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, October 13, 2017

John's Lawsuit

As most reading here must know by now, Lin Wood has filed a new lawsuit on behalf of John, based on allegations in the CBS "documentary" that he participated in a coverup to protect Burke, after Burke allegedly assaulted his sister. In my opinion, this could be a huge mistake, since a defense by the CBS "experts" would not necessarily have to involve Burke, but could focus exclusively on John's role in the coverup, which would be much easier to demonstrate.

If I were representing CBS in this particular lawsuit, I would have some questions for John that could make him VERY uncomfortable. For example:


1. Why was the "ransom note" written in the Ramsey home rather than prepared in advance?

2. Why would an intruder bother to wrap JonBenet's body in a blanket and hide it in the most remote room in the house rather than simply leave it where it lay after she was killed?

3. What proof do you have that you yourself broke the basement window months earlier rather than on the night of the crime, to stage a breakin? How can you explain your housekeeper's testimony that she knew nothing about any broken window and did not help clean up any glass?

4. Why didn't you immediately report finding that window open on the morning of the 26th? Why did you close it?

5. How can you prove that you yourself did not pen the "ransom note," given your own lawyer's insistence that the testimony of handwriting "experts" has no basis in science and cannot be taken seriously?

6. Why did you refuse to immediately go to the police station for questioning, rather than delay the process for months, knowing full well that your testimony might have assisted the investigation and possibly led to the apprehension of the alleged intruder?

7. How can you explain the contradiction between the version of what happened prior to the 911 call presented by Patsy on the A&E documentary and the version presented in your book?

8. What was the nature of the business meeting you claimed you needed to attend on the afternoon of the 26th. Can you name anyone else who attended that meeting?




231 comments:

  1. Great questions Doc.

    Question #4- Any father whose 6 yr old daughter was missing would have immediately reported that window to law enforcement upstairs. His evolving story over the years from "I don't know why" to "I vaguely remember saying something" to "yes, I told Linda Arndt and I don't recall her saying anything" makes no sense at all.

    My next question would be...so if you weren't looking for an open or broken window, why did you go down in the basement?

    K

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. Objection. Calls for speculation.

    2. Objection. Calls for speculation.

    3. (a) It happened in the middle of the night, when I was locked out. There were no witnesses, and I can only give you my word. [Wood later puts Burke on the stand as a rebuttal witness, who testifies he was a witness to his father breaking in that window at some other time.]
    (b) Objection. Calls for speculation.

    4. It's my recollection that I did tell Detective Arndt. I closed it because it was 14 degrees outside, and cold air was coming in.

    5. Objection as to the form of the question. [First part asks witness to prove a negative, second part is immaterial]

    6. My wife was in extremis, literally mad with grief. That day and the next my only thought was to protect her, and thereafter we merely followed the advice of our attorneys.

    7. I don't know why Patsy said what she did. All my prior statements were that it was my suggestion she call 911.
    The only time we discussed it was when we sat down to write the book.

    8. There was no business meeting in Atlanta; I misspoke in my grief and fear at that moment. My only thought was to get my wife and son out of that house and that town, to the safety of her family in Atlanta.

    And for K: I went down to the basement early that morning looking for my daughter. I did not go down again until Detective Arndt directed me to search the house.

    This is just off the top of my head. Bear in mind, please, that I've never played for the defense - they would likely do much better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, CC, your suggestions for John are very clever indeed. But I never claimed he would be unable to field these questions, or that his lawyer would not be able to help him dodge them. I said they would make him "uncomfortable." The purpose of such questions would be to raise doubts in the minds of both the judge (or jury) and the public, making it especially difficult for John to continue hiding beneath a cloak of innocence.

      Delete
    2. But you wouldn't be permitted to ask those questions, Doc; the judge would shut you down. Attorneys are not permitted to testify by asking questions cloaked in an assumption, as many of yours are. You may NOT assume facts not in evidence. Your questions must be direct, succinct, based on already admitted or stipulated fact. Two-part questions are not allowed.

      Delete
    3. Also, CC, I really don't believe it would be as easy for John to get around such questions as you might think. In a criminal trial, yes, a question that calls for speculation on the part of the accused could be dismissed. But in this case, John would be the accuser, it would be his responsibility to prove he was being libeled, so his inability to handle questions of the sort I posed would considerably weaken his case.

      Also, the questions could easily be rephrased to make it more difficult for him to dodge them. For example, question one could be posed as follows:

      Mr. Ramsey, can you help us understand why the "ransom note" was written in your home rather than prepared in advance? Do you have any thoughts as to why a kidnapper would want to wait until inside the house to pen such a note?

      If Wood objected on the grounds you've suggested, and John failed to respond, that would mean he was unable to account for a key piece of evidence that practically shouts "staging," leaving the impression that the CBS investigators had very good reason indeed to suspect him.

      Delete
    4. "But you wouldn't be permitted to ask those questions"

      Whether the questions were posed to John directly or raised as part of the defense's case doesn't really matter, CC. If he and his lawyers are unable to provide reasonable explanations for the existence of such evidence that would certainly weaken his case. Remember, the burden of proof would be on HIM.

      Delete
    5. If Wood objected and the judge sustained - as he would - the questions themselves would be stricken from the record, and John not permitted to answer.

      Delete
    6. John has no burden to prove what you call evidence and I call assumptions. His only burden is to prove that he was defamed. Look up defamation per se.

      Delete
    7. Bear in mind too, Doc that the judge/jury have a different standard of proof here. For grand juries and police officers in criminal matters it's probable cause. For judges/juries in cruminal matters it's beyond a reasonable doubt

      And in civil trials, like John Ramsey v CBS, et al. it's a preponderance of the evidence.


      Delete
    8. Question for CC -

      Can CBS et al stretch this out indefinitely or will both parties be required to go to mediation after all discovery is in - and how long does that process usually take?

      Delete
    9. There's been an effort underway for years to reduce trial dockets and speed trials by limiting the time for discovery and attempting settlement. In my state we try to limit the entire process to no more than a year. Settlement conferences usually occur, at minimum, twice in my state: Once shortly after the case is filed, and once more right after discovery.

      Again, I'm not familiar with the Rules of Civil Procedure in Michigan, or the attitude of judges in that state.

      Delete
    10. Doc:

      Your questions are excellent. I would flip flop questions three and four and ask them in rapid fire succession. I would not "withdraw" my question after hearing the judge say "sustained", I'd just go on to the next question.

      Then, on question 3, I'd say:

      Detective Arndt recalled differently Mr. Ramsey, and closing a window with glass blown out of it does little to prevent cold air from coming in, does it....?

      CC: OBJECTION YOUR HONOR, ARGUMENTATIVE! AND DEFENSE COUNCIL IS HARASSING MY CLIENT!

      ....THE FACT IS MR RAMSEY, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTRUDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO INTRUDER, WAS THERE?

      CC: YOUR HONOR!!!!

      JUDGE: OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED! LIEUTENANT MCAFFREY, I'M ORDERING YOU TO STOP NOW OR I'LL CITE YOU FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT! IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?

      Yes, Your Honor....

      5. I withdraw the question....(it got out there, great job Doc!)

      6. So your attorney's advised you to fly to Atlanta?
      6a. Did they advise you to appear on CNN too?

      7. Lots of things happened prior to the 911 call, but as you chose to focus on who made the decision to make the call, let's explore that...
      7a. You said it was your "suggestion" to call the police, so I assume that at that time, the decision to do so was still up for grabs? (Note: Whether John answers yes or no, the door remains open for questioning him regarding the note's threats not to call the police, or anyone else for that matter.)

      8. This topic was already addressed--see question 6.

      Mike G




      Delete
    11. Don't put words in my mouth, Mike.

      Delete
  3. Hi CC. I looked up John's previous statements under oath about going to the basement that morning.(Chris Wolf deposition).

    Q. Prior to Linda Arndt asking you to look around the house, how many times did you go to the basement?

    A. Once.

    Q. Do you remember at what time you went to the basement?

    A. I do not.

    Q. Do you remember what you saw in the basement when you got down there?

    A. I saw a partially opened window with broken glass and a suitcase beneath the window.

    Q. When you would__did you see anything else there?

    A. Not that looked out of the ordinary.

    Q. May I ask why you went to the basement at that time?

    A. I was trying to determine how someone could have gotten into our house.

    So, John stated under oath that looking for a point of entry was the reason he was down there. His statement years later that he told Linda Arndt and he didn't recall her saying anything sounds unbelievable to me. Just my opinion.

    I think Doc asks good questions and I also appreciate your legal expertise. Thanks to you both.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, K. I'd forgotten that depo. As you know, I find John unbelievable in many respects.

      Delete
    2. "I was trying to determine how someone could have gotten into our house."

      How they could have, or where they DID get into the house John?

      Delete
    3. Good catch! Apparently John isn't sure if there was an intruder or not.

      Delete
    4. John admits his reason for going down to the basement was to look for "how someone could have gotten into our house", yet when he comes across the open window - a most obvious point of entry for an intruder - he fails to notice the significance? If John didn't view an open window as suspicious, what then was he looking for? A big, old, sign that said "Enter Here"? I've never understood why LE didn't press him more regarding his comments on the open window.

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. Marcela SzyOctober 14, 2017 at 12:36 PM
    The question I have for him does not belong in a court room, I believe, but I would like him to explain why he never suspected Patsy being that LE suspected her for some very strong reasons.
    As per his own recount, he slept very soundly that night and didn't hear anything so he couldn't have known what Patsy might have been doing all night if she wasn't sleeping. Also, she was already up and even wearing the same clothes than the previous night when he saw her downstairs. She found the ramson note and eventually she couldn't be ruled out by "experts" from having written it. Not to mention some physical evidence that could be linked to her directly. He was also aware that the majority of the times in a case like this the murdererer is one of the parents. So, why was he so convinced his wife didn't do it and he just lawyered her (and obviously himself) up instead of letting LE interview them separatedly that same day?.
    It's comprehensible that she was literally mad with grief and he wanted to protect her (as CC says in the post above) but his daughter was dead. Who had the right to be a priority for him, the grieving mom or the dead daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What he did say was that he knew Patsy well enough to know she would never harm her daughter. That works for me since that's one of the many reasons I believe so strongly in her innocence.

      Delete
    2. Yes, Doc. I believe in her innocence, too.
      The whole point of my question was that if he could be positive she didn't do it, even though opportunity, some evidence and the RN pointed in her direction, it was because he certainly knew who really did it. In the case of Patsy, we know that all suspicion could have been diluted after he was "ruled out".

