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

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

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

Friday, September 22, 2017

The Case Against Patsy Ramsey

More and more comments are being devoted to  Patsy's role in this case, so here's some more room to carry on with that. As it seems to me, the widespread assumption that Patsy HAS to be involved is one of the principal reasons this case has gone nowhere for over 20 years -- and most likely never will be solved. As I've observed many times, once the Patsy bandwagon got started, there was no stopping it -- and anything she ever said or did that might possibly look suspicious has been seen by a great many as proof positive of her involvement.


One example: the continual assertion that an innocent person would 1. not have ignored the warnings in the note and call the police when she did; and 2. not have invited her friends over to "contaminate" the crime scene. Well, why would she have gone to all the trouble of including those dire warnings (including the decapitation of her daughter) in the first place, and then go ahead and ignore her own warnings by calling the police anyhow? Does THAT make sense?

And if she called the friends with the intention of having them contaminate the crime scene, then why didn't she call them before calling the police, to make sure they would enter the house before the cops had a chance to stop them? And if she and John were in it together, as is so widely assumed, they could have contaminated the crime scene themselves, before calling 911 -- no need to have their friends do it.

Now as for me, I'm not sure if  I would call the police under similar circumstances, but maybe I would. I would certainly not call my friends over, as Patsy did. But then again I'm not Patsy. And if calling friends over is a sure sign of guilt, why would someone putting on an "innocent" act decide to do precisely that?

You  can argue all you  want over the wisdom of calling the police in the face of all those threats and you can argue all you want  over the wisdom of calling friends over. But by no means can either of these acts be seen as signs of guilt -- because they can just as easily be seen as signs of innocence.

The same goes for literally everything Patsy said or did that's been held against her. If you're already convinced of her guilt then each and every one of these things will be seen in that light, regardless of any other interpretation that could be offered. Once the focus was on her, then it became all too easy to see guilt in the most innocuous actions or comments -- even the expression on her face.

Bottom line: as with Burke, there is NO case to be made against Patsy. No motive for her to do the things so often attributed to her. NO motive to write a phony ransom note filled with threats she was later to ignore. No motive to call the police, knowing the body of her daughter would soon be discovered and her note rendered pointless. No motive to hand the police a note written by her, which would amount to providing them with evidence against her. No motive to kill the daughter who had become the focus of her entire life. No motive to cover for a husband who took that life from her. And no motive, certainly, to penetrate the vagina of that beloved child and then strangle her in some insane effort to protect a son too young to be prosecuted in any case.

As far as all those "lies" attributed to Patsy, I've already responded to those accusations by systematically analyzing just about every one. See here and here.

Now if anyone has anything new to add that might bolster the case against Patsy, then by all means include it in a comment below. But please don't bore us by continually repeating what's already been asserted over and over again. And please everyone try to control the endless bickering on both sides, which serves no useful purpose.

242 comments:

  1. I will absolutely concede that calling the police is in no way a sign of her guilt. I would imagine that most people would do the same. Inviting the friends over is also not a smoking gun to Patsy's guilt, but what IS a smoking gun for me is her absolute lack of caring about the contents of the note. This goes for Burke as well who voiced on Dr. Phil that he never really read thru it. IF the RN simply said: WE HAVE YOUR DAUGHTER. DON'T ALERT ANYBODY AND YOU WILL GET A CALL FROM US TO ARRANGE A MONEY DROP

    If that is what the note said, then no big deal. The problem is that IF Patsy isn't involved in the crime, the RN is a 3 page treasure trove of clues. The note suggests it could be somebody they know, it suggests it could be a co worker of John or somebody that was angry at the Ramsey's. Because just JB was taken and not Burke, it could be somebody that knew JB through pageants.

    Doc, THAT is why I think she is to use your words "guilty as hell." The White's said she didn't discuss the note with them. She skimmed the note when calling the police but then minutes later calls friends. In that period of time, she couldn't have read that note thru. We have all read it and it takes a good 3-5 minutes and we aren't under stress. This note held the key to getting her daughter back and there seemed to be a total lack of caring about the contents of the note by Patsy.

    Is this new? No, but neither is anything in the post above right? :-)

    Also, let's all be better. We are all passionate about this case, but no need for the insults. I am guilty of it and will promise to do better......as long as Ms D doesn't piss me off ;-)

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, J, you know I can't promise you that!
      I shall try my hardest, however. :D


      Delete
    2. If someone refers to me as a "dumb blonde bitch" again, however, I will be letting loose! I've had to fight against that stereotype my entire life, but didn't think I'd ever have to do it on an anonymous blog (at least I have the guts to show myself, unlike those who are too cowardly, or too ashamed, to even post a NAME).

      Delete
    3. Oh that's uncalled for. I respect you and welcome all your post's. For a little while though I was starting to piece this together...

      Ms D

      Ms D etective Linda Arndt

      Am I onto something?

      -J

      Delete
    4. Hehehe...no. :)

      "D" is the first letter of my first name, and upon joining the blog, the moniker suggested to me was "Ms D", and as I planned to post only a few times (oh my, look how THAT turned out!), I decided to just take it rather than use my imagination!

      Delete
    5. "This note held the key to getting her daughter back and there seemed to be a total lack of caring about the contents of the note by Patsy."

      Why would Patsy want to call so little attention to a note she wrote herself? If she'd planted all sorts of false clues in that note, then you'd think she'd have wanted people to pay attention to those clues.

      As seems clear from all the reports of her behavior, she was in panic mode the whole time and certainly not in "sleuth mode." As is obvious from her 911 call, she could barely get the words out. When someone is kidnapped, the main concern of her family is having her returned, not poring over the note for clues as to who might have written it. That's the job of the police.

      Delete
    6. "Why would Patsy want to call so little attention to a note she wrote herself? If she'd planted all sorts of false clues in that note, then you'd think she'd have wanted people to pay attention to those clues."

      Doc, I know why she wasn't interested in the contents of the note. The answer is because she was involved. She helped write the note, she helped put all of the clues and references in there, so naturally she wouldn't want to help the police with that. I am arguing against JDI. If Patsy WASNT involved and DIDNT take part in writing the note, it is truly baffling she didn't seem concerned. If it was me I would be thinking about ALL the people who didn't like me or anybody that might want to do something like this.

      -J

      Delete
    7. "If it was me I would be thinking about ALL the people who didn't like me or anybody that might want to do something like this."

      As I'm sure Patsy was doing. Can you prove otherwise?
      You make many assumptions about what Patsy thought/didn't think, did/didn't do, then draw your own
      conclusions regarding what her behavior must mean, then you compare her words and actions with what you *think* you'd do...even though you've never been in a situation like that.

      Delete
    8. It was someone close to the family. I received a demand for money by mail. The note was long and rambling and threatened my son's life. It turned out to be my brother in law. Yes, I called police and a neighbour. Patsy was innocent.

      Delete
    9. Why would a kidnapper kill the victim and leave them in the house if they were looking to collect a ransom?
      Why would a kidnapper concerned solely with the ransom (as the note tells us is the case) sexually abuse the victim?
      Why did the kidnapper risk detection by hanging around for 90 minutes after hitting JB on the head before strangling her?
      Why did he not bring the ransom note with him, choosing instead to linger in the Ramsey home writing the note using their materials?
      Why did the kidnapper change her clothing?

      Delete
    10. Your son was alive and, by virtue of your call to police and neighbors, under plenty of protection. For all we know, you were framing your brother-in-law as an act of revenge or for a murder you had planned to commit yourself but never did. I agree with you that "Patsy was innocent" but your logic is so dispicable I'd rather you start over by believing she's guilty and then talk you out of it.

      Mike G

      Delete
  2. Had Patsy done the deed herself, or conspired with John, then why did she use her own notepad and paintbrush handle?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My guess is they'll respond with another question ("Well why did John do "X"?), rather than attempt to answer this one, CC.....it seems to be a common strategy for BDIs, have you noticed?

      Delete
    2. Nah. J will blame it on the pineapple; Zed will insult me; Herc will spout psychobabble. There's hope for EG, though - she always tries.

      Delete
    3. I honestly do believe the pineapple played a role in the note ;-)

      It's actually a really good question CC. My best attempt at an answer is that the crime was a moment of rage, so everything that followed in regards to the cover up/staging was chaotic and rushed. They weren't going to run to the store at 3 in the morning to get paper, so they were left with what was left in the house for paper, pen, etc. This is why the note couldn't be 3 lines and brief. They thought by writing a 3 page novel, they could outsmart investigators.

      Ms D called it, but I will ask you why John would use paper from the house as well as a paintbrush from the house. You don't have to answer it...I am just pointing out that it doesn't make sense no matter who did it.

      -J

      Delete
    4. I believe that not only did John do it, he also premeditated it, and used Patsy's things deliberately in an effort to get a twofer, ridding himself of both the evidence of his abuse and the wife with no further interest in sex. An anonymous No. 2 pencil would have worked as well as a paintbrush, and an old grocery bag would have made a fine ransom note.

      And let's not forget it was John who handed LE Patsy's notepad when they requested writing samples, while he himself scribbled "The quick brown fox" on a second pad.

      Delete
    5. Woah CC. The whole JDI argument is that 911 was never supposed to be called and John would stage the house the next day. Are you now saying he WANTED 911 to be called because he was framing Patsy? All of this happened while Burke was eating his pineapple? :-)

      -J

      Delete
    6. No. I'm sure his preference was that 911 not be called, so he could dump the body in the mountains the next day.

      But Polly Klaas was taken in 1993, Amber Hagerston (?) in early 1996, and John knew the intense searches they generated. He also knew JBR would be found, eventually, and that in cases of child murder the odds are 12 to 1 that it was committed by a family member. Better, therefore, that Patsy be implicated.

      Delete
    7. -Patsy knew the window story was complete crap and could have turned on John
      -If the finger was pointed at her, the police could have let her know of the molestation and a light bulb would have had to go off
      -Patsy would have quickly realized that she was framed by John

      -J

      Delete
    8. -She knew nothing of the kind. She told Barbara Fermie that the scratches around the lock on the patio door were from another time John was locked out; clearly she bought his story.

      -The finger WAS pointed at her, early and for the rest of her life.

      -She was aware of the abuse. She was questioned about it by LE and it had been all over the media since 1997. This woman was truly "De Queen of Denial".

