Theoretically, composite DNA from two sources could be resolved into two separate profiles. Not sure if the technology is there yet, but I have feeling it is.
also- o/t i am long time lurker, only recently started posting comments. wanted to thank you docg and cc for sharing your insight and coming up with an actual, logical theory. it is the ONLY theory that makes ANY sense to me
If Doc was writing a "Who-Dun-It" Agatha Christie type novel about this case then his conclusion would have a more satisfying structure to the reader. Real cases present real people with unique histories and complex motives. I commend Doc for trying to use only the facts to solve this case, but he simply does not know enough about John or Patsy to make accurate inferences. The Patsy Ramsey that Doc has created in his own mind could not have killed her daughter. The real Patsy, however, had a perfect storm of circumstances brewing with emotions that spiked out of her control. Her relationship with JonBenet had gotten obsessively too close. JonBenet even remarked that her trophies really were not hers, but instead for her mother. Arguments became commonplace. JonBenet showed signs of rebellion. The closeness of their relationship reached its apex and the spiraling descent had already begun a couple of months before it all came to a head.
1) Patsy experienced a storm of circumstances which included; an obsessive relationship with a daughter, a daughter showing signs of rebellion, a coveting of a daughters trophies, arguments with a daughter that had become commonplace, and emotions that had spiked out of control.
2) Storms of circumstances and emotions that spike out of control can lead to murder.
hercule- i don't believe you are qualified to make this judgement. you don't know john nor did you know patsy, and basing an opinion on what little you have heard about a remark made by jbr, you conclude pdi...that just is not a strong argument.
"(Doc) simply does not know enough about John or Patsy to make accurate inferences."
Then, you follow it up with: "The real Patsy, however, had a perfect storm of circumstances brewing with emotions that spiked out of her control. Her relationship with JonBenet had gotten obsessively too close.....arguments became commonplace.....the closeness of their relationship reached its apex and the spiraling descent had already begun a couple of months before it all came to a head."
Oh, the irony.....unless, of course, *you* have an insight into the workings of Patsy's mind that the rest of us are not privy to? JonBenet's attachment to her mother had actually GROWN in the months prior to her murder - that certainly doesn't sound like a daughter rebelling. The truth is, you know nothing more about Patsy or John than Doc does, but that hasn't stopped you from outlining a detailed, PDI scenario. The difference is, Doc's is based solely on facts, whereas yours is based on what Patsy may or may not have felt/thought/done.....personally, I prefer facts over feelings.
"I commend Doc for trying to use only the facts to solve this case, but..."
This case can ONLY be solved using facts. Isn't the examination of factual evidence precisely how all cases are solved? By trying to solve this case using your armchair psycho-analysis of Patsy - conclusions you've arrived at solely on the basis of the small amount of publicly available information in regards to Patsy's psyche - the further down the rabbit hole you go. Your theory, whilst not quite as outrageous as BDI, is still mainly based on assumptions, and doesn't make sense of many of the known facts, RE: The sexual abuse (no, I don't believe it was corporal punishment inflicted by Patsy - for several reasons) The 911 call being placed when it was. The wording in the RN leaves no doubt that the author was staging a genuine kidnapping, not a botched one, thus calling the authorities to the house before the removal of the body makes no sense. Patsy placing her own paintbrush handle at the crime scene...I don't believe she was that stupid. Patsy not showering or changing her clothes after committing murder/staging a crime. Patsy had no history of mental illness, nor did she have a history of corporally punishing her children.
On the other hand: John was down in the basement that morning (Doesn't the killer always return to the scene of the crime?). Patsy never left the sun room, however. Patsy obviously had no staging to complete. Patsy was genuinely distraught - John was "cordial". John had a copy of Mind Hunter by his bed. It just so happens that the scene was staged as though it was taken right of said book.....but John denied ever even owning the book, yet it was photographed on his bedside table. Why, I wonder, did he lie about such a (seemingly) innocuous detail? Just as he lied about the window..... The ransom note was addressed only to Mr Ramsey, giving John complete authority and control over the situation.....just as the CEO of a big corporation would want. Jonbenet had been previously sexually abused, giving John Ramsey - the man most likely to be her abuser - a clear motive for murder. John's shirt fibres were found in JB's crotch...a crotch that had been violated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together, here.
From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenét? by James Kolar:
"Further, fibers from this jacket [note: Patsy Ramsey's Essentials jacket] were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor."
"Some intruder theorists thought that the transfer of Patsy's jacket fibers to the duct tape may have taken place after John had removed it from JonBenet's face, and placed it on the white blanket in the cellar. They believed it possible that prior contact taking place between the blanket and jacket could account for the transfer of these fibers to the tape."
"Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn't think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence."
Is it safe to say then that both JR's and PR's fibers were found on or around JBR? If so, by your own account, they'd both be involved. Now, if they're both involved, then they're covering up for someone. Most of us here agree that PR and JR would NOT cover up for each other. So, who does that leave? BR, anyone?
Nope, this time you get me, Zed, and some legal facts, to-wit: Fibers and other trace evidence (even most DNA) in a shared home are usually inadmissible because of the extreme likelihood of innocent transference via personal contact.
Note, please, that I am also dismissing John's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear, for the same reason.
"Another fact which Ms D will try and explain away with some fancy words and no rebuttal."
Seriously, Zed, the irony and hypocrisy in your statement is barely worth addressing. Scroll back over the past year and see who answers every, single, question thrown at her, then take a look at the unanswered questions that litter the blog - most of them are directed at *you*.
I agree with your response for the most part, CC. Transfer from clothing fibers in a shared home is expected, and I've used that defense many times in regards to Patsy's alleged jacket fibres. However, John's shirt fibres being found in JB's genital region rings alarm bells for me because it is such an intimate area, innocent transfer is surely less likely to be found in such a region? Especially as we know John never assisted JB with her toileting. Couple this with the fact her vagina had been violated that night, and surely it is damning that her father's shirt fibres were found in that same region of her body? As far as Patsy's jacket fibres are concerned, weren't the red fibres found on the duct tape "consistent" with the red fibres on Patsy's jacket, but not conclusively matched?
Meh. The response I expected from Ms D. Accepts Johns fibres but ignores the fibres from Patsy. But oh that's right, Ms D is more skilled than those lab technicians (technicians that actually saw and handled evidence unlike any of you).
Given there is none of Burke's fibers but plenty of Patsy's, this simply adds to the fact that Patsy's fibers were NOT from simply being in a "shared home".
Okay so let me get this straight. Everyone agrees that fibers from both JR and PR were found. According to the lab technicians, the fibers on the duct tape that matched PR's jacket were not from a type of transfer but rather from the direct contact between the jacket and the tape.
Therefore, it would seem that BOTH PR and JR were involved somehow in staging the body. So to the JDI's I pose the same question. Do you think PR covered for JR?
"Given there is none of Burke's fibers but plenty of Patsy's, this simply adds to the fact that Patsy's fibers were NOT from simply being in a "shared home"."
Excellent point. They weren't SIMPLY from being in a shared home, no. They were due to Patsy being in intimate contact with her daughter all day long. So there were plenty of opportunities for Patsy's fibers to transfer to JonBenet's body, hair and clothing.
"It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence."
Thought by whom? Lab technicians? James Kolar? There is no way to tell whether fibers were transferred by direct or indirect contact. They could easily have been transferred from JonBenet to her attacker and from him to the tape. And if we assume that John was the attacker, they could have been transferred directly to him from his wife.
Yes, by lab technicians (after conducting experiments with the tape). They claimed that the only way for that much of the fiber from PR's jacket to get onto the duct tape, it had to be a direct transfer from jacket to tape.
EG In a shared home, there is always the possibility of transferred fibers from one individual to another. However, they felt the amount of fiber on the duct tape was a direct transfer and not an indirect one.
"The Colorado Bureau of Investigation labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemically and microscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy’s jacket."
That's it. Four fibers. So Kolar was being deliberately vague when referring to a "quantity of fibers." There were only four. And as becomes clear from reading Thomas's book, the circumstances surrounding the handling of the tape and the collection of the clothing made that evidence essentially useless.
"I would leave it to the lawyers to quibble over how the fibers were transferred from Patsy’s jacket to the tape, perhaps claiming she had worn the garment when she went downstairs to fetch Christmas presents, or perhaps there was a transfer to the blanket when she tucked JonBenét into bed. There were a myriad of distant possible arguments. Had the tape been removed from her mouth during the autopsy, the argument of transference would have been diminished."
The blanket he refers to is the blanket that covered JonBenet when John "discovered" her. Unfortunately, the sticky side of the tape seems to have fallen onto the blanket at some point, making transfer from the latter to the former possible.
Thomas badly wanted to nail Patsy, and if he could have used that fiber evidence to do it, he certainly would have.
"Meh. The response I expected from Ms D. Accepts Johns fibres but ignores the fibres from Patsy."
I have done no such thing. Patsy would have held JonBenet a lot on the evening of the 25th, JB probably sat in her lap at the Whites, so her jacket fibres being found - and there were only FOUR, let's not forget that - sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Explaining how fibres made their way from John's shirt into JB's genital region is a more difficult task, because when John (allegedly) carried JB from the car, she was fully clothed, and (allegedly) asleep, and it was her mother who changed her for bed - not John. And, because her vagina had been penetrated shortly before she was killed, of course the fibres found near this location are significant. However, as innocent transference IS always a possibility, CC is correct, and no case can be made for either Patsy's, or John's fibres. It concerns me, when looking at the TOTALITY of the evidence, that John's shirt fibres were in JB's crotch, but it is certainly no smoking gun, and I'm well aware of that.
"But oh that's right, Ms D is more skilled than those lab technicians (technicians that actually saw and handled evidence unlike any of you)."
I'm sorry, you'll have to direct me to where I even implied I knew more than the lab technicians, because I don't recall doing so. But, whilst we're on the topic of taking all of the experts evaluations at face value and never daring to challenge their authority, Zed, what do you make of the following exculpatory evidence relating to Burke Ramsey? (Source: http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682454/Burke%20Ramsey#LackofForensicEvidence)
"On January 8, 1997, Burke was interviewed with his parents’ consent and outside of their presence by a psychologist, Dr. Suzanne Bernhard. Even though BDI theorists view Burke's behavior in this interview as suspicious, according to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News, Dr. Bernhard herself "concluded in writing on her report to the Boulder PD that it was clear to her that Burke did not witness the murder of his sister" (But oh that's right, Zed is more skilled than any psychologist......the psychologist who actually interviewed Burke, unlike you, right? Using YOUR very own logic, this woman's authority is not be challenged, thus Burke Ramsey did not kill his sister, and it is NOT up for debate.....right?)
"If the Boulder grand jury had already concluded Burke did it, then why would both Boulder DA and BPD continue to have invested resources in solving the case, including additional DNA tests, as one example?"
"Moreover, had Burke been in any way involved in the crime and LE were aware of this, it would have been highly improbable that Child Services would not been involved in some fashion to protect Burke's being a danger to other children or himself."
"On several occasions, Boulder law enforcement officials have indicated Burke Ramsey was not a suspect or had been cleared in the case. This is the strongest evidence that Burke is not a plausible suspect in this case."
Tsk tsk tsk. You still don't understand my theory do you.
I fully believe Burke did NOT see his sister die that night. He whacked her over the head and eventually woke his parents. They told him she would be fine and put him to bed. When he was interviewed that day he may have truly believed there had been an intruder. And Burke was never a danger to himself or other children. A lot of children have lashed out at other children before...its just extremely rare that it leads to a brain dead child. So I fully understand if Boulder law ebforcement don't consider Burke a suspect...he only started it (BSI).
Remember...a Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét.
The charges didn’t directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl.
My understanding of the DNA on JB's clothing is that it was degraded and probably from saliva.(correct me if I'm wrong).
Any chance this DNA could have been "planted" by John from a partly finished water bottle? Does anyone know if this is possible? I have read that DNA has been lifted from drinking glasses. Could the water have belonged to a male in the house during the "kidnapping phase" who wasn't DNA tested? Could John have done this when he disappeared for awhile?
There was bottled water in the home that morning, because John was shown a photo of a water bottle during one of his interviews with LS. Lou said John didn't know who it belonged to.(not sure why Lou was answering for John, but that was how it was transcribed.)
An intruder who took the trouble to wipe down JonBenet before changing her panties and long johns would not then turn around and leave an incriminating ransom note.
Yet even supposing the DNA tests ordered late last year DID confirm the presence of a "male in the house during the kidnapping phase" (i.e. that "this IS a DNA case), why would Burke's case still be headed for trial? By airing its documentary on Burke, was CBS deliberatly setting a trap for John? Would a judge allow either side to hold on to dispositive evidence that came out after the lawsuit was filed? CC..if you're out there, feel free to chime in.
The degraded DNA was all they had at first. But a few years later they found more complete samples using more advanced "touch DNA" methods. These samples have come under scrutiny of late, due to findings that the touch DNA might be from more than one person.
In any case, unidentified DNA WAS found and it came from somewhere.
Hi Mike..In case I wasn't clear in my previous post. I wasn't suggesting an intruder killed JB. If it is possible to transfer DNA from an unfinished water bottle(and I don't know if it is), might John have done that? I don't recall reading that JB's minister or Dr. Beuf were tested. In addition, does the BPD keep a database of their own officers DNA? Of course, I don't believe any of these men were involved, but could they be the source of the DNA?
In other words, could JR have "planted" DNA from individuals he thought would never be tested?
I realized this might sound like a "far-out" theory, but who knows what a desperate killer might try? Just a thought.
If John had planted someone else's DNA, he'd have done a better job of it. It took some very sophisticated methods to tease out any of the DNA evidence, none of it was obvious or easy to identify.
The bottom line is that this sort of DNA is easily transferred from secondary or even tertiary sources, as I explain in the appendix of the second edition of my book. In all likelihood it's from a totally innocent source. But the challenge posed in the blog post above is to consider how a case could be made if a source for any of the DNA is ever found.
CC: If we lived in a world where assertions could be tried in a court of law, the assertion being "there was no intruder in the Ramsey's house the night JonBenet was murdered", would you prosecute the affirmative, defend the negative, or refuse to take the case?
I'm sorry, Mike. Apparently I've lived in the real legal world too long. . .I've tried, but I just can't wrap my head around framing any sort of argument based on an assertion. :(
"In a shared home, there is always the possibility of transferred fibers from one individual to another. However, they felt the amount of fiber on the duct tape was a direct transfer and not an indirect one."
I have presented this evidence before. Doc will not accept it because it does not fit his theory. This evidence needs to be explained by the JDIs. Either Patsy handled the duct tape or someone tried to frame her. Which is it?
No. Doc will not accept it because it's nonsense. Either the piece of tape was on a roll or was removed from the back of a painting or the back of an American Girl doll, take your choice, but in any case the sticky side was in contact with another surface before it was placed on JBR's mouth. Are you seriously suggesting that in the few miliseconds it was free from its original surface before being placed on her mouth it magically glommed onto an "amount of fiber" in midair? Surely not.
Rather, JBR was in close physical contact with her mother throughout the evening at the Whites', and while hugging or being hugged, dressing or being undressed, got fibers from Patsy's jacket on her face, which were transferred to the tape while it was on her mouth.
Who said anything about mid air. The technicians claimed it was a direct transfer, meaning the duct tape at some point made contact with the red blazer. (At least I think that's what they meant)
All I am saying is that because both JR's and PR's clothing fibers were found, on, in, at, near JBR's body, and technicians claiming it was a direct transfer in the case of the duct tape, can we assume that both parents were present for the cleaning up, staging, covering up of the body?
If its all indirect, then we can say that JR's fibers found in her crotch area were due to him simply living in the house with her as you are claiming PR's were. Difference there is that you have lab technicians saying PR's fibers were a direct transfer.
I don't believe there's a way techs can tell if fiber evidence is direct or secondar. How would that be possible, other than one saying, "Gee, Ralph, there's a lot of this red stuff here, must be a direct transfer"? It seems to me volume would have more to do with the density of the fabric weave and its propensity to shed rather than with method of transfer.
So no, E, I won't make the assumption that both parents were there when the tape was applied. I will stipulate that Patsy had more physical contact with her daughter sometime over the course of that evening, but that's as far as I can go.
Kolar says lab technicians conducted experiments using the same brand of duct tape to lift fibers from the blanket. He gives the impression that these experiments helped technicians reach the conclusion that the fibers on the tape (found on JBR) likely came from direct contact.
Obviously, before technicians could conduct these experiments using the same brand of duct tape, the brand had to be determined and similar tape obtained. Also, the search warrant lists the white blanket, but there is no separate line item cataloging fibers collected from the blanket and taken into evidence. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that the blanket was bagged and tagged at the scene, and the duct tape experiments were conducted later in the lab.
If this was the case, the blanket was recovered from the WC floor, placed into a bag, transported to another location and then removed from the bag (maybe more than once if the initial collection of forensic evidence was done before the duct tape experiment.) All of this would certainly disturb fibers on the blanket, would it not? How then, is it possible to accurately compare the amount of fibers lifted from the blanket after it had been handled and moved, to the amount of fibers found on the tape which was placed on the blanket before the blanket had been disturbed (or at least disturbed to a such a degree?) Before anyone says it, I know I am not a forensic expert. It just makes sense to me that less fiber evidence would exist on an item after it's been moved from it's original location.
On another note, don't forget PR was wearing her jacket that day while in the company of the friends she called to the house that morning. One of those friends being FW, who did go down to the WC and handle the tape.
Listen, I don't know which way to go for the fibres and it has little effect on my theory anyway.
But, to me (the simpleton that I am), I think it is more logical that the tape brushed Patsy's jumper rather than secondary contact from fibres off JonBenet's face. I think John did all the staging of the body, but maybe Patsy got the tape and handed it to him.
But to be honest it's just one more thing we will never know and everyone will speculate on different levels.
Small, personal, no doubt inappropriate aside: Mike, please tell me you and yours are getting the hell off that island tomorrow, latest? I'm in FL (native - we ride 'em out, it's a point of pride), and it ain't lookin' good. Take good care, this looks to be a bad one.
I'm no Chicken Little, and I've been through many hurricanes, but 185 mph winds...that was way beyond the pale. I've moved well inland, and it's looking more manageable today. 75-100 early Monday morning.
Please take care everyone and take no chances. You too CC!
Frankly, I'm astonished that after all the many hurricanes to hit Florida they don't have a better plan for dealing with them. Mass evacuation is not the answer. There are too many people and not enough fuel. I have a horrible feeling that when it hits there will still be lines of traffic on the highways.
Seems to me the answer is to build as many shelters as possible -- out of reinforced concrete. During WW II the Germans built bunkers so tough they can never be demolished by anything short of an atomic bomb. That should have been the priority: enough secure shelters for just about everyone, stocked with loads of food, water, porta-potties and back issues of Playboy.
Ha Doc. What they were seeing down in and around the Florida Keys were big pick up trucks filling their tanks with gas, plus two barrels or so, holding up the lines of people just wanting a full tank to be able to get out of there. So very selfish.
That sounds like an apocryphal urban legend. Much more common was what I saw any number of times while driving away from the southeast coast to the center of the state: People pulled over and siphoning gas into the tanks of hapless motorists stranded on the side of the road without fuel.
Big mistake to let your dislike of me color your perception of the entire population of a state that's learned from hard experience to pull together in times of natural disaster.
Both parents working together to cover up fits my theory, in that, they'd only work together to cover for BR. They'd never cover for each other. So if fiber evidence points to them both being there in the basement with the body, it supports my BDI scenario. IMHO, of course.
CC, Mike and anyone in Irma's path. Stay safe! Keeping you in my prayers.
Hotels are booked everywhere. I had one just outside of Knoxville, but looks like storm could actually be worse there, with mud slides and what not. With track continuing to inch to the west, I've decided to wait until Sunday morning to re-evaluate. If I evacuate, I'm heading straight up I-95, all the way into Virginia if necessary.
Normally Beaufort County authorities are fast on the trigger to evacuate, but this hurricane is driving the whole state of Florida into the hotels those of us in the low country scamper to. Crowded roads and getting gas is more of a nightmare than ever. I actually feel safer, for the present moment, staying where I am.
Ooops...SC gov just came on TV.....looks like still no official evacuation orders yet....highways too crowded with Floridians and Georgians.
"Too much, in fact." What is "too much" physical contact between a mother and her child? Isn't that entirely subjective? So, is Patsy having "too much physical contact" with JonBenet an opinion, or a fact, Hercule? If it's the latter, provide your evidence, please.
Your prior post alleged that Patsy was "obsessively close" to JBR - her murder was not mentioned. MsD responded appropriately, and you're up to your old tricks again, trying to manipulate someone, anyone, into asking for your theory of the murder so you can expound. Here it comes: The Poopy Pants Theory, redux.
I'll save you the trouble. Folks, Herc believes JBR pooped her pants and her mother struck her a mortal blow and executed a cover-up because of some mythical perfect psychological storm.
He has no facts, no evidence, no mental health professiinal's contemporaneous diagnosis, no testimony from close friends or family upon which to base this. It is because he says so.
It's been suggested here before that Burke was interfering with JB, not sexually molesting her, and that it could have precipitated events that spiraled out of control - tying up, a too-tight cord, then a head blow to silent her. If that is the case, then there would have been some evidence of Burke in the crotch area. Knowing that she was wiped off and her panties changed, what we have instead is a fiber from John's expensive black shirt - no evidence of Patsy there, or Burke.
Your question above Doc - if a complete profile of the male DNA co mingled with JB's is ever identified a case could only be brought if that male could be tied to the vicinity of the crime that night - opportunity - an ability to commit the crime - means - and a reason to do so -motive.
"Knowing that she was wiped off and her panties changed, what we have instead is a fiber from John's expensive black shirt - no evidence of Patsy there, or Burke."
That is incorrect. There were no black fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's panties. That was a desperate attempt by Bruce Levin and Mike Kane to illicit a reaction from John Ramsey with the hope that something suspicious or incriminating would be expressed. In fact, this false claim was not mentioned until August of 2000 and since then has not been discussed.
Not quite. Lin Wood shut down Kane's line of questioning when he insisted they produce a corroborative lab report. The meeting was held in Atlanta, and Kane and Levin had not brought it. They offered to send Wood a copy upon their return, and you have no earthly idea if that was done, as that was the last time John was interviewed by LE.
The DNA sample in the underwear was the strongest DNA sample discovered, and, even so, it was a partial profile. At the time that sample was submitted to CODIS, it only exhibited 9 ½-10 markers, the minimum number of markers required for CODIS. However, even if a complete DNA profile were developed, the issue is that it is a mixed profile.