      Delete
  6. I hope a court would not ignore a question because it asks to "prove a negative". That one "cannot prove a negative" is a meme. Every reductio ad absurdum argument "proves a negative".

    How one proves that the square root of 2 is irrational, for instance, is by assuming that it is rational, and showing that is impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps I more properly should have said "Objection as to the form of the question". The defense would then be instructed to re-phrase it as a direct question, John would then be asked "Did you write the ransom note", to which he would have replied "No."

      Delete
    2. You are assuming John would have taken the stand at all, which he may well not have. My questions are valid whether he takes the stand or not. If not, or if they are not permitted, then they could, of course, be raised during the defense's argument.

      While it's true that John does not, technically, need to prove his innocence, only that he was defamed, if he is actually guilty then obviously he was not defamed, so arguments relating to his guilt or innocence could legitimately be raised, no?

      Delete
    3. John is the plaintiff; it's his case. If he did not, for some reason, take the stand at some point during his case in chief, and give defense counsel an opportunity to cross examine him, his case would be dismissed.

      No, not in the way you mean. CBS et al have the responsibility to introduce FACTS, and only facts, that led them to determine John was an accessory, or a co-conspirator. A fact is an agreed-upon (stipulated) happening, or one that can be proved through direct testimony by witnesses ("I saw him go down the basement stairs holding a rope") or physical evidence ("John's DNA was found on the ligature").

      Delete
    4. What did I mention that wasn't based on facts? The ransom note written on paper from the house is a fact, no? Patsy's version of who was where and who said what prior to the 911 call is a fact, documented in the A&E program. JonBenet was found wrapped in a blanket in the windowless basement room, no? How is that not a fact.

      John claims he broke the window earlier, but that is NOT a fact and can certainly be contested, no?

      Delete
    5. The only facts are: There was a ransom note; JBR was wrapped in a blanket; there was a broken window.

      The circumstances surrounding these facts are assumptions and theories, not facts, not evidence.

      Patsy cannot be cross-examined, so her words cannot be introduced except by stipulated introduction of the transcripts of her interviews.


      Delete
  7. In the CBS Case of Jonbenet they said 2 practice ransom notes were found in a trash can. (In addition to the start of a note in the tablet). This is the first time I have ever heard that! Is this true?
    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never seen any evidence of that. From all the reports I've read, the only "practice note" was found in the notepad and contained the words: "Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey" followed by a vertical line. It's never even been clear whether that writing resembled the writing on the note or not.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, it was actually "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. Not much to go on I'd say.

      Delete
  8. It seems to me that, if John refused to be questioned, which I suppose he could do, that would be a serious mistake, as it is he who is the plaintiff, not the defendant. So his refusal to take questions would look pretty bad to a judge or jury, I'd imagine. And unlike in a criminal case, the judge could not instruct the jury to ignore the fact that he refused to testify, on grounds of his Fifth Amendment protection -- or am I wrong?

    Also, I don't see how CBS could mount any sort of defense without arguing on the basis of all the evidence that essentially rules out any intruder. Whether that argument takes the form of questions directed to John while on the stand or questions directed to the judge and/or jury doesn't really matter much, seems to me.

    Also, since you feel so strongly that the questions I listed could not be asked by John, or that he could easily dodge them, then what sort of questions do you think the CBS lawyers might actually ask, assuming he took the stand? Can you provide us with some examples?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry: I meant "the questions listed could not be asked OF John."

      Delete
    2. Paragraph one anticipated, asked and answered above at 3:05.

      An intruder is not germane to their defense. They made no case for an intruder on their show, only for the involvement of the Rs. Questions are only directed to witnesses, never to the judge or jury.

      The CBS lawyers are, imho, going to rely on the First Amendment, and maintain it's their right to propound opinions, which it is...but only up to the point it damages someone.

      Delete
    3. Well of course they made no case for an intruder, obviously. The case they made essentially ruled out an intruder, so evidence for the absurdity of any intruder theory would or imo should be part of their defense. This was Darnay Hoffman's strategy, no? To defend Chris Wolf by proving that Patsy and John were the guilty parties. He was then permitted to introduce all sorts of evidence, including samples of Patsy's handwriting and the fact that there was no evidence of an intruder. How was he allowed to get away with that?

      So as I see it, this would be CBS's chance to go after John or at least intimidate him by threatening to expose to the public all the many reasons for seeing him as guilty.

      I will add, by the way, that a noted attorney, whom I will not name, once informed me that if John dared to sue me that would be the equivalent of putting himself on trial. In other words, he'd have to take the stand and face some very challenging questions.

      However, thinking realistically, I do think you have a point, CC. In order to effectively accuse John of involvement they would have to essentially solve the case, which of course they would be in no position to do. So their best bet probably would be to, as you say, leave all the issues I've raised out of it and simply argue on the basis of their First Amendment rights, in other words, that the whole thing was simply an opinion piece. In which case I have a feeling they could easily lose, as the show was definitely promoted as a case breaker.

      If I were on their legal team I'd advise them to inform John that, if he didn't back off, they would go for the jugular and bring up all those issues that would be so difficult for him to deal with and make him look so bad. I don't think they'd have anything to lose by adopting such a strategy.

      Delete
  9. So, CC ...what you are explaining to us is that CBS defense should be able to prove that John helped Burke cover up the crime by providing a witness or tangible evidence showing that he did it, which we all know it's not available. And CBS will have to settle if the FA doesn't protect them, which they already knew since the moment they started producing the show but didn't care as they estimated the profit from the show would be higher than the loss from the lawsuit/s. Is this correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely correct in every detail, Marcela.

      Thanks for paying attention. I often wonder if anyone does.

      Delete
    2. Thank you, CC. I always believed that CBS was just after the chance to make more money on a notorious case. I don't believe they are pursuing truth and justice for JBR.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Nothing altruistic happening here.

      Delete
  10. Noted attorney or no, Doc, John has been interviewed, deposed, questioned and (by Darnay Hoffman), put on trial, and has done very, very well. No reason to think he couldn't do equally well in the CBS case.

    I've no idea why Carnes didn't dismiss, except that DH represented the plaintiff, it was his case to make, his day in court, and the judge gave him great latitude in which to do it.

    The vagaries of judges sometimes passeth all understanding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately for Hoffman, he was unable to appear at the hearing and never actually made his case to Carnes. Either he was ill or (rumor has it) afraid to fly, but his absence meant that the only case made to Carnes was that of Lou Smit -- and she bought it uncritically. If Hoffman had been able to counter Smit's arguments (which would not have been difficult), then he just might have won. The case against the intruder theory was unfortunately never made. But that does NOT mean CBS couldn't make it -- especially in view of the Grand Jury decision.

      Delete
    2. Are you referring to LHP's civil suit where Hoffman was a no show? He claimed "labyrinth vertigo" and said he was unable to fly. He gave her literally no warning though, other than an email the night before. Claims Linda.

      Delete
    3. Yes....the Grand Jury decision, which, as I recall, John lied about before nine pages of it were leaked...

      Mike

      Delete
  11. How is Lin Wood going to be able to prove either John or Burke suffered the kind of economic loss even remotely equivalent to the amount he is asking for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Economic loss and proof thereof is only required in cases of defamation per quod.

      This is a case of defamation per se, meaning CBS et al accused John and Burke of criminal acts, and so damages are assumed.

      Delete
    2. CC, as I understand it, the case for protection of CBS under the First Amendment was made some time ago, when they claimed everyone was simply expressing their "opinions." The judge refused to rule until he had an opportunity to watch both programs. Which by now I'm sure he's done. So I would assume there would be a ruling on this very soon, no?

      If the judge rules for CBS on this basis, then that will be that, no? He'd dismiss the case. And John's case would also be tossed on the same basis, no doubt.

      On the other hand, what if he does NOT so rule, and decides CBS could not be protected under the First Amendment? What then? Would CBS have no choice but to settle? And what if Wood refuses to accept any settlement that does not include a public apology? Would they be willing to do that?

      Assuming he does so insist and they refuse, what recourse do you think they would have, if any? Seems to me they'd have no choice but to attempt to prove their "experts" must have been right after all. Imo they would fail with respect to Burke, as there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to him; but now that John has tossed HIS hat in the ring, I do think they would have a good basis in fact to go after him. Not by adopting my theory, which of course they wouldn't attempt I'm sure, but by demonstrating that the "preponderance of evidence" points strongly to John's involvement in staging a phony kidnapping and otherwise covering up for whomever actually committed the murder. They would have the Grand Jury decision to back them up and loads of evidence pointing away from any possible intruder.

      Seems to me they could hold all this over John's head and basically force him to settle or be publicly accused and humiliated. While a judge might be able to protect John from certain questions while on the stand, the defense could certainly raise the same issues in the courtroom while making their argument. If they can prove that John is guilty then there was no libel, right?

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

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are a number of things going on here, Doc, most of which, imo, involve jockeying for a better position vis-a-vis settlement, since I have never believed either side wants to go to trial, for some of the reasons and risks you set forth. I assume by now the judge has watched the shows, read briefs from both sides setting forth pertinent case law, and listened to oral arguments.

    If he finds for CBS, yes Burke's case is dismissed, and likely John's as well. If he denies the Motion, they go forward toward eventual settlement or trial.

    If denied, CBS is not precluded from arguing the First Amendment at trial, or choosing to attempt to "prosecute" John and/or Burke, with or without your theory.

    Yes. If CBS and friends can prove John (and/or Burke) guilty, there is no cause of action. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.





    ReplyDelete
  14. "...I do think they would have a good basis in fact to go after him. Not by adopting my theory, which of course they wouldn't attempt I'm sure..."

    I'm not so sure Doc. The weak link in your theory is John's psychological manipulation of Patsy. Since Patsy can't testify, she can't be coached, so all that's left of "her word", are transcripts and depositions.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, much as I would love for CBS to adopt my theory in going after John, my theory is much more complicated than would be needed under the circumstances, especially as it involves Patsy's role, which introduces the complications you mentioned. All they'd need to establish is the absurdity of any intruder theory. Once that becomes clear then John's involvement in the coverup can no longer be denied and his lawsuit would fail.

      Their goal would not be to solve the case, but simply establish John's complicity in staging a phony kidnapping and break-in, which would imo be ridiculously easy to do.

      Delete
    2. I agree Doc. I was taking the long view. If CBS establishes John's complicity, as you say, John's life won't get any easier and forces around him calling for justice will grow. The next Boulder D.A. is just around the corner, as Garrett will soon be off to South America to start his new job. A confluence of factors seem to be intersecting at just the right time for the trigger to be pulled on John's arrest sometime in late Spring or early Summer 2018.