      Delete
    9. Which is why I think Burke was the one abusing JB, not John. Don't buy Patsy as being like Jerry Sandusky's wife

      -J

      Delete
    10. Best question of the year:
      "Had Patsy done the deed herself, or conspired with John, then why did she use her own notepad and paintbrush handle?"
      For JDI All – JR intentionally used her pad to implicate Patsy from the get-go

      For those who hold JDI with Patsy assistance - According to some analyses by psychologists - narcissists (like JR), alcoholics, other BPD select mates who can be manipulated or who are enabler personalities. My conjecture would be that JR handed her both his typed RN which he created Christmas afternoon as well as her pad and told her to copy his note. It would divert the police. If she didn’t do this, all their money would go to his defense, perhaps she would face jail herself, but absolutely she would lose BR. Did she really want to risk all that and not help him?

      Since the GJ did indict for accessory after the fact, there is some basis for considering she helped him conceal the crime. When that assistance came into play, IDK, perhaps after she questioned BR (stated during the interview with Haney) and realized it was too late to play it any other way.

      Delete
    11. "I will ask you why John would use paper from the house as well as a paintbrush from the house."

      I think I've answered this a hundred times before, so what's one more time, huh?

      When John realized he wouldn't be able to dump JB's body, he really had no choice but to stage the scene in order to make it look like the work of a "foreign faction", as per the RN, because the way JB currently lie in the basement (or trunk of his car, ready for disposal), it was quite clearly a familial homicide. So he removes JB's body from it's original hiding spot, loosens the cord around her neck, attaches Patsy's paintbrush to said cord and fashions what he believes a "garrote" to look like (which is why it never actually functioned as one - the "stick" was added post mortem as a last ditch, desperate attempt to throw off investigators). LE are upstairs, so he is limited in terms of the items available to him, as well as time....and, as CC said (although she believes John set Patsy up from the start, and I'm not sure where I stand on that just yet) by using Patsy's paintbrush, if the cops didn't buy the botched kidnapping (which, of course wasn't his original plan, the plan was to stage a "real kidnapping"), Patsy will be prime suspect number one. Which is why he so willingly handed over the note pad - it may not have been his original plan to do so, but since it was written on Patsy's pad, why not seem like the innocent husband just trying to be helpful? Steve Thomas sure bought his act, didn't he?

      Delete
    12. For J who believes BR was responsible for her abuse -
      Sequence the asphyxiation, before concluding the abuse factor.

      JonBenét is placed on her back by the wc unconscious. Her legging/long-johns have been pulled off or down. (Possibly her size six panties/Bloomies have disappeared at some point.) She’s jabbed with a paint brush, blood wiped, size 12-14 Bloomies placed on her, leggings pulled back up. (I posit she is wiped down before being redressed in the 12-14 Bloomies, because there was no blood seeped into the leggings and only two small droplets in her Bloomies.) She’s then placed on her stomach where the ligature is fashioned around her neck, catching her hair. This person did also think to pull the long chain necklace back behind her neck though it still caught in the ligature cord. Also, this person knows to wear what could be considered garden or work gloves in order to mask any traces of skin left on the ligature. The ligature is then pulled tight either by grasping the cord itself or by winding the cord around part of a stick and pulling on the stick for leverage. At the point of death additional urine is released. Then she’s turned over, wrapped in a blanket and carried (not dragged) into the wc. During this move a couple droplets of blood fall onto the crotch of the large Bloomies.

      Whoever created that fresh genital wound which bled, would have been the one who was attempting to cover past abuse. It was a Hail Mary in case something was discovered at autopsy. Yet he wasn’t exactly staging for a pedophile, because the blood was wiped away and her Bloomies and long johns were pulled up. The action of cleaning and pulling up her clothes was done in order to also conceal any past transgressions from Patsy.

      Yes, BR could have done all this, but how likely?

      Delete
    13. "Ms D called it, BUT (emphasis mine)....." J

      1) From: http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logical%20fallacies.htm#flamboyance

      "flamboyance -- The manner in which someone speaks can easily draw unwarranted support for a thesis or idea. Incisive wit, verbal facility, equanimity and repartee have no bearing at all on the soundness/legitimacy of a position. It is the essence of what is said, not the manner in which it is said, that counts. As Bertrand Russell once noted, the purpose of being educated is to defend ourselves against the seductions of eloquence."

      2) From
      https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/61/Avoiding-the-Issue

      "Avoiding the Issue:
      (also known as: avoiding the question [form of], missing the point, straying off the subject, digressing, distraction [form of])

      Description: When an arguer responds to an argument by not addressing the points of the argument. Unlike the strawman fallacy, avoiding the issue does not create an unrelated argument to divert attention, it simply avoids the argument.

      Logical Form:

      Person 1 makes claim X.
      Person 2 makes unrelated statement.
      Audience and/or person 1 FORGETS (emphasis mine) about claim X."

      Avoiding the issue is one thing, J, but to do so flamboyantly---well, that's just downright obsequious!

      Mike G.



      Delete
  3. Exactly CC. That never made any sense to me.

    And, if John did the staging in the basement, why did he use Patsy's paintbrush handle? If he acted alone and was in fear of being discovered by his wife, he may have grabbed the first item he saw(not sure I believe that, but certainly possible). Using Patsy's paintbrush doesn't make as much sense if they were acting together.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it was Patsy's plan all along to call the police over to find her daughter's body, as per BDI, PDI and RDI theories, then you would think she would have either:
      a. removed the paintbrush handle from the crime scene that directly linked her to the murder BEFORE calling 911, or b. ditched the paintbrush altogether, knowing it served no actual function, other than to make herself look awfully guilty in the eyes of the police.

      Delete
    2. My very point, D.

      I don't think John was unwilling to have his wife blamed, K.

      Delete
    3. Not only does she give investigators very damning, physical evidence in the way of her very own paintbrush used to fashion the murder weapon, she hands over the ransom note she wrote using her very own paper...

      Delete
    4. John, Patsy and Burke did not kill that child.

      Delete
    5. Well, I agree that all three did not kill JonBenet, Anna.

      Who do you believe killed her and why?

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

      Delete
  4. I'm not sure but she doesn't seem to be the smartest, creative yes, but not very bright.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even it that were the case, that doesn't explain why John went along with it - he's CEO of a billion dollar company, after all - surely he would have said to Patsy, "Leaving our dead child here in our very own basement with your paintbrush handle dangling from her neck won't look good".

      Delete
  5. Has anybody thought that maybe Patsy woke up in the middle of the night to find out what John had been doing?
    Doc has stated that had that scenario occurred, Patsy would have been killed as well and we would be talking about a different case, But what if he onñy threatened her. And what if she managed to run away to dial 911?
    If we contemplate that possibility, many things start to make sense about Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't see John threatening Patsy. That could too easily have backfired. Assuming she woke up in the middle of the night and noticed that John was not beside her in the bed, I imagine she'd have simply rolled over and forgotten about it, since men of John's age routinely leave their beds to take a pee in the middle of the night. It's called prostate issues.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Doc for the reply.
      I'm married and my husband sometimes needs to use the restroom in the middle of the night. Sometimes I don't even notice that he is not in the bed so what you say is comprehensible.
      But we don't know what happened on that night maybe it was some kind of a noise that woke her up and not seeing John by her side, she got up and went downstairs. I would do that if I wake up and notice that my husband is not coming back after a few minutes. Mothers of little kids have a different sleeping pattern.also.We wake up easily and we are very used to getting up in the middle of the night for no reason just to check on our kids.
      Also, I remember Patsy saying in an interview that she had flashbacks of JB screaming. So, yes, I can see Patsy getting up in the middle of thar night..
      As for the threat...hmmm...it's pure speculation, of course...but to me it's not that far fetched. It could backfired like you say, but I think she didn't want to get herself involved (because she knew of the abuse and didnt do anything to stop it) so she called 911 and ran to the door to wait for the cops in the hopes that they would find him staging the crime scene in the basement. Of course, this is pure speculation. But if you scrutinize Patsy's behavior and "lies" from the perspective of her being under threat, things get a little more sensible. Like the fact that she invited the cops in as well as her friends ...maybe she knew her life was also in danger and needed protection. Again, i admit, pure speculation and my opinion.

      Delete
    3. I do think it possible that Patsy might have been afraid of John when she called 911. Not because of any outright threats but because he may have been acting strangely. He certainly would have aggressively tried to talk her out of calling the police and that might have raised some alarms.

      I've discussed such a possibility in earlier posts and in my book. That could explain both why she decided to call the police despite his protests and also why she wanted her friends with her as soon as possible.

      However there is a huge difference between feeling vaguely threatened and actually accusing one's husband of committing murder, which would have been totally inappropriate under the circumstances. Especially because, as far as she knew, JonBenet was not in the house, and there was a ransom note. So if she had any suspicions she would have kept them to herself. And after the body was found, she was overwhelmed with grief and not in any kind of mental state to play sleuth.

      Patsy was a "basket case" for the next few weeks, during which time John got himself "ruled out" as writer of the note. Once she got word of that decision there was no longer any reason for her to suspect him and from then on she was clearly convinced that an intruder must have done it.

      Delete
  6. Just a timely reminder. As CC knows very well, I can't buy her theory about John framing Patsy or even trying to make her look suspicious. I see no evidence of that and also no reason for him to try anything like that. He went to some trouble to stage an intruder-kidnapper scenario and anything suggesting PDI would be incompatible with that. CC is entitled to her opinion and I always respect her input, but in this case I can't agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I you and yours, Doc. But why, then, when he knew if ever found both the mock garrote and Patsy's pad would point to his wife, he didn't spend five minutes looking for a pencil and some neutral paper?

      And yes, I know you think he intended to get rid of both, but it's inconceivable to me that he didn't consider worst case scenarios. Any neophyte murderer who's always walked the straight and narrow would, no?


      Delete
    2. As you know, CC, I agree with you. I am convinced this crime was committed by John and it was premeditated. That being the case, he would have definitely had back up plans. Since Doc, however, doesn't believe the murder was premeditated, his argument would be that John didn't really have time to consider all of the possible problems to his plan. Therefore, no worst case scenario plans. Of course, John being a narcissistic sociopath, I'm sure he figured that any plan he created would work to perfection.

      Gumshoe, P.I.

      Delete
    3. Great to see you here, Gumshoe (and not because you're the only person who agrees with me)!

      Delete
    4. I've never said I didn't believe the crime was premeditated. I think either scenario is possible, but there's not enough evidence to decide which.

      Delete
    5. Some additional thoughts about premeditation. I’m using the term premeditation in terms of planning the murder. Anyway, thanks, DocG, for your indulgence. I know at this stage planning of the crime can’t be proven either way, and perhaps I’m in a minority wondering about this.