For sake of discussion I’ll set aside the experts’ opinions from last fall which indicated the sample might represent more than one person in addition to JonBenét. Even if the DNA were determined to represent one person, it is part of a mixture of DNA – mixed with JonBenét’s DNA. According to DNA expert Dan Krane, DNA mixtures cannot be assigned a reliable statistical weight. If an expert cannot assign a statistical weight (such as 1 in 10,000,000 the DNA belongs to anyone else), it cannot be used at trial. Its value would only be in evaluating a lead.
That's interesting to know Anonymous. If this was already known - "mixtures cannot be assigned a reliable statistical weight" then why were they going to retest it? Would the lead even be a viable one?
My guess is that they’d like to know if new sensitive testing would pick up any of the Rs’ DNA in other incriminating locations. Henry Lee thought the interior of the ligature knot should be tested, e.g.
Garnett does not think this is a DNA case, but they are retesting evidence in other cases, so perhaps he’s just covering his bases by testing some of the items from the R case.
I’ve read Garnett’s comments regarding DNA in the Ramsey case. To date, there’s been no information pertaining to any results. If, in a wild case scenario, the lab did find JR’s DNA in the ligature knot, e.g., a result would need to be double checked to produce a secondary confirmation. This could take months and months. If there’s no information by the summer or fall of next year, it’d be an indicator the testing has not provided results to contribute to the case.
Anonymous is confused. The mixed DNA found in the bloodstain was the first one they found and the only one they had for a few years. They were indeed able to isolate the unidentified markers and that sample was in fact accepted in the CODIS database, though a match has never been found.
Two other samples were found when Lacy was DA and they were at first thought to be unmixed, although now it seems they in fact are a mixture from at least two sources. I'm not sure if those samples were ever resolved, but apparently there was enough of a similarity with the earlier sample to convince Lacy that this HAD to be from her attacker.
But those two mixed samples aren't needed to identify the person of interest as far as Lacy is concerned, because she firmly believes that the earlier sample, from the bloodstain, is that of the killer. And THAT sample HAS been resolved and is sitting in CODIS waiting for a match.
Oh and in the event John's DNA is found that would have no bearing on the case as he was obviously in close contact with his daughter on many (innocent) occasions, including when he carried her body up the stairs. Actually, I have a feeling his DNA must have been found for that very reason. No matter.
Apologies if I was unclear, but I do know there were two samples from the underwear tested. Only the second sample was uploaded into CODIS. In the article which appeared in 9News and the Daily Camera, the second sample uploaded into CODIS is called Unknown Male 1 profile. Here’s an excerpt from the 9News and Daily Camera article -
"People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth," said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.
In the ensuing years, as the "kits" used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.
"You know," Danielson said, "looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person."
Those waiting for nearly 13 years for a match in the CODIS database to the Unknown Male 1 profile could wait forever for something that is never going to happen, Danielson said.
One possible answer to the question of why a match has never occurred is that the profile is a composite containing genetic material from multiple people.
I agree though, DocG. If they did find JR’s DNA somewhere incriminating, I’ve no idea whether it would mean anything.
"He has no facts, no evidence, no mental health professiinal's contemporaneous diagnosis, no testimony from close friends or family upon which to base this. It is because he says so."
I never claimed that I had the liberty or authority to discuss all the facts and evidence. I simply cannot share certain facts about this case. I am legally bound not to disclose that knowledge. What I have tried to do is give you all enough dots to connect so that you can know the truth. Unfortunately, the truth is not what you want because it is not spectacular enough. It is more disturbing to accept that Patsy could commit such a crime. John being the killer is really no less disturbing, but in your eyes it makes more sense for him to be the villain based on a limited number of facts. Doc's theory is mostly a lot of inferences because he is not privy to the information I have seen. Believe what you like. I have tried to give you the truth but you continue to refuse it.
I shall indeed believe what I like, and I believe as I always have, that you're a charlatan and a poseur. I'm still laughing at some of your psych-babble gaffes from two years ago.
I guess we can't connect the dots then Hercule. I honestly don't think you have said anything that hasn't been already written by Steve Thomas. If you would like us to understand what you understand to be true then the hints aren't working. I don't mean to be hostile toward you but if you have something, spill it.
He doesn't know anything that the rest of us don't know, Castor. Hercule has been around for years and we're STILL waiting for him to produce the goods. He has a theory, based on nothing more than the available evidence - as the rest of us do - nothing more. So, there's nothing to "spill".....he just wants you to believe there is, as it makes his dubious theory sound more credible.
"Unfortunately, the truth is not what you want because it is not spectacular enough. It is more disturbing to accept that Patsy could commit such a crime."
Wrong. Your arbitrary assumptions are misplaced once more, Hercule. The most disturbing scenario (as far as I'm concerned, and I think I can safely speak for a few others here) is that John chronically, sexually abused his daughter and murdered her in cold blood solely to avoid being found out, then allowed anyone/everyone in his family to be a convenient scapegoat.
"John being the killer is really no less disturbing, but in your eyes it makes more sense for him to be the villain based on a limited number of facts."
It sure does, because his "limited number of facts" are a damn sight more than what you've produced: a limited number of assumptions based on what psychological conditions you *think* Patsy was suffering from.
"Doc's theory is mostly a lot of inferences because he is not privy to the information I have seen"
So show us this information then! You're obviously here for a reason - you want to convince us Patsy is guilty, so why play games? You've been telling us for years you are in possession of knowledge none of us are privy to, yet your posts tell us otherwise. If you're "legally bound" to stay quiet, why are you even here at all? Is it because it makes you feel superior to tell us you know what nobody else knows? I'm really trying to understand here....forgive my cynicism, but when someone claims to be in possession of the truth, but fail to produce it at every opportunity, it usually means they're spinning a yarn.
I think you are correct Ms D. The crime is cold-blooded. It isn't a rage killing, or a spontaneous accident. The blow to the head was strong enough to crack her skull and the strangulation took strength, message received, the intention was to kill. Who in the family of three would have had the cold blooded guts to do that - the son, the mother, or the father and I think we know the answer. My opinion, of course.
"What if a match to that mysterious male DNA is ever found? It's got to match someone. Could a case be made against that individual?"
Of course the answer is; it depends. Did the person have opportunity, or does an air-tight alibi put them five states away staying with family for Christmas? Since DA Lacy "ruled out" John and Patsy based on DNA findings, we have to assume that all the guests in the house the day before, and all the people attending the evening Christmas Party were tested and "ruled out". Of course by now we have to assume.
What if a match is found that belongs to somebody who, as I said earlier, had an airtight alibi? Would that close the book on the case? Lin Wood would say so, since he's champion number one of the "this is a DNA case" theory.
The Grand Jury saw fit to recommend an indictment of John and Patsy without DNA evidence. What changed to "make this a DNA case" after Hunter decided not to prosecute? I don't buy the fact that 'too much time has gone by' or that 'too many witnesses are gone or have forgotten' as necessitating one crucial peice of physical evidence to justfy spending the money to try this case based on what's in the record. How many attorney's are as familiar with Doc's book as CC is?
Lin Wood must be chomping on the bit to leak the results of the December tests. If a person with an alibi was identified, he could just admit he was wrong and that the "intruder" will never be discovered. If the tests were once again "inconclusive", his recommendation will be to continue the search for an "intruder" since this, afterall, " a DNA case". I hate that bastard.
I'm just catching up on this blog and read through the above comments fairly quickly. It seems like there is a lot of discussion about the fibers found on the duct tape and the possibility that they came from Patsy. But everyone seems to be skipping past the fact that John's shirt fibers were found in JBR's crotch area. Bravo to Ms. D for her comment:
"However, John's shirt fibres being found in JB's genital region rings alarm bells for me because it is such an intimate area, innocent transfer is surely less likely to be found in such a region? Especially as we know John never assisted JB with her toileting."
While many commenters here are arguing about how Patsy's fibers got on the duct tape, what possible explanations are there for John's shirt fibers found in JB's underwear?? Innocent transfer? I think not.
Thank you Ms. D and CC for continually supporting Doc's JDI theory. I'm with you two.
I have a left brain/right brain response to John's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear. The left brain lawyer thinks we have to dismiss all trace evidence in a shared home, while the intuitive right brain woman is convinced there's no innocent explanation for Daddy's no doubt dry-clean-only Israeli wool shirt fibers being found where they were.
Thanks, Brooke, nice to see you again! Yes, CC, I agree - Logically, I'm aware that fibre transference is inevitable in a shared home and because of that, such evidence couldn't be used in court. However, it sure seems mighty coincidental that JB's vagina was violated the night of her murder, and it was Daddy's own, very distinctive, Israeli shirt fibres that were recovered from an area Daddy had no business being in. I can think of several satisfactory (to my mind, at least) reasons for Patsy's jacket fibres being found on the duct tape, all of which have been discussed here.....John's fibres being explained away so easily proves a little more difficult when one considers that they were located in a region of the victim's body where a brutal, vaginal assault had occurred.
I knew I had read Zed's comment earlier 9/8 regarding Burke hitting JB over the head and then being put to bed - wanted to address your theory - parents telling him she would be fine,put back to bed, etc. Your theory varies from EG's who believes Burke did everything, then went back to bed. This theory just cannot work. It calls for an introduction and further complication of two additional people involved in a coverup which further makes the mystery of what happened to JB more difficult to solve. Who did what. When. But on a more realistic fundamental level, what kind of kid could spend the rest of his life without putting the pieces together that just possibly a head blow he delivered to his sister caused her death? Surely we can't buy that he is that much of a dope that he couldn't put that together for himself during the last 20 years. Or he was in some kind of a fugue state where he doesn't remember what he did and can somehow buy his father's theory that an intruder came in the night and meant to harm his sister. Because to this day he believes, and tells Dr. Phil a pedophile from the pageant circuit must have killed his sister. Wouldn't he be able to figure out he killed his sister, or at the very least recovered his memory? It's just too far fetched to think that Burke had anything to do with it. You have stated this more succinctly than I have Doc, but it's a fantasy to try and explain how Burke could have been involved with anything more than being up a little late, touching a bowl of pineapple, or lying in bed the next morning frightened by his mother's frantic calls for his sister and running into his room. As for Dr. Spitz's comment "the boy did it," this man is no stranger to controversial and sensational theories in high profile cases. He's over the hill.
She was wearing the urine stained clothing when found - underpants and longjohns. The wiping down would possibly be for other nefarious purposes, to remove trace evidence of a possible sexual assault.
Castor Inq posted September 10 around 10 a.m.: Ha Doc. What they were seeing down in and around the Florida Keys were big pick up trucks filling their tanks with gas, plus two barrels or so, holding up the lines of people just wanting a full tank to be able to get out of there. So very selfish.
CC posted on September 10, 2017 at 2:47 PM
That sounds like an apocryphal urban legend. Much more common was what I saw any number of times while driving away from the southeast coast to the center of the state: People pulled over and siphoning gas into the tanks of hapless motorists stranded on the side of the road without fuel.
Big mistake to let your dislike of me color your perception of the entire population of a state that's learned from hard experience to pull together in times of natural disaster.
Delete
CCSeptember 10, 2017 at 3:12 PM
. . .no need to look up apocryphal urban legend, Castor. Roughly translated means bullshit.
I will not waste my or anyone else's time trying to prove the merit of my credentials. No matter what I say, you will not believe it.
CC, I have never challenged your credentials. I have no doubt you are well versed in the system of law. I am sure your father taught you well (wink). His law firm was very respectable. But do not pretend that you have not made a lot of assumptions in this case. Can you prove there were fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's panties? No, you cannot. Can you prove that John was an incestuous child molester, pedophile, or murderous psychopath? Again, no.
For the record, the "Steve Thomas Theory" should not be credited to him. The theory was relayed to him from the FBI and specifically born from Robert Ressler. Agent Ressler shared his theory in a closed meeting that I attended by invitation. As I have said before, I was convinced that John Ramsey was the killer until I witnessed Agent Ressler's excellent, if not shocking, presentation. Information that he shared was not to be released outside that room with the fear that it might jeopardize the case in some way. Now that Patsy is deceased, I have often wondered: What harm would it do for the rest of the facts to be released? Regardless, I will keep my oath. It is not for me to decide nor is it my responsibility. I can, however, rest well knowing that if there is a Hell, Patsy Ramsey is there burning in it.
"I will not waste my or anyone else's time trying to prove the merit of my credentials. No matter what I say, you will not believe it."
Ahhh.....I was waiting for you to play that card. It sounds kind of like you're trying to shift the burden of proof, which is usually what happens when someone is pushed to provide evidence for a claim they know is false. Why don't you just try us? Listing your credentials might be a start.....
"CC, I have never challenged your credentials. I have no doubt you are well versed in the system of law. I am sure your father taught you well (wink)."
Your argument has become so weak that you're now resorting to using obvious logical fallacies (genetic fallacy in this case, but most of your arguments are littered with them) in order to discredit your opponent's argument? Keep em coming.....you and Zed should get together!
"Now that Patsy is deceased, I have often wondered: What harm would it do for the rest of the facts to be released? Regardless, I will keep my oath."
Of course you will. Yet, somehow, that hasn't stopped you from telling everyone who'll listen about your PDI theory.....by keeping your oath, I would imagine that would mean not talking about what you learned, period? It seems you're only interested in "keeping your oath" when pressed for evidence.....funny, that.
Why bring me into it Ms D? I do no such thing, despite you continually bringing that up. Please name your BIGGEST issue with my theory and I'll reply ONCE AGAIN with my response. Your merry-go-round of verbal diarrhoea is getting quite old, but I am happy to play this game one more time.
Ressler said the evidence, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and ``an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.''
He believes, for instance, that the child was garroted to divert police from what he believes is the true cause of her death: a blow to the head. The writing of the note, he said, was part of the overall effort to send police astray.
If police had not fallen for the ploy, he said bluntly, the case would now be solved. ``They should have immediately started the investigation at another level,'' he said.
You challenged my credentials from the jump, til it became abundantly clear you were making a fool of yourself.
Ressler and his cohorts had no need to muck about with some (alleged) clinical psychologist with a peace lily and a comfy leather chair, which is what you most lately claimed to be. They were on the then-cutting edge of the FBI's newest program, and had access to the best and the brightest - and that ain't you. Your psychobabble is off the mark, and your pontifications are dotted with grammatical and syntactic errors: Most recently "illicit" rather than elicit.
And for the record, my father was a land developer in Florida in the 50s and 60s, not a lawyer. Keep your smarmy winks to yourself, you presumptuous twit.
Hercule....Do you know if the GJ was privy to the information that you claim to have heard? If so, why did they not indict PR?
CC.....I have to agree with one side of your brain, ;) regarding the fiber evidence. For me, it's either all in or all out. If PR's fibers can be dismissed, then so should JR's.
It sounds as though Hercule is trying to give the impression that he was either one of the investigators or perhaps a member of the Grand Jury. I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Could be, I suppose.
But Herc, if the evidence against Patsy were so clear then why was she never indicted and brought to trial? If you are privy to "inside" evidence so would the DA's office and the BPD, no?
You can google interviews and articles in regards to Ressler and this case.
Never does Ressler say he believes Patsy was in on this alone. He always states John and Patsy. But I am prepared to give Hercule a chance, if he gives us something to chew on (which he has not). To be honest, it would not surprise me in the slightest if there was key evidence against one (or both) parents that only the GJ know of. Problem is they faced a stone, cold wall in the form of Alex Hunter. I still think this case would have progressed if it wasn't for that pesky (and irrelevant) DNA in 2008 that "apparently" exonerated all members of the Ramsey family.
At the end of the day, I do agree with Ressler that this was an accidental death (no premeditation) and both parents were involved on the cover up.
That was my questions as well to Hercule. If they had ironclad evidence against her and it was solid, why didn't they indict her alone and name JR as the accessory to the murder/accident--whichever it was.
Zed, I agree with you 100%. However, I guess the DNA couldn't be ignored. It just tipped the scale enough, as did the RN, to provide that shadow of a doubt.
True EG, Hercule has stood fast all along that it was Patsy and Patsy alone who is responsible for the accidental headblow and coverup but according to the Grand Jury JR was indicted along with Patsy, so if Hercule has inside information that is "shocking" what is it.
Ya’ know, until visiting here sporadically, I’ve always believed that it was an accident which was covered up. You’ve Henry Lee and Ressler pointing in that direction. But if one looks at the number of movie quotes ‘spontaneously’ created in the RN, the copying of dialog from the book Mind Hunter, staging similarities to the killing of Shari Faye Smith, it gives one pause to at least consider premeditation. Of course, CC has made some strong arguments about this. Also, Douglas tells us about some sickos’ perversion with Barbie dolls. how they are sometimes first turned on by Barbie Dolls. A pink Barbie nightdress was placed close to JonBenet's body. Some have postulated it was to give ‘comfort,’ but there’s also the thought that it was planted to reinforce the idea she was the victim of a perverted intruder. So here’s what is in JR’s interview: 6 LOU SMIT: And then we have a 7 Barbie or a nightgown. There is just 8 suggestions that are made to that, and 9 what's your opinion of that, and what's 10 your impression? 11 JOHN RAMSEY: God, I can only 12 imagine it. That that was something very 13 perverted.
Anonymous, you mentioned Mind Hunter and Shari Faye Smith. If John and/or Patsy used any of these as "drafts" (which is definitely possible but who knows), to me that works equally as well as a spontaneous act.
Patsy: "Shit John, we are staging an intrusion/kidnapping, how the hell do we do this...we have no idea what we are doing!!"
John: "Hmm, the book Mind Hunter has given me a few ideas. And who was that teenager that was kidnapped in her driveway...Shari I think her name was. We can copy some stuff from that".
None of the items you mentioned are evidence of premeditation. Even the Barbie dress. They are only talking points which give John being involved more credence.
Sure, there is no absolute proof of premeditation. It's all circumstantial.
But it's not just material from Mind Hunter. The similarities to the Leopold and Loeb ransom note are also striking. If you don't recall the Leopold and Loeb kidnapping, it targeted Charlevoix's most prominent citizen, Albert Loeb. How would JR know about it? Oh yeah, his father had a vacation home there. JR and his new wife even married in the Castle Farms property, once owned by executive Albert Loeb. Will coincidences never cease.
Brilliant, no? In the middle of the night recalling the Leopold and Loeb ransom note, the many movie quotes, and picking up staging ideas from crimes detailed in Mind Hunter. Just sayin', I don't find it easy to totally dismiss the idea of premeditation, unless one is absolutely convinced from the pineapple nexus it was BSI.
Zed, what is "simple" about a theory involving a homicidal, nine year old, and his equally homicidal parents? What is "simple" about a scenario that involves a child mortally wounding his little sister, and his parents deciding - with intent - to then strangle the life out of this child they loved, when there was an opportunity to perhaps save her instead? What is "simple" about these two, loving, protective parents deciding to - presumably on a whim - vaginally assault the child they loved whilst she lay on a cold, hard, concrete floor when it is a failed abduction they are staging? I guess what I'm asking you is, how can you not see that a murder involving three, separate killers, along with two, separate crimes (one crime involving the first perp occurring earlier in the evening, the later crime involving the other two perps occurring an hour or more later), a phony kidnapping AND an unnecessary sexual assault (when a pedophile intruder was never once even hinted at in the ransom note), a seriously deranged child who has managed to deceive authorities for decades, is anything *but* simple? If your theory is to be believed, it is unprecedented in it's complexity! Can you cite any other case even remotely similar? Maintain your BSI/RFI ("Burke Started It/Ramsey's Finished It") stance, by all means, but you can't honestly continue to claim that it is the simplest, most logical scenario, when - if nothing else - just the sheer number of people involved in this theory, alone, make it one of the most convoluted theories that has been presented.
Two, separate crimes happening hours apart by three perpetrators, two of whom are staging two, completely different crime scenes - one being compatible with the ransom note, the other undermining everything contained within it - is NOT simple, Zed, no matter which way you spin it.
That is, MsD, what turned me from suspecting Burke's involvement, to ruling it out. Of course we know Burke didn't write the note. So that then leads to a cover-up scenario - for another, for Burke (in the BDI scenario). And when it's not clear who wrote the note and who did the strangulation, we must then assign one of those duties to another, making the whole theory unnecessarily complicated. Opposite of simple. And where was Burke during the staging? Put back to bed and fast asleep? In denial for 20 years that maybe his head blow had something to do with her death? So much so that in his denial state he can say to Dr. Phil that "a pedophile from the pageant circuit" killed his sister. Or he's a practiced liar. Certainly not attacking you Zed, just the theory. Once you consider the possibility that it was one person and one alone, and that possibility was John even the note will resemble his strained attempts to straighten up his backward slant handwriting and directorial business-like style. I believe also that John liked the cat and mouse games he played with the investigators by offering that he would not hand write a ransom note, in fact he wouldn't have written a note at all he says.
Well I diagree completely, just like thousands of others around the world do. I think it is the most simple and logical theory. I will break down the elements which make it simple a bit later on after I have some breakfast.
Surely you're not referring to your post on Sep 12 at 9:31? All you did was refute premeditation on John's part, you never went through one, single, element of what makes BDI "simple", which is what you said you were going to do. You never even attempted to. A BDI making a mighty bold claim, and failing to follow through yet again. This is why no one takes any of you seriously.
I believe the static cling idea came from Linda Hoffman Pugh, who said the blanket was left in the dryer. However, she was last at the Ramseys' on December 23rd.
PR said in her 1997 BPD interview that the blanket was on JBR's bed the night of December 25th. In her 1998 interview, she said that she couldn't say for sure if it was on the bed, but conceded that it probably was.
last comment for a while, don't mean to hover here. I think there was some measure of glee on John's part when Patsy was called in repeatedly to submit a handwriting sample, was it five times? Or more? And he was not. He could play the role in their defense of being the supportive one, as long as the spotlight was not directly on him.
In response to Ms D...below I will explain what makes “Burke Started It” (BSI) or RDI (Burke/John/Patsy) an extremely simple theory and why it ensures all the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together snugly.
Let’s start with premeditated attack vs “something went horribly wrong that night”.