      Mike

      Delete
  15. DocG regarding your above statement: ..."a noted attorney, whom I will not name, once informed me that if John dared to sue me that would be the equivalent of putting himself on trial. In other words, he'd have to take the stand and face some very challenging questions.":

    See Harriet Chiang's (legal affairs writer for the San Francisco Chronicle) October 24, 1996 news article on the O.J. Simpson civil trial, quoting an excerpt from Daniel Petrocelli's impassioned opening statement to the jury:

    "Plaintiffs' lawyers also said Simpson's statements to the police and in a sworn legal deposition in February, which Petrocelli branded as "lies and deception," will help prove Simpson committed the killings. His actions suggested a "consciousness of guilt," Petrocelli said, and not a man grieving for the death of his ex-wife."

    As for the Burke case, where in the CBS broadcast was Burke alleged to have committed a crime?

    Further, DocG, your noted attorney acquaintance might have a thought on limited-purpose public figures and whether that category of describing certain defamation plaintiffs has a bearing on the need for malice to be proved by Burke's lawyers (see NY Times v. Sullivan), that is, whether either actual knowledge of the falsity of the statements made in the CBS broadcast, or a reckless disregard for the truth of the statements made, would need to be proved. The Michigan judge might have been or could be apprised/reminded by the defendants' lawyers that Burke voluntarily placed himself in the public eye on a matter of public interest, i.e. the JonBenet case, in televised interviews with Dr. Phil ahead of the CBS broadcast.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
  16. One of the problems as I see it is CBS put out theory under the guise of expert-based fact, with a weak disclaimer that may or may not stand up when the judge makes a ruling. This is not the first time CBS has done this. Punishing them financially won't dissuade them from doing it again - a public retraction and apology should be part of the deal. If CBS had real information pointing to Burke they should have taken it to the D.A.'s office instead of making a show out of Kolar's book, jumping on the 20 year anniversary bandwagon for ratings. Yes, we'd all like to see someone punished for this crime but CBS, I hope you lose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are talking about millions of dollars in profits from ratings or lawsuits. Ironically, no funds for the investigation, which is still open.

      Delete
    2. Sinful, isn't it Marcela. Perhaps when Burke and John get their big payoff they could donate a few million to the investigation.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it's a shame ...
      I don't know if this is feasible from the legal perspective but if CBS loses some of the money should go to the investigation, which in one way or another represents the victim of the crime....

      Delete
    4. "If CBS had real information pointing to Burke they should have taken it to the D.A.'s office..."

      Yeah....that tactic has worked real well over the years, hasn't it?

      As for more funds going into "this" investigation, be they from John or CBS, I wouldn't count on it Marcella, not if "intruders" were its focus. If you want the right person punished for this crime, and not just "somebody", a couple hundred grand (at most) for a Columbo or two going "Undercover" (a real Episode I might add) would be all it would take. Who knows?...maybe Doc or Ms. D have always wanted to take flying lessons. I have.

      Mike

      Delete
    5. Hahaha, Mike. Yes, I also believe that only a confession would solve this case. Like you say...who knows ? Maybe it could also be a good idea for our own Columbo - Gumshoe, PI

      Delete
  17. This occurred today...about an hours drive from where I live:

    https://www.qt.com.au/news/man-snatches-6-year-old-girl-bed/3239051/?utm_campaign=alert&utm_source=Queensland+Times&utm_medium=email

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have said this over and over, but will one more time

    -BR hadn't EVER TALKED PUBLICLY about this case
    -In the 20 years after the murder, there hasn't been anything done by Burke to find out who the killer is
    -Even though Burke was always under some suspicion from web sleuths, there was never anything on TV flat out naming him the murderer

    Ok...now we get to the CBS Documentary. A huge special is going to air on CBS that involves a crack team of investigators, profilers and forensic analysts. That special is going to name Burke Ramsey as the killer of his sister. Then all of a sudden, Burke decides for the first time ever to go on Dr. Phil who asks nothing but lollipop questions to him. Furthermore, Dr. Phil even tries to convince his viewers that this was done by an intruder. Suspicious?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No mystery there, J. BR's complaint even states:

      In September of this year, following decades of silence and only after learning that CBS was planning to broadcast a JonBenét Ramsey show based on Foreign Faction in which it would accuse him of killing JonBenét, Burke exercised his right of reasonable response by granting one interview to Dr. Phil McGraw in which he denied any involvement in JonBenét’s murder.

      Delete
    2. And that in itself isn't mysterious to anybody? Her only sibling who within weeks of her murder, doesn't even draw her into a family picture he does for the therapist, has showed absolutely zero interest in finding the killer. He has been under scrutiny for years and has never spoken about it. Doesn't even admit to reading the note all the way through. Does any of this make him guilty? No, of course not. But, it definitely goes a long way to not making him look innocent either.

      -J

      Delete
    3. I must insist: there is NO evidence even suggesting Burke's direct involvement in this crime. You are right, however, in that Burke's behavior does certainly suggest that he knows more than he's ever been willing to let on. I think there's a very good reason why "the Ramseys" have been so protective of him -- and his behavior has been so odd. And by "the Ramseys" I mean John, because it's clear he's been calling the shots from the start. Their whole story about what was said and done, and by whom, prior to the 911 call is clearly a fabrication and Burke had to be part of that. No, I see no evidence he was in the kitchen just after Patsy hung up, the "voices" on that recording sound like crosstalk to me. But as seems clear there must have been some sort of discussion, if not a heated argument, over whether or not the police should be called, and undoubtedly Burke must have heard it. I think he was coached to dissemble on that point. And he may have heard some other things as well.

      Though I see no reason to believe Burke actually struck his sister that night, we do have reason to believe he could have been jealous of all the attention she was getting, and her death might have been something he welcomed. Being borderline autistic it may have been hard for him to hide his true feelings when interviewed, and his general air of indifference IS a bit disturbing, yes. So if he suspected his father, he'd have had a very good reason to keep his mouth shut on that score.

      I still hold out some hope that he may some day reveal all he saw and heard that night and the following morning.

      Delete
    4. Come on Doc....just like Col Jessup, you WANT to say it so badly...it's right there.....say it with me....Burke DID it :-)

      -J

      Delete
    5. J, I was specifically referring to the timing of the Dr. Phil interview.

      Delete
    6. HKH - See my response to Castor....I tried to finally get to the point I have been trying to make. Just took me a while to get to it :-)

      -J

      Delete
    7. According to Jessup, McCaffery wanted the marines on "that wall". McCaffrey believed Jessup WANTED to admit he ordered the code red.

      If you're going to draw a parallel while trying to be funny about it, at least be accurate with the facts. Now we all know for sure Burke DIDN'T do it and you have pie on your face.

      Mike

      Delete
  19. Yes, it is very suspicious...
    And so obvious that they are in the "lawsuit" business with Lin Wood and co.
    Burke hadn't ever talked publicly about this case because he had never had the personal chance to sue anyone. Now, CBS, places him at the center of the murder and he has the great opportuniy to sue them, but not before a visit on national tv to Dr Phil to clean and update his image a little bit (didn't do a good job, though).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been other lawsuits in Burke's behalf, M. Libel suit against National Enq. and other tabs

      web.dailycamera/com/extra/ramsey/1990/01crams.html

      article

      Delete
    2. Oh ok. Thanks Castor. I remember about the tabloids but honestly didnt remember the R's had sued them...

      Delete
  20. From the very beginning of the investigation, the Ramsey's haven't been cooperative towards LE or anybody trying to find the truth. They lawyered up quickly and couldn't answer the most simple questions.
    Her brother Burke wasn't asleep all night in my opinion, but regardless he shows an absolute lack of wanting to find the truth. These are the answers you would expect from a normal person:

    -I read the note a thousand times and nothing about it is familiar. The handwriting us unlike any I have ever seen
    -I was terrified right when it happened and for the weeks that followed in case somebody came for me
    -I miss my sister every single day and I want to find the person who did this to her

    To get this out of the way...I KNOW every person reacts differently to every situation, but how would you react? Also, big brothers are generally seen as the protectors of their younger siblings, especially in the case of the brother being the eldest with a younger sister. Well....not in this case. He didnt seem bothered back then about what happened to her and sure as hell doesn't seem to bothered now. Does Burke have aspergers? My guess is yes, or something like it which could explain his awkward interview. That being said, zero emotion, no tears, didn't speak with sadness and it was almost like he was speaking about losing a toy.

    Just so I am clear, these are my observations only and in no way will I say this is definitive proof that he is guilty....I will simply say there is a giant pile of awkward behavior by both Burke and Patsy and this gets added to that.

    ---Also, please ask yourselves. IF innocent, why wouldn't John, Patsy or Burke be cooperative to find the truth? Burke has lived on his own for sometime, so any talk of gaslighting is nonsense.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I presented my interpretation of his behavior just above. While his indifference to the fate of his sister does seem clear, we do have very good reason to believe he was jealous of all the attention she was getting, so he may well have resented her and was glad to see her out of the way.

      One thing we can see very clearly: he was NOT putting on the usual sort of act we expect from someone who is guilty. So imo you've got things backward, J. It's the guilty one who makes the big fuss, wipes the tears from his eyes and talks endlessly about how much his victim will be missed and how much he loved her.

      Delete
    2. Everybody reacts differently to all situations, so I cannot say that Burke, Patsy or John are guilty just because of how they act. Burke's smile on Dr Phil still wakes me up at night in a cold sweat...creepiest thing ever

      Regarding Burke specifically, here is my question. We can all agree that Burke loves his parents, correct? Nothing to suggest otherwise. Patsy has passed and John still alive, has to live with the constant scrutiny and pressured of being presumed guilty. Now to get to my point........IF Burke is truly innocent and doesn't know who did it, then can somebody explain why Burke doesn't do more to find the killer? Not only to find out who killed his sister and bring justice to the killer, but also to help get rid of the stigma for his Mom, Dad and himself. He admits to not even reading the note!!!!!

      -J

      Delete
    3. What is it you'd have him do, J?

      He's a computer geek, has no training in LE or investigations and the BPD would never let a civilian see their files, the rest of the GJ report is still sealed. He's a working guy who lives in his father's house in Charlevoix - he can't even offer a reward.

      Just what is it you'd have him do, realistically?

