him. He obviously won't be willing to give up his identity, but if he KNOWS that we KNOW who he is, maybe he will be less cryptic when he discusses the case. In other words, less frustrating. Less vague.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    4. I don't agree about Herc having inside information - his contributions have never been loaded with verifiable facts, just opinions he tried to justify with psychobabble that was often erroneous. And I don't condone your methods, but how you spend your time is your business.

      As you know, I'm very fond of you, and you often make worthwhile contributions, so let's just agree to move on, shall we?

      Delete
    5. Thank you, CC. I would very much like that. I too, am fond of you and very much appreciate your attention to detail and logic.

      I would like to mention, since you referenced Hercule's "psychobabble", I think there might just be a good reason for that. If I'm right about him, his area of expertise is actually quite different from how he initially presented himself. Maybe that was to protect his identity. Who knows? His specialty would actually be in crime scene assessment and deductive reasoning. I believe some of what he spouts off about is actually just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    6. Gumshoe what is your take on why there were no fingerprints on the ransom note? (from a JDI perspective). They did find a palm print but were unable to identify it - it was smeared. They were however, able to find multiple prints on the rest of the notepad, all belonging to Patsy, which belies a theory that they were unable to get prints off paper. If John wrote the note and placed the note on the stairsteps for Patsy so she couldn't miss it then I can see why his prints would not be on the note - using gloves comes to mind. But hers not found? It's possible later John could have told her to not touch the note, it's evidence, but in a moment of panic would you NOT grab it up and try to make sense of it before calling the police? This whole case to me has timelines that are so out of whack with what could have really happened nothing is to be believed.

      Delete
    7. Fingerprints don't always transfer to paper. If their hands had recently been washed then there's a good chance they wouldn't have left prints on the note.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
  34. "----on a side note, IF Hercule IS John Ramsey.....you are a PIECE OF SH**. But, please keep posting ;-)"

    J, I'm not suggesting Hercule is JR. Although, anything is possible. Honestly, I feel really good about who I think he is. If I'm correct, that would mean Hercule is actually a very powerful ally if he so chooses to be.

    And yes J, I did learn a lesson. Sometimes I do go too far and I have to be more aware of my actions and how they impact people.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Hercule is not JR. But why do I have the eerie feeling that Gumshoe is Hercule? Could it be content analysis? Naaah!

      Delete
    2. Lol. Please Doc, I've managed to make everyone paranoid and distrust me, but not you too. I hope you were only kidding.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    3. I think Doc is spoofing content analysis (which neither of us believe in), and at the same time suggesting your investigations and subsequent postings praising Herc and thinking him an important person will only fan the flames of his already considerable hubris.

      Or I'm dead wrong and should shut up and let Doc speak for himself..
      but he does have a sly sense of humor.

      Lighten up, Gumshoe. All's well, and it was very honorable of you to 'fess up.

      Delete
    4. I don't feel very honorable right now. Betraying someone's trust is not something I take lightly. I'm very humbled and grateful for your forgiving nature. Thank you.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
  35. And did the children bathe and brush their teeth before going to bed? If they did, this would take up at least an hour of the timeline.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Coupled with the ME not being able to fix time of death, (because he didn't take fluids from her eyes which would have at least helped narrow it down) plus a rather huge span between head blow and strangulation - 45 min. to 2 hours. It would certainly make a difference it was 45 min. versus 2 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I have always believed the ransom note was written in the Ramsey home after JonBenet's death, but the excerpt (posted by Anon. 9/27) from the 1978 Gail Jackson kidnapping in Columbus, Georgia has caused me to reconsider. The similarities between the two notes lead me to conclude that the writer of the Ramsey note had seen the Jackson note and used it as a pattern. Surely there wasn't sufficient time that night for the perpetrator to wait until the Ramsey's were in deep sleep, make his way to JonBenet's bedroom, take her to the basement and do all that was done to her, then research kidnapping notes, compose a 3 page ransom note, hide the baby's body, and flee the scene of the crime undetected. Premeditation takes Patsy and Burke out of the equasion. Just my humble opinion, of course.

    LGE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Premeditation takes Patsy and Burke out of the equasion."

      That's the way I see it, too.