1. If it was premeditated there would not have been a headblow. Yes, I have read your arguments against this, but John is not a mind reader. He could not have known that striking someone with that force would not leave blood everywhere (including all over himself). Blood he would have had to completely hide if JDI theory was correct. 2. If it was premeditated he would not have used materials from the house. I am referring to the materials that were used in the staging and, of course, the RN. Again, I have heard your arguments against this also, but John would not have taken the risk of using household items even if he planned to get rid of it all. 3. If it was premeditated he would not have performed this on the night he did. Late night after a big Xmas day, Burke still awake wanting to play with toys, Patsy most likely thinking what she had to do to prepare for their early morning flight. No, the timing indicates this was not premeditated. 4. If it was premeditated he would not have let Patsy call police. Seriously, he would not spend all night executing his plan and then have a shower whilst Patsy reads the note. He would have made sure 100% he was with Patsy when she found it. Plus Patsy clearly says that John said “ok” or “told her” to ring 911. There was no magical gas lighting going on here, although I give you credit for a good imagination.
Conclusion = the simplest theory to accept, is that this was NOT premeditated.
I might just leave this post for now without going into other areas. I can certainly address other areas later on BSI/RDI is the simplest theory. But it gives people a chance to comment on premeditation...which, I know, we have discussed many times before.
Zed, making a case against premeditation does absolutely nothing to advance your own BDI/RFI argument, you realize this, don't you? You didn't attempt to address any of my points with any kind of a convincing rebuttal, you chose - in typical BDI fashion - to argue against the JDI theory instead, thus presenting a false dichotomy (yet another logical fallacy in your ever growing list), ie: the only two, viable, options are BDI or JDI (with premeditation), thus ruling out premeditation on John's part (which you failed to do, and would have proved nothing if you did) somehow proves Burke did it, if we were to use your own warped idea of "logic". It doesn't work that way.
Why do you always insist on resorting to personal attacks? It only makes you look foolish, not the person you're attacking. Why do you want to make yourself look stupid? You've accused me of being drunk on a few occasions.....perhaps you're projecting? Stop being such a petulant child and learn how to argue like an adult.
I'll make a deal with you: I'll stop using such terms if you stop resorting to using fallacies in every one of your arguments. Sound reasonable to you?
Two, separate crimes happening hours apart by three perpetrators, two of whom are staging two, completely different crime scenes - one being compatible with the ransom note, the other undermining everything contained within it - is NOT simple, Zed, no matter which way you spin it.
My reply:
What are you on about? Two crimes? Burke lashed out at his sister like kids do everyday. He just happened to be carrying a maglite at the time. That can hardly be classified as a crime.
And again, what are you talking about? Staging two different crime scenes is not a fact, just a theory you have which I think is rubbish. Both parents were staging for the exact same outcome. The ransom note does not undermine anything. Seriously I am sick of repeating myself. Go down to your local and have a XXXX Gold...it will do you good.
"Staging two different crime scenes is not a fact, just a theory you have which I think is rubbish."
Actually, it is a fact, whether you believe it is or not. Both a kidnapping AND a sexual assault were staged.....thus, two, different crime scenes were staged - each one of them undermining the other. Why would that be if both parents were involved in the cover up?
The ransom note offered a financial motive, nothing more. This was the first staged scene: a kidnapping for ransom, no more, no less. Leaving JB's sexually violated body in the basement of their home cancels out the abduction scenario, and points to the motive being sexual instead: attack by a pedophile intruder, staged crime scene #2.
Why weren't the two people staging this crime scene even remotely on the same page as each other? Or, if they were, and interweaving two motives together was all part of their devious plan from the start, what logical reason could they have had for deciding to add a sexual twist to the staging when such an element would be SURE to direct the investigation towards the male occupants of the house.....doesn't that go against the entire premise for the cover up to begin with?
When have I ever given you a "fallacious" reply? Facetious, maybe! My arguments may be completely off the mark, but I don't believe they're built on fallacies.
As you wish - don't respond to me anymore, but don't expect Doc, CC, Mike or HKH not to challenge your arguments (or lack thereof), because the problem actually isn't with my relentless persistence, it's with your refusal to support your own argument with facts and logic, always choosing to attack your opponent instead. People are always going to challenge you on this, you won't solve the issue simply by putting me on your "Foe" list. But, best wishes to you, Mr Z, hope you can finally provide us with something substantial one day, because I'd really love you to convince me.
I am still awaiting your answer regarding the GJ and the evidence against PR. As you know, I am in the BDI camp with both PR and JR covering up, and writing the RN.
My second theory, however, would be that PR did it and acted alone. Therefore, am curious as to what evidence you were given and whether or not the GJ was privy to it as well. If so, surely they would have indicted PR alone? If not, why not, given the evidence, as you claim would prove her guilt?
Let's face it. Each group has their own opinions and "facts" as to why their theory is the one that's right.
The JDI's claim to cover ongoing sexual abuse The PDI's claim was rage over bedwetting The BDI's claim sibling rivalry, jealousy.
All good reasons and all substantiated by compelling statistics to back each motive.
As to premeditation, I must admit, the writing of the lengthy RN with all of the movie quotes does make me wonder whether someone could come up with that in moments of chaos and panic. However, if they had hours in which to write it, without worry of being discovered, I guess they could.
Also, if the head blow came first, it's indicative of an act of rage which isn't premeditated but more of a reaction to something.
I don't know, but as you can see I go back and forth and up and down with this case. As we all do, I suppose.
Getting back to you, Hercules, if it was PR and JR was aware of this evidence against her which sealed her guilt, would he have covered for her? Would he have allowed her to continue raising Burke, knowing that in a fit of rage, she killed his daughter? Or are you saying that JR wasn't aware of the evidence they had against PR?
Hercule is privy to secret information proving Patsy's guilt, but refuses to share it with the rest of us. Don aka Don H proclaimed, at the top of his lungs, that he has "40 links" that prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt ("it is a FACT") that Burke Ramsey clobbered his sister over the head. Well, Don never came back to post his links (what a shocker), and Hercule has claimed that whilst he *can* prove it, no one would believe him, so he's opting *not* to do so, which is most convenient.....I see a pattern here, do you? Those who shout the loudest suddenly become very quiet when evidence of their claims is demanded. The fact is, if they indeed COULD prove their theory, they WOULD do so in a heartbeat.....that is precisely why they're here, after all - to convince us! Anyone promising to be in possession of indisputable evidence, but can't/won't/don't produce it.....I say "bullshit". I'm absolutely convinced of John's guilt, but I sure as hell can't prove it, and don't claim to be able to.
If John Ramsey and ONLY John Ramsey was involved in the murder, writing of the RN and staging then that would mean Patsy and Burke were learning the developments of the case as they unfolded in front of them. So, Patsy wakes up, reads the note and realizes that her daughter has been kidnapped. She would be hysterical, which is why she ignores the warnings of the note and calls 911 because her one and only goal was to GET HER DAUGHTER BACK! Correct? That would be the only goal of a mother whose daughter was just taken from her.
Ok, so the cops arrive and are awaiting a phone call from the kidnappers. According to all the JDI theories on here, John Ramsey wouldn’t want to draw any attention the phone call from the kidnappers because there weren’t any kidnappers which meant there was never going to be a phone call. Unfortunately, that same logic wouldn’t apply for Patsy right? Patsy Ramsey’s one and only goal as I said above would be to what? GET HER DAUGHTER BACK! This brings me to my point…..IF her only goal was to bring her daughter back, then WHY wasn’t she more concerned with the phone call from the kidnappers? All she knows is that her daughter is missing and a RN…that’s it. The phone call from the kidnappers is all she would have, that would be her only hope as the police on scene were also awaiting that phone call. Yet, we have no witness accounts that Patsy was hounding the police or anybody about the lack of a phone call. She wasn’t hysterical of there not being a phone call nor was she hysterical trying to figure out who the kidnappers were.
Patsy’s behavior speaks to a person MOURNING her child, not of a person LOOKING for her child. At funerals friends are invited to provide comfort and what happens that morning? They invite friends over right after the 911 call. Her behavior isn’t of a Mom trying to find a child, it just isn’t on any level. And as we know Patsy being involved = JDI can’t be true
"She wasn’t hysterical of there not being a phone call nor was she hysterical trying to figure out who the kidnappers were."
How do you know she wasn't wondering who the kidnappers were, J? Were there any psychics present reading Patsy's mind? By all accounts, Patsy was hysterical the entire morning. She was vomiting and screaming - I'd call that hysterical, wouldn't you? How much farther into despair should she have descended before appearing sincere, J? And whose behaviour are you comparing Patsy's to - how many kidnappings have you attended? As far as her not being concerned about the call not coming in, we've been through this before with you, so you already know the answer.....the note said "we will call you TOMORROW between 8 - 10 a.m". When is "tomorrow"?
"Patsy’s behavior speaks to a person MOURNING her child, not of a person LOOKING for her child."
How much experience do you have with mothers of kidnapping victims? How are they *supposed* to act? When Patsy is overwrought, you accuse her of being a drama queen, when she's calm, you say it's an indicator pointing to her involvement.....everything Patsy says and does is suspect to you because you're already convinced of her guilt. As someone who doesn't believe she was involved, I see her behaviour as typical of that of a terrified mother - but perhaps I'm also guilty of confirmation bias.
"Let me add to the final paragraph. If Patsy was mourning her child then it means she was already dead which means she was involved one way or another."
You have to first prove your premise is true before you can draw any conclusions from it.
Yes, Ms. D, I have to agree. First of all we don't know exactly what Patsy was saying or doing while everyone was waiting for that phone call. I'm assuming someone reported that she didn't react appropriately when the deadline arrived, but what does that mean, exactly? Was this person right on top of her the whole time -- or maybe reading her mind? Was that person in a position to hear every word she uttered? For all we know maybe she did express concern, but without making a huge fuss. By all accounts she was a basket case -- who can say what's appropriate or inappropriate for someone in such an extreme state.
Also, as Ms. D notes, this is a typical "damned if she did, damned if she didn't situation." If she reacted strongly when the deadline arrived you'd say this was just part of her act. As I see it, someone putting on an act would be more likely to over-react. Reminds me of the re-dressing issue. A guilty person would be more likely to shower and change. And in this case a guilty person would be more likely to over-react when no phone call came in.
"the note said "we will call you TOMORROW between 8 - 10 a.m". When is "tomorrow"?"
UMMMMMM then why were the police waiting for a call on that day???????? Whoever wrote that note might have thought they were being clever, but nobody bought it. JDI's keep spinning the "call was coming the next day" narrative, but the authorities never bought it, therefore why would Patsy have????
Doc and Ms D...have you seen ANY piece of testimony from ANYBODY that says Patsy was badgering authorities about the phone call? Have you seen ANY testimony from the friends or from the police that said Patsy was badgering authorities for who S.B.T.C was? We have LA telling us she remembers Patsy being hysterical when the body came up. If Patsy was asking tons of questions or badgering people, we would know about it. What we do know is IMMEDIATELY AFTER hanging up on the 911 operator (very odd) she calls friends to come over. That's a FACT.
Ms D--no I am not a psychic and don't appreciate your constant condescending tone. You look at everything thru the JDI lens, so naturally your first instinct is to defend. I don't know if you are a parent, but if that was YOUR kid and you weren't involved, I can't imagine you would sit with friends, distraught and not be proactive in the search.
"UMMMMMM then why were the police waiting for a call on that day????????"
UMMMMMM, because they couldn't have known whether the "kidnappers" were talking about the 26th of the 27th?????? PROVE to me the author of the ransom note was talking about the morning of the 26th, J. The fact is, no one knows what day the author was referring to.
"What we do know is IMMEDIATELY AFTER hanging up on the 911 operator (very odd) she calls friends to come over. That's a FACT."
That she called friends over IS a fact, indeed. That this action somehow implies guilt is NOT a fact, however.
"I don't know if you are a parent, but if that was YOUR kid and you weren't involved, I can't imagine you would sit with friends, distraught and not be proactive in the search"
I am a parent, and I would most certainly sit - with my support network - in my house whilst the police did their job. What do you mean by "proactive"? Should Patsy have been running around the neighborhood searching for JB? There was a note - the note said she had been abducted - why would Patsy be out searching the streets for the kidnappers?! THAT is the job of the police, is it not? If days/weeks had have passed - only then would I expect her to be "proactive" in the search. It was only a matter of hours that JB had been missing before she was found, and Patsy was told to not leave the house, so come on now...be reasonable.
I'm sorry, but all of these wild speculations regarding Patsy's behaviour are exactly that, they are evidence of nothing. Stick to the facts, your psychoanalysis of Patsy will not solve this crime, it will actually drag everyone further down the rabbit hole.
As far as my condescending tone, I think you do a pretty good job of that yourself, let's be honest, shall we?
You will have to ask a hundred 911 operators how many of their callers have hung up on them before you can make the assertion that her actions were "very odd". I have called 000 (our Emergency number here in Aus) a couple of times in my life, and both times I have been in such distress, that after giving my address I ended the call and anxiously waited outside for them to arrive. What more could I do at that point? The operator told Patsy officers were on their way, what do you suggest she should have done? Asked her about the weather? And if Patsy HAD stayed on the line, wouldn't you then be telling us that an innocent person would have got straight off the phone and started searching for her daughter?! Can't you see that whatever Patsy does, you see it as suspicious?
Just saying "stick to the facts" doesn't mean you are sticking to the facts and I am not.
I am a parent, and I would most certainly sit - with my support network - in my house whilst the police did their job. What do you mean by "proactive"?
This is beyond laughable that you would honestly say this. The police weren't doing ANYTHING after the first few hours because they didn't believe the note! The whole premise of your precious theory is that Patsy wasn't involved which would mean she believed there were real kidnappers! You would sit still???????????????????????? How can you say this with a straight face Ms D? You have gotten so lost in your belief that JDI that you no longer think rationally and that is sad. You can comment on any of my posts as it's your right, but I will tell you right now that I will no longer read them or respond. It's not worth getting worked up over when you have made up your mind on this case and nothing will change that. I hope I never get to the point where I lose common sense. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that PR was involved which means your theory can't be true.
"The police weren't doing ANYTHING after the first few hours because they didn't believe the note!"
We only know that in RETROSPECT, J. The Ramseys did NOT know that on the morning of the 26th.
"The whole premise of your precious theory is that Patsy wasn't involved which would mean she believed there were real kidnappers! You would sit still???????????????????????? How can you say this with a straight face Ms D?"
What the hell else would you expect me to do?! How in the heck would you suggest *I* find these kidnappers, who could be anywhere?! Have YOU been in this situation before? Have you spent time with others who have? Patsy was told NOT TO LEAVE THE SUN ROOM, so you tell me....what do you expect she should have done?!
"You have gotten so lost in your belief that JDI that you no longer think rationally and that is sad."
Don't you DARE pity me, J....I don't need your sympathy, I'm doing just fine, thank you. My thoughts are a cut above yours in the rationality department, therefore if anyone is deserving of sympathy, it is you.....but even I wouldn't stoop that low.
"I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that PR was involved which means your theory can't be true."
My theory cannot be true based on your faulty premise, simply because you say so.....sure, o.k, whatever you say, J.....it's a relief to know that you and Zed will no longer be responding to my comments, because the two of you have no clue how to debate maturely or rationally, making your arguments embarrassingly cringe worthy.
Hopefully the other JDIs here will continue to challenge your woefully faulty logic.
I am responding to this because it's part of our thread
The reality is this in regards to your responses:
-Burke acts weird when he sees a pineapple bowl when being questioned. Your response.....it doesn't look like pineapple in the image and how do you expect a 10 yr old to respond
-Pineapple bowl has Burke's fignerprints on it, so the natural conclusion is that it was Burke's bowl of pineapple. Your response --- his fingerprints could have gotten there when he emptied the dishwasher
-Patsy didn't seem proactive enough to find her daughter. Your response - what did you want her to do? (ummmmm it's her daughter, so SITTING there, isn't really acceptabe)
-Sounds like we hear Burke at the end of the 911 call. Your response - No, we can't be sure we hear anything
Do you see a pattern? You never for even a second concede on any of these points. Your immediate reaction is to just dismiss anything that opposes your JDI theory. Unfortunately you aren't the only person on here guilty of this behavior on this blog. So, not responding to your post's or you responding to mine just makes sense. I believe we could have video of Burke hitting his sister over the head and you would question who filmed it. Hopefully one day we will get a definitive answer and if it's proven that JDI you can rub it in my face. Luckily for me he didn't do it, so that will never happen ;-)
I sincerely believe all of my responses are valid, though, J.
1. I honestly don't see Burke's response to the bowl of pineapple as indicative of guilt OR innocence. At first glance, it genuinely appears he didn't recognize it. If I were arguing for BDI, this would not be a point I'd bring up, as it is, again, based on one's presumptions of how a person *should* act in a certain situation.
2. The fact is - Burke COULD have left his fingerprints on the bowl at any time, prove to me this cannot be the case, and then you might have something worth discussing.
3. You still haven't told us what Patsy could have done differently in a situation where she was explicitly told NOT to leave the sight of LE. What were her other options.....how could she have been more "proactive" in the sun room that morning? Why do you feel that her "sitting there", allowing the police to do their job, is "unacceptable"? What do other parents of kidnapping victims do in the first few hours after receiving the ransom note? Do they run around town looking for their child, or do they call the police, raise the ransom money, and sit by the phone? If Patsy had have left the house to conduct a search of her own, you would have CERTAINLY seen that as a sign of her guilt...I would have too, just as I do with John's disappearance. Several times she was heard crying to John to "get the ransom money", wouldn't you agree that raising the money in order to get her daughter back is the best course of action to take? Usually (if it is a genuine kidnapping) that will be the ONLY course of action the victim's family will need to take. Patsy was sobbing, vomiting, screaming, moaning.....she was in no condition to do much of anything, so I still have no idea what you expect she should have done, nor do I think if she did things differently would it have made any difference to you. When she reacts appropriately - you say she's faking it, when she reacts inappropriately (in your eyes) - you say it's a clear sign of her guilt.
4. Many people who have listened to that tape don't hear a child's voice, whether they be BDIs, RDIs, JDIs, PDIs or IDIs. How could that be if this mystery voice is so obvious? Even if it was Burke's voice, it sure doesn't prove he killed his sister, it would only prove that the Ramseys are lying, and there could be a dozen reasons as to why that may be the case. At any rate, I only hear Patsy's voice at the end of the call, so I have no reason to believe Burke was with them. If he was.....so be it, I'm still going to need a lot more than that to convince me he was involved in the murder.
J, you are of the impression that I have an overwhelming need to believe John did this. Nothing could be further from the truth - I desperately want to be convinced otherwise, and that it is why I push BDIs so hard to produce evidence that might convince me, but so far, all they've given me is assumptions, deflections, faulty logic and circular reasoning.
“You still haven't told us what Patsy could have done differently in a situation where she was explicitly told NOT to leave the sight of LE.”
For a second, take yourself completely away from anything you know about this case. Put yourself in Patsy Ramsey’s shoes under the assumption that she has absolutely zero involvement in the murder or cover up. Ok? So, you wake up that morning to catch a flight to go with your husband and children to Michigan for a fun family vacation. So, you get up and go down the spiral staircase and see a note……the note says your daughter has been kidnapped. You had slept thru the night and didn’t hear anything nor have you checked on your daughter, so you immediately check on your daughter and she is missing. Complete desperation and panic should set in at this point and she must have been so distraught that she ignored the warnings of the note, calls 911 and ends the phone call by hanging up (even though we can hear a less eratic Patsy immediately after she thought she hung up) but nonetheless she hangs up the call.
So, now the 911 call is over. Your next step would be A) check on Burke B) check the house for any clues C) run and ask the neighbors if they saw or heard anything D) Wake up Burke and John to ask them If they heard anything Which one would you choose Ms D? (again, PLEASE forget EVERYTHING else you know about this case. You are Patsy Ramsey) Oh, you also have choice E) call your friends to come over
This post will be broken down into parts, but I want to keep you focused. Answer the question directly above coming from you being Patsy Ramsey in that exact moment
"Calls 911 and ends the phone call by hanging up (even though we can hear a less eratic Patsy immediately after she thought she hung up)"
I absolutely disagree....I hear a distraught Patsy pleading "Help Me Jesus".
"So, now the 911 call is over. Your next step would be A) check on Burke B) check the house for any clues C) run and ask the neighbors if they saw or heard anything D) Wake up Burke and John to ask them If they heard anything"
John was already awake, but I would possibly wake up Burke and ask him if he heard/saw anything. Honestly, the very first thing I'd do is call 911, because I'd want help to arrive as soon as possible.
"Oh, you also have choice E) call your friends to come over"
No, that comes AFTER I made the first choice (call the cops), J. You're presenting this option as though calling my friends is at the expense of everything else, which is dishonest, because that's not what happened. And, yes, I would most certainly call my support network after I know the police are on their way.
See Ms D, here is the problem. I am 100% OK with the 911 call. I would guess a large majority of people would do the same. The reason you call 911 is because they are the experts, they are the people who can look for clues and ultimately get a result. The last thing in the world I would do is to call friends over. If I was Patsy in that moment, my house could have clues and evidence crucial to finding my daughter. WHY would you bring friends over to contaminate the scene???? If you are making the case she called the cops and did the right thing, then explain why she wouldn't wait for the cops to arrive before inviting friends over?
Just to be clear, my arguement has been that John and Patsy invited friends over to create a barrier between them and the police. They invited friends over to help contaminate the scene and create chaos
But, what I am getting at in the post's above is that IF Patsy is truly innocent, then so much of her behavior and decisions that morning don't speak to an innocent woman.
"If I was Patsy in that moment, my house could have clues and evidence crucial to finding my daughter. WHY would you bring friends over to contaminate the scene????"
You're not Patsy though, are you? Thus, what *you* would or wouldn't do has no bearing on *this* case. But I can play that game too.....if I was Patsy and found my daughter lying unconscious, I would not tie a garrote around her neck in order to finish her off, then stage a phony kidnapping. WHY would ANYONE do that?! One has to suspend disbelief with either scenario, but wouldn't you agree that of the two scenarios presented in both theories, an innocent Patsy calling friends over isn't as much of a leap as a guilty Patsy finishing off her daughter to protect a son that couldn't even be charged? Honestly.....which sounds less plausible to you?
"If you are making the case she called the cops and did the right thing, then explain why she wouldn't wait for the cops to arrive before inviting friends over?"
I don't know why because I'm not Patsy. Her guilt doesn't hinge on the fact she invited her friends over, and you know it doesn't....so why are we discussing it? I thought you were going to give me something tangible instead.
"They invited friends over to help contaminate the scene and create chaos"
They could have done that on their own, they didn't need their friends to do it.
"But, what I am getting at in the post's above is that IF Patsy is truly innocent, then so much of her behavior and decisions that morning don't speak to an innocent woman."