      Delete
    4. Yes, he is a computer geek, has no training in LE or investigations and is a civilian.....oh and he is also a guy whose sister was savagely murdered in his house and his parents along with him have been under scrutiny for the past 20 years because nobody has ever been charged with the crime.
      So, call me crazy, but the complete and utter lack of any emotion, whether it be fear, sadness or anger...SHOW SOMETHING! For me it points to him either being the culprit or knowing something. An innocent person just wouldn't behave this way. We saw the therapist and police videos with Burke which showed a kid who was more concerned with his video games than his sister. We saw a kid who seemed ready to move on from his sister and then we didn't hear from Burke for 20 years. Not a word......so for me CC, it's just flat out unacceptable. He was almost 10 when this happened and is now over 30. We have all watched Dateline and 48 Hours and what do you see almost every single time when a sibling is killed? You see the other siblings discuss how their isnt a day that goes by where they aren't thinking of the murdered sibling and most of the time you see the brother or sister heavily involved in the search for the killer. Not good ole Burke though...he is more concerned suing CBS because he was named the killer and that's the only thing of any value he has ever done in regards to this case.

      -J

      Delete
    5. Just to touch upon this because I am sure Ms D is ready to pounce with

      "how do you know he doesn't think about her every day?" I don't know that he doesn't. But, sister is killed and he doesn't do anything. Burke named killer and Burke has to protect Burke, so he sues.

      -J

      Delete
    6. "For me it points to him either being the culprit or knowing something."

      He knows something.

      Delete
    7. Actually, J, I'm tired of the whole Burke thing, so I'm choosing my battles more wisely these days. :)

      CC asked you what you'd have Burke do in regards to him looking for his sister's killer, and you gave a big, long spiel about how he *should* be acting, what he *should* be saying, but you never actually answered her question. Yes, we've established Burke is a little odd, we've established he has trouble showing emotion (or perhaps doesn't even possess any at all, who knows? You don't, and I don't, so speculation is pointless), but you adamantly stated he should be "trying to find her killer", and, along with CC, I too would like to know what exactly it is you expect him to do.

      Delete
    8. Ms D - How often do you post on here? Every day, or every few days? I know I have been on here off an on for the past 6 years.
      Did you know JBR? Do you know the Ramsey's? My guess is no, you didn't know JB and you don't know the Ramsey's.
      Did you read the Ransom Note? How many times would you say you have read it?

      I probably have read it 30 times and parts of it more. Do you know how many times Burke Ramsey said he read it? Z E R O....never all the way through. Her BROTHER....WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE......WHO HAS BEEN ACCUSED BY SOME OF MURDERING HER.....has never read the note. I am done answering questions on what I think Burke should do. It goes without saying

      -J

      Delete
    9. That's just it though J. "Burke says he didn't read it" maybe he has read it. He just wants the media off his back. If he acknowledges to the media he read the note word for word they would then hammer him as to who he thinks could have written it, does it look like his mother's handwriting (or father, perhaps), did he go down to the basement at all that night, did he hear anything, did he see anything and then he would have every right to call his attorney who would advise him to keep quiet.

      Delete
    10. Castor – What would he have to gain by saying he didn’t read the note when he did? If anything, it is more suspicious. He had a giant platform on Dr. Phil to definitively say anything and anything…..he doesn’t do that. He hasn’t spoken publicly in 20 years and now that he finally speaks, it was a giant nothing. BUT, CBS names him the killer and he sues.

      -J

      Delete
    11. J, he would have kept up his wall of silence if he could have, but his family and attorney were warned CBS was coming out with their special so his Dr. Phil interview was a preemptive strike to mitigate the damage. I'm sure on advice of attorney he was instructed not to divulge any details of a still-open case to the media. The Dr. Phil show was never intended as anything more than a cupcake piece. I know you want Burke to tell us what he knows, But any and all attempts to question him by the police have been thwarted, and unless the police can put together a legitimate reason for bringing him in for questioning, it's not going to happen. I'm not a lawyer obviously, but Burke would have to consent to being questioned or the D.A.'s office would have to make a case for compelling him to do so.

      Delete
    12. You are thinking emotionally J, Burke should WANT to solve the case but think rationally - he will not and should not do it in the media. Kolar tried to submit a "Theory of Prosecution" to Garnett years ago and it was rejected. He did not have the evidence to back it up, enough to persuade Garnett move forward. There is another possibility - Burke does know who killed his sister. And that fact is so horrifying to him he's chosen to "move on." He's also a victim.

      Delete
    13. amendment - he was questioned in 1998 I believe, but not since.

      Delete
    14. Castor - I am aware that I am going down a slippery slope with interpreting the way somebody acts in a certain situation. If Burke would have cried I could have said it wasn't enough tears....so I understand the push back I am getting. To simplify it, this is what I will say

      In this case, time and time again there seems to be a sense that "Well I wouldn't have done it that way" Patsy inviting friends over, sending Burke away with friends, Burke not caring at all about the case, John talking to the pilot that morning about flying out, etc. I don't know your thoughts Castor, but would you concede that at the least, Burke knows something? Because if that is the case, then isn't THAT the answer for his aloof attitude towards the case? He is protecting either himself or somebody else (John and or Patsy)

      We don't have to go in circles on this, but that ultimately was my point.

      -J

      Delete
    15. Oh yes, J. Burke knows something for sure.

      Delete
    16. I don't know about you J, but when I was a kid eavesdropping on the adults was a pastime.

      Delete
    17. Of course, all kids do to some degree. So, if you believe he knows something then isn’t our whole discussion moot? He is acting the way he is without a sense of caring because he knows something…..if he didn’t do it, does he know who did? I would say, yes

      -J

      Delete
    18. But you think what he knows is that he killed his own sister. I think he heard something that frightened him and if he put what he heard or saw together later (a year later, ten years later, doesn't matter when) he can't say what he believes, he won't say, and if he has to put on a smile and try and move on it's a coping mechanism and I have pity for him.

      Delete
    19. Burke's behavior strikes me as that of someone who is hiding something, NOT someone putting on an act to deflect from his own guilt. Nowhere do we see Burke acting, and I think that's significant. However, as we know he refused to be questioned when the police contacted him a few years ago and questioning was allowed on the Dr. Phil show, ONLY because the CBS show was coming up. Front and center on that show was the evil genius behind it all, Lin Wood. Seems obvious to me that John is pulling the strings with Lin as his puppet master.

      We need to realize that Burke may well have heard something on the night of the crime or the following morning that he was coached to keep silent about. Wouldn't surprise me if John used Lin for that purpose, making it sound like good legal advice rather than a coverup.

      We must also realize that Burke may well have been present during all sorts of discussions between John and his legal team, either in person or over the phone, so there are some other things he might know that Lin would have warned him to keep silent about. Lawyer-client privilege, that sort of thing.

      Under such circumstances I don't see it at all surprising -- or incriminating -- that Burke would have wanted to stay under the radar for as long as possible. I too find it hard to believe that he would not have bothered to read the ransom note, but if he knows something that casts suspicion on his dad, he may be reluctant to investigate any further.

      Delete
    20. Of course he's read the ransom note.
      By saying he hasn't, he's simply distancing himself from the crime. Why? I would argue because he knows damn well that his father killed his sister.

      Delete
  21. I agree J. I would be doing everything in my power to find my sister, not hiding in a hole for 20 years.

    Burke and Patsy were both obviously involved (as was John)....to what extent is up for debate and we will most likely never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *to find my sister's killer

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

      Delete
    3. Objection. Non-responsive.

      What, exactly, would you have him do?

      Delete
    4. Anything!! Read the RN to begin with.

      Delete
    5. And that would help find the killer... how?

      You and J make it sound as though if Burke would just don the superhero cape you two apparently share, he could wrap this up lickety split.

      The fact is, this case hasn't been solved despite the best efforts of the BPD (with an assist from the CBI, FBI, the BCSD, three consecutive DAs and their investigators, and god knows how many consultants and armchair detectives), and there's not a damned thing one thirty year old in Michigan could do to change that fact.

      Delete
    6. I will repeat this again

      Kill Burke's sister and he has nothing for you and just wants to live his life

      Name Burke the Killer on National TV and the Burkemeister just can't stand for that and sues CBS.

      Is he a superhero? No, though maybe he could kill bad guys by giving them that creepy grin

      -J

      Delete
    7. So let me get this straight, J:

      When you say you want Burke to "do something", what you really mean is you want him to show emotion, to beat his breast and rend his clothes, tear his hair, and the fact that he doesn't makes him guilty ...of something.

      Yet when Patsy was teary, trembling and incoherent with grief, you and Zed found her obviously overacting, and therefore obviously guilty ... of something.

      Bit of a logical conundrum, no?

      Delete
    8. "Bit of a logical conundrum, no?"

      Confirmation bias is what I call it, CC. We see that in so many cases, where people claim they can just see the guilt in someone's eyes or they can see through the obvious act. Unfortunately this sort of thing is encouraged by the success of the "criminal profiling" enterprise, which plays such an important role in the CBS special. Oh no, if you say "we" instead of "I" that's a dead giveaway. Or if you hang up after having given the 911 operator all the pertinent information, oh yes, that's a huge "tell," no innocent person would do that. And how do we know? Because the "professionals" have it all figured out. Just like the handwriting pros. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Give me the facts every time, and let me sort it out from there, thank you.

      Delete
    9. "Give me the facts every time"

      We KNOW a person wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. (that folks is an opinion, so when he says to give him the facts, that is just not true)

      CC - You can twist my words however you want, but picking and choosing part of my post won't get you anywhere with me. Burke Ramsey admits that in 20 years he has never really read the ransom note. That is normal for you? He seems completely indifferent about the whole thing actually and that is troubling to me.

      French said that Patsy was peaking through her fingers when he came upstairs (btw, the body was downstairs where he just was) and Doc's conclusion was that she probably thought he was goofing off. "Oh silly Detective French, are you playing with Burke's train set?"

      I believe Patsy was involved, so FOR ME the 911 call was acted. That being said, I will not claim that the 911 call alone proves her guilt. There is a pile of other reasons that I believe she was involved.

      -J

      Delete
    10. J, I believe we all understand your questions, sincerely.
      I have a brief question for you...
      If everything was part of a plan that the couple concocted after JB's skull was fractured for some reason...and they had all night to figure out different details, write a complex RN, even she could rehearse the 911 call ... why did it fail?
      What happened in your opinion that foiled the plan making the R's remain under an umbrella of suspicion until today?

      Delete
    11. And one more, J. You said in here that you once believed JDI but you don't now and you won't go back to believing he did. What changed your mind (and I'm hoping you won't say it was the CBS Special).

      Delete
    12. Hey Marcela - I guess I would ask, did it fail? I think the main reason the Ramsey's were never charged is luck. They were lucky that being a holiday, LE wasn't as large in numbers as it might have been. Lucky that LA was inexperienced, lucky that French never opened that door and lucky that John was able to roam free for parts of that morning. So, maybe that didn't answer the question, but ultimately no matter how botched the original plan went, it worked because Burke and John walk as free men today.