      -Anon5

      Delete
    2. The only real argument against premeditation is the use of Patsy's notepad. If the crime were premeditated we would expect the perp to use paper from outside the house. On the other hand, if the plan had been to frighten Patsy into not calling the police and then dumping the body on the following night, then the pad could have been eliminated at the same time, along with any other incriminating evidence, and there would have been no link between the note and the Ramsey home.

      Premeditation would also explain the references to other ransom notes and kidnap-related movies, and would have given John plenty of opportunity to prepare his note. He might also have managed to slip Patsy and Burke sleeping pills to make sure they did not awaken.

      As I see it, premeditation cannot easily be dismissed.

      Delete
    3. But then why book the trip to have a second Christmas with the older Ramsey children? When do you think the thought to kill his daughter began? Earlier in the day, the day before, or that night? He would have had to have written the note in advance you are saying, for it to be premeditation, and just let the older kids make the trip regardless knowing he was planning a murder?

      Delete
    4. "But then why book the trip to have a second Christmas with the older Ramsey children?"

      It just occurred to me today, Castor, that this deviation from the norm in regards to the way the family usually spent Christmas, was no coincidence. The trip was as integral to John's plan as was the phony ransom note.
      I'll explain my theory:
      I believe John specifically chose the early hours of Boxing Day to eliminate the source of his anguish (the daughter who was going to expose him, whether by word or by pelvic examination) PRECISELY because he could spirit his family away for days without it looking suspicious, whilst he stayed behind to take care of the business of disposing the body and any subsequent staging that would have been necessary, all in absolute privacy without the fear of being caught.
      If all had gone according to plan, I believe that after Patsy found the ransom note, it was his intention to put her and Burke on that early morning flight to Michigan to meet with his children - as planned - whilst he assured his wife he'd stay behind to deal with the "kidnappers" - after all, she and Burke would be safer as far away from the house as possible, and it would be best not to alarm the older kids just yet - the RN said not to alert ANYBODY. Better to wait until they were all in Michigan before giving Melinda and JAR the details, because the family were "under constant scrutiny" by the kidnappers here in Boulder. Besides, John needed to be "well rested" in the event the kidnappers "might call earlier" if they see he's alone.
      When John decided he was going to kill JonBenet, he knew he needed two things if he hoped to pull it off: time and solitude. The upcoming holidays gave him the perfect excuse to be able to send his entire family away together - as far away from him and JB's rotting corpse as possible - without raising any suspicion on their part, thereby ensuring he would have the entire house to himself for days.

      The trip always bothered me - why was there a change of plan the very same Christmas his daughter happened to be murdered? Did he not want his children in Boulder that year? Why fly to Michigan for such a short time when you're leaving for a cruise in just a few days? Then it hit me like a bolt out of the blue: the trip to Michigan was PART of the scheme! John was NEVER planning on going to Michigan for Christmas.....he just needed his family there!

      Delete
    5. Basically, what I'm saying is, if John did indeed premeditate this murder, there's good reason to assume the Michigan trip was also a major part of his plan.

      Delete
    6. Excellent post. I agree that the trip was part of the plan. One usually has the kids from a former marriage come to the home. His daughter MR said once how much she and JB enjoyed making cookies together, a typical Christmas activity. It’s my thought that he did perhaps have tickets for them to come to Boulder, arranged 3-4 weeks in advance. However, once he realized what he was going to need to do, as CC indicates a realization which may have occurred on the 17th, he changed the tickets for a flight to Minneapolis. Another reason I believe this tracks is that he gives an explanation that his pilot was going to go with them, even though he purportedly was able to fly the plane on his own. His explanation was that it was just easier for the pilot to go along and land at a busy airport. (JR had landed at other busy airports before.) The plan was for the pilot to take all the family to Charlevoix . . .without him.
      -Anon5

      Delete
    7. Interesting, MsD. I'm going to need to mull that over a while, but my first reaction is that he would have been unable to get his wife to fly out of town, essentially abandoning her (presumably) kidnapped, missing daughter for any reason.

      Delete
    8. Exactly, Anon5.
      John required Archuletta to fly the plane that morning because he knew he wasn't going to be flying with his family to Michigan.