Yes, you keep telling us that, but I disagree, so what now? This is why personal opinions are pointless: I don't see Patsy's actions that morning as odd, you see them as huge, red, flags. Are you trying to convince me of Burke's involvement by insisting that Patsy's behaviour was strange? Is a bowl of pineapple and Patsy inviting friends over sincerely the best evidence you've got against Burke?
Y'know what the BDIs never mention, but which I believe has a great deal to do with their conviction, MsD? Burke's appearance and demeanor in that Dr Phil interview.
Humans are hard-wired to respond positively to an attractive person, negatively to one who does not behave in what, in their perception, is a normal way - by smiling inappropriately throughout a discussion of the violent death of his sister, for instance. I saw it in jurors, and it's a difficult prejudice to overcome, as no one will admit to it.
Fact is, J, the police should have prevented any of the friends from entering the house in the first place. They were the one's who arrived first, according to most accounts. If the police weren't bothered by all those people contaminating the scene then why assume Patsy would have?
And if her intention was to have her friends contaminate the scene, then she'd have called them first, before calling in the cops, to make sure they arrived before the cops could restrain them.
Also, as Ms. D argues very convincingly, if they were both guilty they'd have had plenty of opportunity to contaminate the scene before anyone else arrived. They could certainly have tracked mud into the house, for example, displaced certain items, and even tossed some valuables into the garbage or down the sewer drain.
Originally, I couldn't resolve why PR would call her friends that morning. Why would her friends be a priority upon discovering her daughter's been kidnapped?
However, after asking myself honestly, what I would have done in that situation, PR's decision doesn't seem so odd to me. Would I call my friends? No, probably not. However, I'm certain I would call my parents, who live closeby, and ask them to come over.
I don't think it's a stretch to think that PR considered her friends somewhat of a surrogate family. After all, these are some of the same people with whom she and her family celebrated Christmas.
I think it's only natural to seek comfort from the people you're closest to when tragedy strikes.
Also, as a layperson, contaminating/preserving the crime scene would have been the furthest thing from my mind that morning.
I know that hypothetical "what I would have done" comments don't prove anything one way or another, but they do serve as a reminder that what's suspect to some, is perfectly reasonable to others.
Actually, when Linda Arndt visited Patsy on her death bed, Patsy implored her to find her daughter's killer. Certainly not the actions of a mother who had spent the last ten years covering for her son, EG. Nor the actions of a woman who knows who the killer is.
"Yes, even on her deathbed, she was protecting her surviving child, sending the police on a wild goose chase as they tried to do with the fake RN."
So, after ten years of protecting her murderous child, she begs Linda Arndt to keep looking for the killer - the very person she's risked the death penalty in order to protect? Sorry, that makes no sense at all.
How does it make sense to you that Patsy would want Linda to pursue the case which would ultimately lead to her son being caught? If she wanted to continue to protect Burke, why did she not simply say she was at peace with whoever killed her daughter (as John has said) and to give up the search?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure which question you're referring to. If it is this one: "What PARENT stops looking for their dead child's murderer?", I believe I have answered it to the best of my ability: Patsy DIDN'T give up the search - even on her death bed, she implored Linda to continue looking for JB's killer.
Beckner has also said, as has Stan Garnett,that he knows whodunnit, Mike Kane has hinted that he does as well.
Garnett went on to say he'd bring charges if the evidence came together. They're not searching databases for a match to the unidentified DNA, Paul, that's been done...and re-done. They're probably using newer, more sensitive tests in hopes of finding identifiable epithelial cells in the vaginal swabs, the doubleknot that killed, and the faux garrote that did not.
Probably a little less so since throwing Burke to the wolves via Dr Phil. Great diversion - look at all the BDI believers since that and CBS! I'll never believe a young man as private and socially awkward as Burke did that interview voluntarily.
What if John did it all, Anon? Why the need to bring Burke into it? There's no evidence that necessitates Burke being involved, so why do you feel the need to include him in any scenario? Burke was cleared early on in the investigation, both LE and child psychologists believe he had no involvement in his sister's death, and we know the GJ didn't believe he did either, so what makes you think he must have been involved?
There is no evidence that Burke was involved however that does not mean he was not involved. Burke was cleared because LE knew he could not have been the one to write the ransom note and the grand jury seemed to believe the parents rendered assistance to someone so I think they believe Burke was involved. I am torn between BDI and JDI so just trying to explore both angles.
Anon - Keep your open mind on this case. There is zero evidence to say Burke didn't do it despite what others will try to tell you on here. There is also zero evidence linking JR to the hit over the head or the strangling.
Exactly, I could understand Burke as a child believing what he was told by his parents- that his sister was murdered by an intruder but as an adult to have never had interest in the case (he told Dr Phil he never read the ransom note) seems a little odd to me and yes I know its not proof of his involvement.
Doc, I read through your post a few years back entitled "Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts" but I don't see a scenario where Burke hits Jonbenet and John alone covers up for him, I think Doug Stine may have been involved as well- Burke and Doug may have been abusing Jonbenet and may have gone too far that night (note how close the Stines became with the Ramseys after the murder)
"Burke was cleared because LE knew he could not have been the one to write the ransom note....."
That is not the reason he was cleared, Anon. I suggest you do some more research into the case against Burke - or lack thereof. Psychologists and seasoned police detectives detected no deception during his interviews.....do you really think a ten year old is capable of being that much of a criminal mastermind?
".....the grand jury seemed to believe the parents rendered assistance to someone so I think they believe Burke was involved."
The GJ believed John and/or Patsy rendered assistance to someone who committed murder in the FIRST DEGREE. As Burke was clearly too young to be charged with first degree murder, it cannot be Burke whom the GJ are referring to. This has already been discussed here at length.
"There is no evidence that Burke was involved however that does not mean he was not involved."
That is not an argument at all. There is no evidence that aliens didn't do it either... The burden of proof is on the one making the claim! No one has to prove Burke didn't do it, you have to prove that he did.
And, if - by your own admission - there is "no evidence" against Burke, why even consider it? Why not consider the intruder theory of which there is also no evidence? In fact, if evidence isn't a prerequisite, your options are limitless!
In your proposed scenario, why would JR want to hide the truth from PR? Wouldn't that just further complicate the cover-up and make it more difficult to maintain the facade?
There is absolutely NOTHING that implicates DS in JBR's murder. Nothing. A former poster on the JBR forums developed that theory, and later, Van Der Leek rehashed it in his book, "The Day After Christmas (Book 3)." Neither, however, offer any evidence to support DS's involvement. It's a theory based on wild speculation and guilt by association.
I believe the only "evidence" cited by Van der Leek, et al. is a bike tire track found on the Ramsey lawn; supposedly Doug rode his bicycle home in a panic after the murder.
Joe Barnhill, however, had seen Burke riding a bicycle in the family yard on Christmas day, putting paid to that notion.
Ah, yes, the bicycle track found on the lawn of a home occupied by children. How curious!
The guy's speculation is often baseless and nonsensical. Here's a snippet of his logic just for kicks:
JBR was upset at the party on the 23rd and said she didn't feel pretty. It's possible BR spoiled her fun by revealing the truth about Santa. It's also possible something happened with DS which led JBR to feel rejected. Due to whatever happened on the 23rd, Priscilla felt compelled to prepare a special plate for JBR on Christmas evening.
HKH this is anonymous, to answer your question of why John didn't tell Patsy, it would be in fear of her reaction, she would be hysterical and not gone along with the coverup. Regarding Doug Stine, if he wasn't involved why did the Stines move out of state to follow the Ramseys when they were not close friends before the murder?
The Stines WERE close friends. They attended the Rs' Christmas party on 12/23, the Rs were taking them a Christmas gift on their way home from the Whites', their sons were playmates. Both Susan and Glenn were employed at CU, Glenn in the Office of Finance. When he lost his job in 1998 they moved to Atlanta because John employed Glenn at his latest company. John and Patsy had moved there in 1997. Nothing conspiratorial or nefarious about it, simply economics.
PR already knew who killed her daughter. That was said to keep LE thinking they had nothing to do with it. Just like they tried to do with the RN. Steer the investigation away from them.
What mother wouldn't move heaven and earth to find her daughter's killer. If the evidence all pointed to JR, do you think PR wouldn't have figured it out?
Geez. if YOU think you got it all figured out, how didn't PR know? And no, am not buying the gaslighting theory or the chemo brain theory. If PR thought for a split second that JR did it, she'd have kissed his a** goodbye in a New York minute.
The only one she'd cover for is her one and only surviving child---BR.
Unsubstantiated assertion based on your opinion alone.
"That was said to keep LE thinking they had nothing to do with it. Just like they tried to do with the RN. Steer the investigation away from them."
Why say anything at all then, EG? It wasn't an interrogation, she was under no obligation to answer questions. She was dying and Linda Arndt was no longer working on the case. Telling someone in Law Enforcement to go and find your child's killer, when you KNOW that killer is your son, is most definitely not "steering the investigation away" from anyone in the family, quite the contrary, in fact, so I really don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Believe me, I don't think I "have it all figured out", that's why I'm still here! I have a theory based on a set of logical inferences, but I could be way off, and I will have no problem eating a huge slice of humble pie if it turns out I'm wrong (though I don't think anyone here will ever be proved right/wrong because I'm pretty certain the case will never be solved). If you don't "buy" my answers regarding why Patsy didn't know, I'm sorry about that, but there's not much I can do, because they're my answers.....but, more than anything, I believe Patsy was in serious denial. By the time of her death, I do think she suspected John, to be honest - in fact, going by Det. Arndt's cryptic comment regarding her chat with Patsy, I believe she might have revealed a few nasty secrets about John - but on the morning she found the ransom note and in the months/years following, I believe she thought it was just as it appeared to be: a failed kidnapping attempt.
Thanks, CC, I like to change it up sometimes, but never like to show my entire face here.....lol! So glad to hear from you, I was beginning to worry, I don't think we've seen you post since the hurricane.
Good to hear from you, CC. Glad to hear you’re all right and your power is back. Hopefully it won’t be long until it’s restored throughout the rest of the state.
The recent heated exchanges between JDI and BDI/BSI got me wondering if perhaps both sides might be right. The following isn’t really meant to be serious as it’s full of holes, but what IF both sides are right? (Sorry, Hercule, you’re still not right. Patsy didn’t do it — PDDI.)
JR does it according to Doc’s theory (he was abusing JBR and wanted to shut her up), but he tells PR that BDI. If he’s cold-hearted and devious enough to kill one child, he's certainly cold-hearted and devious enough to frame the other for it. So he hits JBR over the head, but then wakes Patsy and tells her that Burke and JBR were up peeking at presents in the basement after they’d been put to bed and that Burke accidentally hit JBR and killed her. He reminds her of the time Burke hit JBR with the golf club. He tells her that Burke came and told him what happened and that he sent the boy to bed. BR is still in bed at this point, having never actually gotten up, and PR is none the wiser.
JR then tells his distraught wife that the authorities are going to take Burke away and life, as they know it, is over unless they can cover things up for him. He has PR write the ransom note as he dictates. She includes her own feminine touches in it because, even through her immense and genuine grief, she’s still the journalism major who can’t help but add her own literary flourish. She writes the RN with her left hand.
About 40 minutes have passed since JR hit his daughter. She certainly appears dead to Patsy. JR and PR then begin to stage the body together (which accounts for the fibres from both of them, but none from Burke.) Perhaps JR wipes her down, or perhaps it’s PR. The fibres in JBR's crotch region point to JR taking care of that. All the while, John reassures his wife, telling her everything is going to be okay. He’s going to take care of things and she isn’t to worry. He tells her it’s best if they just “get on with their lives” as best they can, and that she should leave the discipline of BR to him.
“Don’t question him about it,” John says. “He feels bad enough as it is. He just thinks he hit her and she wouldn't wake up. Best if we don’t talk about it too much. We need to keep things as normal as possible for him. We’ll get him the best psychological help money can buy, I promise.” (Is there not evidence that BR was in counselling for an inordinate amount of time after the murder?)
At some point during the staging of the body, PR can take no more of what’s being done to her precious child and tells John to finish it. After PR leaves, he redresses the body using the oversized panties (which PR would never have used if she'd been there). Wanting to do all he can to point the evidence away from himself, he uses his wife's paintbrush to create the garrotte and violates his daughter’s body in an effort to cover up the previous sexual assaults. PR only finds out about this awful detail after the autopsy is done and JR manages to convince her it was a necessary evil. He had to do it to convince the authorities that a violent pedophile attacked JBR. She’s horrified and disgusted, but agrees that it was necessary to protect Burke and is actually grateful that her take-charge husband was willing to do it. She knows she certainly couldn’t have.
When BR is interviewed by psychologists and LE, he comes off as innocent and is eventually cleared. He sounds unaware of the details because he IS unaware of the details. Yes, he was up when his mother made the 911 call, but his father told him it was okay to tell everyone he stayed in bed. It’s just easier that way — less to remember. (This is why his answer to that question from the psychologist sounds rehearsed and unnatural.) JR reminds his son over and over again that the cops are not their friends. Deep down, BR is glad to have his attention-sucking sister gone and he’s got a touch of the Asperger’s, so he’s more than willing to go along with what his father tells him. He’ll do whatever he’s told so long as it means he's left alone to play his video games. He hears his father constantly going on about the importance of “getting on with their lives,” so he repeats this phrase during his taped interview with the child psychologist.
John takes control of the entire aftermath, hiring lawyers for everyone close to him, orchestrating the public relations campaign, and ensuring PR is medicated to the hilt. In "The Other Side of Suffering," JR talks a lot about the use of medication as a tool for coping with grief.
So JDI, but since he got an innocent PR involved almost right away, this accounts for the oddities we see in the realm of PDI: her odd behaviour in the aftermath, her lack of acknowledgment of the 10:00 am time limit passing without a phone call, the similarities between her handwriting and the RN, and her genuine grief and mental breakdown in the months following the murder.
With all due respect, Canuck, this is really reaching. As you admit, it's full holes. The most gaping one being: what mother would never attempt to discuss the incident with her son? One mention of it to BR and the jig is up. It makes much more sense to pin JBR's death on a faceless, nameless intruder with whom PR could never talk about what happened to her daughter.
Pretty sure we didn't. You may think it's a peace-keeping mission, (kind, but doomed), but I think on some level you're struggling to reconcile your formerly logical, strong JDI stance with your new media-influenced BDI leaning.
Me, too. As I said below, sailed right by me. I've (reluctantly) learned to include those trite smilies and winkies, because it's hard to interpret irony in print.
Know your time is limited, so always happy to see you here, no matter what theory you're espousing. Also pretty sure logic will eventually prevail, and you'll return to the side of the angels.
Thanks for that Canuck. Always good to see different types of posts on here...otherwise it's all of us just seemingly repeating the same stuff over and over.
I do think that theory is pretty far fetched (that's purely my opinion). But you know what, who knows and anything is possible. Common sense indicates Patsy was definitely involved/in the know before her 911 call (and after the call obviously), so your proposed theory above has its plus points.
I do think BSI/RDI is still a lot more simple though.
Yeah, it's totally far fetched, Zed. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess I didn't include enough disclaimers at the beginning or winky faces at the end.
Nothing to apologize for. It's one of the pitfalls of this medium. Human beings used to reading facial expressions and monitoring body language as a huge part of communication now have to rely on text on a screen.
You're right, though, that I've been thinking about both sides lately and the BDI side was indeed media influenced. (I have a real interest in profiling and enjoy shows with FBI profilers.) So when you're right, you're right. :)
Totally get it. I was probably one of the first people in North America to buy "Mindhunter", and Ressler's books as well. Recently disillusioned when I read that profilers only bat about .500, and one might just as well roll the bones. Very disillusioning.
BDI, is not influenced by the media at all. Period. I know people like EG go one step further than me and say Burke did it all (except for maybe the RN) but I don't buy into that in the slightest. And neither did CBS. Burke wasn't some evil child with murdering tendencies. He was just a normal kid who lashed out at his sister and the rest is history. BSI (which is an acronym I use but have not seen elsewhere) is what CBS indicated. Of course, I am sure many people jumped on the BSI/RDI train after those episodes so yes I agree BSI (not BDI) is media influenced. However, many of us like this theory because of how it includes all evidence/behaviours and how simple it is. The experts on CBS agreeing is simply a bonus.
Canuck - I thought your post may have been tongue in cheek but I wasn't 100% sure ;)
Horseshit, Zed. Never crossed your mind that Canuck was being ironic. You're far too literal, and far too limited, to believe otherwise.
A whole stable of horseshit on "not media influenced". Before last year's BDI-heavy specials we saw that theory here once a year (and saw you, Inq and EG not at all) at most. Now it's pernicious.
Honestly CC, you need to get away from this blog for a while. Go for a holiday, go get a massage, train for a marathon. Anything. This blog is turning your brain to mush. Maybe you have more power here than you do in the real world....hmmm.
And I'm sorry, I forgot you are a lawyer and therefore HAD to know exactly what I thought when I read Canuck's post (now THAT is tongue in cheek). You are the one full of horseshit.
And how the hell can BDI be media influenced??? Despite all the JBR shows/interviews that have been released, I have not seen ANY that indicates BDI. Not one. And I was BSI/RDI long before CBS my friend...surprised that you didn't know that with those physic lawyer powers you possess.
Anyway, I might go get a massage and then have a cocktail overlooking the water. Ciao.
i thought the dna was composite dna? does it really have to match just one person?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, composite DNA from two sources could be resolved into two separate profiles. Not sure if the technology is there yet, but I have feeling it is.
Deletealso- o/t i am long time lurker, only recently started posting comments. wanted to thank you docg and cc for sharing your insight and coming up with an actual, logical theory. it is the ONLY theory that makes ANY sense to me
ReplyDeleteThanks, Seema, but all credit to Doc - he's permitted me to embroider here and there, but the bones of the theory are all his.
DeleteAnd welcome, glad to see you've decided to participate.
If Doc was writing a "Who-Dun-It" Agatha Christie type novel about this case then his conclusion would have a more satisfying structure to the reader. Real cases present real people with unique histories and complex motives. I commend Doc for trying to use only the facts to solve this case, but he simply does not know enough about John or Patsy to make accurate inferences. The Patsy Ramsey that Doc has created in his own mind could not have killed her daughter. The real Patsy, however, had a perfect storm of circumstances brewing with emotions that spiked out of her control. Her relationship with JonBenet had gotten obsessively too close. JonBenet even remarked that her trophies really were not hers, but instead for her mother. Arguments became commonplace. JonBenet showed signs of rebellion. The closeness of their relationship reached its apex and the spiraling descent had already begun a couple of months before it all came to a head.
ReplyDeleteHercule
The argument:
DeletePremises:
1) Patsy experienced a storm of circumstances which included; an obsessive relationship with a daughter, a daughter showing signs of rebellion, a coveting of a daughters trophies, arguments with a daughter that had become commonplace, and emotions that had spiked out of control.
2) Storms of circumstances and emotions that spike out of control can lead to murder.
3) JonBenet was murdered.
Conclusion: Patsy murdered JonBenet.
Mike G
3)JonBenet was murdered.
Conclusion:
hercule- i don't believe you are qualified to make this judgement. you don't know john nor did you know patsy, and basing an opinion on what little you have heard about a remark made by jbr, you conclude pdi...that just is not a strong argument.
Delete"(Doc) simply does not know enough about John or Patsy to make accurate inferences."
ReplyDeleteThen, you follow it up with: "The real Patsy, however, had a perfect storm of circumstances brewing with emotions that spiked out of her control. Her relationship with JonBenet had gotten obsessively too close.....arguments became commonplace.....the closeness of their relationship reached its apex and the spiraling descent had already begun a couple of months before it all came to a head."
Oh, the irony.....unless, of course, *you* have an insight into the workings of Patsy's mind that the rest of us are not privy to? JonBenet's attachment to her mother had actually GROWN in the months prior to her murder - that certainly doesn't sound like a daughter rebelling. The truth is, you know nothing more about Patsy or John than Doc does, but that hasn't stopped you from outlining a detailed, PDI scenario. The difference is, Doc's is based solely on facts, whereas yours is based on what Patsy may or may not have felt/thought/done.....personally, I prefer facts over feelings.
"I commend Doc for trying to use only the facts to solve this case, but..."
ReplyDeleteThis case can ONLY be solved using facts.
Isn't the examination of factual evidence precisely how all cases are solved?
By trying to solve this case using your armchair psycho-analysis of Patsy - conclusions you've arrived at solely on the basis of the small amount of publicly available information in regards to Patsy's psyche - the further down the rabbit hole you go. Your theory, whilst not quite as outrageous as BDI, is still mainly based on assumptions, and doesn't make sense of many of the known facts, RE:
The sexual abuse (no, I don't believe it was corporal punishment inflicted by Patsy - for several reasons)
The 911 call being placed when it was. The wording in the RN leaves no doubt that the author was staging a genuine kidnapping, not a botched one, thus calling the authorities to the house before the removal of the body makes no sense.
Patsy placing her own paintbrush handle at the crime scene...I don't believe she was that stupid.
Patsy not showering or changing her clothes after committing murder/staging a crime.
Patsy had no history of mental illness, nor did she have a history of corporally punishing her children.
On the other hand:
John was down in the basement that morning (Doesn't the killer always return to the scene of the crime?). Patsy never left the sun room, however. Patsy obviously had no staging to complete.
Patsy was genuinely distraught - John was "cordial".
John had a copy of Mind Hunter by his bed. It just so happens that the scene was staged as though it was taken right of said book.....but John denied ever even owning the book, yet it was photographed on his bedside table. Why, I wonder, did he lie about such a (seemingly) innocuous detail? Just as he lied about the window.....
The ransom note was addressed only to Mr Ramsey, giving John complete authority and control over the situation.....just as the CEO of a big corporation would want.
Jonbenet had been previously sexually abused, giving John Ramsey - the man most likely to be her abuser - a clear motive for murder.
John's shirt fibres were found in JB's crotch...a crotch that had been violated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together, here.
From Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenét? by James Kolar:
ReplyDelete"Further, fibers from this jacket [note: Patsy Ramsey's Essentials jacket] were also matched to trace fibers collected from the wrist ligature, neck ligature, and vacuumed evidence from the paint tray and Wine Cellar floor."
"Some intruder theorists thought that the transfer of Patsy's jacket fibers to the duct tape may have taken place after John had removed it from JonBenet's face, and placed it on the white blanket in the cellar. They believed it possible that prior contact taking place between the blanket and jacket could account for the transfer of these fibers to the tape."
"Lab technicians had conducted experiments with the same brand of duct tape, by attempting to lift trace fibers from the blanket recovered in the Wine Cellar. Direct contact was made in different quadrants of the blanket. There was some minimal transfer of jacket fibers made to the tape during this exercise, but Trujillo told me lab technicians didn't think that this type of transfer accounted for the number of jacket fibers that had been found on the sticky side of the tape. It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence."