      -J

      Delete
    13. Castor - Good question! I have explained this before, but I was a huge JDI believer for a long long time. The one thing I was never able to wrap my head around was a motive. I never believed he was trying to shut her up, nor did I believe it was a sexual attack gone wrong. But, I still thought JDI was a really solid theory and so I reached out to Erin Moriarty from 48 Hours who covered this case from the very beginning to look at this site. I thought, here is a reporter who has talked to all the major players, saw the house, saw the evidence, so I really was curious what her thoughts were. She actually did write me back and said she checked out the site, read the theory and said she didn't believe it. I asked why and she said because of things she has seen and read that it didn't make sense.
      Does that mean she is right and Doc is wrong? No, of course not. But, she was so adamant about it that I kept digging. (sorry this is such a long answer) I always thought Burke was a real possibility, but discounted him because of the head blow and the force I thought it would take. Flash forward to the CBS Special and before you role your eyes, the biggest takeaway for me other than the pineapple, was that I now believe without any doubt that Burke could have delivered the head blow with the force necessary to crack her skull. That sealed it for me and everything else fell into place.

      Long answer, but that's how I changed

      -J

      Delete
    14. Thanks for the reply...the question was not answered but I appreciate the insight :)
      I totally agree with you, there is a huge luck component in this story. (You forgot to mention that JR got also very lucky when he was ruled out from having penned the RN.)
      As I see it, They -if you will- went from being in full control of the situation to depending totally on luck after the 911 call. That's really unexplainable. That call -acted or not by Patsy- really affected the plan from being successful to being foiled. As you described, the luck factor was real but everything could have been way smoother and according to the plan had the police been notified maybe a few hours later. They wrote a very intricate RN that would explain their actions and the reason why police was not called at the moment they discover JB was missing. So, for this reason I believe the call is KEY to understanding this crime and to see that there is not "they", it's evident they were not on the same page. Like CC explained a few days ago, the only facts in this case are the RN, the broken window, the body wrapped in a blanket, and I would add the Call. Substract the call from the equation and we have the perfect murder. Don't you think? About walking as a free man, I believe it's not because of luck but because he was careful enough to wipe everything down in the crime scene area really well.

      Delete
    15. "Thanks for the reply...the question was not answered but I appreciate the insight :)"

      Marcela, J is the master of composing lengthy responses whilst still managing to entirely avoid answering the question! Most BDIs are in fact. It's called obfuscating, and after years of practice, they've honed it down to a fine art. This is why I've pretty much given up engaging with them.

      "They wrote a very intricate RN that would explain their actions and the reason why police was not called at the moment they discover JB was missing. So, for this reason I believe the call is KEY to understanding this crime and to see that there is not "they", it's evident they were not on the same page.....Substract the call from the equation and we have the perfect murder."

      Bingo.

      Delete
    16. I guess I am confused what exactly I didn't answer. You asked why I went from JDI to BDI.....Answer: I never bought the motive for JDI as the case always felt like an accident or a moment of rage. That didn't fit JDI. The only other person I thought it would be plausible for a moment of rage was Burke. So, not sure why I am being called out...I answered the question


      Though I am curious...Ms D....do you think that somebody would call 911 with the body in the house. I have never heard your thoughts on that before :-)

      Ms D I honestly do like you, but you just bring out the worst in me sometimes

      -J

      Delete
    17. Ok...maybe I suck at reading. You were asking why I won't go back to JDI. Simple....zero doubt in my mind that Patsy was involved. Patsy being involved = JDI cannot be true. That's it

      -J

      Delete
    18. Quick question, J. No intent to argue, but am sincerely wishing to hear your thoughts. Do you believe BR also asphyxiated her, or do you attribute that to Patsy?
      -Anon5

      Delete
    19. J, I'm sad that I bring out the worst in you. That really isn't my intention. I admit to deliberately antagonizing Zed sometimes - as he has done me, also - but with you, that's not the case. That is why I made a conscious decision to take a bit of a break from the BDI argument right now. It really does lead to unnecessary squabbles that I can't deal with right now. I made a joke about your avoidance of answering questions - because I believe it to be true - but I really hold no ill will towards you. So, let's just engage when we feel it's relevant, and pass over one another's comments when we feel we've nothing to add.....what do you say? :)

      Delete
    20. Ms D - I am totally messing with you. It's absolutely never personal with me on here. We disagree and that is OK. (high five)

      Hey Anon5 -That seriously is a great question. I honestly wish I had a good answer for you. It was either Burke or John that did the asphyxiation....I think Patsy came in after she had already been dead and had no choice but to protect Burke and assist in staging. But being honest with you, the head blow and the asphyxiation are so puzzling due to how different each act is.

      -J

      Delete
    21. But J, why would Patsy "protect" ANYONE who murdered her daughter?

      Delete
    22. Why did Cindy Anthony say it was her who did the chloroform search after she KNEW Casey killed their granddaughter and accused George of molesting her?

      Regardless of what he did, Burke was her son....you would do ANYTHING to protect your kids. Is this a completely insane case? Yes, yes it is

      -J

      Delete
    23. But you are actually going a bit further by suggesting Patsy participated in the crime

      Delete
    24. Exactly, Castor - the two are incomparable.
      Cindy Anthony did not stand idly by watching Casey murder her child, then offer her assistance! (Which is what you're asking us to believe Patsy did).

      Please explain why Patsy had to participate in her child's murder in order to protect her son, because it's something you've always remained relatively evasive on.

      Delete

    25. "Hey Anon5 -That seriously is a great question. I honestly wish I had a good answer for you. It was either Burke or John that did the asphyxiation....I think Patsy came in after she had already been dead and had no choice but to protect Burke and assist in staging. But being honest with you, the head blow and the asphyxiation are so puzzling due to how different each act is"

      Oh my God, seriously, J? I have asked you the exact, same question no fewer than a dozen times this past year, and you respond as though Anon5 asked you a question you'd never heard before?! We have had so many a heated discussion about where Burke's involvement began/ended, because whether he only delivered the head blow, or strangled his sister to death, makes a HUGE difference (one scenario has Burke as the lone killer, the other has his parents as the killers, so it matters a hell of a lot). Eventually, after pressing you for some time, you conceded that Burke did it ALL.

      Delete
    26. What matters a HELL of a lot is the head blow. Without the head blow, JB is still alive today. Is the strangulation important? Of course it is! I will say Burke did it all and ran up to get John for help.
      My take all along has been that Burke was the one experimenting with his sister, Burke had issues of acting out with the feces and other things. John and Patsy knew about this and were trying to handle on their own. I would also guess that Burke had been violent towards JBR in the past, so when it all culminated that fateful night, John and Patsy must have felt responsible for in some ways enabling Burke for all that time.

      That is my opinion, so pick it apart if you want, but thats why I think John and Patsy assisted in the staging. They failed their children.

      -J

      Delete
    27. Every part in a theory must fit in some sort of way, so we can call it a theory. IMO.
      The scenario you propose is possible. There's kids that have been culprits of worse crimes. And if JR &PR were in on it together to cover up and stage for Burke, they wouldn't be the first parents covering up for a child's crime. The problem with this is that the victim of their child's crime was the other child. Anyways, let's assume your scenario is the one that takes place, then the same question remains and remains and remains ...if they were staging,why did they interrupt it and cordially invite the police to come over their house?
      And please, don't tell me that we don't know if the staging was finished or not because it was not...it's evident "they" were still working on it...

      Delete
    28. Exactly, Marcela. It is abundantly evident that John was still working on the staging after LE were called - staging which would most certainly have been taken care of PRIOR to calling 911 if both of them had have been working together (refer to my question to Zed further down the thread, J).

      Delete
    29. Yes, he went AWOL for more than one hour for that same reason. He needed to finish what LE arriving to the house had interrupted. I'm
      Sure that was not part of "their" plan.

      Delete
    30. Of course not, and I just can't fathom how BDIs manage to believe the Ramseys figured it was a good idea to complete the staging whilst LE were in their house. BDI has many flaws - this one being one of it's most glaring.

      Delete
  22. Kids -when young- learn to love and appreciate what they see their parents love and appreciate.
    I don't know if B knows something or witnessed something on that night. But I believe, as a kid, he could have perceived that his father didnt really care about JB. What we see now in Burke could be just the product of what he experienced in that family and what he could have seen JR doing to his own daughter. If his father didn't appreciate her life as more important than his own, how can we expect Burke to show some kind of care ...he simply never learnt to love and appreciate his sister in an emotional healthy environment and somehow he knew his own father actually despised his daughter's life (to the point to kill her to shut her up)
    Sometimes, its simpler than we think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Marcela. Wise words as always.

      Delete
  23. Thank you, MsD.
    Choosing which battles to fight is very wise too! :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Haha you make me laugh J. Patsy peeking through her fingers like my kids do when playing hide-and-seek.

    As J said, We do NOT know a person wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. This is thrown around here like it is a fact carved in stone when it is anything but. Many people feel that call HAD to occur (regardless of where the body was). The call suited Patsy much more than John. So please stop saying this is a fact. I, like Doc, believe in hard facts when it comes to cases. That includes the Avery case and Knox case where hard facts mean Doc and I came to the same conclusion. But this is a very unique case and I do not believe making the 911 call refers to the innocence of Patsy. In fact, I strongly dispute that.

    And to CC, I wasn't saying Burke puts on his best detective hat and starts looking for clues. But the fact he has distanced himself from the case for 20 years (not even reading the RN!) is very, very peculiar. And then when CBS start sniffing in the right direction John did what he does best and got his son to go on Dr Phil for damage control.

    ReplyDelete
  25. To play devils advocate to Doc's theory of JDI I would like to raise a few questions/thoughts of my own.

    - Just like Zed mentioned, the idea that Patsy made the call to 911 somehow abdicates her of guilt is far-fetched. I think it is very possible that J+P did not want to try to move the corpse in the daylight. It is also possible that the decision to call 911 was completely irrational. After all if it was RDI then they were probably in a state of mania and not thinking straight.

    - I have a really tough time buying in to the gaslighting theory re: the broken window and the maid.

    - the linguistics and circumstantial evidence with regard to Patsy seems pretty damning to me. I'm going to make a full disclaimer that this is truly just a "gut" feeling to me but the splayed fingers, the super awkward 911 call and the general lack of sensitivity to the time deadline in the ransom note are not characteristic of a mother who is trying to find her daughters captor....


    Trey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think it is very possible that J+P did not want to try to move the corpse in the daylight."