      JR said that he bought the tickets for the older kids to fly to Minneapolis 3-4 weeks in advance. A Charlevoix Christmas with the older kids was all his idea. But without his credit card charges available, one can’t confirm when he made the purchase. They were going to pick up the older kids and fiancé in the King Air which could hold more people than the Cessna. That morning the pilot offered to take the plane to provide the older kids means to come down to Boulder so they could join the family during the kidnapping wait. But JR refused the offer.

      In Foreign Faction Kolar suggests that the reason JR did not want the pilot to pick up the older kids in Minneapolis, was so the plane would be available to him. I have an alternate explanation. There were two planes available, i.e., the pilot could have picked up the kids in the King Air, and JR would still have the Cessna available.

      After JB had been discovered in the wc, JR asked the pilot how long it would take to get the plane ready for flight. The pilot responded 2 hours. At the time this confused me since I thought the King Air was ready to go early in that morning, and I don’t believe it takes 2 hours to file flight plans. This is why I figured JR may have been intending to fly the Cessna out of Boulder.

      Well, it’s just something which caused me to wonder whether there was any intentionality - that JR did not want the kids to show up in Boulder for Christmas that year. His behavior also suggested he wasn’t necessarily wanting them to come to Boulder when the trip to Charlevoix was canceled. If JR did premeditate the crime, having fewer people in the home over Christmas would be important.

      Delete
    6. That makes perfect sense to me! As a mother, I would not want to pack for the trip to MI and the cruise. You would have to unpack at MI and repack for the cruise. Too much! Why not just have the older kids fly into Boulder and then everyone leave from there.

      Delete
  7. John setting up Patsy "just incase" she called 911 is absolutely ludicrous. It's really making a relatively simple case overly complex. And this was not premeditated, I will argue that with anyone until I am blue in the face. Luckily, all experts agree with me so I'll stick with the experts on this one.

    And to answer CC's question - why did John/Patsy use her paintbrush? Pretty simple answer really, I don't like making things complex for no reason...

    John and Patsy found her body in the basement after Burke woke them up. This is where the incident occurred and this is where they had to stage the intruder. The paintbrush was the obvious item to use from the items within the basement. It didn't implicate Patsy did it at all. And I honestly think once the body was found and a decision was made to stage an intruder, Patsy left John do the stuff to JB and Patsy went upstairs. Then, once that was done, John came upstairs and verbally assisted Patsy in writing the RN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one said John set up Patsy "just in case she called 911".

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

      Delete
    3. "It's really making a relatively simple case overly complex."

      Oh how I love irony...
      Says the man who believes that two, loving parents decided to murder their daughter rather try to save her life by calling an ambulance, then, rather than stage an accident (although it WAS, in fact, an accident, wasn't it?), decide the best way to handle the situation would be to stage a kidnapping instead...but one where the victim is sexually assaulted, murdered and left inside the home. Yep, it's good to see you're not making things complicated...

      "And this was not premeditated, I will argue that with anyone until I am blue in the face. Luckily, all experts agree with me so I'll stick with the experts on this one."

      What "experts"? Name them, and provide us with their comments pertaining to premeditation.

      "John and Patsy found her body in the basement after Burke woke them up. This is where the incident occurred and this is where they had to stage the intruder. The paintbrush was the obvious item to use from the items within the basement."

      Newsflash...just because they found her in the basement, this did not mean they had to use materials close by...the two of them had ALL night to look for materials to use! And the paintbrush wasn't even functional, Zed, which means they could have left it out of the staged crime scene altogether!

      "It didn't implicate Patsy did it at all."

      Oh really? Tell that to Steve Thomas...come on, seriously, Zed? How many RDIs cite the paintbrush as proof of Patsy's involvement...you know full well it did more than implicate her.

      "And I honestly think once the body was found and a decision was made to stage an intruder, Patsy left John do the stuff to JB and Patsy went upstairs. Then, once that was done, John came upstairs and verbally assisted Patsy in writing the RN."

      But they didn't just stage an intruder, did they? This is why your theory is so preposterous, had they stuck with ONE motive, I might have given your theory some consideration. They staged a botched kidnapping as per RN, then completely undermined it all by defiling their daughter, making it look like a pedophile intruder instead. Why would two people working in tandem stage what are essentially, two different crimes?
      As far as John assisting Patsy in writing the RN, there's absolutely nothing that even remotely hints that this is true.

      Delete
    4. I too would like to see a list of those "experts" who opined this murder was not premeditated, Zed.

      Delete
  8. CC...

    I don't believe PR or JR murdered JBR, therefore neither of them used the paintbrush. I believe they found her that way after being told by BR that something had happened. And because I don't believe it was premediated, I feel they used the notepad because it was there and they weren't about to run out in the wee hours to look for paper and pen.

    Now, if JR did do it, then I believe its logical to conclude that he was setting PR up by using her paintbrush and her notebook. However, if that was the case, then PR would realize this at some point I'd think.

    There are too many questionable events that occurred after the "kidnapping", that I just can't ignore. The Stines were the last family the Ramseys had seen the night before and yet they weren't called over the morning after. They ended up being the ones that protected the R's, even going so far as to impersonate Beckner in emails, playing gatekeeper, housing Ramseys and Paughs, and then eventually leaving lucrative positions to move to Georgia with them. In fact, I am wondering how SS got away with impersonating a member of LE with just a slap on the wrist.

    I've heard of friends going out on a limb to help friends, but this is just a bit beyond the call of duty, IMHO.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to run out in the wee hours. All he/they need do is choose a No. 2 pencil and neutral paper from anywhere in the house.

      Patsy was convinced an IDI, who presumably had no idea whose pad and paintbrush he used.

      According to John in his 1998 deposition in Miles vs. Ramsey, at the time of the murder the Stines were casual rather than close friends, having met because Doug and Burke attended school together. IMO Susan Stine was nothing but a sycophant. Glenm lost his job in the financial office of CU in 1998, at which time the Stines moved to Atlanta to take a job with John's new company.

      Delete
    2. SS's contract was not renewed in the fall of 1997. Her husband, VP of Finance for the University, got in a bit of a jam when a bonus of $18000 he had received was not authorized by the CU regents. The fiscal impropriety hit the newspapers in Boulder. Imo, JR invited them to come to Atlanta with a great job promise. Moreover, GS's mother lived close by in North Carolina.

      All that said, I can understand your sense of 'something' involving the over-the-top protection of the Rs. But I truly think it was simply a natural fit to follow the Rs to Atlanta and wasn't anything nefarious.

      Delete
  9. Another question for the BDIers: If John and Patsy colluded in a cover-up, why not finish the staging of the train room window?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an excellent thought, CC. If they were in it together, then they'd have completed the staging before calling the cops. Why didn't I think of that? :-(

      Delete
    2. By the way, the window was not in the train room, but in a nearby storage area.

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

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

      Delete
    5. Possibly because you're a poet and playwright and not a nasty trial lawyer who specializes in hard questions and cynical analyses. (And lately an unhappy insomniac).

      Delete
    6. Sure fire cures for insomnia: first of all, if you can't sleep then just get up and do some reading or something else you enjoy. Heat some milk up in the microwave and drink it. If you wake up too early, say 5AM or so, then just get up, have breakfast and do whatever you were planning to do that day. Then take a nap to catch up. What usually works for me is to turn on the bedroom light and then go back to sleep. No idea why that works but for me it's (usually) a charm.

      Delete
  10. If that was the case, then why didn't JR use a pencil and neutral paper? Do you think he was trying to set up PR? If so, do you think PR wouldn't have figured that out?

    Or the R's figured that LE would think they were smarter than that, and wouldn't have used their own pad for the note. When, in fact, that's exactly what they did do.

    SS doesn't strike me as that type of person at all. And how did she get away with impersonating Beckner in emails? Isn't that a crime? I believe I read on ACANDYROSE that they both quit their jobs and moved to Georgia.

    EG


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, despite Doc's demurer, I believe John was willing, if not eager, to have Patsy blamed. No; Patsy bought IDI from the start - don't forget, John was ruled out, the onus was on her, and the Whites and Fermies had turned on the R's.

      Susan Stine lost her job at CU in 1997; Glenn was fired for malfeasance in 1998. I've no idea why Beckner did not charge Susan with impersonating a police officer - imo he should have done. Her defense of Patsy was likened to a pitbull, and I think sycophantish is exactly the right word to describe her.

      Please answer my latest query about the train room window staging, EG - and Zed and J, as well.

      Delete
    2. I'm not answering because I'm not BDI.

      Delete
    3. You're not answering because you can't.

      Delete
  11. The strangest thing about the window to me, is the fact that JR didn't mention to LE that he found it open. It was almost as if he had second thoughts about the window staging. Perhaps he realized that LE would've been able to figure out that the glass had been broken months ago, OR that the spider webs would've been disturbed. Or that it was preposterous to believe that an intruder would have been able to fit a JBR filled suitcase through that opening and out of the house when he/she could've just walked out a door. The whole window IDI theory is ridiculous IMHO. Maybe someone could've gotten into the house that way, but not get out that way with a body in a suitcase.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fine and dandy, but you didn't address my question: If, as you and your confreres believe, both John and Patsy participated in the cover-up to protect Burke, why didn't they finish staging the train room window by leaving broken glass on the floor, scraping some of the dirt and leaves from the window well into the room, moving the grate with a golf club?

      Delete
    2. You're confused on several points, EG. John did report seeing the window open, but only months after the fact. He could not have been worried about the police figuring out that the window was broken months earlier, because it was NOT broken months earlier -- that was just a story to misdirect away from his attempt to stage a breakin at that window on the night of the crime.

      The suitcase was positioned directly under the window, which tells us it was there to suggest the intruder boosted himself up to leave via that window. It's unlikely JonBenet could have fit in that suitcase and there was also no reason to use it, as a garbage bag would have worked as well and been easier to manage.

      Delete
    3. Yes, but if John was planning on dumping JB's body the next day, it would have looked a bit suspect if he were seen carrying a garbage bag, wouldn't it, Doc? Not if he were carrying an "adequate sized attache", as per ransom note instructions, however.

      Fibres from the duvet found inside the suitcase were found on JB's body, which suggests someone may well have tried placing her in that suitcase before realizing she wouldn't fit.

      Delete
    4. Possibly. But don't forget: the garage was attached to the house, so no one would have seen him carrying the body to the car, thus no reason to disguise it by stuffing it in suitcase. I think the suitcase was there to be seen as something the "intruder" would have used to boost himself out the window,.