Is it safe to say then that both JR's and PR's fibers were found on or around JBR? If so, by your own account, they'd both be involved. Now, if they're both involved, then they're covering up for someone. Most of us here agree that PR and JR would NOT cover up for each other. So, who does that leave? BR, anyone?
EG
Another fact which Ms D will try and explain away with some fancy words and no rebuttal.
DeleteNope, this time you get me, Zed, and some legal facts, to-wit: Fibers and other trace evidence (even most DNA) in a shared home are usually inadmissible because of the extreme likelihood of innocent transference via personal contact.
DeleteNote, please, that I am also dismissing John's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear, for the same reason.
Interesting, though, that there is no mention anywhere, ever, of Burke's clothing fibers having been found on or near the victim, is it not?
Delete. . . With all apologies to you, MsD, if I just stepped on your toes. Best regards.
DeleteNo worries, CC.
Delete"Another fact which Ms D will try and explain away with some fancy words and no rebuttal."
Seriously, Zed, the irony and hypocrisy in your statement is barely worth addressing. Scroll back over the past year and see who answers every, single, question thrown at her, then take a look at the unanswered questions that litter the blog - most of them are directed at *you*.
I agree with your response for the most part, CC. Transfer from clothing fibers in a shared home is expected, and I've used that defense many times in regards to Patsy's alleged jacket fibres. However, John's shirt fibres being found in JB's genital region rings alarm bells for me because it is such an intimate area, innocent transfer is surely less likely to be found in such a region? Especially as we know John never assisted JB with her toileting. Couple this with the fact her vagina had been violated that night, and surely it is damning that her father's shirt fibres were found in that same region of her body? As far as Patsy's jacket fibres are concerned, weren't the red fibres found on the duct tape "consistent" with the red fibres on Patsy's jacket, but not conclusively matched?
Meh. The response I expected from Ms D. Accepts Johns fibres but ignores the fibres from Patsy. But oh that's right, Ms D is more skilled than those lab technicians (technicians that actually saw and handled evidence unlike any of you).
Delete"Interesting, though, that there is no mention anywhere, ever, of Burke's clothing fibers having been found on or near the victim, is it not?"
DeleteVery interesting, yes. Thanks CC.
Burke only thumped her over the head.
DeleteGiven there is none of Burke's fibers but plenty of Patsy's, this simply adds to the fact that Patsy's fibers were NOT from simply being in a "shared home".
Okay so let me get this straight. Everyone agrees that fibers from both JR and PR were found. According to the lab technicians, the fibers on the duct tape that matched PR's jacket were not from a type of transfer but rather from the direct contact between the jacket and the tape.
DeleteTherefore, it would seem that BOTH PR and JR were involved somehow in staging the body. So to the JDI's I pose the same question. Do you think PR covered for JR?
EG
"Given there is none of Burke's fibers but plenty of Patsy's, this simply adds to the fact that Patsy's fibers were NOT from simply being in a "shared home"."
DeleteExcellent point. They weren't SIMPLY from being in a shared home, no. They were due to Patsy being in intimate contact with her daughter all day long. So there were plenty of opportunities for Patsy's fibers to transfer to JonBenet's body, hair and clothing.
"It was thought that direct contact between the jacket and tape was more likely the reason for the quantity of fibers found on this piece of evidence."
Thought by whom? Lab technicians? James Kolar? There is no way to tell whether fibers were transferred by direct or indirect contact. They could easily have been transferred from JonBenet to her attacker and from him to the tape. And if we assume that John was the attacker, they could have been transferred directly to him from his wife.
Yes, by lab technicians (after conducting experiments with the tape). They claimed that the only way for that much of the fiber from PR's jacket to get onto the duct tape, it had to be a direct transfer from jacket to tape.
DeleteEG
In a shared home, there is always the possibility of transferred fibers from one individual to another. However, they felt the amount of fiber on the duct tape was a direct transfer and not an indirect one.
EG
From Steve Thomas's book:
Delete"The Colorado Bureau of Investigation labs ran comparison tests and reported that four fibers that had been discovered on the tape were chemically and microscopically consistent with the fibers of Patsy’s jacket."
That's it. Four fibers. So Kolar was being deliberately vague when referring to a "quantity of fibers." There were only four. And as becomes clear from reading Thomas's book, the circumstances surrounding the handling of the tape and the collection of the clothing made that evidence essentially useless.
"I would leave it to the lawyers to quibble over how the fibers were transferred from Patsy’s jacket to the tape, perhaps claiming she had worn the garment when she went downstairs to fetch Christmas presents, or perhaps there was a transfer to the blanket when she tucked JonBenét into bed. There were a myriad of distant possible arguments. Had the tape been removed from her mouth during the autopsy, the argument of transference would have been diminished."
The blanket he refers to is the blanket that covered JonBenet when John "discovered" her. Unfortunately, the sticky side of the tape seems to have fallen onto the blanket at some point, making transfer from the latter to the former possible.
Thomas badly wanted to nail Patsy, and if he could have used that fiber evidence to do it, he certainly would have.
"Meh. The response I expected from Ms D. Accepts Johns fibres but ignores the fibres from Patsy."
DeleteI have done no such thing. Patsy would have held JonBenet a lot on the evening of the 25th, JB probably sat in her lap at the Whites, so her jacket fibres being found - and there were only FOUR, let's not forget that - sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Explaining how fibres made their way from John's shirt into JB's genital region is a more difficult task, because when John (allegedly) carried JB from the car, she was fully clothed, and (allegedly) asleep, and it was her mother who changed her for bed - not John. And, because her vagina had been penetrated shortly before she was killed, of course the fibres found near this location are significant. However, as innocent transference IS always a possibility, CC is correct, and no case can be made for either Patsy's, or John's fibres. It concerns me, when looking at the TOTALITY of the evidence, that John's shirt fibres were in JB's crotch, but it is certainly no smoking gun, and I'm well aware of that.
"But oh that's right, Ms D is more skilled than those lab technicians (technicians that actually saw and handled evidence unlike any of you)."
I'm sorry, you'll have to direct me to where I even implied I knew more than the lab technicians, because I don't recall doing so. But, whilst we're on the topic of taking all of the experts evaluations at face value and never daring to challenge their authority, Zed, what do you make of the following exculpatory evidence relating to Burke Ramsey? (Source: http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682454/Burke%20Ramsey#LackofForensicEvidence)
"On January 8, 1997, Burke was interviewed with his parents’ consent and outside of their presence by a psychologist, Dr. Suzanne Bernhard. Even though BDI theorists view Burke's behavior in this interview as suspicious, according to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News, Dr. Bernhard herself "concluded in writing on her report to the Boulder PD that it was clear to her that Burke did not witness the murder of his sister"
(But oh that's right, Zed is more skilled than any psychologist......the psychologist who actually interviewed Burke, unlike you, right? Using YOUR very own logic, this woman's authority is not be challenged, thus Burke Ramsey did not kill his sister, and it is NOT up for debate.....right?)
"If the Boulder grand jury had already concluded Burke did it, then why would both Boulder DA and BPD continue to have invested resources in solving the case, including additional DNA tests, as one example?"
"Moreover, had Burke been in any way involved in the crime and LE were aware of this, it would have been highly improbable that Child Services would not been involved in some fashion to protect Burke's being a danger to other children or himself."
"On several occasions, Boulder law enforcement officials have indicated Burke Ramsey was not a suspect or had been cleared in the case. This is the strongest evidence that Burke is not a plausible suspect in this case."
Tsk tsk tsk. You still don't understand my theory do you.
DeleteI fully believe Burke did NOT see his sister die that night. He whacked her over the head and eventually woke his parents. They told him she would be fine and put him to bed. When he was interviewed that day he may have truly believed there had been an intruder. And Burke was never a danger to himself or other children. A lot of children have lashed out at other children before...its just extremely rare that it leads to a brain dead child. So I fully understand if Boulder law ebforcement don't consider Burke a suspect...he only started it (BSI).
Remember...a Boulder grand jury indictment in 1999 accused John and Patsy Ramsey of two counts each of child abuse resulting in death in connection to the first-degree murder of their 6-year-old daughter JonBenét.
The charges didn’t directly accuse the Ramseys of killing their daughter. Instead they alleged that the parents permitted JonBenét to be placed in a dangerous situation that led to her death and it accused them of helping whoever killed the girl.
My understanding of the DNA on JB's clothing is that it was degraded and probably from saliva.(correct me if I'm wrong).
ReplyDeleteAny chance this DNA could have been "planted" by John from a partly finished water bottle? Does anyone know if this is possible? I have read that DNA has been lifted from drinking glasses. Could the water have belonged to a male in the house during the "kidnapping phase" who wasn't DNA tested? Could John have done this when he disappeared for awhile?
There was bottled water in the home that morning, because John was shown a photo of a water bottle during one of his interviews with LS. Lou said John didn't know who it belonged to.(not sure why Lou was answering for John, but that was how it was transcribed.)
K
An intruder who took the trouble to wipe down JonBenet before changing her panties and long johns would not then turn around and leave an incriminating ransom note.
DeleteYet even supposing the DNA tests ordered late last year DID confirm the presence of a "male in the house during the kidnapping phase" (i.e. that "this IS a DNA case), why would Burke's case still be headed for trial? By airing its documentary on Burke, was CBS deliberatly setting a trap for John? Would a judge allow either side to hold on to dispositive evidence that came out after the lawsuit was filed? CC..if you're out there, feel free to chime in.
Mike G
The degraded DNA was all they had at first. But a few years later they found more complete samples using more advanced "touch DNA" methods. These samples have come under scrutiny of late, due to findings that the touch DNA might be from more than one person.
DeleteIn any case, unidentified DNA WAS found and it came from somewhere.
Hi Mike..In case I wasn't clear in my previous post. I wasn't suggesting an intruder killed JB. If it is possible to transfer DNA from an unfinished water bottle(and I don't know if it is), might John have done that? I don't recall reading that JB's minister or Dr. Beuf were tested. In addition, does the BPD keep a database of their own officers DNA? Of course, I don't believe any of these men were involved, but could they be the source of the DNA?
DeleteIn other words, could JR have "planted" DNA from individuals he thought would never be tested?
I realized this might sound like a "far-out" theory, but who knows what a desperate killer might try? Just a thought.
K
If John had planted someone else's DNA, he'd have done a better job of it. It took some very sophisticated methods to tease out any of the DNA evidence, none of it was obvious or easy to identify.
DeleteThe bottom line is that this sort of DNA is easily transferred from secondary or even tertiary sources, as I explain in the appendix of the second edition of my book. In all likelihood it's from a totally innocent source. But the challenge posed in the blog post above is to consider how a case could be made if a source for any of the DNA is ever found.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCC: If we lived in a world where assertions could be tried in a court of law, the assertion being "there was no intruder in the Ramsey's house the night JonBenet was murdered", would you prosecute the affirmative, defend the negative, or refuse to take the case?
ReplyDeleteMike G
I'm sorry, Mike. Apparently I've lived in the real legal world too long. . .I've tried, but I just can't wrap my head around framing any sort of argument based on an assertion. :(
Delete"In a shared home, there is always the possibility of transferred fibers from one individual to another. However, they felt the amount of fiber on the duct tape was a direct transfer and not an indirect one."
ReplyDeleteI have presented this evidence before. Doc will not accept it because it does not fit his theory. This evidence needs to be explained by the JDIs. Either Patsy handled the duct tape or someone tried to frame her. Which is it?
Hercule
Ask Steve Thomas, who badly wanted to nail her for this and was not able to do it. (See above)
DeleteNo. Doc will not accept it because it's nonsense. Either the piece of tape was on a roll or was removed from the back of a painting or the back of an American Girl doll, take your choice, but in any case the sticky side was in contact with another surface before it was placed on JBR's mouth. Are you seriously suggesting that in the few miliseconds it was free from its original surface before being placed on her mouth it magically glommed onto an "amount of fiber" in midair? Surely not.
ReplyDeleteRather, JBR was in close physical contact with her mother throughout the evening at the Whites', and while hugging or being hugged, dressing or being undressed, got fibers from Patsy's jacket on her face, which were transferred to the tape while it was on her mouth.
Who said anything about mid air. The technicians claimed it was a direct transfer, meaning the duct tape at some point made contact with the red blazer. (At least I think that's what they meant)
ReplyDeleteAll I am saying is that because both JR's and PR's clothing fibers were found, on, in, at, near JBR's body, and technicians claiming it was a direct transfer in the case of the duct tape, can we assume that both parents were present for the cleaning up, staging, covering up of the body?
If its all indirect, then we can say that JR's fibers found in her crotch area were due to him simply living in the house with her as you are claiming PR's were. Difference there is that you have lab technicians saying PR's fibers were a direct transfer.
EG
I don't believe there's a way techs can tell if fiber evidence is direct or secondar. How would that be possible, other than one saying, "Gee, Ralph, there's a lot of this red stuff here, must be a direct transfer"? It seems to me volume would have more to do with the density of the fabric weave and its propensity to shed rather than with method of transfer.
DeleteSo no, E, I won't make the assumption that both parents were there when the tape was applied. I will stipulate that Patsy had more physical contact with her daughter sometime over the course of that evening, but that's as far as I can go.
DeleteKolar says lab technicians conducted experiments using the same brand of duct tape to lift fibers from the blanket. He gives the impression that these experiments helped technicians reach the conclusion that the fibers on the tape (found on JBR) likely came from direct contact.
DeleteObviously, before technicians could conduct these experiments using the same brand of duct tape, the brand had to be determined and similar tape obtained. Also, the search warrant lists the white blanket, but there is no separate line item cataloging fibers collected from the blanket and taken into evidence. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that the blanket was bagged and tagged at the scene, and the duct tape experiments were conducted later in the lab.
If this was the case, the blanket was recovered from the WC floor, placed into a bag, transported to another location and then removed from the bag (maybe more than once if the initial collection of forensic evidence was done before the duct tape experiment.) All of this would certainly disturb fibers on the blanket, would it not? How then, is it possible to accurately compare the amount of fibers lifted from the blanket after it had been handled and moved, to the amount of fibers found on the tape which was placed on the blanket before the blanket had been disturbed (or at least disturbed to a such a degree?) Before anyone says it, I know I am not a forensic expert. It just makes sense to me that less fiber evidence would exist on an item after it's been moved from it's original location.
On another note, don't forget PR was wearing her jacket that day while in the company of the friends she called to the house that morning. One of those friends being FW, who did go down to the WC and handle the tape.
Ralph the lab technician lol.
ReplyDeleteListen, I don't know which way to go for the fibres and it has little effect on my theory anyway.
But, to me (the simpleton that I am), I think it is more logical that the tape brushed Patsy's jumper rather than secondary contact from fibres off JonBenet's face. I think John did all the staging of the body, but maybe Patsy got the tape and handed it to him.
But to be honest it's just one more thing we will never know and everyone will speculate on different levels.
Small, personal, no doubt inappropriate aside: Mike, please tell me you and yours are getting the hell off that island tomorrow, latest? I'm in FL (native - we ride 'em out, it's a point of pride), and it ain't lookin' good. Take good care, this looks to be a bad one.
ReplyDeleteStay safe to all in that area
DeleteThanks, Evie, and you too, EG.
DeleteI'm no Chicken Little, and I've been through many hurricanes, but 185 mph winds...that was way beyond the pale. I've moved well inland, and it's looking more manageable today. 75-100 early Monday morning.
Please take care everyone and take no chances. You too CC!
DeleteFrankly, I'm astonished that after all the many hurricanes to hit Florida they don't have a better plan for dealing with them. Mass evacuation is not the answer. There are too many people and not enough fuel. I have a horrible feeling that when it hits there will still be lines of traffic on the highways.
Seems to me the answer is to build as many shelters as possible -- out of reinforced concrete. During WW II the Germans built bunkers so tough they can never be demolished by anything short of an atomic bomb. That should have been the priority: enough secure shelters for just about everyone, stocked with loads of food, water, porta-potties and back issues of Playboy.
Ha Doc. What they were seeing down in and around the Florida Keys were big pick up trucks filling their tanks with gas, plus two barrels or so, holding up the lines of people just wanting a full tank to be able to get out of there. So very selfish.
DeleteThat sounds like an apocryphal urban legend. Much more common was what I saw any number of times while driving away from the southeast coast to the center of the state: People pulled over and siphoning gas into the tanks of hapless motorists stranded on the side of the road without fuel.
DeleteBig mistake to let your dislike of me color your perception of the entire population of a state that's learned from hard experience to pull together in times of natural disaster.
. . .no need to look it up, Castor. Apocryphal urban legend, roughly translated, means bullshit.
DeleteZed...
ReplyDeleteBoth parents working together to cover up fits my theory, in that, they'd only work together to cover for BR. They'd never cover for each other. So if fiber evidence points to them both being there in the basement with the body, it supports my BDI scenario. IMHO, of course.
CC, Mike and anyone in Irma's path. Stay safe! Keeping you in my prayers.
EG
Hotels are booked everywhere. I had one just outside of Knoxville, but looks like storm could actually be worse there, with mud slides and what not. With track continuing to inch to the west, I've decided to wait until Sunday morning to re-evaluate. If I evacuate, I'm heading straight up I-95, all the way into Virginia if necessary.
DeleteNormally Beaufort County authorities are fast on the trigger to evacuate, but this hurricane is driving the whole state of Florida into the hotels those of us in the low country scamper to. Crowded roads and getting gas is more of a nightmare than ever. I actually feel safer, for the present moment, staying where I am.
Ooops...SC gov just came on TV.....looks like still no official evacuation orders yet....highways too crowded with Floridians and Georgians.
Mike
"I will stipulate that Patsy had more physical contact with her daughter sometime over the course of that evening, but that's as far as I can go."
ReplyDeleteYes, she definitely did. Too much, in fact.
Hercule
"Too much, in fact."
DeleteWhat is "too much" physical contact between a mother and her child? Isn't that entirely subjective? So, is Patsy having "too much physical contact" with JonBenet an opinion, or a fact, Hercule? If it's the latter, provide your evidence, please.
You missed my point. The physical contact that I am referring to pertains to the events involving the murder.
DeleteHercule
Your prior post alleged that Patsy was "obsessively close" to JBR - her murder was not mentioned. MsD responded appropriately, and you're up to your old tricks again, trying to manipulate someone, anyone, into asking for your theory of the murder so you can expound. Here it comes: The Poopy Pants Theory, redux.
DeleteI'll save you the trouble. Folks, Herc believes JBR pooped her pants and her mother struck her a mortal blow and executed a cover-up because of some mythical perfect psychological storm.
He has no facts, no evidence, no mental health professiinal's contemporaneous diagnosis, no testimony from close friends or family upon which to base this. It is because he says so.
It's been suggested here before that Burke was interfering with JB, not sexually molesting her, and that it could have precipitated events that spiraled out of control - tying up, a too-tight cord, then a head blow to silent her. If that is the case, then there would have been some evidence of Burke in the crotch area. Knowing that she was wiped off and her panties changed, what we have instead is a fiber from John's expensive black shirt - no evidence of Patsy there, or Burke.
ReplyDeleteYour question above Doc - if a complete profile of the male DNA co mingled with JB's is ever identified a case could only be brought if that male could be tied to the vicinity of the crime that night - opportunity - an ability to commit the crime - means - and a reason to do so -motive.
"Knowing that she was wiped off and her panties changed, what we have instead is a fiber from John's expensive black shirt - no evidence of Patsy there, or Burke."
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. There were no black fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's panties. That was a desperate attempt by Bruce Levin and Mike Kane to illicit a reaction from John Ramsey with the hope that something suspicious or incriminating would be expressed. In fact, this false claim was not mentioned until August of 2000 and since then has not been discussed.
Hercule
Not quite. Lin Wood shut down Kane's line of questioning when he insisted they produce a corroborative lab report. The meeting was held in Atlanta, and Kane and Levin had not brought it. They offered to send Wood a copy upon their return, and you have no earthly idea if that was done, as that was the last time John was interviewed by LE.
DeleteAnd p.s. - the Atlanta interview took place in 2000.
DeleteStan Garrett officially a lame duck headed to Bolivia!
Deletehttps://twitter.com/DAGarnett/status/904517175989243907
Boulder DA position is open and accepting applications.
CC...you'll be morally remiss if you don't apply!
Mike G
Stan is in the first year of his third four year term. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
DeleteI think the Bolivian thing is some kind of honorary degree bestowed by a law school where he made a presentation in June.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that's no game for someone approaching her golden years, albeit kicking and screaming the whole way.
Arghhh! That would be my greatest nightmare: CC becoming Boulder DA and refusing to prosecute John for lack of evidence. May that day never come.
DeleteYou can sleep easy, Doc. Stan G is doing a fine job of refusing to prosecute for lack of evidence in my stead, and I plan to leave him to it.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe DNA sample in the underwear was the strongest DNA sample discovered, and, even so, it was a partial profile. At the time that sample was submitted to CODIS, it only exhibited 9 ½-10 markers, the minimum number of markers required for CODIS. However, even if a complete DNA profile were developed, the issue is that it is a mixed profile.
ReplyDeleteFor sake of discussion I’ll set aside the experts’ opinions from last fall which indicated the sample might represent more than one person in addition to JonBenét. Even if the DNA were determined to represent one person, it is part of a mixture of DNA – mixed with JonBenét’s DNA. According to DNA expert Dan Krane, DNA mixtures cannot be assigned a reliable statistical weight. If an expert cannot assign a statistical weight (such as 1 in 10,000,000 the DNA belongs to anyone else), it cannot be used at trial. Its value would only be in evaluating a lead.
That's interesting to know Anonymous. If this was already known - "mixtures cannot be assigned a reliable statistical weight" then why were they going to retest it? Would the lead even be a viable one?
DeleteMy guess is that they’d like to know if new sensitive testing would pick up any of the Rs’ DNA in other incriminating locations. Henry Lee thought the interior of the ligature knot should be tested, e.g.
DeleteGarnett does not think this is a DNA case, but they are retesting evidence in other cases, so perhaps he’s just covering his bases by testing some of the items from the R case.
Have you been reading about this Anonymous and know when the public might be informed of any results?
DeleteI’ve read Garnett’s comments regarding DNA in the Ramsey case. To date, there’s been no information pertaining to any results. If, in a wild case scenario, the lab did find JR’s DNA in the ligature knot, e.g., a result would need to be double checked to produce a secondary confirmation. This could take months and months. If there’s no information by the summer or fall of next year, it’d be an indicator the testing has not provided results to contribute to the case.