      They didn't have to, hence the purpose of the ransom note. It said NOT to call the authorities, giving the Ramseys (if they were working together) the luxury of time. They would have waited out the day, and disposed her body in the dead of night (if they were indeed worried about being seen during the day) then called the police on the 27th, showed them the ransom note and said they hadn't reported the "kidnapping" earlier because they were following the strict instructions of the ransom note.
      The entire point of the note appears to be to buy time - time which the author didn't get once 911 was called, thus some sloppy staging had to be employed because once LE were in the house, the perp knew that body wasn't going anywhere, and the best course of damage control (the only course, in fact) at that point could only be to make it look like an intruder had unsuccessfully tried to abduct her. Not a great plan, but the only option once LE arrived on the scene.
      If both John and Patsy had been in on it together, 911 wouldn't have been called when they were - that would have happened later after everything had already been taken care of.

      Delete
    2. I get picked on for pineapple and I have literally read "911 wouldn't have been called with the body in the house" at least 500 times...no joke.

      Did anybody ever consider that it's so preposterous to call 911 with the body in the house that they did exactly that to purposely defy logic? Carrying out the plan of dumping the body would have had soooooo many obstacles for whoever was dumping the body. Instead they come off as 2 "frantic" and loving parents who didn't care what the note said, they wanted the police. SO surely these 2 loving parents who just called 911 going against the note couldn't possibly have been involved in something so horrific.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Thank you once again, Ms. D, for a reasonable response.

      Zed:
      "We do NOT know a person wouldn't call 911 with the body in the house. This is thrown around here like it is a fact carved in stone when it is anything but."

      No one has ever claimed it's a fact. It's a logical inference based on the fact that Patsy called 911 with her daughter's body still in the house. The note is clearly a ransom note, so, once we rule out an intruder, we can safely conclude that the intention of whoever wrote it was to stage a phony kidnapping. If you want to argue that the note was NOT intended to be seen as a real ransom note, then you have some explaining to do.

      Now what would be the point of staging a phony kidnapping unless your plan is to get rid of your victim's body BEFORE the police are called? Now of course, anything is possible, so if you are prepared to toss simple logic and common sense out the window, you can spin the evidence all sorts of ways.

      Problem is: if you want to take that course, then you're going to find yourself back at square one defending the intruder theory as well, because, hey, maybe there is some perfectly good reason why an intruder would want to write his ransom note while inside his victim's house. After all, anything is possible, no? So if you are willing to reject the simplest, most logical explanation for the note, then you also have to be willing to accept ALL the other possibilities, including the possibility it was written by an intruder after all -- which would make the Ramseys totally innocent. Is THAT what you're thinking? I doubt it. But once you toss simple logic to the winds, then you are literally flying blind and can no longer justify ruling out any scenario at all.

      Delete
    4. "Did anybody ever consider that it's so preposterous to call 911 with the body in the house that they did exactly that to purposely defy logic?"

      Of course that scenario is entirely plausible.....however, if that were the case, why was the body hidden in the most remote room of the house? That seems to indicate that her murderer didn't want the body to be found at all.....which brings me to my next point: why did John wait so long to "find" the body if that was the plan all along? Why, if the two of them knew they were inviting LE over, did they pen the ransom note using Patsy's paper, along with her pen, then hand it over to the cops "on a silver platter"? If John and Patsy were covering for Burke, who tied the garrote around his sister's throat - as you believe he did - why didn't the two of them remove this most incriminating piece of evidence before calling 911 (Patsy's paintbrush)? Or, if all of these damning pieces of evidence were supposed to be found, then the only reasonable conclusion is that John was intentionally setting Patsy up, but why would Patsy let him do that if she was helping with the staging? Why didn't she say "John, we're not using all of MY things, I'll look as guilty as hell!"? If these items were all that was available to them at the time, then why didn't she say to John, "Let's not call 911 until we've first disposed of my pad, pens and art supplies, so there is nothing that the cops can trace back to us?" (Isn't that the most obvious course of action if a guilty person is going to call the police to their home after committing a crime?)

      What I'm saying, in a nutshell,J, is that calling the police to the house to find the body is entirely plausible.
      Calling the police to the house to find the body - along with a whole lot of incriminating evidence that could have easily been disposed of prior - is not, however.

      You say that everything went according to plan, yet the evidence says otherwise.

      "Carrying out the plan of dumping the body would have had soooooo many obstacles for whoever was dumping the body."

      Again, that's one of the primary reasons for the ransom note. The perp has already bought himself an alibi should he be seen by a witness.
      At any rate, you talk about the risk taking that would be involved if JDI, yet your own theory carries so many more! You believe two people risked the DEATH PENALTY in order to protect a person who couldn't even be charged! You believe they staged first degree murder to cover for what was ultimately an accident!
      You believe John and Patsy intentionally made a bad situation unthinkably worse.....
      BDI, by far, carries more risks and obstacles than JDI.

      Delete
    5. Once again, I must thank you, Ms. D, for an exceptionally convincing argument demonstrating the absurdity of any scenario involving both Patsy and John as co-conspirators. However, regarding the possibility that they might have decided to use some sort of reverse psychology by making themselves look so guilty that they would appear innocent, sorry, I don't see that as "entirely plausible," no. Someone obviously went to a lot of trouble to pen a ransom note designed to look as convincing as possible. The notion that they would then deliberately undercut that note by calling 911 to make themselves look innocent in so doing is just way too subtle to be believed.

      And if that was their strategy it certainly backfired, since most people following the case, including LE, did not see it that way at all, and concluded almost from the start that "the Ramseys" must have written the note despite that call.

      But as you say, Ms. D, it matters not how many twists and turns you might want to make in order to explain away Patsy's decision to call 911, the context in which the call was made and the evidence left for the authorities to find makes it crystal clear that Patsy could not have been involved.

      If they were in it together, nothing could have been easier than using the warnings in the note as an excuse not to call the police and dumping the body in some remote spot the following night. If their car had been spotted, they could claim they'd been delivering the ransom. And if you want to argue that they didn't have the heart to dump their beloved daughter's body that way, then why would they have been willing to stash it in that filthy little room?

      Delete
    6. And that's just it, Doc. The body was stashed there as you said. Meant to be a temporary place before transporting to some other location where it wouldn't be found. And, hidden from Patsy, so that once she and Burke were out of the house John, the one in control here, could finish.

      Delete
    7. I think you made it very simple when you started this blog Doc. The basic underlying principle to all of it was that John was ruled out as having written the note. Had he not been, a case could have been made that there was only one perpetrator, and that perpetrator was John. Instead the theory was whoever wrote the note, killed the child, so that if it wasn't John, it had to be Patsy, and then the handwriting experts began seeing Patsy's lettering when it really wasn't there. Then they had a dilemma. Patsy couldn't have strangled her child, so they brought John back in, but as co-conspirator. They BOTH wrote the note. And other duties were assigned - one wrote, one dictated, one hit, one strangled. Then that sounded preposterous. What woman would collude with her husband on a coverup of her child? Enter Burke. That's who they would have covered for, and so it gets more and more complicated and still makes no sense. Back to the drawing board. The simplest and most logical argument is one perpetrator, one motive, incomplete staging by one, coverup by one.

      Delete
    8. Ms D - "I think it is very possible that J+P did not want to try to move the corpse in the daylight."

      May I just ask you put JR + PR....putting J + P might make people think I was involved. :-)

      -J

      Delete
    9. Huh? I never once referred to them as "J and P". I referred to them as "John and Patsy", or "they".....what are you talking about? Re-read my replies, I don't think I've ever called them by their first initial only, it's not my style. At any rate, I wouldn't have written that, because I think it WAS John's plan to move the "corpse in the daylight" - sans Patsy's help, of course.

      I know I say this a lot, but this time I really don't know what you're talking about, J!

      Delete
    10. Found it - It was Trey who said J+P, J is getting his comments mixed up (in the interest of accuracy).

      Delete
    11. That was it Castor....my apologies

      -J

      Delete
    12. Ah.....yes I see! I just realized I quoted Trey a couple of days ago before adding my own response. An innocent mistake, never mind.....carry on!

      Delete
  26. John's bringing his lawsuit is interesting and might be a bridge too far. He was not expressly or overtly slandered in the CBS broadcast. The murder by garrote was not brought to conclusion, so his case would be defamation by innuendo, which would be ironic if this results in his calling attention to himself as a possible killer instead of letting the public opinion of Patsy as the ransom note writer rest in peace along with Patsy herself.

    The implied defamation, in other words, could be argued either way, which is CBS's pass in this, because they can legitimately ask the rhetorical question: "who said anything about you Ramsey?" Given all the past narrative, by leaving out the third episode that never aired, CBS didn't expressly accuse anyone of murder and allowed Patsy and John to remain in the same place public perception-wise, which, after all, is what defamation hinges on, i.e. loss of public reputation and damages arising therefrom. Nothing changed in the CBS broadcast vis a vis Patsy and John, as CBS, on advice of counsel no doubt, didn't go that far. Neither did Kolar in his book. And don't overlook the fact that CBS didn't necessarily rule out an intruder from another point of entry, rather John did in his statements to police.

    For those paying attention, Ramsey might be narrowing things down to his detriment as the case unfolds if it goes to trial.

    That is, CBS did a great job of creating doubt about the basement window as being the source of an intruder, and John is on record as telling everyone that all the doors were locked and that he had no idea how anyone could have gotten in, and he furiously defends Burke as being innocent, and even the general public does not believe Patsy capable of garroting her child. A capable cross-examination of John in front of a jury using all the tools described in this blog by DocG could result in John's having cooked his own goose.

    That would be worthy of a final broadcast by CBS.

    BS'er

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BS'er brings up an interesting point above. One wonders why John continually jumps out of the shadows to call attention to himself either by giving "one last interview" or joining in on Burke's lawsuit. He doesn't seem to be grateful in the least that he's not being investigated but continues to risk his freedom. Does he think he's owed the money since he lost it all after the murder or is he somewhat of a publicity hound. What's his game?

      Delete
    2. "What's his game?"

      He's a narcissist.
      I'm sure he believes he's "owed" for all of the wrongs *he* had to suffer. His arrogance and self importance has him believing he'll never be caught (he's probably right), and I think he thrives on being in the spotlight, like most narcissists.

      Delete
  27. or the last two hours that wasn't aired, titled "What Lin Wood Didn't Want You To See"

    ReplyDelete
  28. According to PR in Death of Innocence, which both JR and PR wrote, she claims John was the one who told her to call 911.

    Page 12: ""What do we do?" I stammer.
    He shouts, "Call the police!"
    "Are you sure?"
    "Yes, call them!"