      Delete
    5. A witness could have possibly seen him remove the bag from the trunk at the planned dumping site. What convincing excuse could he offer for carrying a bulging garbage bag from the trunk of his car in a remote location? Whereas if he was seen with a suitcase, he would simply say it contained the ransom money which he was delivering at the designated location - as per your very own theory. If he had no plans for the case, then what is your reasoning behind John's decision to include the words "adequate sized attache" in the RN? Don't you think, considering everything else you've surmised regarding the instructions in the note, that he must have had a very good reason to include this detail? And what do you make of the fibres from the blanket found in the suitcase being found on JB's body? Doesn't this link the actual contents of the suitcase directly to her murder, rather than it being used merely as a staging prop?

      Delete
    6. Ms. D:

      How could John be seen with either suitcase or garbage bag from the moment he left his garage until he parked at some remote location up in the mountains? That suitcase was far too large for a mere $118,000 dollars, even in twenty dollar denominations.

      If, as you say, John tried unsuccessfully to put JB in the suitcase, perhaps size "adequacy" for any container holding anything was on his mind when he wrote of the attache.

      Let's face it. From the time John removed the body from the trunk of the car in woods, to the time he threw the last shovelfull of dirt on her grave, he was at risk of getting caught red-handed no matter what container he carried the corpse in. And unlike the suitcase, a bag could be buried along with JB without ever having been noticed as "gone". And if John intended to return home with the empty suitcase, he'd of had the added task to wipe it clean of all forensical evidence.

      I think John may have intended to use the suitcase as a temporary hiding spot for his victim, while he was moving it from one location in the house to another. Given there was an intended trip that morning, his being seen with a suitcase would not seem suspicious.

      Mike G

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the response, Mike.

      What do you make of the fibres from the duvet in the suitcase being found on JB's body? Whether she was ever placed in the suitcase at some point, or if she was perhaps wrapped in the duvet and carried downstairs, the fact we have physical evidence that proves the duvet came into direct contact with her the night of her murder and was then placed inside the suitcase with a Dr Seus book surely tells us that the case was more than simply a prop, it was used to conceal evidence. Why was the book in with the duvet? Did John use the book to lure JB down to the basement? Did they often lie together on the duvet on the cold, hard, basement floor whilst he read to her? Were there other contents recovered from the suitcase we're not aware of? I believe the suitcase, for whatever reason, to be much more significant than Doc does.

      Delete
  12. Maybe because they weren't professional killers, in fact weren't killers at all, therefore weren't as savvy as you'd like to believe they were in covering up a crime/accident.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, EG. If they had the wit to concoct that elaborate RN, hoping to suggest an intruder, they would have been savvy enough to know they'd need to create a point of ingress/egress.

      Delete
    2. Pffftt CC.

      Anyone can write a RN. I can write one right now.

      Setting up a crime scene to implicate an intruder, with no evidence pointing at me...I wouldn't have a clue. The Ramsey's didn't have a clue either and John most likely second guessed himself many times about that window.

      They ONLY got off because of three things:

      1. Luck
      2. Poor Police work in the first few days
      3. Money. If they were poor they would have been done for sure. Another reason why law sucks...money should not come into it.

      Delete
    3. John got off for one reason: he was "ruled out" as writer of the note. If he had not been ruled out, his involvement would have been very clear. This was indeed the initial theory.

      Delete
    4. I don't agree. Despite being ruled out, if they were poor they (J & P) would have definitely ended up in a trial.

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

      Delete
  13. That RN wasn't savvy at all. That's what led LE to believe they wrote it. It was not what a seasoned criminal or "kidnapper" would have written at all. A kidnapper would have said so much less and asked for so much more.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LE never for a moment believed "they" wrote it - it was Patsy and only she whom they blamed from day one. Let's not forget that the fact it was composed on Patsy's pad, with one of the pens she habitually used,in printing that was thought resembled hers, incorporating exclamation points and phrases she was known to employ, all contributed to that conclusion as well.

      I personally think the paltry sum was intended to suggest a disgruntled AG employee who might, presumably, know the amount of John's bonus. I also believe it was an amount with which he was willing to part, had his scheme gone off as planned and he been able to leave that sum at Boulder Falls, or some similar landmark in the mountains.

      Delete
    2. Well, I do believe PR wrote it, but I think JR dictated much of it. PR couldn't be ruled out as the writer but we've gone over that ad nauseam and we all have our opinions.

      You do make a good point about the amount, and I hadn't thought of that. I thought it more to suggest a disgruntled worker in a menial position who would think $118k was a lot of money.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Patsy indicated that she wasn't even aware of her husband's bonus.

      Delete
  14. Apologies, E, if I seem to be targeting you; I'm not. You're just the most rational of the BDIers, it's pouring rain here (again), I'm still marooned in Central Florida because of damage to my office building, and I have way too much free time.

    Thanks for being willing to engage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. No need to apologize, CC and I absolutely do not feel targeted at all. Quite the contrary, I am enjoying our conversation here. As you know I have the utmost respect for prosecutors and the rule of law and I do take into consideration your expert opinion on this blog and appreciate your input. I have learned much from you, and I am depending on you to convince me that I am wrong. You as prosecutor, and me as juror, I want to KNOW without any doubt, that JDI. I am just not there yet. For me, it's a stretch to believe that a loving father, with no prior record or incidents of sexual abuse, would one day wake up and begin abusing and then ultimately killing his daughter.

    I am glad to see you made it through the hurricane, and hope you're back to normal soon. I have family in Naples and Fort Myers and some are still dealing with power outages. Luckily, they weren't affected by the flooding. I am up here in NYC (born and raised) having a lazy day. I do so love weekends!

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Very much.

      I have much respect for you, and fondness for J, and did not dismiss Burke lightly. You and I discussed my experience as a third grader in Boca Raton who sat behind a boy (from a well-known family of great wealth) who killed two children in the house next door, did we not? I know kids kill, from personal experience.

      As you know, for me it all comes down to the prior sexual abuse. I know kids "play doctor" and otherwise experiment, but digital penetration in 9/6 year olds is well beyond anything in my personal or professional experience, and not common in the literature, insofar as I've been able to determine.

      Since it's apparently just us weeekend chickens here, please tell me what led you to believe BDI. I've often wondered.

      Delete
  16. Yes, we have discussed what you experienced back then and if I remember correctly, was partially responsible for your becoming a prosecutor.

    At first, I thought PDI. I had read that LHP claimed to have witnessed PR flying into rages and shoving JBR into the bathroom when she wet herself, cleaning her viciously as to cause JBR to cry out. I thought PR wanted JBR to be perfect and having accidents didn't fit into the perfect little beauty queen image and PR couldn't stand it. I also took into consideration PR's illness and the stress she was under combatting cancer, raising children that were less than perfect and dealing with a husband who was distant, cold and dictatorial. That's just how JR strikes me. All of it became too much and she snapped and did it all, including the cover up and RN.

    However, I thought that JR would have known PR did it. Her handwriting in the RN, the fibers from her jacket, the way she couldn't seem to remember anything, the fact that she "discovered" the RN, that she never got undressed that night and on and on. JR would have never covered for her.

    So then I considered, JR. No prior criminal record. An older daughter who said he was nothing but loving and caring and never abused her in any way. Not one person ever came forward to make any such claims against him being a pedophile. And none after the murder. How does one start and then stop that type behavior. From what I've read, pedophiles can seldom if ever be rehabilitated.
    In addition, PR would have never covered for him, once it was known that JBR was sexually abused. She would have begun to remember times when she may have thought she witnessed something or perhaps comments JBR may have made to her about being abused by JR and she would have never covered for him.

    So, then I focused on BR and the strange behavior of the R's after the fact. Who were they protecting? If not each other who else?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John strikes me precisely as he does you: distant, cold and dictatorial. The difference seems to be that I do not, for a New York (apologies, cheap shot from someone who loves Manhattan once a year) minute believe he was a classic pedophile.

      Rather, I believe it was situational, partly a result of Patsy's recent, health-related antipathy to sex, partly a result of JBR's inappropriate sexualization for those hideous kiddie pageants.

      I can't dismiss John's apparent fascination with all things pageant-related - including his daughter and third wife.

      What, if anything, do you make of that?

      FYI, you and Lil, as I've told her before, would be on any jury I voir dired.

      Delete
  17. Thank you for that, CC and consider that quite the compliment coming from you. I have served on many a jury, btw, always considering it my civic duty to do so, as well as a privilege and a responsibility.

    I agree about John being obsessed with beauty queens as he seems to have surrounded himself with them his entire adult life in one way or another. I just can't make the leap from women to children where he is concerned. I think if JR needed to have sex due to PR's lack of interest, he'd find himself yet another pageant queen.

    I do understand when you say situational, in that JBR was in the house right under his nose, prancing about looking and acting like she was 20 years old, and he had easy access. I guess that's possible, but is it probable? Have you seen that, in your experience? I can't say I have.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any prosecutor worth her salt wants bright, law and order jurors who can set aside their prejudices. You and Lil are
      precisely that.

      I prosecuted pedophiles, and incestuous fathers and brothers, and many many Columbian and Jamaican drug-related murderers during the Cocaine Wars, but never anyone who approached JR in intelligence or entitlement. So no, E. I have no pertinent experience.

      Delete
    2. We're about to be dumped on, perhaps appropriately, for turning this excellent site into a private chat room. My private, anonymous e-mail address, as I've published here before, is oceanview2519@gmail.com. Your communications are always welcome.

      Delete
    3. And therein lies the problem. How do we get someone like JR from loving father, who has a "thing" for adult pageant women and turn him into a "situational" sexual abuser?

      I do know that statistics point to JR being the abuser.
      I do know that sexual abuse crosses all boundaries and no child is exempt.
      I also know many cases go unreported and victims suffer in silence their entire lives.

      To point a finger at JR and be fully convinced, I'd need more proof. In the case of the R's, so many people had access to that house and those children. I am not sure who was abusing her. I haven't ruled out JAR either. I know he had an alibi but the way the R's had private planes at their disposal, am not sure he wasn't involved. That neighbor claimed to have seen him earlier that day walking toward the Ramsey house and then he recanted. JAR also stayed at the Ramsey house on occasion and his room was right next to JBR's. The sperm stained blanket found in his suitcase with the children's book.

      And if that was JAR's suitcase that he used to go back and forth to college, why was it at the Ramsey house when JAR was back at school. Wouldn't he have used it to pack his clothes, upon returning to school?