DeleteAnonymous is confused. The mixed DNA found in the bloodstain was the first one they found and the only one they had for a few years. They were indeed able to isolate the unidentified markers and that sample was in fact accepted in the CODIS database, though a match has never been found.
DeleteTwo other samples were found when Lacy was DA and they were at first thought to be unmixed, although now it seems they in fact are a mixture from at least two sources. I'm not sure if those samples were ever resolved, but apparently there was enough of a similarity with the earlier sample to convince Lacy that this HAD to be from her attacker.
But those two mixed samples aren't needed to identify the person of interest as far as Lacy is concerned, because she firmly believes that the earlier sample, from the bloodstain, is that of the killer. And THAT sample HAS been resolved and is sitting in CODIS waiting for a match.
Oh and in the event John's DNA is found that would have no bearing on the case as he was obviously in close contact with his daughter on many (innocent) occasions, including when he carried her body up the stairs. Actually, I have a feeling his DNA must have been found for that very reason. No matter.
DeleteApologies if I was unclear, but I do know there were two samples from the underwear tested. Only the second sample was uploaded into CODIS. In the article which appeared in 9News and the Daily Camera, the second sample uploaded into CODIS is called Unknown Male 1 profile. Here’s an excerpt from the 9News and Daily Camera article -
Delete"People believed back in those days almost all mixtures are two-person mixtures — that was like gospel truth," said Phillip Danielson, a professor of molecular biology at the University of Denver and science adviser to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.
In the ensuing years, as the "kits" used to detect DNA became ever more sensitive, scientists came to realize that many mixtures contained genetic markers from more than two people.
"You know," Danielson said, "looking at the profiles in this case, it seems pretty clear that their idea of this 'unknown male' — this could easily be a composite profile. Meaning that we have multiple contributors. But because of the low sensitivity of the kit, they interpreted those multiple contributors as being just one extra person."
Those waiting for nearly 13 years for a match in the CODIS database to the Unknown Male 1 profile could wait forever for something that is never going to happen, Danielson said.
One possible answer to the question of why a match has never occurred is that the profile is a composite containing genetic material from multiple people.
I agree though, DocG. If they did find JR’s DNA somewhere incriminating, I’ve no idea whether it would mean anything.
"He has no facts, no evidence, no mental health professiinal's contemporaneous diagnosis, no testimony from close friends or family upon which to base this. It is because he says so."
ReplyDeleteI never claimed that I had the liberty or authority to discuss all the facts and evidence. I simply cannot share certain facts about this case. I am legally bound not to disclose that knowledge. What I have tried to do is give you all enough dots to connect so that you can know the truth. Unfortunately, the truth is not what you want because it is not spectacular enough. It is more disturbing to accept that Patsy could commit such a crime. John being the killer is really no less disturbing, but in your eyes it makes more sense for him to be the villain based on a limited number of facts. Doc's theory is mostly a lot of inferences because he is not privy to the information I have seen. Believe what you like. I have tried to give you the truth but you continue to refuse it.
Hercule
I shall indeed believe what I like, and I believe as I always have, that you're a charlatan and a poseur. I'm still laughing at some of your psych-babble gaffes from two years ago.
DeleteI guess we can't connect the dots then Hercule. I honestly don't think you have said anything that hasn't been already written by Steve Thomas. If you would like us to understand what you understand to be true then the hints aren't working. I don't mean to be hostile toward you but if you have something, spill it.
DeleteHe doesn't know anything that the rest of us don't know, Castor. Hercule has been around for years and we're STILL waiting for him to produce the goods. He has a theory, based on nothing more than the available evidence - as the rest of us do - nothing more. So, there's nothing to "spill".....he just wants you to believe there is, as it makes his dubious theory sound more credible.
Delete"Unfortunately, the truth is not what you want because it is not spectacular enough. It is more disturbing to accept that Patsy could commit such a crime."
DeleteWrong. Your arbitrary assumptions are misplaced once more, Hercule. The most disturbing scenario (as far as I'm concerned, and I think I can safely speak for a few others here) is that John chronically, sexually abused his daughter and murdered her in cold blood solely to avoid being found out, then allowed anyone/everyone in his family to be a convenient scapegoat.
"John being the killer is really no less disturbing, but in your eyes it makes more sense for him to be the villain based on a limited number of facts."
It sure does, because his "limited number of facts" are a damn sight more than what you've produced: a limited number of assumptions based on what psychological conditions you *think* Patsy was suffering from.
"Doc's theory is mostly a lot of inferences because he is not privy to the information I have seen"
So show us this information then! You're obviously here for a reason - you want to convince us Patsy is guilty, so why play games? You've been telling us for years you are in possession of knowledge none of us are privy to, yet your posts tell us otherwise. If you're "legally bound" to stay quiet, why are you even here at all? Is it because it makes you feel superior to tell us you know what nobody else knows? I'm really trying to understand here....forgive my cynicism, but when someone claims to be in possession of the truth, but fail to produce it at every opportunity, it usually means they're spinning a yarn.
I think you are correct Ms D. The crime is cold-blooded. It isn't a rage killing, or a spontaneous accident. The blow to the head was strong enough to crack her skull and the strangulation took strength, message received, the intention was to kill. Who in the family of three would have had the cold blooded guts to do that - the son, the mother, or the father and I think we know the answer. My opinion, of course.
DeleteGetting back to Doc's original question:
ReplyDelete"What if a match to that mysterious male DNA is ever found? It's got to match someone. Could a case be made against that individual?"
Of course the answer is; it depends. Did the person have opportunity, or does an air-tight alibi put them five states away staying with family for Christmas? Since DA Lacy "ruled out" John and Patsy based on DNA findings, we have to assume that all the guests in the house the day before, and all the people attending the evening Christmas Party were tested and "ruled out". Of course by now we have to assume.
What if a match is found that belongs to somebody who, as I said earlier, had an airtight alibi? Would that close the book on the case? Lin Wood would say so, since he's champion number one of the "this is a DNA case" theory.
The Grand Jury saw fit to recommend an indictment of John and Patsy without DNA evidence. What changed to "make this a DNA case" after Hunter decided not to prosecute? I don't buy the fact that 'too much time has gone by' or that 'too many witnesses are gone or have forgotten' as necessitating one crucial peice of physical evidence to justfy spending the money to try this case based on what's in the record. How many attorney's are as familiar with Doc's book as CC is?
Lin Wood must be chomping on the bit to leak the results of the December tests. If a person with an alibi was identified, he could just admit he was wrong and that the "intruder" will never be discovered. If the tests were once again "inconclusive", his recommendation will be to continue the search for an "intruder" since this, afterall, " a DNA case". I hate that bastard.
Mike G
Sorry...the last sentence in the second paragraph should have been erased. I wrote this whole thing quick...must be Hurricane angst!
DeleteMike G
I'm just catching up on this blog and read through the above comments fairly quickly. It seems like there is a lot of discussion about the fibers found on the duct tape and the possibility that they came from Patsy. But everyone seems to be skipping past the fact that John's shirt fibers were found in JBR's crotch area. Bravo to Ms. D for her comment:
ReplyDelete"However, John's shirt fibres being found in JB's genital region rings alarm bells for me because it is such an intimate area, innocent transfer is surely less likely to be found in such a region? Especially as we know John never assisted JB with her toileting."
While many commenters here are arguing about how Patsy's fibers got on the duct tape, what possible explanations are there for John's shirt fibers found in JB's underwear?? Innocent transfer? I think not.
Thank you Ms. D and CC for continually supporting Doc's JDI theory. I'm with you two.
bb
Hey bb, always a pleasure to see you here.
DeleteI have a left brain/right brain response to John's shirt fibers in JBR's underwear. The left brain lawyer thinks we have to dismiss all trace evidence in a shared home, while the intuitive right brain woman is convinced there's no innocent explanation for Daddy's no doubt dry-clean-only Israeli wool shirt fibers being found where they were.
Thanks, Brooke, nice to see you again!
DeleteYes, CC, I agree - Logically, I'm aware that fibre transference is inevitable in a shared home and because of that, such evidence couldn't be used in court. However, it sure seems mighty coincidental that JB's vagina was violated the night of her murder, and it was Daddy's own, very distinctive, Israeli shirt fibres that were recovered from an area Daddy had no business being in. I can think of several satisfactory (to my mind, at least) reasons for Patsy's jacket fibres being found on the duct tape, all of which have been discussed here.....John's fibres being explained away so easily proves a little more difficult when one considers that they were located in a region of the victim's body where a brutal, vaginal assault had occurred.
I knew I had read Zed's comment earlier 9/8 regarding Burke hitting JB over the head and then being put to bed - wanted to address your theory - parents telling him she would be fine,put back to bed, etc. Your theory varies from EG's who believes Burke did everything, then went back to bed. This theory just cannot work. It calls for an introduction and further complication of two additional people involved in a coverup which further makes the mystery of what happened to JB more difficult to solve. Who did what. When. But on a more realistic fundamental level, what kind of kid could spend the rest of his life without putting the pieces together that just possibly a head blow he delivered to his sister caused her death? Surely we can't buy that he is that much of a dope that he couldn't put that together for himself during the last 20 years. Or he was in some kind of a fugue state where he doesn't remember what he did and can somehow buy his father's theory that an intruder came in the night and meant to harm his sister. Because to this day he believes, and tells Dr. Phil a pedophile from the pageant circuit must have killed his sister. Wouldn't he be able to figure out he killed his sister, or at the very least recovered his memory? It's just too far fetched to think that Burke had anything to do with it. You have stated this more succinctly than I have Doc, but it's a fantasy to try and explain how Burke could have been involved with anything more than being up a little late, touching a bowl of pineapple, or lying in bed the next morning frightened by his mother's frantic calls for his sister and running into his room. As for Dr. Spitz's comment "the boy did it," this man is no stranger to controversial and sensational theories in high profile cases. He's over the hill.
ReplyDeleteQuestions? If she was wiped down and changed did anyone find the urine soaked clothes?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering if they were found if there were any fibers from John on them.
ReplyDeleteShe was wearing the urine stained clothing when found - underpants and longjohns. The wiping down would possibly be for other nefarious purposes, to remove trace evidence of a possible sexual assault.
ReplyDeleteCastor Inq posted September 10 around 10 a.m.: Ha Doc. What they were seeing down in and around the Florida Keys were big pick up trucks filling their tanks with gas, plus two barrels or so, holding up the lines of people just wanting a full tank to be able to get out of there. So very selfish.
ReplyDeleteCC posted on September 10, 2017 at 2:47 PM
That sounds like an apocryphal urban legend. Much more common was what I saw any number of times while driving away from the southeast coast to the center of the state: People pulled over and siphoning gas into the tanks of hapless motorists stranded on the side of the road without fuel.
Big mistake to let your dislike of me color your perception of the entire population of a state that's learned from hard experience to pull together in times of natural disaster.
Delete
CCSeptember 10, 2017 at 3:12 PM
. . .no need to look up apocryphal urban legend, Castor. Roughly translated means bullshit.
Could you be anymore insensitive or uninformed CastorInq???
ReplyDeleteI will not waste my or anyone else's time trying to prove the merit of my credentials. No matter what I say, you will not believe it.
ReplyDeleteCC, I have never challenged your credentials. I have no doubt you are well versed in the system of law. I am sure your father taught you well (wink). His law firm was very respectable. But do not pretend that you have not made a lot of assumptions in this case. Can you prove there were fibers from John's shirt found in JonBenet's panties? No, you cannot. Can you prove that John was an incestuous child molester, pedophile, or murderous psychopath? Again, no.
For the record, the "Steve Thomas Theory" should not be credited to him. The theory was relayed to him from the FBI and specifically born from Robert Ressler. Agent Ressler shared his theory in a closed meeting that I attended by invitation. As I have said before, I was convinced that John Ramsey was the killer until I witnessed Agent Ressler's excellent, if not shocking, presentation. Information that he shared was not to be released outside that room with the fear that it might jeopardize the case in some way. Now that Patsy is deceased, I have often wondered: What harm would it do for the rest of the facts to be released? Regardless, I will keep my oath. It is not for me to decide nor is it my responsibility. I can, however, rest well knowing that if there is a Hell, Patsy Ramsey is there burning in it.
Hercule
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I will not waste my or anyone else's time trying to prove the merit of my credentials. No matter what I say, you will not believe it."
DeleteAhhh.....I was waiting for you to play that card. It sounds kind of like you're trying to shift the burden of proof, which is usually what happens when someone is pushed to provide evidence for a claim they know is false.
Why don't you just try us? Listing your credentials might be a start.....
"CC, I have never challenged your credentials. I have no doubt you are well versed in the system of law. I am sure your father taught you well (wink)."
Your argument has become so weak that you're now resorting to using obvious logical fallacies (genetic fallacy in this case, but most of your arguments are littered with them) in order to discredit your opponent's argument? Keep em coming.....you and Zed should get together!
"Now that Patsy is deceased, I have often wondered: What harm would it do for the rest of the facts to be released? Regardless, I will keep my oath."
Of course you will. Yet, somehow, that hasn't stopped you from telling everyone who'll listen about your PDI theory.....by keeping your oath, I would imagine that would mean not talking about what you learned, period? It seems you're only interested in "keeping your oath" when pressed for evidence.....funny, that.
Why bring me into it Ms D? I do no such thing, despite you continually bringing that up. Please name your BIGGEST issue with my theory and I'll reply ONCE AGAIN with my response. Your merry-go-round of verbal diarrhoea is getting quite old, but I am happy to play this game one more time.
DeleteI never mentioned your theory in my above post, Zed. I'm not interested in it.
DeleteStick to the topic.
Ressler said the evidence, including the autopsy, suggests JonBenet was killed accidentally and ``an elaborate cover-up was done to divert police away from the crime.''
ReplyDeleteHe believes, for instance, that the child was garroted to divert police from what he believes is the true cause of her death: a blow to the head. The writing of the note, he said, was part of the overall effort to send police astray.
If police had not fallen for the ploy, he said bluntly, the case would now be solved. ``They should have immediately started the investigation at another level,'' he said.
I (Zed) agree with Ressler 100%.
Oh, apocryphal urban legend, Herc.
ReplyDeleteYou challenged my credentials from the jump, til it became abundantly clear you were making a fool of yourself.
Ressler and his cohorts had no need to muck about with some (alleged) clinical psychologist with a peace lily and a comfy leather chair, which is what you most lately claimed to be. They were on the then-cutting edge of the FBI's newest program, and had access to the best and the brightest - and that ain't you. Your psychobabble is off the mark, and your pontifications are dotted with grammatical and syntactic errors: Most recently "illicit" rather than elicit.
And for the record, my father was a land developer in Florida in the 50s and 60s, not a lawyer. Keep your smarmy winks to yourself, you presumptuous twit.
Hercule....Do you know if the GJ was privy to the information that you claim to have heard? If so, why did they not indict PR?
ReplyDeleteCC.....I have to agree with one side of your brain, ;) regarding the fiber evidence. For me, it's either all in or all out. If PR's fibers can be dismissed, then so should JR's.
EG
And so I've said, E, many times.
DeleteYou surprise me, EG. You're usually better informed. The GJ did, in fact, bring a true bill against both John and Patsy.
DeleteI know that, but wouldn't they have stated PR murdered JBR and JR covered up for/with her?
DeleteIf they had this information that Hercule claims proves PR did it, why didn't the true bill read that way?
EG
It sounds as though Hercule is trying to give the impression that he was either one of the investigators or perhaps a member of the Grand Jury. I for one am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Could be, I suppose.
DeleteBut Herc, if the evidence against Patsy were so clear then why was she never indicted and brought to trial? If you are privy to "inside" evidence so would the DA's office and the BPD, no?
You can google interviews and articles in regards to Ressler and this case.
DeleteNever does Ressler say he believes Patsy was in on this alone. He always states John and Patsy. But I am prepared to give Hercule a chance, if he gives us something to chew on (which he has not). To be honest, it would not surprise me in the slightest if there was key evidence against one (or both) parents that only the GJ know of. Problem is they faced a stone, cold wall in the form of Alex Hunter. I still think this case would have progressed if it wasn't for that pesky (and irrelevant) DNA in 2008 that "apparently" exonerated all members of the Ramsey family.
At the end of the day, I do agree with Ressler that this was an accidental death (no premeditation) and both parents were involved on the cover up.
Doc,
ReplyDeleteThat was my questions as well to Hercule. If they had ironclad evidence against her and it was solid, why didn't they indict her alone and name JR as the accessory to the murder/accident--whichever it was.
Zed, I agree with you 100%. However, I guess the DNA couldn't be ignored. It just tipped the scale enough, as did the RN, to provide that shadow of a doubt.
EG
True EG, Hercule has stood fast all along that it was Patsy and Patsy alone who is responsible for the accidental headblow and coverup but according to the Grand Jury JR was indicted along with Patsy, so if Hercule has inside information that is "shocking" what is it.
ReplyDeleteYa’ know, until visiting here sporadically, I’ve always believed that it was an accident which was covered up. You’ve Henry Lee and Ressler pointing in that direction. But if one looks at the number of movie quotes ‘spontaneously’ created in the RN, the copying of dialog from the book Mind Hunter, staging similarities to the killing of Shari Faye Smith, it gives one pause to at least consider premeditation. Of course, CC has made some strong arguments about this. Also, Douglas tells us about some sickos’ perversion with Barbie dolls. how they are sometimes first turned on by Barbie Dolls. A pink Barbie nightdress was placed close to JonBenet's body. Some have postulated it was to give ‘comfort,’ but there’s also the thought that it was planted to reinforce the idea she was the victim of a perverted intruder. So here’s what is in JR’s interview:
ReplyDelete6 LOU SMIT: And then we have a
7 Barbie or a nightgown. There is just
8 suggestions that are made to that, and
9 what's your opinion of that, and what's
10 your impression?
11 JOHN RAMSEY: God, I can only
12 imagine it. That that was something very
13 perverted.
Anonymous, you mentioned Mind Hunter and Shari Faye Smith. If John and/or Patsy used any of these as "drafts" (which is definitely possible but who knows), to me that works equally as well as a spontaneous act.
ReplyDeletePatsy: "Shit John, we are staging an intrusion/kidnapping, how the hell do we do this...we have no idea what we are doing!!"
John: "Hmm, the book Mind Hunter has given me a few ideas. And who was that teenager that was kidnapped in her driveway...Shari I think her name was. We can copy some stuff from that".
None of the items you mentioned are evidence of premeditation. Even the Barbie dress. They are only talking points which give John being involved more credence.
Sure, there is no absolute proof of premeditation. It's all circumstantial.
DeleteBut it's not just material from Mind Hunter. The similarities to the Leopold and Loeb ransom note are also striking. If you don't recall the Leopold and Loeb kidnapping, it targeted Charlevoix's most prominent citizen, Albert Loeb. How would JR know about it? Oh yeah, his father had a vacation home there. JR and his new wife even married in the Castle Farms property, once owned by executive Albert Loeb. Will coincidences never cease.
Brilliant, no? In the middle of the night recalling the Leopold and Loeb ransom note, the many movie quotes, and picking up staging ideas from crimes detailed in Mind Hunter. Just sayin', I don't find it easy to totally dismiss the idea of premeditation, unless one is absolutely convinced from the pineapple nexus it was BSI.
To be honest, the headblow itself and the RN are enough for me rule out premeditation. I just like keeping things simple..which they usually are.
DeleteZed, what is "simple" about a theory involving a homicidal, nine year old, and his equally homicidal parents?
DeleteWhat is "simple" about a scenario that involves a child mortally wounding his little sister, and his parents deciding - with intent - to then strangle the life out of this child they loved, when there was an opportunity to perhaps save her instead?
What is "simple" about these two, loving, protective parents deciding to - presumably on a whim - vaginally assault the child they loved whilst she lay on a cold, hard, concrete floor when it is a failed abduction they are staging?
I guess what I'm asking you is, how can you not see that a murder involving three, separate killers, along with two, separate crimes (one crime involving the first perp occurring earlier in the evening, the later crime involving the other two perps occurring an hour or more later), a phony kidnapping AND an unnecessary sexual assault (when a pedophile intruder was never once even hinted at in the ransom note), a seriously deranged child who has managed to deceive authorities for decades, is anything *but* simple? If your theory is to be believed, it is unprecedented in it's complexity! Can you cite any other case even remotely similar?
Maintain your BSI/RFI ("Burke Started It/Ramsey's Finished It") stance, by all means, but you can't honestly continue to claim that it is the simplest, most logical scenario, when - if nothing else - just the sheer number of people involved in this theory, alone, make it one of the most convoluted theories that has been presented.
Two, separate crimes happening hours apart by three perpetrators, two of whom are staging two, completely different crime scenes - one being compatible with the ransom note, the other undermining everything contained within it - is NOT simple, Zed, no matter which way you spin it.
That is, MsD, what turned me from suspecting Burke's involvement, to ruling it out. Of course we know Burke didn't write the note. So that then leads to a cover-up scenario - for another, for Burke (in the BDI scenario). And when it's not clear who wrote the note and who did the strangulation, we must then assign one of those duties to another, making the whole theory unnecessarily complicated. Opposite of simple. And where was Burke during the staging? Put back to bed and fast asleep? In denial for 20 years that maybe his head blow had something to do with her death? So much so that in his denial state he can say to Dr. Phil that "a pedophile from the pageant circuit" killed his sister. Or he's a practiced liar. Certainly not attacking you Zed, just the theory. Once you consider the possibility that it was one person and one alone, and that possibility was John even the note will resemble his strained attempts to straighten up his backward slant handwriting and directorial business-like style. I believe also that John liked the cat and mouse games he played with the investigators by offering that he would not hand write a ransom note, in fact he wouldn't have written a note at all he says.
DeleteWell I diagree completely, just like thousands of others around the world do. I think it is the most simple and logical theory. I will break down the elements which make it simple a bit later on after I have some breakfast.
DeleteObviously you still haven't finished your breakfast yet, Zed?
DeleteSurely you're not referring to your post on Sep 12 at 9:31? All you did was refute premeditation on John's part, you never went through one, single, element of what makes BDI "simple", which is what you said you were going to do. You never even attempted to.
DeleteA BDI making a mighty bold claim, and failing to follow through yet again. This is why no one takes any of you seriously.
I thought it was stuck to the blanket (static cling) so was not even noticed by whoever wrapped her in it
ReplyDeleteI believe the static cling idea came from Linda Hoffman Pugh, who said the blanket was left in the dryer. However, she was last at the Ramseys' on December 23rd.