      CC, John may have believed he could frighten Patsy enough that she would want to take Burke and get the hell out of there until her daughter had been recovered. John may have thought he could persuade her that it was in JonBenet's best interest if he handled it alone (the note was addressed only to him, after all, which he would have been sure to point out to Patsy).....we already know John clearly underestimated Patsy's response that morning. I honestly believe it never occurred to him that Patsy might question anything he told her to do. Her role in their marriage was to keep John placated. He probably counted on being able to manipulate her at such a vulnerable time, and had she not dialed 911, I believe he would have convinced her to board that plane with Burke.

      Delete
    9. Your post makes me think that John didn't count on one thing and it was that Patsy really loved and cared for JB. Her love for her daughter was greater than any fear she could have for her own life ...
      John might have thought that he had the ability to manipulate his fragil wife into leaving the house to protect herself and Burke but he didn't count on the power and strength any woman can show in order to protect their children.
      There is something that kept resonating with me from the 911 call. It's something she said before the operator started speaking. Patsy said almost breathless: : We need them (cops). Possibly in response to the various attempts from John trying to convince her to leave the house and let him deal with the kidnappers.
      At the end love is the most powerful force in the world ...I feel for Patsy, a lot, actually...she was also murdered that night.

      Delete
    10. "Patsy said almost breathless: : We need them (cops). Possibly in response to the various attempts from John trying to convince her to leave the house and let him deal with the kidnappers."

      Yes, I agree. I believe Patsy was responding to John who was telling Patsy NOT to call the police.
      I feel for Patsy also. I think that, like JonBenet, Burke and his mother are also victims of John Ramsey.

      Delete
  38. i see the whole Hercule-Gumshoe saga as a very strategic move to install Patsy again as a very possible killer, with Hercule being a very big deal in his field and with inside information pointing to her that Gimshoe found out due to her great skills as a P.I.
    Now, everything has been straighten out by all parts involved and we move on ...but the doubt has been installed...

    ReplyDelete
  39. On premeditation:

    The medical examiner of the victim's body cited digital penetration, not penetration by the broken paint brush. Bifringement material aka talc was also found (talcum powder was routinely used by men of Ramsey's generation in freshening up to go out). The dark Israeli woolen shirt worn by Ramsey at the party the night before (likely having become un-tucked) supposedly left fibers in the crotch of the oversized underpants found on the victim, whereas he met officer French at the front door wearing a crisp blue and white pin-striped shirt and khaki pants, indicating those dark fibers dropped in before the 911 call.

    Ramsey later unequivocally stated in a rare non-obfuscated reply to questioning by law enforcement that he had had nothing to do with Jonbenet's attire prior to or at bedtime, indicating that the re-dressing occurred after bedtime and before the 911 call (why, if he were confident, in advance, of his ransom note's and partial train window staging's ability to fool his wife, the need to redress and wipe down the victim after the head blow but before the 911 call? What had changed, confidence-wise, at that point of re-dressing/wiping down?).

    How sick would you have to be in order to plan in advance a murder while also first having your way with the victim sexually before killing her? And, if the pre-planned goal were to kill her and the first blow didn't get it done, why not strike again while she was a now non-moving target (bloodshed supposedly was not a deterrent according to many on this blog) instead of the more personal strangling likely by hand and not garrote before the 911 call (one can reasonably deduce the motivation for the "garrote" after the 911 call, which by the way Zed, was not a staging of an intruder rather an attempted compensation for the non-evidence of an intruder)?

    Another observation on the attempt to exit to Tara that afternoon (leaving aside the nationally televised take-charge statement by Ramsey per usual with Patsy sitting there, that "we" [notice by then the use of "we" over and over in public interviews] "wanted to go home," somehow deduced by him within the 30 minutes after "discovering" his daughter's body when neither his son nor his wife was available for consultation on that urgent longing for "home"):

    There was an additional unintentional transparency revealed in wanting to pack up and head on off at that moment, which was Ramsey's non-curiousness as to how, who, and when his daughter had been murdered. To him, the curtain had simply fallen on this shocking, fast-moving and multi-faceted (whose facets, one can reasonably conclude, were participated in only by him) les miserable that he must have written, produced, directed, and starred-in. He was no longer interested. It was over.