      EG







      Delete
    4. Thanks CC. Would definitely love to continue our discussion and pick your brain some more.

      Thanks again, I've enjoyed this.

      EG

      Delete
    5. Here's my take on the sexual abuse aspect. There is no smoking gun telling us John was abusing his daughter. However, as I see things, it's very likely he did. Why? Because I've concluded, to my satisfaction, that he's the one who killed her. And the only motive I can think of is to hide sexual abuse (aka incest). When we add the clear evidence of sexual abuse during the assault, plus the clear evidence of prior molestation, then it seems obvious that he'd been abusing her.

      My certainty that he is the killer has nothing to do with the evidence of sexual abuse. It's based on the facts outlined at the beginning of this blog, plus other very strong evidence all of which points in only one direction.

      Delete
  18. Aww c'mon, E. 19 -year olds jerk off. John Andrew was in Atlanta, no question. The Samsonite Tourister to which you're referring may have been his, but he certainly did not need it to travel less than a half mile from his father's home to CU.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, that I know, CC but the children's book? What do you make of that?
    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Children lived in that house. Been 30 years since I had a small child, but she loved Dr Seuss. Someone moved that suitcase and its contents from, likely, the children's floor to the basement for storage - probably LHP, at Patsy's behest, may have contained any number of things from the 2nd floor. Or JAR had some infantile preoccupation with Dr Seuss...no telling. I don't see anything sinister in that. What? Now you're suggesting JAR?

      Delete
    2. Wasn't the book "The Seven Lady Godivas", which is not actually a children's book, but one of two, "adult" books Dr Seuss had published? Or is that unverifiable? I've read several times that it was this book that was found in JAR's suit case, but others have said the name of the book was never released publicly (which is odd in itself). Do we know for sure, Doc?

      Delete
    3. Ms D, I was just searching to find out where the idea, that it was an adult Dr. Seuss book, originated. I've read that several times too, but never from any "official" source. Anyway, I found this...

      http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?42667-JAR-s-semen-on-the-blanket-in-a-suitcase-in-the-basement/page4
      (Scroll to just past half-way down the page.)

      Apparently, this screen shot was taken from a documentary made by Lawrence Schiller for Court TV. It's unclear if it's an official document from the investigation, or just a prop used in the documentary.

      I don't believe the title of the book was ever released publicly.

      Delete
  20. No, am not suggesting JAR, just proving the point that many people had access to JBR. And I still think there is much more to this case than a simple JDI to cover up sexual abuse. Especially considering there is no proof, no prior record, etc.

    I suppose its possible that JR just woke up one day, was sexually attracted to his 5 year old daughter, started abusing her, then murdered her, but to me, it's just not probable. I'd need some proof.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'll find your "proof" in any number of well documented instances where fathers decided one day to start abusing their daughters. In most such cases there is no evidence that the abuse led to murder, but it would surprise me if this case were the first.

      Delete
    2. "I still think there is much more to this case than a simple JDI to cover up sexual abuse."

      And yet, the simplest explanation is usually the right one, EG.....keep that in mind.

      Delete
  21. You should have stayed with PDI, EG.

    "JR would have never covered for her."

    John had no choice but to cover for Patsy. Lockheed Martin was calling the shots. Any emergency situation had to first go through Lockheed Martin.

    What most people do not understand is that Patsy and JonBenet had a very volatile relationship; very loving and close one moment, then combative the next. Patsy was susceptible to debilitating mood swings caused by a combination of prescription medication and a severe hormone imbalance. Most people did not see this side of Patsy. LHP witnessed it as did other family members.

    Hercule

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

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

      Delete
    3. Ahh. You've moved from psychobabble to allegedly inside information from the FBI to Boulder politics, about all of which you know zip.

      Say something passably intelligent, Herc. Start with my two earlier posted questions.

      Delete
    4. Then detail the family members who witnessed her allegedly hormonal imbalance and resultant mood swings.

      Delete
    5. If he is who I think he is, Herc actually DOES have inside information.

      Delete
    6. You joke,Anon/Herc. He isn't even who he thinks he is.

      Delete
    7. Please remember his last piercing insight about my fraternal lineage. Utterly false, utterly typical. I'll happily share a long list of his many gaffes over the last couple few years. He's a cheap fraud and a poseur.

      Delete
    8. "He isn't even who he thinks he is".

      Hehehe, CC...I think you're right.
      "Anonymous", you're not fooling anyone.

      "What most people do not understand is that Patsy and JonBenet had a very volatile relationship; very loving and close one moment, then combative the next."

      Ohhh, you mean like almost every other mother/daughter relationship on the planet? Hardly a compelling argument, is it?

      "Patsy was susceptible to debilitating mood swings caused by a combination of prescription medication and a severe hormone imbalance. Most people did not see this side of Patsy. LHP witnessed it as did other family members."

      Cite your sources and name your witnesses, or I call bullshit. In her interviews with LE, Patsy states she wasn't on any medication prior to JB's murder. LHP spoke glowingly about Patsy UNTIL the Ramsey's named her as a possible suspect, so she is clearly an unreliable witness.

      You've given us nothing to even chew on here, Herc. Be more creative...

      Delete
    9. Diantha? Suitably exotic. Diana , goddess of the hunt?

      Delete
    10. All sorts of people with "inside information" have held forth on this case -- and none of them has a clue, or it would have been solved by now.

      Delete
  22. Herc,

    I did read early on that LM had a protocol they followed in the event there was a kidnapping involving one of their executives and that it wasn't followed that day because they knew that there was no kidnapping, which is highly suspect, to be sure.

    What do you make of the claim by the experts that JBR was being sexually abused? The JDI theory is based on him trying to silence JBR.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well MY JDI theory is based on the facts outlined in the first few posts of this blog. In my opinion I can prove John murdered his daughter, but I could never prove he abused her. Fortunately, it's not necessary to prove motive, only guilt.

      Delete
    2. That's the thing with this case though Doc. I can prove Burke whacked his sister and then his parents took over (in my opinion). As I've stated so many times, my RDI theory isn't really all that different to your JDI theory though.

      Delete
    3. Excellent news. Provide your proof. Make sure it meets the legal standard for same, as neither Doc. Ms D, EG nor I can.

      Then answer my earlier questions.

      Delete
    4. "I can prove Burke whacked his sister and then his parents took over (in my opinion)."

      Wait....do you have "proof", or an "opinion"?

      "I can PROVE Burke whacked his sister and then his parents took over (in my OPINION)"...that little disclaimer at the end makes your entire statement an oxymoron, doesn't it? Do you have proof (proof that no one in LE appears to have, strangely enough), or is it merely an assumption?

      We keep telling you...an opinion and a fact are NOT the same thing, no matter how emphatically, or how often, you state that opinion. When are you going to learn the difference between the two? I genuinely can't tell whether you're just exceptionally, willfully ignorant, or remarkably pretentious.

      Delete
  23. CC, did you even read doc's post above mine? He stated he can prove John did it. So i replied and stated i can prove burke hitting his sister started it. We both put. But as usual your grand purpose in life seems to be to refute anything a non jdi-er says. It's sad really.

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

      Delete
    2. A Tu Quoque argument...you truly are the king of logical fallacies, aren't you, Zed? Now, THAT is a fact.....in my most humble opinion, of course. ;)

      Delete
    3. Ahhh, apologies, D. My country is presently totally screwed up, and hyperbole and my great dislike of illiterate, unintelligent assholes overcame me.

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

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

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

      Delete
    7. It just seems like you are lonely, sad souls."

      And there we have it.....the obligatory ad hom as your only recourse.

      "You and CC would make a cute couple. I am sure you would turn each other on..."

      You can't resist, can you, Zed? You're obsessed with taking digs at CC's and my sexuality, aren't you? Perhaps it is *you* who is turned on? Or, more than likely, you feel emasculated when you see women more intelligent than you, so you resort to making personal attacks on their sexuality to make you feel better about your own inadequacies in that department.

      Though CC's legal jargon does kind of turn me on.....

      Yeah, there are many rich idiots out there...money doesn't equal brains, Zed. Nor does money make you more of a man, which you seem so desperate to prove at every
      turn (thou dost protest too much). At any rate, we have no reason to trust your claims of self made wealth, as you've proven yourself to be a B.S artist on many occasions.

      Now, let's stop the bickering, per Doc's request....you have nothing to say, Zed, so don't say it.

      Delete
  24. Ms D, what makes someone smarter than someone else? I write EVERY post on here with a phone. Give me an algebra test and we will see who are the smart ones around here. You see, I am pretty satisfied with my level of intelligence thank you very much and have always excelled in anything I put my mind to. The funny thing is CC always starts this. Doc wrote the exact same thing as me and yet CC ignores it...which you also did mind you. And pretty sure that's the first time I have ever had a dig at your sexuality...but hey, when someone calls me an unintelligent asshole (which for everyone who knows me is so far from the truth) I'll fight back. And I don't have to work very hard to get a stir from either one of you. In fact, I often wonder if you and CC are actually the same person...conveniently posting after one another.

    I have no doubts you are a smart woman Ms D, and being a fellow Aussie with something in common (we are both on the same blog aren't we not) it would be excellent if this hostility between us could cease. But seriously, don't get your knickers in a knot because you disagree with my opinion (an opinion which isn't too different to your own theory mind you). There's more important things in life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My proof was based on facts, logic and evidence, Zed. Yours is based purely on assumption.

      Delete
    2. Doc, that is simply not true.

      Delete
    3. Fact: the ransom note was written on a notepad found in the Ramsey's kitchen.

      Logical inference: this is inconsistent with the actions of a real kidnapper, who would have prepared his note in advance and brought it with him.

      There are many other reasons for concluding there could have been no intruder, as is well known.


      Fact: the ransom note was indeed a ransom note.

      Logical inference: assuming there was no intruder, this note could only have been intended by one or both of the Ramsey adults as part of a plan to stage a kidnapping.

      Fact: Patsy Ramsey called 911 early on the morning of the 26th.

      Logical inference: if both Ramseys were involved in the staging, that call would not have been made when it was, since the presence of the victim's body in the house, is not consistent with the staging of a kidnapping. Since Patsy is the one who made the call, then she could not have been involved.

      Fact: the note could not have been written by Burke Ramsey.

      Logical inference: the note must have been written by John Ramsey.

      Logical inference: once Patsy's involvement is ruled out then it is no longer possible to conclude that both parents conspired to cover for their son, which is, of course, the basis for both James Kolar's book and the CBS special on this case.