DeletePR said in her 1997 BPD interview that the blanket was on JBR's bed the night of December 25th. In her 1998 interview, she said that she couldn't say for sure if it was on the bed, but conceded that it probably was.
last comment for a while, don't mean to hover here. I think there was some measure of glee on John's part when Patsy was called in repeatedly to submit a handwriting sample, was it five times? Or more? And he was not. He could play the role in their defense of being the supportive one, as long as the spotlight was not directly on him.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ms D...below I will explain what makes “Burke Started It” (BSI) or RDI (Burke/John/Patsy) an extremely simple theory and why it ensures all the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together snugly.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with premeditated attack vs “something went horribly wrong that night”.
1. If it was premeditated there would not have been a headblow. Yes, I have read your arguments against this, but John is not a mind reader. He could not have known that striking someone with that force would not leave blood everywhere (including all over himself). Blood he would have had to completely hide if JDI theory was correct.
2. If it was premeditated he would not have used materials from the house. I am referring to the materials that were used in the staging and, of course, the RN. Again, I have heard your arguments against this also, but John would not have taken the risk of using household items even if he planned to get rid of it all.
3. If it was premeditated he would not have performed this on the night he did. Late night after a big Xmas day, Burke still awake wanting to play with toys, Patsy most likely thinking what she had to do to prepare for their early morning flight. No, the timing indicates this was not premeditated.
4. If it was premeditated he would not have let Patsy call police. Seriously, he would not spend all night executing his plan and then have a shower whilst Patsy reads the note. He would have made sure 100% he was with Patsy when she found it. Plus Patsy clearly says that John said “ok” or “told her” to ring 911. There was no magical gas lighting going on here, although I give you credit for a good imagination.
Conclusion = the simplest theory to accept, is that this was NOT premeditated.
I might just leave this post for now without going into other areas. I can certainly address other areas later on BSI/RDI is the simplest theory. But it gives people a chance to comment on premeditation...which, I know, we have discussed many times before.
Zed, making a case against premeditation does absolutely nothing to advance your own BDI/RFI argument, you realize this, don't you? You didn't attempt to address any of my points with any kind of a convincing rebuttal, you chose - in typical BDI fashion - to argue against the JDI theory instead, thus presenting a false dichotomy (yet another logical fallacy in your ever growing list), ie: the only two, viable, options are BDI or JDI (with premeditation), thus ruling out premeditation on John's part (which you failed to do, and would have proved nothing if you did) somehow proves Burke did it, if we were to use your own warped idea of "logic".
DeleteIt doesn't work that way.
Can you read English? My post was purely on premeditation and nothing else. Maybe you have had a few xxxx gold.
DeleteAnd please stop using the words dichotomy and fallacy. Please. For the sake of all of us.
DeleteWhy do you always insist on resorting to personal attacks? It only makes you look foolish, not the person you're attacking. Why do you want to make yourself look stupid? You've accused me of being drunk on a few occasions.....perhaps you're projecting? Stop being such a petulant child and learn how to argue like an adult.
DeleteI'll make a deal with you: I'll stop using such terms if you stop resorting to using fallacies in every one of your arguments. Sound reasonable to you?
And sorry, I missed your last paragraph.
ReplyDeleteMs D said:
Two, separate crimes happening hours apart by three perpetrators, two of whom are staging two, completely different crime scenes - one being compatible with the ransom note, the other undermining everything contained within it - is NOT simple, Zed, no matter which way you spin it.
My reply:
What are you on about? Two crimes? Burke lashed out at his sister like kids do everyday. He just happened to be carrying a maglite at the time. That can hardly be classified as a crime.
And again, what are you talking about? Staging two different crime scenes is not a fact, just a theory you have which I think is rubbish. Both parents were staging for the exact same outcome. The ransom note does not undermine anything. Seriously I am sick of repeating myself. Go down to your local and have a XXXX Gold...it will do you good.
"Staging two different crime scenes is not a fact, just a theory you have which I think is rubbish."
DeleteActually, it is a fact, whether you believe it is or not. Both a kidnapping AND a sexual assault were staged.....thus, two, different crime scenes were staged - each one of them undermining the other.
Why would that be if both parents were involved in the cover up?
The ransom note offered a financial motive, nothing more. This was the first staged scene: a kidnapping for ransom, no more, no less.
Leaving JB's sexually violated body in the basement of their home cancels out the abduction scenario, and points to the motive being sexual instead: attack by a pedophile intruder, staged crime scene #2.
Why weren't the two people staging this crime scene even remotely on the same page as each other? Or, if they were, and interweaving two motives together was all part of their devious plan from the start, what logical reason could they have had for deciding to add a sexual twist to the staging when such an element would be SURE to direct the investigation towards the male occupants of the house.....doesn't that go against the entire premise for the cover up to begin with?
Yawn. Its not a fact.
DeleteCan't wait to see your fallacious reply. I am sure it will be full of dichotomous verbiage.
For the sake of everyone on this blog I am not going to reply to Ms D from this point onwards...ever again. It's like headbutting a brick wall.
When have I ever given you a "fallacious" reply? Facetious, maybe! My arguments may be completely off the mark, but I don't believe they're built on fallacies.
DeleteAs you wish - don't respond to me anymore, but don't expect Doc, CC, Mike or HKH not to challenge your arguments (or lack thereof), because the problem actually isn't with my relentless persistence, it's with your refusal to support your own argument with facts and logic, always choosing to attack your opponent instead. People are always going to challenge you on this, you won't solve the issue simply by putting me on your "Foe" list. But, best wishes to you, Mr Z, hope you can finally provide us with something substantial one day, because I'd really love you to convince me.
Hercules,
ReplyDeleteI am still awaiting your answer regarding the GJ and the evidence against PR. As you know, I am in the BDI camp with both PR and JR covering up, and writing the RN.
My second theory, however, would be that PR did it and acted alone. Therefore, am curious as to what evidence you were given and whether or not the GJ was privy to it as well. If so, surely they would have indicted PR alone? If not, why not, given the evidence, as you claim would prove her guilt?
Let's face it. Each group has their own opinions and "facts" as to why their theory is the one that's right.
The JDI's claim to cover ongoing sexual abuse
The PDI's claim was rage over bedwetting
The BDI's claim sibling rivalry, jealousy.
All good reasons and all substantiated by compelling statistics to back each motive.
As to premeditation, I must admit, the writing of the lengthy RN with all of the movie quotes does make me wonder whether someone could come up with that in moments of chaos and panic. However, if they had hours in which to write it, without worry of being discovered, I guess they could.
Also, if the head blow came first, it's indicative of an act of rage which isn't premeditated but more of a reaction to something.
I don't know, but as you can see I go back and forth and up and down with this case. As we all do, I suppose.
Getting back to you, Hercules, if it was PR and JR was aware of this evidence against her which sealed her guilt, would he have covered for her? Would he have allowed her to continue raising Burke, knowing that in a fit of rage, she killed his daughter? Or are you saying that JR wasn't aware of the evidence they had against PR?
EG
Hercule is privy to secret information proving Patsy's guilt, but refuses to share it with the rest of us. Don aka Don H proclaimed, at the top of his lungs, that he has "40 links" that prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt ("it is a FACT") that Burke Ramsey clobbered his sister over the head. Well, Don never came back to post his links (what a shocker), and Hercule has claimed that whilst he *can* prove it, no one would believe him, so he's opting *not* to do so, which is most convenient.....I see a pattern here, do you? Those who shout the loudest suddenly become very quiet when evidence of their claims is demanded. The fact is, if they indeed COULD prove their theory, they WOULD do so in a heartbeat.....that is precisely why they're here, after all - to convince us! Anyone promising to be in possession of indisputable evidence, but can't/won't/don't produce it.....I say "bullshit". I'm absolutely convinced of John's guilt, but I sure as hell can't prove it, and don't claim to be able to.
DeleteOoops..Hercule...not Hercules. Sorrrryyyyy!
ReplyDeleteEG
If John Ramsey and ONLY John Ramsey was involved in the murder, writing of the RN and staging then that would mean Patsy and Burke were learning the developments of the case as they unfolded in front of them. So, Patsy wakes up, reads the note and realizes that her daughter has been kidnapped. She would be hysterical, which is why she ignores the warnings of the note and calls 911 because her one and only goal was to GET HER DAUGHTER BACK! Correct? That would be the only goal of a mother whose daughter was just taken from her.
ReplyDeleteOk, so the cops arrive and are awaiting a phone call from the kidnappers. According to all the JDI theories on here, John Ramsey wouldn’t want to draw any attention the phone call from the kidnappers because there weren’t any kidnappers which meant there was never going to be a phone call. Unfortunately, that same logic wouldn’t apply for Patsy right? Patsy Ramsey’s one and only goal as I said above would be to what? GET HER DAUGHTER BACK! This brings me to my point…..IF her only goal was to bring her daughter back, then WHY wasn’t she more concerned with the phone call from the kidnappers? All she knows is that her daughter is missing and a RN…that’s it. The phone call from the kidnappers is all she would have, that would be her only hope as the police on scene were also awaiting that phone call. Yet, we have no witness accounts that Patsy was hounding the police or anybody about the lack of a phone call. She wasn’t hysterical of there not being a phone call nor was she hysterical trying to figure out who the kidnappers were.
Patsy’s behavior speaks to a person MOURNING her child, not of a person LOOKING for her child. At funerals friends are invited to provide comfort and what happens that morning? They invite friends over right after the 911 call. Her behavior isn’t of a Mom trying to find a child, it just isn’t on any level. And as we know Patsy being involved = JDI can’t be true
-J
Let me add to the final paragraph. If Patsy was mourning her child then it means she was already dead which means she was involved one way or another
Delete-J
"She wasn’t hysterical of there not being a phone call nor was she hysterical trying to figure out who the kidnappers were."
DeleteHow do you know she wasn't wondering who the kidnappers were, J? Were there any psychics present reading Patsy's mind? By all accounts, Patsy was hysterical the entire morning. She was vomiting and screaming - I'd call that hysterical, wouldn't you? How much farther into despair should she have descended before appearing sincere, J? And whose behaviour are you comparing Patsy's to - how many kidnappings have you attended? As far as her not being concerned about the call not coming in, we've been through this before with you, so you already know the answer.....the note said "we will call you TOMORROW between 8 - 10 a.m". When is "tomorrow"?
"Patsy’s behavior speaks to a person MOURNING her child, not of a person LOOKING for her child."
How much experience do you have with mothers of kidnapping victims? How are they *supposed* to act?
When Patsy is overwrought, you accuse her of being a drama queen, when she's calm, you say it's an indicator pointing to her involvement.....everything Patsy says and does is suspect to you because you're already convinced of her guilt. As someone who doesn't believe she was involved, I see her behaviour as typical of that of a terrified mother - but perhaps I'm also guilty of confirmation bias.
"Let me add to the final paragraph. If Patsy was mourning her child then it means she was already dead which means she was involved one way or another."
You have to first prove your premise is true before you can draw any conclusions from it.
Yes, Ms. D, I have to agree. First of all we don't know exactly what Patsy was saying or doing while everyone was waiting for that phone call. I'm assuming someone reported that she didn't react appropriately when the deadline arrived, but what does that mean, exactly? Was this person right on top of her the whole time -- or maybe reading her mind? Was that person in a position to hear every word she uttered? For all we know maybe she did express concern, but without making a huge fuss. By all accounts she was a basket case -- who can say what's appropriate or inappropriate for someone in such an extreme state.
DeleteAlso, as Ms. D notes, this is a typical "damned if she did, damned if she didn't situation." If she reacted strongly when the deadline arrived you'd say this was just part of her act. As I see it, someone putting on an act would be more likely to over-react. Reminds me of the re-dressing issue. A guilty person would be more likely to shower and change. And in this case a guilty person would be more likely to over-react when no phone call came in.
"the note said "we will call you TOMORROW between 8 - 10 a.m". When is "tomorrow"?"
DeleteUMMMMMM then why were the police waiting for a call on that day???????? Whoever wrote that note might have thought they were being clever, but nobody bought it. JDI's keep spinning the "call was coming the next day" narrative, but the authorities never bought it, therefore why would Patsy have????
Doc and Ms D...have you seen ANY piece of testimony from ANYBODY that says Patsy was badgering authorities about the phone call? Have you seen ANY testimony from the friends or from the police that said Patsy was badgering authorities for who S.B.T.C was? We have LA telling us she remembers Patsy being hysterical when the body came up. If Patsy was asking tons of questions or badgering people, we would know about it. What we do know is IMMEDIATELY AFTER hanging up on the 911 operator (very odd) she calls friends to come over. That's a FACT.
Ms D--no I am not a psychic and don't appreciate your constant condescending tone. You look at everything thru the JDI lens, so naturally your first instinct is to defend. I don't know if you are a parent, but if that was YOUR kid and you weren't involved, I can't imagine you would sit with friends, distraught and not be proactive in the search.
-J
Ms D - I read it fast and just realized you didn't ask me if I was a psychic...my apologies
Delete-J
You speak too much sense J. Kudos to you.
Delete"UMMMMMM then why were the police waiting for a call on that day????????"
DeleteUMMMMMM, because they couldn't have known whether the "kidnappers" were talking about the 26th of the 27th??????
PROVE to me the author of the ransom note was talking about the morning of the 26th, J. The fact is, no one knows what day the author was referring to.
"What we do know is IMMEDIATELY AFTER hanging up on the 911 operator (very odd) she calls friends to come over. That's a FACT."
That she called friends over IS a fact, indeed. That this action somehow implies guilt is NOT a fact, however.
"I don't know if you are a parent, but if that was YOUR kid and you weren't involved, I can't imagine you would sit with friends, distraught and not be proactive in the search"
I am a parent, and I would most certainly sit - with my support network - in my house whilst the police did their job. What do you mean by "proactive"? Should Patsy have been running around the neighborhood searching for JB? There was a note - the note said she had been abducted - why would Patsy be out searching the streets for the kidnappers?! THAT is the job of the police, is it not? If days/weeks had have passed - only then would I expect her to be "proactive" in the search. It was only a matter of hours that JB had been missing before she was found, and Patsy was told to not leave the house, so come on now...be reasonable.
I'm sorry, but all of these wild speculations regarding Patsy's behaviour are exactly that, they are evidence of nothing. Stick to the facts, your psychoanalysis of Patsy will not solve this crime, it will actually drag everyone further down the rabbit hole.
As far as my condescending tone, I think you do a pretty good job of that yourself, let's be honest, shall we?
You will have to ask a hundred 911 operators how many of their callers have hung up on them before you can make the assertion that her actions were "very odd". I have called 000 (our Emergency number here in Aus) a couple of times in my life, and both times I have been in such distress, that after giving my address I ended the call and anxiously waited outside for them to arrive. What more could I do at that point? The operator told Patsy officers were on their way, what do you suggest she should have done? Asked her about the weather? And if Patsy HAD stayed on the line, wouldn't you then be telling us that an innocent person would have got straight off the phone and started searching for her daughter?! Can't you see that whatever Patsy does, you see it as suspicious?
DeleteJust saying "stick to the facts" doesn't mean you are sticking to the facts and I am not.
DeleteI am a parent, and I would most certainly sit - with my support network - in my house whilst the police did their job. What do you mean by "proactive"?
This is beyond laughable that you would honestly say this. The police weren't doing ANYTHING after the first few hours because they didn't believe the note! The whole premise of your precious theory is that Patsy wasn't involved which would mean she believed there were real kidnappers! You would sit still???????????????????????? How can you say this with a straight face Ms D? You have gotten so lost in your belief that JDI that you no longer think rationally and that is sad.
You can comment on any of my posts as it's your right, but I will tell you right now that I will no longer read them or respond. It's not worth getting worked up over when you have made up your mind on this case and nothing will change that. I hope I never get to the point where I lose common sense. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that PR was involved which means your theory can't be true.
-J
"The police weren't doing ANYTHING after the first few hours because they didn't believe the note!"
DeleteWe only know that in RETROSPECT, J. The Ramseys did NOT know that on the morning of the 26th.
"The whole premise of your precious theory is that Patsy wasn't involved which would mean she believed there were real kidnappers! You would sit still???????????????????????? How can you say this with a straight face Ms D?"
What the hell else would you expect me to do?! How in the heck would you suggest *I* find these kidnappers, who could be anywhere?! Have YOU been in this situation before? Have you spent time with others who have? Patsy was told NOT TO LEAVE THE SUN ROOM, so you tell me....what do you expect she should have done?!
"You have gotten so lost in your belief that JDI that you no longer think rationally and that is sad."
Don't you DARE pity me, J....I don't need your sympathy, I'm doing just fine, thank you. My thoughts are a cut above yours in the rationality department, therefore if anyone is deserving of sympathy, it is you.....but even I wouldn't stoop that low.
"I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that PR was involved which means your theory can't be true."
My theory cannot be true based on your faulty premise, simply because you say so.....sure, o.k, whatever you say, J.....it's a relief to know that you and Zed will no longer be responding to my comments, because the two of you have no clue how to debate maturely or rationally, making your arguments embarrassingly cringe worthy.
Hopefully the other JDIs here will continue to challenge your woefully faulty logic.
I am responding to this because it's part of our thread
DeleteThe reality is this in regards to your responses:
-Burke acts weird when he sees a pineapple bowl when being questioned. Your response.....it doesn't look like pineapple in the image and how do you expect a 10 yr old to respond
-Pineapple bowl has Burke's fignerprints on it, so the natural conclusion is that it was Burke's bowl of pineapple. Your response --- his fingerprints could have gotten there when he emptied the dishwasher
-Patsy didn't seem proactive enough to find her daughter. Your response - what did you want her to do? (ummmmm it's her daughter, so SITTING there, isn't really acceptabe)
-Sounds like we hear Burke at the end of the 911 call. Your response - No, we can't be sure we hear anything
Do you see a pattern? You never for even a second concede on any of these points. Your immediate reaction is to just dismiss anything that opposes your JDI theory. Unfortunately you aren't the only person on here guilty of this behavior on this blog. So, not responding to your post's or you responding to mine just makes sense. I believe we could have video of Burke hitting his sister over the head and you would question who filmed it.
Hopefully one day we will get a definitive answer and if it's proven that JDI you can rub it in my face. Luckily for me he didn't do it, so that will never happen ;-)
-J
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI sincerely believe all of my responses are valid, though, J.
Delete1. I honestly don't see Burke's response to the bowl of pineapple as indicative of guilt OR innocence. At first glance, it genuinely appears he didn't recognize it. If I were arguing for BDI, this would not be a point I'd bring up, as it is, again, based on one's presumptions of how a person *should* act in a certain situation.
2. The fact is - Burke COULD have left his fingerprints on the bowl at any time, prove to me this cannot be the case, and then you might have something worth discussing.
3. You still haven't told us what Patsy could have done differently in a situation where she was explicitly told NOT to leave the sight of LE. What were her other options.....how could she have been more "proactive" in the sun room that morning? Why do you feel that her "sitting there", allowing the police to do their job, is "unacceptable"? What do other parents of kidnapping victims do in the first few hours after receiving the ransom note? Do they run around town looking for their child, or do they call the police, raise the ransom money, and sit by the phone? If Patsy had have left the house to conduct a search of her own, you would have CERTAINLY seen that as a sign of her guilt...I would have too, just as I do with John's disappearance. Several times she was heard crying to John to "get the ransom money", wouldn't you agree that raising the money in order to get her daughter back is the best course of action to take? Usually (if it is a genuine kidnapping) that will be the ONLY course of action the victim's family will need to take. Patsy was sobbing, vomiting, screaming, moaning.....she was in no condition to do much of anything, so I still have no idea what you expect she should have done, nor do I think if she did things differently would it have made any difference to you. When she reacts appropriately - you say she's faking it, when she reacts inappropriately (in your eyes) - you say it's a clear sign of her guilt.
4. Many people who have listened to that tape don't hear a child's voice, whether they be BDIs, RDIs, JDIs, PDIs or IDIs. How could that be if this mystery voice is so obvious? Even if it was Burke's voice, it sure doesn't prove he killed his sister, it would only prove that the Ramseys are lying, and there could be a dozen reasons as to why that may be the case. At any rate, I only hear Patsy's voice at the end of the call, so I have no reason to believe Burke was with them. If he was.....so be it, I'm still going to need a lot more than that to convince me he was involved in the murder.
J, you are of the impression that I have an overwhelming need to believe John did this. Nothing could be further from the truth - I desperately want to be convinced otherwise, and that it is why I push BDIs so hard to produce evidence that might convince me, but so far, all they've given me is assumptions, deflections, faulty logic and circular reasoning.
“You still haven't told us what Patsy could have done differently in a situation where she was explicitly told NOT to leave the sight of LE.”
DeleteFor a second, take yourself completely away from anything you know about this case. Put yourself in Patsy Ramsey’s shoes under the assumption that she has absolutely zero involvement in the murder or cover up. Ok? So, you wake up that morning to catch a flight to go with your husband and children to Michigan for a fun family vacation. So, you get up and go down the spiral staircase and see a note……the note says your daughter has been kidnapped. You had slept thru the night and didn’t hear anything nor have you checked on your daughter, so you immediately check on your daughter and she is missing. Complete desperation and panic should set in at this point and she must have been so distraught that she ignored the warnings of the note, calls 911 and ends the phone call by hanging up (even though we can hear a less eratic Patsy immediately after she thought she hung up) but nonetheless she hangs up the call.
So, now the 911 call is over. Your next step would be A) check on Burke B) check the house for any clues C) run and ask the neighbors if they saw or heard anything D) Wake up Burke and John to ask them If they heard anything
Which one would you choose Ms D? (again, PLEASE forget EVERYTHING else you know about this case. You are Patsy Ramsey) Oh, you also have choice E) call your friends to come over
This post will be broken down into parts, but I want to keep you focused. Answer the question directly above coming from you being Patsy Ramsey in that exact moment
-J
"Calls 911 and ends the phone call by hanging up (even though we can hear a less eratic Patsy immediately after she thought she hung up)"
DeleteI absolutely disagree....I hear a distraught Patsy pleading "Help Me Jesus".
"So, now the 911 call is over. Your next step would be A) check on Burke B) check the house for any clues C) run and ask the neighbors if they saw or heard anything D) Wake up Burke and John to ask them If they heard anything"
John was already awake, but I would possibly wake up Burke and ask him if he heard/saw anything. Honestly, the very first thing I'd do is call 911, because I'd want help to arrive as soon as possible.
"Oh, you also have choice E) call your friends to come over"
No, that comes AFTER I made the first choice (call the cops), J. You're presenting this option as though calling my friends is at the expense of everything else, which is dishonest, because that's not what happened. And, yes, I would most certainly call my support network after I know the police are on their way.