    For everyone else the curtain had just been lifted.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting little essay, Black Sheep -- very well written. Just a few footnotes:

      No need to assume John's fibers got into her crotch when she was being redressed. They probably got there during the initial sexual assault. You are right though, when you imply that the redressing must have occurred after Patsy called 911. There would have been no need to do that if he'd been planning to dump the body and get rid of all evidence the following day.

      The birefringent material is thought to have come from the varnish on the paintbrush handle. But there is no evidence she was penetrated with that. Some of it must have gotten onto the glove John was wearing. Unless it came from the glove itself.

      I think he failed to strike her again because he presumed she was already dead. Only later did he realize he'd need to finish her off. I don't think the garrote was staging. I think it was part of a sexual fantasy.

      As for the rest I think you make some excellent points.

      Delete
    2. "You are right though, when you imply that the redressing must have occurred after Patsy called 911. There would have been no need to do that if he'd been planning to dump the body and get rid of all evidence the following day"

      I've always maintained that also, Doc. But, after much thought, how likely was it that JB was redressed after LE had been called when her long johns and panties were stained with urine, which was presumably expelled at the time she was being strangled to death, which was obviously hours earlier?

      Delete
    3. We don't know when the strangulation occurred.

      Delete
    4. No we don't, Doc, but we do know she was in full rigor, and was exhibiting the early stages of decomp when John bought her upstairs just after 1 p.m. We also know that she had urinated *after* her clothes had been changed.

      Delete
    5. No we really don't know that, D. Urine stains were seen on the panties, but they could have been transmitted there after she was changed. Nowhere does it say the panties were soaked in urine.

      Delete
    6. O.K thanks for that Doc. Of course, my theory has always included JR wiping her down and changing her after 911 was called, hence the reason for the over-sized panties and boys long johns - they were all that were available to him in the basement at the time, but the urine stains began to trouble me recently.

      Delete
    7. These look pretty urine-soaked to me. (Sorry the links are so long.)

      https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS722US722&biw=1304&bih=702&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=jonbenet+panties+and+long+johns&oq=jonbenet+panties+and+long+johns&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4401.9682.0.9988.22.21.0.0.0.0.290.2672.2j12j2.16.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.1.171...0.0.5oU2SPxUkRA#imgrc=HzIdw9-sKzL3bM:

      https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS722US722&biw=1304&bih=702&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=jonbenet+panties+and+long+johns&oq=jonbenet+panties+and+long+johns&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4401.9682.0.9988.22.21.0.0.0.0.290.2672.2j12j2.16.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.1.171...0.0.5oU2SPxUkRA#imgrc=gaYFAtlw6q62eM:

      Delete
    8. I've studied those photos. The autopsy refers to "stains." That's what they look like to me. By the time the ME got to see them any "soaking" would have dried up. The stains on the long johns look darker than the stains on the panties, but that could be an artefact of the lighting when the photos were taken.

      If the long johns were soaked at the time the panties were put on her, some of that soaking would have transferred to the panties, thus producing the stains we see.

      It's also possible she changed into those panties herself, prior to the assault, but that seems really unlikely to me.

      Delete
    9. I also noticed something interesting that might or might not be important. In the portion of the autopsy referring to the panties and long johns, we find:

      "The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waistband. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch in maximum dimension."

      The wording is ambiguous, but the sentence beginning "The underwear is urine stained" seems to be referring to the "long underwear" since the panties are not referred to as "underwear." So the "red areas of staining" could refer to the long johns and not the panties. This possibility is reinforced by the obvious place on the long johns where some of the material has been cut out, presumably for testing. I see nothing in the panties that seems to have been cut out. Nor do I see any red stains on the panties. It's possible, of course, that any blood stains on the panties might be confined to the "inner aspect of the crotch." But if the stains are only on the inside then how could they have been transferred to the portion of the long johns that was cut out?

      If indeed those stains were only on the long johns and not the panties, that strongly suggests that the panties might indeed have been placed on her body after the vaginal assault.

      Delete
    10. Doc, you're right in that the wording is ambiguous. However, IMO, the sentence, "The underwear is urine stained..." refers to the panties, since it's already been stated (in the first sentence) that the long underwear are urine stained.

      The area on the long johns where the material has been cut out, looks to me, to be at the upper thigh/groin region, rather than the crotch. It looks like a piece has been cut out of the crotch of the panties (where the red zip-tie is.)

      Delete
    11. Yes, you're right, I hadn't noticed that.

      Delete
    12. DocG/MsD:

      To be clear, as excerpted just below from my post that DocG responded-to on 9/30, I believe the redressing occurred in the night before the 911 call, not after the 911 call. The shirt worn by Ramsey the prior night versus what he was wearing at the door when letting in the police after the 911 call, brackets the issue for me.

      "Ramsey later unequivocally stated in a rare non-obfuscated reply to questioning by law enforcement that he had had nothing to do with Jonbenet's attire prior to or at bedtime, indicating that the re-dressing occurred after bedtime and before the 911 call"

      Black Sheep

      Delete
    13. We simply don't have enough information to decide when the redressing occurred, or even if she didn't in fact redress herself prior to the assault. The fibers from John's shirt could have entered her crotch area during the sexual assault and before she was redressed. And the panties could have been stained with her blood after she had been redressed, as the blood would still have been fluid for some time.

      That's one of the huge problems with this case. So much of the evidence is simply inconclusive. Which hasn't discouraged people from making all sorts of assumptions, natch.

      Delete
    14. DocG thank you. Concur. I guess my point is that the redressing and/or wipe down did NOT occur when a dark wool shirt was no longer in play, meaning it didn't occur after law enforcement arrived.

      By the way, if it matters, I'm beginning to strongly feel that Patsy recognized Ramsey's handwriting that morning and even accused him of having done something to their daughter in that heated argument overheard by Burke just prior to the 911 call. That coupled with possible suspicions around what had been going on in that house brought things to a head. You had an epiphany with a chill when you saw his handwriting in that small claims legal case. So did I. His writing is almost schizophrenic. That is, it naturally mushes together and then periodically emerges clean as a whistle, and when two letters are back to back, those letters mirror each other almost perfectly. The word "getting" in the ransom note is an example, along with double rr's, cc's and ss's, etc.

      The note's position on the stairs had to have seemed a little too contrived to Patsy as well. She was a college educated smart woman. As Ramsey argued vociferously to her that the kidnappers' meant business and that she mustn't call, it might have only heightened her angst to the point that he had to call her bluff, or what he thought to be a bluff, on threatening him that she was going to make the call and it turned out she wasn't bluffing. Her fear of John that morning might account for any non-investment by her in the kidnapping scenario when she used the "we have a kidnapping" language, to EG's point.

      Her "peeking" through her fingers at Officer French as he came back from the basement might have been her fear of her suspicions having come true with French's announcing he had found Jonbenet in the basement. When he didn't find her, it began some mental back-tracking by Patsy, perhaps, which later was dealt a further turbo charge boost when Ramsey was "ruled out," thus befuddling her to no end, particularly in her medical and medicated condition.

      The use of the garrote knot might also have been a diabolical attempt to throw shade on his own son if that knot had been tied before in a boy scout outing and seen by Patsy in the past, in addition to its use as a cover for throwing off outsiders. In other words, Ramsey knew her suspicions were going to be terribly realized soon, and any way he could keep her on his side was not out of bounds for him at that point. Desperation.

      Black Sheep

      Delete
    15. "I guess my point is that the redressing and/or wipe down did NOT occur when a dark wool shirt was no longer in play, meaning it didn't occur after law enforcement arrived."

      I can't agree. We have no way of knowing that. I think it probably did occur after the 911 call, but that's only for logical reasons, not evidence-based, because the evidence is inconclusive. As I said, the fibers could have been produced during the initial assault, not the redressing. As for the rest, it sounds like you are over-thinking certain details and making unwarranted assumptions as a result. I really doubt that Patsy ever seriously suspected John at any point, though some of his actions might have frightened her.

      Delete
  40. Here's a question for anyone who finds Patsy a viable suspect:

    Patsy died nine years ago, yet last year Stan G said he knows who murdered JBR, and he'd tell the world in open court if he had the evidence - and then went on to order newer, more sophosticated DNA testing.

    Patsy can't be prosecuted, so why would the Boulder County DA be talking about a potential prosecution, and doing new testing?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Black Sheep..

    You make good points, but I will apply them differently. The word "we" for instance is very telling, as in "We have a kidnapping". A mother would not use the word "we" when referring to her child and you're right about getting the guilty party away from the scene. They gathered up Burke, Nintendo in hand, and rushed him out the door before anyone from LE could speak to him.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, E - substitute Burke, who cannot be prosecuted either, for Patsy in the above, and explain Stan's words and actions, please

      Delete
    2. It was not abnormal to use the word "we" when describing the kidnapping in Patsy's excited utterance at that point. "I" have a kidnapping would have been more than odd, and frankly the whole family had experienced a kidnapping.

      By contrast, Ramsey's use of "we" became a tactical arrogation unto himself, and usurpation of, authority in speaking for both Patsy and himself after escaping arrest that first day.

      Notice in the A&E tv documentary, for example, where in response to Patsy's rare comeuppance in her describing whose idea it was to make the 911 call by saying "we discussed it and John said ok so I ran to make the call..." whereupon John,sitting next to her of course, immediately piped in with the "WE had no choice at that point..." [when in fact they DID have a clear and plausibly justifiable choice to not yet call, which choice he had created in the ransom note and was apparently arguing for] to attempt to claw back and absolve his likely disagreement with her at that point about making the 911 call.

      That first step toward reclaiming the high ground was later followed on with the alternate version in their book where John got to finish off the reclamation project with regard to whose idea it was to call, by writing: "I (John) told Patsy to call..." which DocG has more than covered.

      That "conversation" about the call was overheard by Burke per his subsequent interview with law enforcement, obtained and published by National Enquirer, who characterized it as a heated discussion during which his mother was "going psycho," which one could infer caused John to reluctantly give in to Patsy's and only Patsy's desire to make the 911 call.

      The ruling out of John as the writer not only allowed and emboldened him to turn the psychology of the case into a "need" to sit with and defend his wife at every turn by speaking for her, but also was used to defend "both of them" and thus indirectly and purposefully himself under the guise of defending her, as the white knight.

      His being ruled out also likely personally threw her for a loop as to any possible innate early-on suspicions by her of him on that fateful morning.

      Speaking of whether either suspected the other, once again John piped up in the Walters interview near the end in response to her question of the couple: "Did either of you at anytime suspect the other?" To which John did not reply just for himself but immediately spoke for the both of them saying "absolutely not."

      Burke (who had overheard the above argument) was whisked away by John and Fleet without Patsy's doing, as I recall, at John's behest. Again,if so, no "they."

      Black Sheep

      Delete
  42. The case has remained open - so IF Burke, Stan would want to know who was the accessory to murder don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  43. CC...

    Would it be possible to prosecute JR, at this point in time, for being an accessory?

    Black Sheep....No, I wouldn't say I have a kidnapping. I'd say MY daughter has been kidnapped. GET HERE NOW, and once there, Id make sure they contacted the FBI, put out an APB, and I'd glue my son next to me and wouldn't let him out of my sight. I wouldn't waste a moment calling friends, as I'd be all over that house looking for anything that might lead me to a clue.
    But, hey, that's just me.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know about pronouns and the manner they are used in statements which provide a clue as to the authenticity of the speaker or writer. But one possible thought about this is that JR and Patsy did exchange heated words about calling 911, as BR seemed to have recalled 'voices', and JR angrily relented telling her “OK, call 911, tell them we have a kidnapping.” Just a thought.
      -Anon5

      Delete
  44. Respectfully, EG:

    Would "OUR daughter" have been equally suspicious to you? She didn't procreate by herself.

    And if I looked into the face of a man who just hours or minutes earlier had killed MY or OUR daughter, possessive pronouns would have meant nothing to me and I'd have called in the national guard to protect my son and me. Patsy called law enforcement first, next calling her friends, during which she said to Priscilla "call the FBI." I think that covered it but then that is just I.

    And as far as searching the house, a female might have been afraid to go into certain parts of the house in the dark, unarmed.