      Logical inference: by process of elimination we are forced to conclude that JonBenet must have been assaulted and murdered by her father, John Ramsey.

      Additional evidence:

      Fact: In an interview aired on the A&E channel, Patsy presented a version of what happened prior to the 911 call that differs significantly from the "official" version as presented in their book. In the interview, Patsy says she told John she was going to call the police and he agreed. Then, according to Patsy, he went to check on Burke while she ran downstairs to make the call. This is totally different from the "official" version, where both of them are together, with John on hands and knees, reading the note and then telling her to make the call.

      Logical inference: since the two versions contradict one another there is no reason to assume, as John has claimed, that he told Patsy to make the call or that he wanted the call made.

      There is considerable additional evidence, making it possible, imo, to produce a strong circumstantial case against John Ramsey.

      On the other hand, what do you have, Zed?

      Fact: Burke's prints were found on a bowl of pineapple left on a table in the house on the morning of the 26th.

      Fact: remnants of pineapple were found in JBR's digestive tract during the autopsy.

      Assumption: this tells us that Burke and JonBenet must have been together in the kitchen that night and that Burke must therefore be the one who assaulted her, with his parents then covering for him by staging a pedophile assault, strangling her with a "garrote' and then staging a kidnapping.

      Simply on the basis of some fingerprints and some traces of pineapple? IN what sense is any of this based on logic?

      Delete
  25. Doc: "Because I've concluded, to my satisfaction, that he's the one who killed her."

    Zed: "I can prove Burke whacked his sister and then his parents took over (in my opinion)."

    Not the same thing at all, Zed. Doc said he was satisfied with HIS conclusion, he said nothing whatsoever about being able to prove it.

    "As I've stated so many times, my RDI theory isn't really all that different to your JDI theory though."

    It's very different. Your theory involves three people - one being a young child - along with no clear motive. Ours involves one person and one clear motive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms D, Doc's exact words were:

      "In my opinion I can prove John murdered his daughter".

      Exactly the same as what I wrote. Talk about rose tinted glasses.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I didn't see that comment of his.
      O.k then.....prove Burke "whacked his sister" over the head then. That's all I've been asking you to do all these months! Prove that, and we can stop the bickering. :)

      Delete
    3. You know I cannot. No more than you and Doc can prove John did it. I only wrote my initial post because Doc said he could prove it. So I questioned that by a tongue-in-cheek comment saying I could prove my theory as well...which you jumped all over. As you know, I believe my theory is based on circumstancial evidence, logical inferences and just good old-fashioned common sense. But no one can prove anything concrete in this case (except for an actual intruder being ludicrous).

      Delete
  26. I think you should all take a deep breath. What is the purpose of all the cruel remarks to each other? We are all on the same team. Despite the criticism that I have received and the disrespectful jabs taken to my profession (mostly from CC), I can confidently say that each of you has a big heart. Some of you tend to wear it on your sleeves and your passion precedes your judgment. That I can understand. The frustration comes from not knowing the truth about this case. We have all felt it. Mine comes from not being able to prove it. My hope is that the people who are in the position to prove it will finally be compelled to do so. I know Patsy killed JonBenet, but I still want to know more.

    For example, to your question, EG, I do not know if JonBenet was sexually abused. If she was, I want to know by whom. We cannot assume it was John. I give credit to Doc for not making that assumption. There are many others that could have done it. Some had just as much access as John had. John was seldomly around his family due to his demanding career. JAR, FW, MP, GS, DS, NI, MA, just to name a few.

    Let us try to be more civil and respectful. Do not forget why we are all here.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take no jabs at your alleged profession, just at your pretensions to it. Lest we forget, you're the pretender who confused psychopathy with sociopathy, who had no clue what the DSM-5 was until I told you, and who then "diagnosed" Patsy with a rare form of PTSD seen only in former soldiers...
      and who only incurred my ire when you were consistently uncivil and disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with your tripe. Now you want to play peacemaker? Funny, that.






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

      Delete
    3. "I do not know if JonBenet was sexually abused. If she was, I want to know by whom. We cannot assume it was John. I give credit to Doc for not making that assumption. There are many others that could have done it. Some had just as much access as John had. John was seldomly around his family due to his demanding career. JAR, FW, MP, GS, DS, NI, MA, just to name a few"

      JB had been violated directly before/after her murder, and the only adult male in the house that night was John.....yet you honestly don't see a connection here?

      Delete
    4. Hercule:

      While I believe civil conversation should be the standard, I don't believe "we are all here for the same reason". I'm here because I want John Ramsey to be tried for murder and, if found guilty, sent to prison. Others, perhaps most, are on here to take part in figuring out who killed JonBenet or to convince everyone Patsy, the Ramsey's, or Burke killed her, intentionally or by accident. Finally, there are even those who still cling to intruder theories.

      I regard anyone who doesn't believe JDI an adversary and my attempt to either change their mind or silence them as a moral thing to do. It is up to Doc to determine when my treatment of an adversary becomes hostile and up to me to learn how to better push the envelope next time.

      This comes from years spent in medical technology sales under the tutelage of a regional manager who preached that if a sales person didn't piss off at least one doctor a day, they weren't doing their job.

      It might comfort you to know that I was a slightly above average salesman at best. I love this site because all the people smarter than I am on it have thickened my skin. To love you have to first endure.

      Mike G

      Delete
  27. Herc,

    Well said, these verbal attacks need to stop. We ARE all on the same page, and insulting each other is futile and serves no one.

    And I agree regarding the sexual abuse. We do not know if it was JR and as I've stated, so many people had access to JBR that it could've been any one of them.

    And Zed is right too. We ALL have our own theories and opinions and each should be respected.

    I think we've all contributed here based on extensive reading into this case and we all make valid contributions.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Please remember his last piercing insight about my fraternal lineage. Utterly false, utterly typical. I'll happily share a long list of his many gaffes over the last couple few years. He's a cheap fraud and a poseur."

    Apparently, you are right. There is a fraud on this blog. I did not post anything about your father. I have no clue who you are, nor does it matter to me. I am curious how many times this imposter has commented under my moniker. Whoever you are, please behave like an adult.

    Hercule (The real one)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh dear god. Now you're going to pretend there's a pretender to your throne? And - let me guess - lay off all former idiocies to him? Please. You strain credulity, always, but this is way over the top.

      Delete
    2. I understand your reluctance. I am not happy about it either, but what can I do? I missed a lot of time on this blog for health reasons and consulting cases. A lot of jet lag. There are threads that I still have not read. I am almost afraid to scan through them.

      Hercule

      Delete
    3. Don't bother. That fraud had no more to contribute than this one.

      Delete
    4. As long as I am your favorite "fraud" then all is well.

      Hercule

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

      Delete
    6. My response to EG pertaining to the sexual abuse was removed??? Well that's weird...

      Delete
  29. "I take no jabs at your alleged profession, just at your pretensions to it. Lest we forget, you're the pretender who confused psychopathy with sociopathy, who had no clue what the DSM-5 was until I told you, and who then "diagnosed" Patsy with a rare form of PTSD seen only in former soldiers...
    and who only incurred my ire when you were consistently uncivil and disrespectful to anyone who disagreed with your tripe. Now you want to play peacemaker? Funny, that."

    I am sorry, CC. I have no clue to what you are referring, except that I have been guilty of defending myself on occasion. I have also apologized for some of my comments, although those pale in comparison to some of the ones who have posted, particularly, last night.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  30. John was not sexually abusing his daughter, sorry folks. I wish you all knew the exact reason why Burke's parents made Burke move into his own room. I wish you all had an opportunity to speak with a person who witnessed Burke hitting his sister with a golf club. I wish you all knew why Burke spread faeces in his sister's room. I wish you all understood exactly why the word "incest" was looked up in the family dictionary.

    And I wish, that despite all of the above, you can see Burke is not evil. He is not a murderer and he is a nice person. He was simply a young child who did some strange and incorrect things. Things which the parents already knew about. He then struck his sister that night with no intention to kill her and the parents made a foolish decision. A decision, in their own minds, was the the only decision left they could make.

    There is no motive for John. All three fanily members were involved. Patsy's 911 call was completely fabricated.

    I have posted on here once before and I may return another day. Stay safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's nice that you are so confident in your information, but I, for one, do NOT know that John was not abusing his daughter.

      I don't trust John Ramsey because of the many lies he tells. Why should I?

      According to your post, John and Patsy made a "foolish decision". Did that foolish decision include throwing their friends, former co-workers, housekeeper,etc under the bus? They didn't have to point the finger at those people. That's not one foolish decision. That's a lifetime decision made for themselves, Burke, and all the families they have accused.

      I don't know who actually ended her life that night, but that person should be held accountable in a court of law. You say Burke isn't a murderer, so I guess you don't believe it was him. I don't either.

      K

      Delete
    2. I would very much like to think that the above message is actually from THE James Kolar whose book inspired me to initiate this blog. If so, I want to thank you for all your hard work on this case, and to remind you that your efforts to debunk the intruder theory have been extremely helpful to me and the many others who feel certain that this horrible crime must have been an inside job.

      However, I find it impossible to simply accept someone's opinion at face value, even the opinion of someone as knowledgeable as yourself. I must also express my skepticism regarding the claims you've made with respect to Burke's motive for striking his sister with a golf club (reported as an accident), his spreading feces in his sister's room (an allegation that has never been corroborated), or the notion that the word "incest" found in the family dictionary necessarily applied to him rather than anyone else (for example, his father). Likewise I'm extremely skeptical regarding your opinion that John could not have been molesting his daughter. What is the basis for that, may I ask?

      I see no reason for anyone to withhold any "inside information" regarding any of the above (or indeed any aspect) of a case that is so unlikely to ever go to trial. So if there is something you know that we don't, please share. And if you don't then I must assume you are bluffing. I read Foreign Faction with great interest but found only innuendos and assumptions regarding Burke's relation to his sister and his actions on the night of the crime, and the same goes for the CBS production in which you took part.

      If you want to be taken seriously by those of us who've taken the time to study this case carefully, you need to back up your opinions and assumptions with hard facts.

      Delete
  31. A prosecutor may introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendant's actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt." Such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime (for example, closing and latching, and not reporting to police, an open window that Ramsey recalled having come through himself in the past, while police were searching for an intruder's entry point).

    Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person's false statements may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.

    In John Henry Wigmore's famous 1904 work, Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, he "dramatically states the significance of a suspect's consciousness of guilt when he says:

    'As an axe leaves its mark in the speechless tree, so an
    evil deed leaves its mark in the evil doer's consciousness.'