Please continue.....
See Ms D, here is the problem. I am 100% OK with the 911 call. I would guess a large majority of people would do the same. The reason you call 911 is because they are the experts, they are the people who can look for clues and ultimately get a result. The last thing in the world I would do is to call friends over.
DeleteIf I was Patsy in that moment, my house could have clues and evidence crucial to finding my daughter. WHY would you bring friends over to contaminate the scene???? If you are making the case she called the cops and did the right thing, then explain why she wouldn't wait for the cops to arrive before inviting friends over?
-J
Just to be clear, my arguement has been that John and Patsy invited friends over to create a barrier between them and the police. They invited friends over to help contaminate the scene and create chaos
DeleteBut, what I am getting at in the post's above is that IF Patsy is truly innocent, then so much of her behavior and decisions that morning don't speak to an innocent woman.
-J
"If I was Patsy in that moment, my house could have clues and evidence crucial to finding my daughter. WHY would you bring friends over to contaminate the scene????"
DeleteYou're not Patsy though, are you? Thus, what *you* would or wouldn't do has no bearing on *this* case.
But I can play that game too.....if I was Patsy and found my daughter lying unconscious, I would not tie a garrote around her neck in order to finish her off, then stage a phony kidnapping. WHY would ANYONE do that?! One has to suspend disbelief with either scenario, but wouldn't you agree that of the two scenarios presented in both theories, an innocent Patsy calling friends over isn't as much of a leap as a guilty Patsy finishing off her daughter to protect a son that couldn't even be charged? Honestly.....which sounds less plausible to you?
"If you are making the case she called the cops and did the right thing, then explain why she wouldn't wait for the cops to arrive before inviting friends over?"
I don't know why because I'm not Patsy. Her guilt doesn't hinge on the fact she invited her friends over, and you know it doesn't....so why are we discussing it? I thought you were going to give me something tangible instead.
"They invited friends over to help contaminate the scene and create chaos"
They could have done that on their own, they didn't need their friends to do it.
"But, what I am getting at in the post's above is that IF Patsy is truly innocent, then so much of her behavior and decisions that morning don't speak to an innocent woman."
Yes, you keep telling us that, but I disagree, so what now?
This is why personal opinions are pointless: I don't see Patsy's actions that morning as odd, you see them as huge, red, flags.
Are you trying to convince me of Burke's involvement by insisting that Patsy's behaviour was strange? Is a bowl of pineapple and Patsy inviting friends over sincerely the best evidence you've got against Burke?
Y'know what the BDIs never mention, but which I believe has a great deal to do with their conviction, MsD? Burke's appearance and demeanor in that Dr Phil interview.
DeleteHumans are hard-wired to respond positively to an attractive person, negatively to one who does not behave in what, in their perception, is a normal way - by smiling inappropriately throughout a discussion of the violent death of his sister, for instance. I saw it in jurors, and it's a difficult prejudice to overcome, as no one will admit to it.
Fact is, J, the police should have prevented any of the friends from entering the house in the first place. They were the one's who arrived first, according to most accounts. If the police weren't bothered by all those people contaminating the scene then why assume Patsy would have?
DeleteAnd if her intention was to have her friends contaminate the scene, then she'd have called them first, before calling in the cops, to make sure they arrived before the cops could restrain them.
Also, as Ms. D argues very convincingly, if they were both guilty they'd have had plenty of opportunity to contaminate the scene before anyone else arrived. They could certainly have tracked mud into the house, for example, displaced certain items, and even tossed some valuables into the garbage or down the sewer drain.
J,
DeleteOriginally, I couldn't resolve why PR would call her friends that morning. Why would her friends be a priority upon discovering her daughter's been kidnapped?
However, after asking myself honestly, what I would have done in that situation, PR's decision doesn't seem so odd to me. Would I call my friends? No, probably not. However, I'm certain I would call my parents, who live closeby, and ask them to come over.
I don't think it's a stretch to think that PR considered her friends somewhat of a surrogate family. After all, these are some of the same people with whom she and her family celebrated Christmas.
I think it's only natural to seek comfort from the people you're closest to when tragedy strikes.
Also, as a layperson, contaminating/preserving the crime scene would have been the furthest thing from my mind that morning.
I know that hypothetical "what I would have done" comments don't prove anything one way or another, but they do serve as a reminder that what's suspect to some, is perfectly reasonable to others.
And if you were the parent of a dead child, would you ever stop looking for that child's killer?
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree the answer to that one is...no.
EG
Actually, when Linda Arndt visited Patsy on her death bed, Patsy implored her to find her daughter's killer.
DeleteCertainly not the actions of a mother who had spent the last ten years covering for her son, EG. Nor the actions of a woman who knows who the killer is.
My question was/is and always will be...what PARENT stops looking for their dead child's murderer?
DeleteYes, even on her deathbed, she was protecting her surviving child, sending the police on a wild goose chase as they tried to do with the fake RN.
How many times did the R's call the police to ask if they'd made any headway?
How many private detectives did they hire over the years to find the killer?
Years and years later, parents never give up looking. Look at Walsh, Holloway.
You'd spend your last breath and your last dime and you'd never stop searching. I know I wouldn't.
EG
"Yes, even on her deathbed, she was protecting her surviving child, sending the police on a wild goose chase as they tried to do with the fake RN."
DeleteSo, after ten years of protecting her murderous child, she begs Linda Arndt to keep looking for the killer - the very person she's risked the death penalty in order to protect? Sorry, that makes no sense at all.
It makes perfect sense to me.
DeleteAnd you still haven't answered my question.
EG
How does it make sense to you that Patsy would want Linda to pursue the case which would ultimately lead to her son being caught? If she wanted to continue to protect Burke, why did she not simply say she was at peace with whoever killed her daughter (as John has said) and to give up the search?
DeleteI'm sorry, I'm not sure which question you're referring to. If it is this one: "What PARENT stops looking for their dead child's murderer?", I believe I have answered it to the best of my ability: Patsy DIDN'T give up the search - even on her death bed, she implored Linda to continue looking for JB's killer.
NOW YOU ARE TALKING!!!!!!!!! Even Chief Mark Beckner thinks the DNA leads to the murderer. If we can find the match, we can catch the intruder
ReplyDeleteBeckner has also said, as has Stan Garnett,that he knows whodunnit, Mike Kane has hinted that he does as well.
DeleteGarnett went on to say he'd bring charges if the evidence came together. They're not searching databases for a match to the unidentified DNA, Paul, that's been done...and re-done. They're probably using newer, more sensitive tests in hopes of finding identifiable epithelial cells in the vaginal swabs, the doubleknot that killed, and the faux garrote that did not.
Do you think John's sweating at this point, CC?
DeleteProbably a little less so since throwing Burke to the wolves via Dr Phil. Great diversion - look at all the BDI believers since that and CBS! I'll never believe a young man as private and socially awkward as Burke did that interview voluntarily.
DeleteCC
What if Burke accidentally or not, hit his sister over the head and ran to John for help and John did the rest to fool Patsy and everyone else?
ReplyDeleteWhat if John did it all, Anon? Why the need to bring Burke into it? There's no evidence that necessitates Burke being involved, so why do you feel the need to include him in any scenario? Burke was cleared early on in the investigation, both LE and child psychologists believe he had no involvement in his sister's death, and we know the GJ didn't believe he did either, so what makes you think he must have been involved?
DeleteThere is no evidence that Burke was involved however that does not mean he was not involved. Burke was cleared because LE knew he could not have been the one to write the ransom note and the grand jury seemed to believe the parents rendered assistance to someone so I think they believe Burke was involved. I am torn between BDI and JDI so just trying to explore both angles.
DeleteAnon - Keep your open mind on this case. There is zero evidence to say Burke didn't do it despite what others will try to tell you on here. There is also zero evidence linking JR to the hit over the head or the strangling.
Delete-J
Exactly, I could understand Burke as a child believing what he was told by his parents- that his sister was murdered by an intruder but as an adult to have never had interest in the case (he told Dr Phil he never read the ransom note) seems a little odd to me and yes I know its not proof of his involvement.
DeleteFor sure! It was really odd that he didn't care back then and doesn't seem to care now.
DeleteThe ONLY reason he did the Dr. Phil interview was to get out in front of the CBS Special that he knew was going to name him as the killer.
-J
Doc, I read through your post a few years back entitled "Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts" but I don't see a scenario where Burke hits Jonbenet and John alone covers up for him, I think Doug Stine may have been involved as well- Burke and Doug may have been abusing Jonbenet and may have gone too far that night (note how close the Stines became with the Ramseys after the murder)
Delete"Burke was cleared because LE knew he could not have been the one to write the ransom note....."
DeleteThat is not the reason he was cleared, Anon. I suggest you do some more research into the case against Burke - or lack thereof. Psychologists and seasoned police detectives detected no deception during his interviews.....do you really think a ten year old is capable of being that much of a criminal mastermind?
".....the grand jury seemed to believe the parents rendered assistance to someone so I think they believe Burke was involved."
The GJ believed John and/or Patsy rendered assistance to someone who committed murder in the FIRST DEGREE. As Burke was clearly too young to be charged with first degree murder, it cannot be Burke whom the GJ are referring to. This has already been discussed here at length.
"There is no evidence that Burke was involved however that does not mean he was not involved."
That is not an argument at all. There is no evidence that aliens didn't do it either...
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim! No one has to prove Burke didn't do it, you have to prove that he did.
And, if - by your own admission - there is "no evidence" against Burke, why even consider it? Why not consider the intruder theory of which there is also no evidence? In fact, if evidence isn't a prerequisite, your options are limitless!
Delete@Anon on Sept 15 @ 10:21 a.m.,
DeleteIn your proposed scenario, why would JR want to hide the truth from PR? Wouldn't that just further complicate the cover-up and make it more difficult to maintain the facade?
There is absolutely NOTHING that implicates DS in JBR's murder. Nothing. A former poster on the JBR forums developed that theory, and later, Van Der Leek rehashed it in his book, "The Day After Christmas (Book 3)." Neither, however, offer any evidence to support DS's involvement. It's a theory based on wild speculation and guilt by association.
I believe the only "evidence" cited by Van der Leek, et al. is a bike tire track found on the Ramsey lawn; supposedly Doug rode his bicycle home in a panic after the murder.
DeleteJoe Barnhill, however, had seen Burke riding a bicycle in the family yard on Christmas day, putting paid to that notion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAh, yes, the bicycle track found on the lawn of a home occupied by children. How curious!
DeleteThe guy's speculation is often baseless and nonsensical. Here's a snippet of his logic just for kicks:
JBR was upset at the party on the 23rd and said she didn't feel pretty. It's possible BR spoiled her fun by revealing the truth about Santa. It's also possible something happened with DS which led JBR to feel rejected. Due to whatever happened on the 23rd, Priscilla felt compelled to prepare a special plate for JBR on Christmas evening.
Uhh...OK.
HKH this is anonymous, to answer your question of why John didn't tell Patsy, it would be in fear of her reaction, she would be hysterical and not gone along with the coverup. Regarding Doug Stine, if he wasn't involved why did the Stines move out of state to follow the Ramseys when they were not close friends before the murder?
DeleteThe Stines WERE close friends. They attended the Rs' Christmas party on 12/23, the Rs were taking them a Christmas gift on their way home from the Whites', their sons were playmates. Both Susan and Glenn were employed at CU, Glenn in the Office of Finance. When he lost his job in 1998 they moved to Atlanta because John employed Glenn at his latest company. John and Patsy had moved there in 1997. Nothing conspiratorial or nefarious about it, simply economics.
DeleteMs D..
ReplyDeletePR already knew who killed her daughter. That was said to keep LE thinking they had nothing to do with it. Just like they tried to do with the RN. Steer the investigation away from them.
What mother wouldn't move heaven and earth to find her daughter's killer. If the evidence all pointed to JR, do you think PR wouldn't have figured it out?
Geez. if YOU think you got it all figured out, how didn't PR know? And no, am not buying the gaslighting theory or the chemo brain theory. If PR thought for a split second that JR did it, she'd have kissed his a** goodbye in a New York minute.
The only one she'd cover for is her one and only surviving child---BR.
IMHO, of course. :)
EG
"PR already knew who killed her daughter."
DeleteUnsubstantiated assertion based on your opinion alone.
"That was said to keep LE thinking they had nothing to do with it. Just like they tried to do with the RN. Steer the investigation away from them."
Why say anything at all then, EG? It wasn't an interrogation, she was under no obligation to answer questions. She was dying and Linda Arndt was no longer working on the case. Telling someone in Law Enforcement to go and find your child's killer, when you KNOW that killer is your son, is most definitely not "steering the investigation away" from anyone in the family, quite the contrary, in fact, so I really don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.
Believe me, I don't think I "have it all figured out", that's why I'm still here! I have a theory based on a set of logical inferences, but I could be way off, and I will have no problem eating a huge slice of humble pie if it turns out I'm wrong (though I don't think anyone here will ever be proved right/wrong because I'm pretty certain the case will never be solved). If you don't "buy" my answers regarding why Patsy didn't know, I'm sorry about that, but there's not much I can do, because they're my answers.....but, more than anything, I believe Patsy was in serious denial. By the time of her death, I do think she suspected John, to be honest - in fact, going by Det. Arndt's cryptic comment regarding her chat with Patsy, I believe she might have revealed a few nasty secrets about John - but on the morning she found the ransom note and in the months/years following, I believe she thought it was just as it appeared to be: a failed kidnapping attempt.
Like the new photo, MsD. Lookin' good, as always. :-)
DeleteThanks, CC, I like to change it up sometimes, but never like to show my entire face here.....lol!
DeleteSo glad to hear from you, I was beginning to worry, I don't think we've seen you post since the hurricane.
Bad as I've ever seen it. Just got power restored last night after five long, very hot days without. Many still without. Thanks for your concern.
DeleteOh so sorry, CC! Glad you're o.k though.....common sense was sorely lacking during your absence.....we need you here!
DeleteGlad you're OK, CC!
DeleteFive days without air conditioning in Florida would probably be the end of me.
It was the end of seven old folks in a nursing home which didn't evacuate. 95 degrees, 95% humidity is not survivable for the infirm.
DeleteThank you, Heather. Happy to be back.
Good to hear from you, CC. Glad to hear you’re all right and your power is back. Hopefully it won’t be long until it’s restored throughout the rest of the state.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Canuck. We're (Floridians) going to be picking up the pieces - literally - for a long time.
DeleteThe recent heated exchanges between JDI and BDI/BSI got me wondering if perhaps both sides might be right. The following isn’t really meant to be serious as it’s full of holes, but what IF both sides are right? (Sorry, Hercule, you’re still not right. Patsy didn’t do it — PDDI.)
ReplyDeleteJR does it according to Doc’s theory (he was abusing JBR and wanted to shut her up), but he tells PR that BDI. If he’s cold-hearted and devious enough to kill one child, he's certainly cold-hearted and devious enough to frame the other for it. So he hits JBR over the head, but then wakes Patsy and tells her that Burke and JBR were up peeking at presents in the basement after they’d been put to bed and that Burke accidentally hit JBR and killed her. He reminds her of the time Burke hit JBR with the golf club. He tells her that Burke came and told him what happened and that he sent the boy to bed. BR is still in bed at this point, having never actually gotten up, and PR is none the wiser.
JR then tells his distraught wife that the authorities are going to take Burke away and life, as they know it, is over unless they can cover things up for him. He has PR write the ransom note as he dictates. She includes her own feminine touches in it because, even through her immense and genuine grief, she’s still the journalism major who can’t help but add her own literary flourish. She writes the RN with her left hand.
About 40 minutes have passed since JR hit his daughter. She certainly appears dead to Patsy. JR and PR then begin to stage the body together (which accounts for the fibres from both of them, but none from Burke.) Perhaps JR wipes her down, or perhaps it’s PR. The fibres in JBR's crotch region point to JR taking care of that. All the while, John reassures his wife, telling her everything is going to be okay. He’s going to take care of things and she isn’t to worry. He tells her it’s best if they just “get on with their lives” as best they can, and that she should leave the discipline of BR to him.
“Don’t question him about it,” John says. “He feels bad enough as it is. He just thinks he hit her and she wouldn't wake up. Best if we don’t talk about it too much. We need to keep things as normal as possible for him. We’ll get him the best psychological help money can buy, I promise.” (Is there not evidence that BR was in counselling for an inordinate amount of time after the murder?)
To be continued…
...
ReplyDeleteAt some point during the staging of the body, PR can take no more of what’s being done to her precious child and tells John to finish it. After PR leaves, he redresses the body using the oversized panties (which PR would never have used if she'd been there). Wanting to do all he can to point the evidence away from himself, he uses his wife's paintbrush to create the garrotte and violates his daughter’s body in an effort to cover up the previous sexual assaults. PR only finds out about this awful detail after the autopsy is done and JR manages to convince her it was a necessary evil. He had to do it to convince the authorities that a violent pedophile attacked JBR. She’s horrified and disgusted, but agrees that it was necessary to protect Burke and is actually grateful that her take-charge husband was willing to do it. She knows she certainly couldn’t have.
When BR is interviewed by psychologists and LE, he comes off as innocent and is eventually cleared. He sounds unaware of the details because he IS unaware of the details. Yes, he was up when his mother made the 911 call, but his father told him it was okay to tell everyone he stayed in bed. It’s just easier that way — less to remember. (This is why his answer to that question from the psychologist sounds rehearsed and unnatural.) JR reminds his son over and over again that the cops are not their friends. Deep down, BR is glad to have his attention-sucking sister gone and he’s got a touch of the Asperger’s, so he’s more than willing to go along with what his father tells him. He’ll do whatever he’s told so long as it means he's left alone to play his video games. He hears his father constantly going on about the importance of “getting on with their lives,” so he repeats this phrase during his taped interview with the child psychologist.
John takes control of the entire aftermath, hiring lawyers for everyone close to him, orchestrating the public relations campaign, and ensuring PR is medicated to the hilt. In "The Other Side of Suffering," JR talks a lot about the use of medication as a tool for coping with grief.
So JDI, but since he got an innocent PR involved almost right away, this accounts for the oddities we see in the realm of PDI: her odd behaviour in the aftermath, her lack of acknowledgment of the 10:00 am time limit passing without a phone call, the similarities between her handwriting and the RN, and her genuine grief and mental breakdown in the months following the murder.
There. Done. Now we can all get along. ;)
With all due respect, Canuck, this is really reaching. As you admit, it's full holes. The most gaping one being: what mother would never attempt to discuss the incident with her son? One mention of it to BR and the jig is up. It makes much more sense to pin JBR's death on a faceless, nameless intruder with whom PR could never talk about what happened to her daughter.
DeleteI suspect Canuck is struggling to reconcile her personal BDI/JDI conflict, H.
DeleteI suspect, as usual, you are correct. ;)
DeleteI think you missed the point.
DeletePretty sure we didn't. You may think it's a peace-keeping mission, (kind, but doomed), but I think on some level you're struggling to reconcile your formerly logical, strong JDI stance with your new media-influenced BDI leaning.
DeleteAll good, Canuck. No criticism intended.
I was going to include a paragraph about premeditation in there just for you, CC. Now I'm glad I didn't! :)
DeleteMe, too. As I said below, sailed right by me. I've (reluctantly) learned to include those trite smilies and winkies, because it's hard to interpret irony in print.
DeleteKnow your time is limited, so always happy to see you here, no matter what theory you're espousing. Also pretty sure logic will eventually prevail, and you'll return to the side of the angels.
Regardless, XOXO.
Thanks for that Canuck. Always good to see different types of posts on here...otherwise it's all of us just seemingly repeating the same stuff over and over.
ReplyDeleteI do think that theory is pretty far fetched (that's purely my opinion). But you know what, who knows and anything is possible. Common sense indicates Patsy was definitely involved/in the know before her 911 call (and after the call obviously), so your proposed theory above has its plus points.
I do think BSI/RDI is still a lot more simple though.
Yeah, it's totally far fetched, Zed. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I guess I didn't include enough disclaimers at the beginning or winky faces at the end.
DeleteYou're right. I'm ashamed to say that even after reading and enjoying your remarks for quite some time, that pitch sailed right by.
DeleteSorry, Canuck.
Nothing to apologize for. It's one of the pitfalls of this medium. Human beings used to reading facial expressions and monitoring body language as a huge part of communication now have to rely on text on a screen.
DeleteYou're right, though, that I've been thinking about both sides lately and the BDI side was indeed media influenced. (I have a real interest in profiling and enjoy shows with FBI profilers.) So when you're right, you're right. :)
Totally get it. I was probably one of the first people in North America to buy "Mindhunter", and Ressler's books as well. Recently disillusioned when I read that profilers only bat about .500, and one might just as well roll the bones. Very disillusioning.
DeleteBDI, is not influenced by the media at all. Period. I know people like EG go one step further than me and say Burke did it all (except for maybe the RN) but I don't buy into that in the slightest. And neither did CBS. Burke wasn't some evil child with murdering tendencies. He was just a normal kid who lashed out at his sister and the rest is history. BSI (which is an acronym I use but have not seen elsewhere) is what CBS indicated. Of course, I am sure many people jumped on the BSI/RDI train after those episodes so yes I agree BSI (not BDI) is media influenced. However, many of us like this theory because of how it includes all evidence/behaviours and how simple it is. The experts on CBS agreeing is simply a bonus.
ReplyDeleteCanuck - I thought your post may have been tongue in cheek but I wasn't 100% sure ;)
Horseshit, Zed. Never crossed your mind that Canuck was being ironic. You're far too literal, and far too limited, to believe otherwise.
DeleteA whole stable of horseshit on "not media influenced". Before last year's BDI-heavy specials we saw that theory here once a year (and saw you, Inq and EG not at all) at most. Now it's pernicious.
Honestly CC, you need to get away from this blog for a while. Go for a holiday, go get a massage, train for a marathon. Anything. This blog is turning your brain to mush. Maybe you have more power here than you do in the real world....hmmm.
DeleteAnd I'm sorry, I forgot you are a lawyer and therefore HAD to know exactly what I thought when I read Canuck's post (now THAT is tongue in cheek). You are the one full of horseshit.
And how the hell can BDI be media influenced??? Despite all the JBR shows/interviews that have been released, I have not seen ANY that indicates BDI. Not one. And I was BSI/RDI long before CBS my friend...surprised that you didn't know that with those physic lawyer powers you possess.
Anyway, I might go get a massage and then have a cocktail overlooking the water. Ciao.