    Again, Linda Arndt looked into that face and started counting her bullets.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
  45. It's too late, E. The statute of limitations has run on accessory.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hmmm that's interesting, CC. So it would seem that Stan thinks the DNA sample will convict JR? Or does he have another suspect in mind?

    Or is this all just bluster on his part and the DNA sample will be inconclusive, like everything else with this case seems to be?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EG, if Patsy had said "I have a kidnapping", wouldn't that have given you even more cause to believe she was involved in this crime - perhaps alone, even? I can just imagine it now, BDIs/PDIs/RDIs everywhere: "The fact that Patsy said 'I' and not 'we' is a sure sign she was involved!"

      Delete
    2. It's like waking up to find your parent has died during the night in your house. What would you say on the 911 call. "We have a death here". Is that what you'd say? You'd take possession and say my mother/father has died, please come quickly.

      It's a natural instinct, not to mention common sense.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Maybe Stan is open to any information that will exonerate John as well

      Delete
    4. There is no DNA evidence that could possibly implicate John unless it were retrieved from JonBenet's vagina, which would require exhumation. The presence of his DNA on her clothing would be expected and I wouldn't be surprised if it had already been found from the start.

      Delete
    5. I don't agree, Doc. Vaginal swabs would have been taken routinely at autopsy in any case involving sexual abuse, and would still be available for more sophisticated testing as techniques evolve.

      Delete
    6. Based on his statement that he'll prosecute if the evidence is there, and the recent DNA re-testing (which I think was an attempt to find epithelial cells in the vaginal swabs and possibly the knots, yes, EG: John is the only suspect left standing and, I believe, Garnett's target.

      Delete
  47. Black Sheep..

    The relationship between mother and child is powerful and it's personal. No, we's us, they,them...its ME, MY, MINE.

    I agree with the analysis done on the RN and agree that the experts thought it was staged and her words were chosen carefully. As they said many times, pronouns don't lie.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  48. As everyone here knows, I strongly believe the 911 call was staged. Patsy made the call because she could play stricken mum much better than John could play stricken dad.

    You also know I think Burke was involved (although i don't think he was involved as much as others). But what if Hercule is right and Patsy was involved. What if she struck JB for urinating the bed or for rebelling against her. Patsy would have been tired after a big day and had an even bigger day the next day. So it may not have taken much to set her off. John may have brought the flashlight back to their room after walking Burke to bed and then Patsy may have used it to go to her daughter's room when she woke up crying. Now I am not a big fan of this theory because I believe the headblow came outside the basement door (with JB lost her bladder) and I can't think of a good reason why Patsy and her daughter would be down there. Plus I know its easy to only include one person (John) rather than both parents. But we are still talking about this crime 21 years later because it was different. Maybe Patsy woke John and then John had an "oh shit" moment because he had abused his daughter. So he told Patsy he would help her in any way possible, when really he was helping himself. I don't believe this was premeditated and Patsy was involved (my opinion). This is the only theory I could ponder with Burke not involved at all.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why did John use Patsys pad to write the note if he didn't expect the note to be traced back as coming from any particular pad? Why didn't he just use his pad?
    FY

    ReplyDelete
  50. EG, earlier you brought up the Christmas party at the Ramsey's on the 23rd, the mysterious 911 call, Susan Stine barring entry of the officer, etc. I won't focus on the details of why I think the 911 call was really made or by whom, but I think there is a link between the events of the 23rd and the events of the 25th that involve the Stine's (Doug). So here is an alternate theory.

    Consider this:

    Last stop of the evening was the Stine's. John states Burke would have gone inside as Doug was his friend. He is purposely vague as to whether he and JB stayed in the car, it's assumed of course Patsy went inside.

    Patsy then says several times that JB was asleep in the car on the way home - "zonked" - she says, John says he carries her upstairs to bed and Patsy is either right behind him or in front of him and he assumes Patsy is readying her for bed - which she says she does.

    What if the headblow happened over at the Stine's. She is not asleep, she is unconscious. Patsy wants to get her up one more time to use the bathroom, maybe even gets her toothbrush out and ready to be used, and she discovers JB is unresponsive. Patsy either knows something happened at the Stine's, or she now suspects it. JB also could have eaten the fruit cocktail at the Stine's.

    Patsy then calls Susan Stine, who comes over (on Doug's bike or her own bike) and together they write the note, with Susan Stine's movie quote ideas. Handwriting experts (and I use that term loosely) thought the note had a feminine bent. Patsy's latex gloves might have been used, she would know right where she kept them.

    Ramsey's move in with the Stine's, Susan becomes Patsy's "pitbull" in case Patsy cracks. Burke and Doug injured JB, it was an accident, both mom's covering it up. Phone records not obtained from night of 25th, etc. Stine's not called over morning of 26th (they already knew).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

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

      Delete
    3. Castor,

      I do believe there is something more to the Stine thing. Of course, we can only speculate, but based on what happened afterwards, it's highly suspicious.

      First off, this is a family who has probably been up since 5AM having young children and it being Christmas morning. I can remember being bleary eyed myself sitting under the Christmas tree without getting much sleep, but the kids were up bright and early and we wanted to capture every moment. After a day of playing, kids being in and out, JBR riding her bike, BR playing with his toys, they go to a friends house for Christmas dinner. They have an early morning wake up, as they're headed out to meet family and yet they plan on making three stops before going home to drop off Christmas gifts?
      Then, JR can't remember whether or not he got out of the car at the Stine's house. How would you not be able to remember that?
      Then SS becomes PR's pitbull and goes so far as to impersonate a police officer and never gets arrested for doing so. If you or I tried doing that we'd never get away with it.

      And lastly, yes..they were the last people to have seen the R's all together and yet they were never called over that morning.

      All of this of course means nothing because nothing can be proven, but I'd say it doesn't pass the smell test.

      EG

      Delete
  51. Of course Stan G. would prosecute if the evidence is there, that is a very politically correct thing for him to say but he knows nothing new is going to be found, he knows everything that has been found was analyzed, the Grand Juror who was hidden in the interview thinks he knows what happened and said he doesn't think it's going any further and former Chief Beckner also doesn't sound hopeful. I imagine whatever DNA tested at the beginning of 2017 has been processed, nothing new has been learned, and Stan G. is not moving forward for those very reasons. Canuck I looked up forms that can be filled out in the city of Boulder in order to request information on cases, a freedom of information group that was formed in Boulder some time ago, but with a case remaining open you won't be allowed anything pertaining to a case.

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

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

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

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

      Delete
    5. I don't know what's gotten into you, CC. You know very well that these sort of personal remarks are going to be deleted, so why persist? When I requested an end to the bickering I meant it.

      Delete
    6. Castor, I believe you may be vastly underestimating how long it takes to process DNA samples.

      As far as time for processing it depends how much evidence CBI has been commissioned to test. In a research project in 2010 it was found that Connecticut took 3-6 months to process a DNA sample. Missouri took 243 days.

      It’s a somewhat recent phenomenon that more LE agencies are submitting rape kits (mandated per 2013 Colorado law) and evidence from property crime. The turn-around time for DNA results from property crime is about 55 days (better than the benchmark average of 90 days.) Confirming what CC mentioned, the autopsy report states that vaginal, rectal and oral swabs and smears were taken. Specifically, without finding what backlog CBI may have, it’s anyone’s guess how long it will take to process a DNA profile from the swabs taken at JonBenét’s autopsy and from the ligature and garrote knots.
      -Anon5

      Delete
  52. There's at least a couple of murder cases I just saw on the news that have been solved after decades of becoming cold thanks to the new DNA technology. In the murder case of Marlene Warren investigators said they had identified a suspect but didn't have enough evidence for a conviction. No arrests had been made until last Tuesday, 27 years after the murder, and 3 years after the case was re opened. All thanks to the new technology that has been developed. I believe there is still hope for this case to be solved....
    I have a question for Anon5 or anyone who could answer ..
    I certainly believe JR used gloves to digitally penetrate JB on the night he killed her but not the other times he sexually abused her. Is it possible that these swabs could have collected old DNA left in her vagina prior to that night??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent question. Such swabs are usually designed to test for traces of semen and in this case, obviously, there was none. Touch DNA on the other hand, is much harder to recover. More sensitive touch DNA testing was developed a few years after JonBenet's death, but by then she was buried, and an exhumation was never permitted.

      Delete