    Again:

    'Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion.'

    Slesinger, Donald and Hutchins, Robert M., "Some Observations on the Law of Evidence -- Consciousness of Guilt" (1929). Faculty Scholarship Series. 4541.
    http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4541

    There is also a less well-known and less widely accepted doctrine of “consciousness of innocence.”

    In United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990, the defendant sought to prove that the government had offered him immunity in return for information about wrongdoing by others, and that the defendant “denied knowledge of any such wrongdoing, thereby "rejecting immunity.” The Second Circuit reversed the district court's holding that such fact was irrelevant, holding that “the probative force of a rejected immunity offer is clearly strong enough to render it relevant.”

    Specifically, "while there may be reasons for rejecting the offer that are consistent with guilty knowledge . . . a jury is entitled to believe that most people would jump at the chance to obtain an assurance of immunity from prosecution and to infer from rejection of the offer that the accused lacks knowledge of the wrongdoing..."

    Patsy Ramsey made a phone call on the morning of December 26, 1996 whose purpose was to get law enforcement to come into her home and assist in rescuing her daughter. That call evinced a lack of knowledge of any wrongdoing within her family.

    In stark contrast, John Ramsey made a phone call on the afternoon of December 26, 1996 in order to fly to Atlanta while his daughter's lifeless body was lying on the floor and the capture of a suspect, any suspect, could have been imminent. Not only did he not attempt to lead the effort to capture a suspect who could still have been in the area, he wanted to simply leave. Just leave.

    Further, he has given at least three different stories about that call. One, in the book "Death of Innocence" he misdirected and ignored the afternoon call citing only the morning call to his pilot canceling the family's vacation flight. Two, to the police detective who overheard his making the call and telling Ramsey he could not leave town, Ramsey said he had a meeting in Atlanta he could not miss. Three, in a TV interview with Barbara Walters, she asked Ramsey to his face, "did you call your pilot after discovering JonBenet's body and try to schedule a flight to Atlanta that afternoon?" He responded, "yes, we had no place to stay and wanted to go home, to Atlanta."

    It seems to me that: (1) We may consider Patsy's 911 call as evidence of the consciousness of her innocence; and (2) we may consider John Ramsey's afternoon call to fly away, and his later lies about it, as evidence of consciousness of guilt.

    Black Sheep



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome Black Sheep. Your seat at the table has been empty far too long and the closet over yonder has plenty of space for your three bags of wool. We had planned on veal tonight for supper. Should we reconsider?

      ---The Rulers Inn

      Delete
    2. Black Sheep, thanks for a good post. What you write makes sense and I understand Patsy's "call of innocence" is the entire premise in which Doc's theory started.

      BUT:

      When the parents found her body, they had two decisions to choose from...call 911 or not to call 911. We don't know exactly what had happened in the past between JB and Burke, nor do we know exactly how her body was found. We do know that the family "image" was very important to them, well at least Patsy. There is no disputing that. Patsy really cared what others thought of them and being a rich, classy family meant that image had to be perceived. If Boulder found out that Burke had died as a result of a family member, that would have wrecked her. Even more so if there more suspicuous activity involving her death, which was likely. So both parents made the decision not to call 911.

      From that point they had two more options to choose from. Remove her body from house or not. Removing her body simply had too many risks, not to mention they still wanted to give their daughter (someone they loved very much) a proper burial. So the only decision they could possibly make was to stage an intruder. And that meant SOMEONE in the house HAD to ring 911. Patsy was the better candidate. Her ringing 911 has nothing to do with her innocence.

      Delete
    3. To Zed who responded, stating: "So the only decision they could possibly make was to stage an intruder."

      With all due respect, they did not stage an intruder. In fact, the opposite is true. "They" covered up what little staging had been done at the train room window. A joint staging by both of them would have been done to fool the police, and thus done thoroughly, with two people thinking together of all angles. "They" not only would have finished the window staging (or some other entry and exit point), with a moving of the grate above the window well and a brushing of the spider webs from the window while leaving glass on the floor, but "they" would have waited until all frost had thawed before calling the police, so that the lack of footprints around the window would not have been evident. "They" could have explained their delay by saying that "they" did not want to endanger their daughter's life by violating the terms of the ransom note until the time for the kidnappers' call came and went with no call. It is in fact telling that "they" didn't at least wait until 10AM for the call so as to at least be consistent with "their" own ransom note isn't it? Two people working together would have thought of that wouldn't they?

      So there was no "they".

      In reality the little staging of an intruder that had been done around the train window was only needing to fool one person, per DocG's theory. That person was Patsy. Once Patsy called 911 so early in the morning, which wouldn't have been done had "they" been working together, the staging at the train room window was immediately rendered insufficient to fool experts and had to be un-staged.


      Black Sheep

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Black Sheep, for your very serious and knowledgeable analysis of this case.

      Delete
    5. Black Sheep, really??? You say they didn't stage an intruder?? The ransom note and some of the things performed to JB were them staging an intruder. Plain and simple.

      The window has been discussed at length on this blog so please search on this. The fact that this was not staged (or unstaged) does not mean they didn't stage an intruder. The Ramseys contibued to spurt out ridiculous claims on how an intruder could have got in. At one point they even claimed a door was unlocked. Your post is purely an opinion, just like Docs and just like mine. I just don't think it's as good as mine as Patsy was definitely involved.

      Delete
    6. Zed, I'm sorry, but your hubris knows no bounds. Black Sheep's posts are eloquent, articulate, succinct, thorough and well thought out. Yours are not remotely of the same calibre, as I'm sure all here would agree. So rather than simply insist your opinions are more valid than Black Sheep's (and everyone else's it would seem), why don't you offer an argument as equally compelling? What you fail to understand over and over, is that an opinion based solely on unsubstantiated assumptions is not the same as a comprehensive theory based on logical inferences derived from facts (re: "Your post is purely an opinion, just like Docs and just like mine.") Not quite, Zed. There IS a difference.....a major one.

      Delete
    7. Once again, your post contributes absolutely nothing to this blog...just like 95% of your posts. I really enjoy the other 5% though!

      My above post is a FACT (the part about the staging of an intruder). It's NOT an opinion. An intruder WAS staged...that is absolutely 100% true. Anyone who says otherwise knows absolutely nothing about this case. So when someone states that there was no staging of an intruder, of course I'm going to call them out on that.

      And no Ms D...there is no difference in your opinion and mine. Except more people believe in mine.

      Delete
    8. For God's sake, Zed, can you stop making this a contest?
      "It's not as good as MINE".
      "More people believe in MINE."
      WHO CARES?!!! Why are you always trying to prove you're better than everyone else here? Most people here care about TRUTH, not about popularity.

      "Once again, your post contributes absolutely nothing to this blog...just like 95% of your posts."

      I invest SO much energy, and SO much time in my comments.....I am researching this case in most of my spare time, and am constantly learning new details - so for you, of all people, who has never ONCE contributed anything substantial to this blog, to say that 95% of my posts are worthless.....that is the final straw for me - I can't remain here with you Zed. I'm done....so go ahead and view it as a victory against my crushing defeat, as I'm sure you will.


      Delete
    9. Oh you are so full of it. You love saying how there is a major difference between our theories (which is utter bullshit) and then you have the biggest tanty ever when I say mine is more popular. Stop saying stupid shit and I'll stop replying with stupid shit. Pretty simple really.

      Delete
  32. Your daughter just died and you want to fly to Atlanta? Oh, OK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that directed at me? If so I 100% agree. John was definitely trying to distance the family from the crime.

      Delete
  33. After JonBenét’s body had been brought up, JR told Mason he had an important business meeting in Atlanta. No mention that he needed the family along. Black Sheep’s analysis is that HE wanted to Just Leave. He was thinking of himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incorrect.

      John Ramsey arranged a private jet to fly to Atlanta WITH HIS FAMILY - less than 30 minutes after the police showed up to collect JonBenet's body. According to forensic expert James Kolar, John Ramsey was overheard by detective Bill Palmer asking his pilot, Mike Archuleta, to ready his plane for a business meeting "he couldn't miss".

      Delete
    2. A. James Kolar wasn't there, so can only rely on hearsay.
      B. What, in your comment above, proves that John Ramsey was planning on bringing his family with him? You said Anonymous was incorrect, but didn't offer any evidence to support your claim. Why would John need his family to accompany him on a meeting that was strictly for business?

      Delete
    3. Kolar was no "forensic expert", Zed, he was a cop who was not in Boulder in December of 1996, never saw the crime scene, and never worked the case. He was hired by Mary Lacy as a DA's investigator for seven months and did nothing but review case files and come up with a crackpot theory of aberrant child sexual behavior for which there was no evidence - then or now.

      Delete
    4. A. Agree. So it's also hearsay that John said this at all. So the whole subject of him and the plane to Atlanta is completely irrelevant. Just a waste of time and not worth focusing on.
      B. I said he was incorrect because he was. It is hearsay (which you agreed with). Once again, I offer another plausible option with the exact same wording as Anonymous...and only I get shutdown. Something you JDI'ers love to do. It's quite laughable actually.

      And yes, I know that CC. I just pasted that from another website to prove my point...that Anonymous was incorrect because it's all complete heresay.

      PS. Sigh. I sound like a broken record but Kolar has a lot more circumstantial evidence than your theory has. My personal opinion, but one that many share.

      Delete
    5. Zed, that ‘hearsay’ about him wanting to fly to Atlanta later is mentioned in all three books on the case- PMPT, FF, and IRMI and since it appeared in all books it likely was written up in detectives’ reports. As noted, businessmen are not known to take their families with them for important meetings, though I agree it cannot be known whether it was his plan to take them with him or not. But there’s definitely cognitive dissonance in his plan. Apparently this important business meeting only came up on the morning of the 26th while awaiting the kidnapper’s call. The day prior he was planning on going to Charlevoix. This is the point of consciousness of guilt. It was His plan to flee the state, His excuse of an important meeting and such flight away is a notorious flag of consciousness of guilt.

      Black Sheep’s post was excellent in differentiating the two parents’ reactions. BR told the Detective in Atlanta that he heard his mother going psycho. When he heard this isn't exactly clear. But what alerted me to something strange is that Patsy is said, by Burke, to be overreacting. Iow, what could be the big deal. BR said he was wondering if something bad had happened. However, his father is calm and tells his wife to calm down. How could any calm take charge father not be either reaching out for help or calling the police himself. Police questioned him about the fact that his hysterical wife called instead of JR placing the call. Just the way we do things in our family, he replied.