    What if JR wanted PR to call 911, because he knew he had set her up? Her pad, her pen, her fibers, her paint kit? Wouldn't that make more sense?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "According to PR in Death of Innocence, which both JR and PR wrote, she claims John was the one who told her to call 911."

      Yes, exactly. But the version she offers in the A&E documentary is totally different -- and we have to ask ourselves why. Both versions can't be correct.

      And by the way, we have no way of knowing whether or not Patsy actually wrote that passage or even knew about it until after publication. John could have written the whole thing, we have no way of knowing. In any case, something isn't right about the "official" version they've offered of what happened prior to the 911 call, so it's a huge mistake to take it at face value.

      As for John wanting to set Patsy up, sorry I can't buy that. He used her pad, pen and paintbrush simply because he was avoiding using anything that could be associated with him. Any attempt on his part to implicate Patsy would have backfired in any case. He has consistently defended her and insisted it was an intruder, that's been his position from the start and it's the only one that could possibly work for him.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I agree Doc, if JR was setting her up, why not go all the way with it. Instead, he defended her vehemently and hired counsel, etc.

      And so, when PR saw in Death of Innocence that the version presented was incorrect, wouldn't she have questioned it?

      EG

      Delete
    3. My Grandma had a stroke when I was 10 years old and I remember every single detail about where I was, who got the phone call and what we did....even today I can remember that. So, the FACT that Patsy's story shifts on details constantly should be troubling to everybody on here. The truth doesn't change...so ask yourself, how does she not consistently have the same answer to questions that are being asked?

      -J

      Delete
    4. I agree J--not only PR, but JR can't seem to remember anything either, which is highly suspicious.

      EG

      Delete
    5. See https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html

      The discrepancy between Patsy's version of what happened, as presented in the A&E doc., and other versions of this story as presented by both Patsy and John in other contexts (including their book), is real and cannot easily be explained regardless of what side of the fence you are on.

      However: if they were collaborating on a coverup, then they'd have gotten their story straight and there'd be no discrepancy. As I see it, the A&E version is, if not the whole truth, then close to it. Recall that John was the leading suspect at the outset, so it would have been important for him to claim that HE was the one who wanted that call made. He made that claim for the first time on their CNN interview, just a short while after the night of the murder. Would you expect Patsy to contradict him in public, at that time? I don't think so, as it would make both of them look bad. So she kept her mouth shut.

      During the A&E interview, however, she blurted out the truth (or something close to it) without thinking. This time it was John, sitting next to her, who was forced to keep his mouth shut, for the same reason.

      Ultimately, however, it was necessary for them to settle on one version over the other. Squabbling in public over who said what would certainly have weakened their case. So in the book they went with John's version, and as I explain in the blog post linked above, he could easily have manipulated her into going along.

      As I see it, John's ability to manipulate Patsy is a key element in this case, and my thinking regarding the reason he was able to get away with it is discussed in that post.

      If you prefer to believe that John could not have manipulated her, and they were in it together, then, as I've been at pains to explain for years, the case just doesn't add up, it just doesn't make sense. Just as no intruder theory makes sense. To understand certain discrepancies in Patsy's words, it's necessary to see the big picture and stop making assumptions with blinders on.

      Delete
  29. J, John using a mixture of gas lighting and hypnosis on Patsy. Der!!!!

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was like the movie "Get Out"

      John would stir a cup of tea and Patsy would be unable to move. Or maybe Patsy was Vicky from Small Wonder ;-)

      -J

      Delete
  30. The argument between JR and PR that morning was about JBR's remains and what to do with them. PR wanted a proper burial and JR wanted to dump her body to lay blame elsewhere. An out pf her mind upset PR trumped JR by calling 911 thus botching the plan. This answers several conflicting theoriesonly leaving what happened before that "up for debate".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The argument between JR and PR that morning was about JBR's remains and what to do with them. PR wanted a proper burial and JR wanted to dump her body to lay blame elsewhere. An out pf her mind upset PR trumped JR by calling 911 thus botching the plan."

      Please provide your evidence.

      Delete
    2. And please provide a moniker, it makes life easier for everyone here - especially yourself. :)

      Delete
  31. There is no evidence just as thsre is no evidence to back up your theory, thus why there has not been an arrest, so it is silly to ask for any.

    Pepe Lepeaux

    ReplyDelete
  32. I will post the pictures and audio as soon as I get them in hand ;)


    Pepe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What audio what video?

      Delete
    2. So, where are the photos? The video? Only a few weeks ago we had a BDI here claiming to have "40 links" which "proved" Burke killed his sister, but, strangely enough, he never came back to share the links with us.....

      Delete
  33. I think the argument was whether or not to call 911

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Pepe, there IS evidence. If both Ramseys had agreed to call 911 that morning for the reasons you suggest, then they would have certainly 1. torn up their note and written a different one, because with the body in the house there was certainly no kidnapping; 2. not hidden the body in that remote basement room, carefully wrapped in a blanket, but openly displayed it in the nude, consistent with a pedophile assault.

      Delete
    2. And if you prefer to assume that Patsy called in defiance of John, not because she was innocent, but because she wanted a "proper burial" for her daughter, then you have to assume she is some sort of dunce. How totally idiotic, to go to all the trouble of writing a 2 1/2 page "ransom note" and then totally undercut it by calling in the police, knowing full well that the body will be found in the house. Not to mention handing the police what would now be viewed as an extremely suspicious, "ransom note" in her own hand -- not even bothering to get rid of the pad the note was written on before making her call.

      Delete
  34. Doc, I am sorry mate, but this does NOT make sense. It's you guessing on a whim.

    "torn up their note and written a different one, because with the body in the house there was certainly no kidnapping".

    Yes, we KNOW there was no kidnapping. But the note was 100% still needed. Without the note, the Ramsey's would have been done for sure. The note was NEEDED so there was physical evidence of someone else being inside the house.

    It's very, very simple and doesn't need to be over-complicated.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And the contents of the note were perfect as they were. They were trying to paint a picture to LE of who this person (or persons) could be. There was no need for a new note.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Yes, we KNOW there was no kidnapping. But the note was 100% still needed. Without the note, the Ramsey's would have been done for sure. The note was NEEDED so there was physical evidence of someone else being inside the house."

    Let's assume you're right - that the note was simply to provide LE with evidence of an intruder. Why, then, didn't John and Patsy ensure they disposed of the evidence linking THEM to the crime (paintbrush handle, pad, pen etc.) before calling LE, Zed?

    ReplyDelete
  37. This is true Ms D, but I ask myself why didn't JR dispose of theye things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Patsy called 911, evej. John WAS going to dispose of the evidence, along with JonBenet's body, once Patsy and Burke left the house. His plan didn't require him to dispose of the evidence prior to Patsy finding the note, because his plan didn't involve LE coming to the house that day. All he had to do on the morning of the 26th was fool Patsy, he'd take care of the rest later when he had time, and more importantly - a convenient alibi ("delivering the ransom").

      Delete
    2. "why didn't JR dispose of these things?"

      Because he was caught by surprise. If they'd been in it together they'd have had plenty of time to prepare the scene to make it look like a pedophile attack, and get rid of any evidence that could link them to the crime. As it happened, after Patsy's 911 call, John had only a short time to adjust to the new situation, so there was only so much in the way of cleanup he could accomplish. He did manage to get rid of the broken glass in the basement, but obviously had no time to get rid of the notepad. Not sure how he could have done that anyhow, as you can't easily flush an entire notepad down the toilet.

      As should have been obvious as soon as the body was discovered, everything about the crime scene made it clear that this was an attempt at staging that went wrong. However, the authorities failed to ask the obvious question: WHAT went wrong?

      The assumption that the scene as the police found it that morning was what "the Ramseys" had planned from the start strikes me as extremely naive. No theory of the crime can ever be complete (or convincing) unless the contradictions implicit in that scene are accounted for.

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

      Delete
    4. We know from police reports that John disaapeared from a long time after LA was left in charge on her own. If the call was placed intentionally after they finished the staging, we need to ask why JR needed to disappear from over an hour without giving any account of where he was or what he was doing.
      If we assume that they were working in tandem and they called LE when everything was ready for the "mise-en-scène" in front of police and friends, there was no need for him to disappear and cast unnecessary suspicion over himself.

      Delete
  38. He didn't outsmart us he just confused us because he didn't want anything to make sense and it doesn't

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's confusing only because John had to abort plan A and concoct a plan B on the fly - hence the contradictory staging. But all it was ever supposed to be was a "real kidnapping" (as far as Patsy and the police were concerned) where JonBenet's body was never found.
      Quite simple, actually.
      The confusion came later - and John utilized it to the best of his ability, for sure - but that was just due to luck (and sloppy police work), not ingenious planning on John's part.

      Delete
  39. https://shakedowntitle.com/2017/10/19/how-john-ramsey-continues-to-perpetrate-a-fraud-upon-the-public/

    Posted by SouthernCommonSense on Reddit r/JonBenetRamsey

    Interesting article

    MNLizzieB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, what a great read. Thanks for sharing. After reading that, it only firms my belief that Burke was involved. Certainly some very telling information/rebuttals in there...and I can't see JDI'ers shutting any of them down.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it's an interesting read, Zed. But none of it points to Burke, imo. It only re-affirms to me that John was the mastermind and still is. The quote at the end by a GJ member: "Somebody did something pretty horrible that wasn't punished" , again suggests to me that it was NOT Burke - he couldn't BE punished.

      Delete
    3. That sentence points to Burke for me.

      As do most of the rebuttals they go through.

      Delete
    4. But Burke couldn't be punished due to his age, so clearly, the Grand Juror cannot be referring to him.

      Delete
  40. John didn't confuse anyone on purpose regarding the ransom note.

    DocG, it might be useful for people to understand the purpose of the ransom note if we explore how history would have changed had its purpose actually been carried out that morning. That is, if Patsy and Burke had been ushered away and John had finished the staging and removed JonBenet's body from the home and then had to face authorities later.

    Had that happened, and John had had to answer to seasoned FBI investigators instead of fearful or sympathetic amateurs at the local level, my own view is that he would have broken down and either confessed or been caught in so many lies and deceptions regarding the places he had to go and people he had to talk to in delivering the ridiculous ransom amount, including likely having to physically take federal investigators to the ransom drop-off spot, that he'd have been hauled away and convicted eventually.

    The purpose of the ransom note, with its length and silly instructions, had it accomplished its purpose, is so transparent it is ridiculous. Only Patsy's interruption of its purpose has made it look somewhat ingenious in its inconsistency with the discovery of the victim's body in the home.

    Had the ransom note worked as John intended, then he and only he would have had to face the music, under incredibly intense interrogation by skilled FBI veterans, and he'd have never survived it.

    He lucked out. He since has been emboldened by surviving the fire and might have finally jumped the shark in this latest ploy.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As usual you write very interesting text, Black Sheep. But I don't think John would have ever faced the music, there were too many elements he had no control over, that worked in his favor from the jump. A D.A. who didn't want this case, bickering in the department, a ghost town due to the holidays, MONEY money money, and a crime scene that read like cluttered rat's maze.

      Delete
  41. Castor, are you saying he wouldn't have had to answer every question under the sun from people who knew what they were doing, and walk investigators through every minute detail of his exploits with the "kidnappers" under a national spotlight when he returned from dropping his little brown bag of money without getting JonBenet back?

    If you're agreeing that he would have had to do that, do you really think he could have gotten through that without a mistake?

    Regardless, my point is trying to help show the purpose of the ransom note in the hindsight of its working, and why Patsy was innocent as demonstrated by her interrupting the plan. Chaos ensued, yet Ramsey managed to get through it. There followed a miasma of theories and speculation as though a big bang had created a parallel universe. Without the big bang, Patsy's premature 911 call, reality would have set in and we'd have at least viewed the whole thing through the proper prism.

    Black Sheep







    He'd better have disposed of that ransom note with a good excuse for doing it because it would have looked absurd in hindsight had it been scrutinized as a real ransom note instead of a fake one.
    Now again? Where, exactly did you leave the money? Take us there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your take on the situation is very astute, Black Sheep. Ironically it may well be the case that Patsy did John a favor by spoiling his plan and in the process producing a conundrum that no one in LE could puzzle out. If the plan had actually played out as John had intended, the authorities would definitely have been suspicious and there would have been a lot of tough questions, yes.

      HOWEVER:

      He could easily have fielded questions about his encounter with the kidnappers by simply claiming he had no contact with them at all, but just dropped off the ransom at the designated spot. Since he would have had ample opportunity to get rid of all the evidence, the investigators would have had nothing to go on and there would have been no basis for an indictment, which, after all, requires evidence rather than speculation. As for the note, it was convincing enough to fool Lou Smit, a seasoned detective and as far as I'm concerned it could have easily been taken as the genuine article.

      John could have destroyed the note (after showing it to friends who could then function as witnesses), or he might have had enough confidence in his skills at deception to hand it over. All the "experts" decided to rule him out, so it looks like he succeeded, no? Seems to me the decision to trace or copy a computer font worked for him.

      What makes the note look fake is our knowledge, in hindsight, that it was written on a pad from the house. Since he would have destroyed that pad, there would have been nothing to link him to the note. I don't see it as obviously faked at all. It contains details that seem a bit odd or exaggerated but I see no reason why a "real" kidnapper could not have expressed himself in the same way.

      Delete
  42. And if you prefer to assume that Patsy called in defiance of John, not because she was innocent, but because she wanted a "proper burial" for her daughter, then you have to assume she is some sort of dunce. How totally idiotic, to go to all the trouble of writing a 2 1/2 page "ransom note" and then totally undercut it by calling in the police, knowing full well that the body will be found in the house. Not to mention handing the police what would now be viewed as an extremely suspicious, "ransom note" in her own hand -- not even bothering to get rid of the pad the note was written on before making her call.

    Doc G, I would really like to buy into your theory , it has some obvious glaring flaws and major assumptions, all of which , are in most likelihood not true, just going by odds. Above you said I believed PR to be a dunce, of which she is a dunce regardless. Whether innocent or not, she got caught in more lies than probably anyone in ths history of murder investigations, and there is probably a other 5 that are obvious lies where it just can not be 100% proven she was lying. That being said, you said I believe PR to be a dunce for undercutting the Ramseys plan,. Of which I would like to point out I believe JR was the main constructor of the plan and a griefstricken, confused PR decided she could not go along with, it was obviously not a well thought out decision and was more of a "spur of the moment emotional" decision. My point here being though that you are saying I am calling her a dunce for basically having a breakdown yet you are claiming her not to be a dunce for not knowing JR killed her daughter after he tried to make "an escape to Atlanta, talked her into lying about the window and blatantly lied about who called 911 ? There are at least 10 other things I could list that would have absolutely set alarm bells immediately for someone with a Steven Avery like IQ of 50, yet that did not happen. I think a great many people see this exact same thing.

    Pepe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pepe, there are a great many people who see things as you do, which is why I felt it necessary to go into such detail regarding the sort of questions you've raised. As I see it, the assumption that both John and Patsy were in this together is one of the principal reasons this case has gone unsolved. If you concentrate only on certain details, certain things she said that might sound suspicious to you, then you might feel justified in assuming she had to be a part of the staging, if not directly implicated in her daughter's death.

      But if you look at the case as a whole, which I have tried to do, things can look very different. Once John was ruled out as writer of the note, all eyes were on Patsy and confirmation bias took the place of critical thinking on the part of so many following the case. I've demonstrated this at many points in this blog and also in two key chapters of my book.

      I can certainly understand how you feel the way you do, but I think you, like so many others, are chasing a mirage. If both Patsy and John were in it together then things would have played out very differently from the way they actually did. All I can do is urge you to read more thoroughly in this blog or in my book. I feel confident you will find answers to all your (very reasonable) questions.

      Delete
    2. "It has some obvious glaring flaws and major assumptions, all of which , are in most likelihood not true, just going by odds"

      So.....you made up some arbitrary "odds" which supposedly prove "all" of Doc's "assumptions" are false.

      That's funny.

      Delete
  43. DocG is of course right that John might have fielded all questions and evaded prosecution, particularly if no body were ever discovered.

    It brings a despairing sadness to contemplate that Patsy might never have seen her daughter again, and never have gotten to hold JonBenet and lay her to rest. Her motherly instincts saved her daughter and herself from the alternate fate of JonBenet's being laid somewhere unknown.

    The most bitter lie inside the fraudulent note, which lie was knowing and intentional at the moment of its writing, was the admonition that the only "proper burial" achievable was in following the note's instructions.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
  44. EG, don't think I haven't forgotten the two other mysterious events - the Ramsey party Dec. 23, and the gift delivery visit to the Stine's Dec. 25. I simply don't know why John would be mixed up as to whether he and JB stayed in the car when Patsy and Burke went inside. Could it be possible that JB said something to John in the car that had him know he had to permanently silence her that night after the others were asleep? And did someone other than Fleet dial 911 Dec. 23, even though Fleet took credit for it? If Fleet had made a mistake and dialed 911 instead of 411, do you just hang up on the 911 operator, knowing the police will trace that call and show up a few minutes later to make sure everyone is all right? How did Susan Stine know to go to the door and tell the officers everything was fine, and bar them from coming in? Why her - it was the Ramsey's house, not hers. Don't forget there was also a hangup right before Patsy connected with the 911 operator the morning of the 26th. Could she have been the one calling 911 on the 23rd and the receiver taken away from her and hung up then too? Of course I'll never get those questions answered, but something led up to the killing and I would like to know what.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Replies
    1. Castor,

      Yep, that 911 call is anyone's guess as are the three calls to Dr.Beuf from PR. As far as the stop at the Stine's, and JR not remembering whether or not he got out of the car, well that's troubling to me.

      I've been reviewing the autopsy reports and am not convinced the head blow came first. In fact, I am leaning more towards the strangling first, and possibly more than one attempt. Too little blood from the skull fracture for her to have been alive at that point. Had the strangulation occurred after the head blow, she would've bled out more into her brain.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Not if, as I believe, the head blow only occurred very shortly before strangulation, minutes rather than hours. The outside limit of two hours is ridiculous based on the pineapple found in her small intestine. A medical professional on another forum estimated it would only take 10-15 minutes for the pineapple to make it out of her stomach.

      John carried her downstairs to the breakfast room, where she cadged a piece of pineapple from the bowl Burke left out. He struck her to spare her the pain of vaginal mutilation and strangulation, and spare himself a struggle. He took her to the basement, rolled down her longjohns and size 12 underwear, wielded the paintbrush, wiped her down, rolled 'em back up, made the mock garrote and strangled her. He arranged the RN on the stairs, and either went back to bed or jumped in the shower.

      45 minutes to an hour, tops.







      Delete
    3. CC...After looking at the autopsy photos more closely, it looks as if the cord had been placed around her neck at least two other times before it's final resting place which ultimately killed her. It's as if a struggle ensued rather than her laying there lifeless. I would imagine if that were the case, once around the neck tied tightly would have sufficed. The multiple cord markings have me puzzled. It looks to be a brutal strangling, not something swift and merciful.

      I do agree about the pineapple and when she ate it. I also think she died on the night of 12/25, shortly after arriving home.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Look at the very first photo of the ligature on her neck on the website called "Documenting Reality", E. It's the clearest, most up close I've ever seen, and it's pretty obvious that what we all thought were several ligature marks are really petechial hemmorhages.

      Delete
    5. You would be in agreement with Dr. Wecht, EG, if you think the strangulation came first.

      Delete
    6. Typically penetrating insight, Castor/Inq, as Wecht was hired by The Globe to give an opinion based on nothing but the material available to the general public. He was NOT one of the forensic pathologists provided with tissue samples, photos and slides from the autopsy...nor was Werner Spitz

      Delete
  46. “But Burke couldn't be punished due to his age, so clearly, the Grand Juror cannot be referring to him.”

    Very true. I would like to point out that the author of this article steadfastly believes that Burke killed JonBenet and that perhaps his best friend, Doug Stine, assisted him.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And I would like to point out that the author of the article, Nick van der Leek, is a self-styled photojournalist who ". . . studied law, economics and brand management." He has published a number of "books" online, ostensibly based on his "research", which consists solely of gathering comments from blogs that support whatever theory he's embraced in a number of high profile cases.

    Using van der Leek as a source is a very iffy proposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Using anyone as a source (who disagrees with yourself), is a very iffy proposition according to you.

      Van der leek wrote a lot of sense and was well thought out.

      And Burke could still be punished....many ways to punish someone.

      Delete
    2. That's a lie. I accept all information from reliable sources. van der Leek is an attention-seeking no-nothing who gets all, ALL his information from web posts, and who capitalizes on sensational cases.

      I've no earthly idea what you mean by "Burke could still be punished . . ." There is not now, nor has there ever been, a legal remedy against a nine year old in this country.

      Delete
  48. Thanks MNLizzieB for the link.

    For some reason I thought Juror13 is the female half of the writing duo, not Nick, and the cottonstar contributor is someone else.
    (the game is about to start so Roll Tide Roll!)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes Diamond Lil - Lisa Wilson does much of the research for Nick's books. She's attended trials, and written several books on her own as well.

    ReplyDelete