      Delete
  34. Doc, Hercule, or CC:

    Did anyone ever state that JonBenet was awake when she left the Whites home on Christmas night? Did the Walkers or Stines specifically say if JonBenet was awake on the Ramseys way home?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doc, I always enjoy your "lead in" thread at the beginning of a new page and gives food for thought every time. I had run across an article a while back and I'm sure it's old news to most, but it says the following: 5:55 a.m. : "the Whites were awakened by John Ramsey who told them to hurry right over" (Vanity Fair 10/1/97). The article then says they were joined by other friends, Fergie's, etc. Did John call the friends over? At the least he called the White's. If so, good thinking John - to put a buffer between himself and Patsy. They weren't speaking to each other as we all know as reported by witnesses but isn't it very possible he did not want Patsy to see his culpability, did not want her to read guilt on his face? He may have suggested she call other friends as well, but he started the ball rolling with his call to the White's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. As I recall it was Patsy who called the friends over, not John. At least that's the impression I've had after years of reading all sorts of reports and opinions. VF might have gotten it wrong, but it would be worth looking in to.

      Delete
  36. That was the impression I had as well, Doc - that Patsy had called the friends over. But it puts a slightly different spin on it if John did the calling, doesn't it? It would make sense that he would NOT have wanted to discuss what could have happened that night with his wife, would not have wanted to let his guard down, and so a buffer of friends around her may have suited him just fine. The article then says "by 6:20 a.m. the Whites were there joined by other friends" and later the Reverend H. but not who called them. If the White's phone records were taken the 5:55 a.m. call made by John Ramsey could certainly be verified, as the article states. Article was titled: JonBenet Ramsey: Missing Innocence by Ann Louise Bardach 10/1/97 for Vanity Fair.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Listen, I've been playing devil's advocate on here recently, just to put a different perspective on things. Castor, yes, if John made that call you could say he was putting a buffer between him and Patsy. But it's all subjective. For example, I would say regardless who made the call to friends, it was a joint decision to fill the house up with people and allow to lean on their friends rather than staring into each other's eyes in an empty, quiet house. As I said, it's all subjective and it's one of the reasons this case was never officially solved. You can look at every suspicious action in different ways.

    As an example, I have a list of over 40 suspicious things that Patsy did that morning and the weeks/months after. JDI'ers can probably put their own perspective on most of those and that is fine. For me it's the large number of suspicious actions that Patsy performed that lead me to believe she was definitely involved.

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

      Delete
    2. And if Patsy was involved why compose a long-winded note spelling out in no uncertain terms that LE should not be called, the house was under surveillance, if they so much as talk to a stray dog...etc., etc., and then undo the note by calling the police. Yep. She wouldn't.

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

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi CC

    Geez CC, at least give me a chance to reply....you only asked those questions minutes/hours ago. I have always replied to your questions with logical responses but because you don’t agree with them, you suddenly label me as not contributing. It’s so far from the truth and I know the likes of EG and J (and many others who have sadly left) wholeheartedly appreciate my posts. In fact, if you google this blog you will notice a lot of people have left here because of you. Now I’m not suggesting that you belittled them away, but it does seem to be the common denominator with you. I just happen to fight fire with fire, heck maybe we have that in common. And I am not here to gain “followers or supporters”....I think anyone who is here for that reason is here for the wrong reason. I’m here because I am interested in this crime and I will continue to play devil’s advocate until you, Doc and Ms D (or anyone else) can shed some actual evidence or proof...something which you have ZERO of. Remember, this blog is the minority as there is very little support for JDI anywhere else, and for good reason in my opinion. That is one of the reasons I am drawn to this blog. You are entitled to your views and I am entitled to mine and I will continue to question your posts as you question mine. It’s a two way street. Some of the posts from Ms D have been clearly targeted at me when I have said the EXACT same thing as Doc or some Anonymous JDI’er. There is no debating that. I have been saying the exact same thing to prove a logical point (hence my post has been completely logical) yet Ms D completely ignores what the other person wrote and then targets mine instead. If she targeted both of us I would have no problem. As I have said before, we are all here because we share something in common. Yes, some of the posts from you and Ms D leave me scratching my head, as I’m sure mine do the same to you. I will try and converse fairly (and maybe even nicely) if the same manner is conveyed to me. If not, things will not change.

    Now, to those 3 questions, let me address each of those one at a time.

    1. Why didn’t she finish staging at the window (leave broken glass, scrape leaves/dirt onto the floor)?

    The window scene will always be debated and we will never know exactly what was running through John/Patsy’s mind. Who knows if Patsy actually assisted with this scene at all? I tend to think she let John do everything “downstairs” but I could very well be wrong and maybe she did assist. Personally I think they chose the window as the intruder break-in point and then one (or both) of them started the staging. At some point, I think John changed his mind and thought it looked too obvious as staging. So it was then unstaged and the ridiculous story of John breaking in one summer was fabricated. In the long run, this was a dream move for the Ramsey’s because John admitting to this confused the heck out of LE. Not sure if the confusion was part of John’s master plan or if he just got lucky, I believe the latter, but either way it certainly worked. I do think LE really let themselves down here as well and should have grinded the Ramsey’s much harder on the window scene. We do know that the Ramsey’s continued to suggest other means of the intruder getting in. At one point they mentioned that there was door unlocked amongst other suggestions of how someone may have gotten in. Yes, the window scene is strange but can be easily and rationally explained.

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

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

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

      Delete
  41. Continued.....

    2. Why use her notepad, her pen, her paintbrush?

    So you are well aware that I believe this murder was NOT premeditated. JB was not supposed to die that night. Somebody lashed out at her with an object (most likely a flashlight) in rage/anger and then everything escalated from there. I believe John/Patsy had a series of decisions to make (which I have described before). Once they decided that ringing 911 was not something they would be doing, they then had to stage an intruder. This, in their mind, required a RN and some changes to the way their daughter was presented. It really didn’t matter what paper they got from the house, it was still from the house. And maybe they didn’t realise that the paper could actually be traced back to that specific notepad. And they were not going to leave the house to find paper elsewhere, so they had to choose something from the house. The Ramsey’s have said many times that they believe the intruder broke in whilst they were at the White’s and waited/prepared. So obviously, if the paper did happen to be traced back to that notepad, the intruder must have used that whilst waiting. Everything I’ve just written applies for the pen also. Before this murder, I didn’t realise that experts could trace ink/paper to the exact source it came from. Yes, I thought they could trace it back to the brand/model but not the exact item. I don’t see why the Ramsey’s would have known this, and as explained above, they had to use something from the house and their intruder story waiting in their house explains this anyway. So her notepad and pen is a non-issue to me. In regards to the paintbrush, this was either performed to hide something (prior assault...which is possible. You say John, I say Burke “playing/kids experimenting”), and/or it was performed to indicate that the intruder abused her (after all, what family member would do that with a paintbrush to their daughter...that’s what John/Patsy thought LE would be thinking). Regardless of why it was performed, John/Patsy were going for the look of an intruder having their daughter alone in the basement and then proceeding to assault her. The intruder grabbed something from the basement and the paintbrush happened to be the best item for John/Patsy to choose from. Going off and saying John chose the paintbrush to implicate his wife with this crime is quite far-fetched in my honest opinion. Obviously you respectfully disagree.

    3. Why didn’t Patsy write RN in Caps Block?

    I’m not sure. And it’s not a big deal/problem in my eyes. Maybe Patsy felt she could disguise her writing better when writing non-caps. Maybe she/they thought writing in caps looked more suspicious (like they were trying to hide their handwriting more). Maybe she/they had so much racing through their minds, they never even thought about writing in caps. Also (and I am moving away from the caps here), there is the practice note (or what could potentially be a practice note). If this was premeditated by John, which you strongly suggest, he would have written this note away from home, days or weeks in advance. And that practice note (despite being only a few characters long) would not have been found in the home.

    Peace

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

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

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry you feel attacked Zed. No one likes to feel that, but in a way it's part and parcel of posting here. There are payoffs and consequences. But on to your comment above, I don't think this was (who said it above?) a "they" scenario. And it wasn't some caper that the two of them thought up so cleverly, in the basement or at a writing desk. It smacks of the act of one person, who needed to cover his crime down in the lowest level of the house lest anyone wake up and catch him. He could have used anything down there to accomplish a choking, he may have searched for something to use in the time span between head blow and strangulation, settling on a cord and a knot or two that would have had the familiarity of his Naval training. But not a joint act. The more people clustered into this crime, the more difficult it becomes to explain. My suggestion is to rule John and John alone IN, with an open mind that it really could have been all him, and see if the pieces fit. And if they don't, go back to Burke, but if you do it requires too much story to make it work.

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

      Delete
    5. Thanks Castor, I appreciate your posts.

      I don’t mind being attacked as I’m pretty thick skinned. Yet, I will fire back and that usually causes people to have a whinge. Ah well, moving on.

      I understand what you are saying and that is your opinion so I cannot argue that. No one can take away an opinion of someone else, as hard as they may try.

      For me, this case actually smacks (to steal your word) of more than one person involved. The RN reeks of having more than one person involved. Patsy’s suspicious actions lead to one surmising she had to be involved. I actually agree with you when you say the more people clustered into a crime, the more difficult it is to explain. Agree 100%. But this is not your usual crime and it’s why, 21 years later, we are still talking about it and why “unofficially” it remains unsolved. And really, there is only one entity who performed this crime (John and Patsy). Burke just happened to be the one who instigated it by delivering the head blow.

      I have tried ruling John in alone. Believe me, I have. But there is just too many inconsistencies and it just makes the entire crime more difficult to explain. Also, remember that I am NOT BDI. Burke, in fact, plays the smallest portion of action in my theory. He lashed out at his sister and then woke his parents after not being able to wake her up. That’s it. Everything else is performed by one entity (the parents). In my opinion, and many, many others, it doesn’t require too much to story to make it work. It’s all very simple really and the pieces just fall into place. JDI and PDI are just too complex for my liking.

      But you know what, anything is possible. I just hope that one day, we ALL know the truth. Unfortunately that will probably never happen.

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

      Delete
  42. PS. First time accessing this from my PC. Usually I post via my phone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like that's some BFD. I always post from my personal phone rather than use the computers and devices owned by my firm, to avoid any conflict of interest. Doesn't seem to affect my ability to spell, use proper grammar or be articulate.

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

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

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete