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.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

The Case Against Lin Wood

Lin Wood must know a LOT about this case, and some of it could be important, but of course he can't say a word, thanks to lawyer-client privilege. Wonder what he thinks about John and how he'd feel if he suspected him yet felt obliged to continually defend him?

212 comments:

  1. I'm sure Wood has at least suspected his clients since the GJ handed down two true bills in 1999. He seems able to overlook this inconvenient fact - unlike Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, who ceased their representation of John that year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would a defense attorney care about the guilt of their client or if there was an indictment? In this case it would just mean making lots of money at a trial that they would also easily win. It seems win-win.

      Delete
    2. You just hung yourself on your own petard. Because Lin Wood and John Ramsey DON'T easily win or JUST make lots of money---it just SEEMS that way---both MUST, to SOME degree, share DOUBTS about the other's innocence and competency, respectively. Would you like us to cut the rope, or is it too late?

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. If the defense didn't have a good chance of winning it would have been brought to trial after the indictment. That seems self evident. It's not every day a DA is going to ass up a chance to prosecute a suspected child murderer in a nationally visible case. That's the juicy opportunity of their career.

      Delete
    4. These are civil cases. No DA, no indictment no prosecution. There's a plaintiff, a complaint, and seven defendants involved in a civil suit for damages due to defamation.

      Delete
    5. I'm talking about the criminal charges brought against the Ramseys by the GJ.

      Delete
  2. How does an attorney represent two clients whose memories of events may differ and even conflict? Do John and Burke have to have matching stories now? That is my biggest concern.

    Nothing against Lin Wood, but I think Burke would be better served having his own lawyer, someone with no ties to his father.

    I worry that Burke will change his story to support John, his only living parent. Burke initially described JB walking up the stairs slowly, but on Dr Phil he said the last place he saw her alive was in the car. Why did he change his story?

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's an excellent point. Actually Wood represented all three Ramseys, Patsy, John and Burke. Which means that in order to be meaningfully represented each one has to be on the same page -- at least publicly. I'm surprised that such an arrangement is even legal, given the possibility that one (or two) could be guilty and the third totally innocent.

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

      Delete
    3. It's unethical in criminal law, but permissible in civil matters - though I question the wisdom.

      Delete
    4. I'm concerned about confidentiality as well. If Burke, for example, revealed something in private to Lin Wood that conflicted with John's account of events, would LW be obligated to inform John of this new information? Does confidentiality become an issue here?

      K

      Delete
    5. It becomes an ethical issue the minute there's a conflict that could jeopardize one or the other. No, he'd be forbidden by the Rules of Professional Conduct to share that information with the other party; rather, he'd have to promptly suggest one find other representation.

      In this case, I think Wood is confident both parties are singing from the same hymnal.

      Delete
    6. "In this case, I think Wood is confident both parties are singing from the same hymnal."

      Ahh, but we know better, don't we CC? That from separate ropes, each is swinging towards a double funeral!

      Mike

      Delete
  3. I guess LW doesn't care about anything but money. And when JR is gone, he will probably write a book sharing his memories as the Ramsey's longtime and faithful lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Under the premise that both Ramsey's were involved in a cover up, I am curious what the JDI crowd expected them to do with the body. You all argue that calling 911 with the body in the house absolutely means that Patsy wasn't involved and I have an issue with that for these reasons:

    -Covering a crime is one thing, but dumping her body in some remote area is another.
    -Because it being the holidays, people were home. The Ramsey's couldn't have just driven around without being seen by neighbors coming and going.
    -They couldn't have staged footprints in the middle of the night outside the window because they couldn't have taken the risk of being seen by anybody
    -Because of the flight so early in the morning, they HAD to cancel it regardless of staging or not. Surely they couldn't go without JB with them
    -Staging a crime would have required WAY more work that would only further expose them. Staging a money drop, fake phone calls, etc would only point the finger more at them as it would be impossible to make it believable.

    I believe the plan was to create a RN that pointed to a plethora of suspects OUTSIDE of the home. There would be no need for the police to look inside the house because this was a "kidnapping." Back to my original question....I am curious what the JDI crowd would have had them do

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I understand it J (and having been there once) Boulder is surrounded by rugged mountain terrain, traveling up one of those mountain roads - was frightening given the sheer cliff dropoffs, and no one is on the road - especially in winter and Christmas. John would have had all day to take care of his mission on the 26th, and into the night if he wished. If no one but Patsy knew there had been a "kidnapping" once he got her and Burke somewhere else he was free to bundle her in the trunk and take off. No one but Patsy would know that a phone call was to come in between 10 and 12. John could always say "they didn't call." If his car was spotted around town or heading out of town that day much later he could explain he was getting the ransom money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Replies
    1. Castor- Isn't part of the problem that the line "John would have had all day" just gets thrown out there on this site as if John was some trained crime scene expert? He would have had to make phony phone calls to his house. Wherever the call was made, the police would surely have tracked it. He would have had to leave the money somewhere or tell the police where he left it. He would have to describe the route he took to drop the money and the police would be able to use security cameras to track his whereabouts. He would have to have an alibi for where he was. Then when he does all of that, he would have to explain why he doesn't have JB back. All of that would depend 100% on John's acting ability which there is nothing to say he was capable of.
      So, my point is that the EASIER plan was to do what they did. Hide the body, call 911 and let things play out. The "24 hours of staging" theory is just a thing people say on here without thinking thru how complicated that would have been.

      -J

      Delete
    2. "Back to my original question....I am curious what the JDI crowd would have had them do."

      You can't sincerely be curious, because the "JDI crowd" has outlined it dozens upon dozens of times here before, and Doc has outlined it, detail by minute detail, in his book, along with his earliest posts here. It's all there, and has been discussed at great length right here on this blog for the past five years. Thus, you know exactly what JDIs believe the plan was, so why feign ignorance? Do you expect a different response every time you ask? I really don't know why you persist in asking the same questions you have the answers to, J, and it has long perplexed me.


      "Covering a crime is one thing, but dumping her body in some remote area is another."

      Indeed it is.
      As is tying a garrote around your breathing child's throat and pulling it so tight, the life is squeezed out of her, and all for no other reason other than saving your son from being stigmatized.
      "Covering a crime is one thing", but mutilating your six year old daughter's vagina is another, isn't it?
      Do you see where I'm going with this? How is your scenario somehow more "palatable" than JDI?

      "Because it being the holidays, people were home. The Ramsey's couldn't have just driven around without being seen by neighbors coming and going."

      Correct, that's why John bought himself an alibi should he be seen coming and going - with paper bags and suitcases, no less (a foreseeable issue, thus he was sure to cover it in the RN).....but, again, you know this already, as we discuss the purpose of the RN all the time.

      "Because of the flight so early in the morning, they HAD to cancel it regardless of staging or not. Surely they couldn't go without JB with them"

      J, you know this has been covered ad nauseam also. John and Patsy would have simply called the pilot and told them "JB has been kidnapped, don't alert anybody." Easily done, right? So why do you have a problem with it? I would argue it's certainly a better plan than intentionally inviting police over to find the victim with her mother's very own paintbrush attached to the ligature used to strangle her to death.

      "Staging a crime would have required WAY more work that would only further expose them."

      Funny you should say that, because that's EXACTLY what you believed they did with Burke.....staged an ACCIDENT to look like MURDER! And you don't think that carries more risk of being exposed?! If you don't want to risk exposure - you don't stage a murder to cover for an accident, come on now.

      "Staging a money drop, fake phone calls, etc would only point the finger more at them as it would be impossible to make it believable."

      Yet you have no trouble believing they were more than happy to "point the finger" at themselves by using Patsy's art supplies to fashion the murder weapon and her writing materials to compose the ransom note, knowing full well - in advance - that these would probably be used as evidence against them, and would actually point AWAY from the intruder scenario they were trying to sell to LE.
      You honestly don't see the hypocrisy in your argument, J?

      Delete
    3. Ms D you can spin my words however you want.....can we move past this idea that because Doc says something it isn't always a fact?

      JDI argue this premise that John Ramsey was going to spend the following day staging this perfect crime. Dumping the body, arranging fake money drops, fake phone calls, etc. He was soooooo brilliant that he stayed upstairs and let Patsy read the note by herself where she could easily call 911. What was he doing while this happened? watching tv? It was only his freedom on the line...he just murdered his daughter to cover up his sexual abuse right? So, why wouldn't he just hang out upstairs and let Patsy be the first to read it. I wonder if he took a bath.....

      J, you know this has been covered ad nauseam also. John and Patsy would have simply called the pilot and told them "JB has been kidnapped, don't alert anybody."

      ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Im trying to gather my thoughts on this sentence. "Hey Bill, its John...JB was kidnapped...everything is fine. Dont tell anybody or they will kill her....oh and Merry Christmas"

      Also, I am BEGGING you to stop saying a topic has been covered ad nauseum. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED AD NAUSEUM!!!! I put aside a nickel every time you or Doc says "Patsy wasn't involved because she dialed 911" my current count is $4 million dollars in nickels

      -J

      Delete
    4. "Ms D you can spin my words however you want.....can we move past this idea that because Doc says something it isn't always a fact?"

      I never said it was. In fact, I'm sure he's wrong on several points. I simply said you already know the answer because Doc's covered it, as we all have. Does it mean we're right? Nope.....but it means you know the answer isn't going to change, so asking it again just seems redundant - that is the point I'm trying to make, not who is wrong or who is right.


      "JDI argue this premise that John Ramsey was going to spend the following day staging this perfect crime. Dumping the body, arranging fake money drops, fake phone calls, etc. He was soooooo brilliant that he stayed upstairs and let Patsy read the note by herself where she could easily call 911. What was he doing while this happened? watching tv?"

      Nope. He was in the shower washing away evidence and making sure to change his clothes. Or, perhaps he was standing right next to Patsy telling her she mustn't call the police, but she did anyway. We know their recollections of what happened around the time of the call are somewhat suspect, so why should we accept that John DIDN'T try to stop her from calling?

      "It was only his freedom on the line...he just murdered his daughter to cover up his sexual abuse right? So, why wouldn't he just hang out upstairs and let Patsy be the first to read it. I wonder if he took a bath....."

      Conversely, I can say to you, "It was John and Patsy's freedom on the line...they just murdered their daughter to cover up the head blow inflicted by Burke, right? So why would they leave the pad and pen they used to write the ransom note lying around? Why did they use Patsy's paintbrush to fashion the murder weapon instead of a stick lying in their backyard?"

      "ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Im trying to gather my thoughts on this sentence. "Hey Bill, its John...JB was kidnapped...everything is fine. Dont tell anybody or they will kill her....oh and Merry Christmas"

      Yep.....the problem with the Ramseys telling the pilot they were cancelling the flight because their daughter had been abducted is what, exactly? You scoff at it, but don't actually tell us "why" it's a bad idea. You think that plan is somehow more foolish than leaving clues all over the house you murdered your daughter in, then inviting the police over to find them.....along with the victim's body? Please explain your logic.


      "Also, I am BEGGING you to stop saying a topic has been covered ad nauseum. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED AD NAUSEUM!!!! I put aside a nickel every time you or Doc says "Patsy wasn't involved because she dialed 911" my current count is $4 million dollars in nickels"

      There's a big difference between a topic being covered over and over, and a specific question that's been answered several times being brought up again and again. Of course the topics are going to be recycled, but you and EG ask the exact, same questions every month or so as though it's something new, and it's always baffled the heck out of me as to why. I sincerely don't get it.


      Oh, and J:
      "Patsy wasn't involved because she dialed 911"......add another nickel to your $4,000,000. (sorry, couldn't resist!) :P

      Delete
    5. "I believe the plan was to create a RN that pointed to a plethora of suspects OUTSIDE of the home. There would be no need for the police to look inside the house because this was a 'kidnapping.'"

      So which is it J? John and Patsy guided investigators in the wrong direction by using reverse psychology or John and Patsy wrote a poor ransom note because investigators looked inside the house?

      Boy, being a non-JDIer sure is easy; you can't be wrong!

      Mike G

      Mike G

      Mike G

      Delete
    6. ITA with everything J said.

      Additionally, if John couldn't keep Patsy from dialing 911 he would be in a state of sheer panic when the police arrived thinking the body would be found and he would be arrested.
      (According to JDIs there was still some staging left to do that John did not get to until after the police arrived.)

      Well how do we know the cordial behavior wasn't just an act?
      If he was acting then why did John then lose his cool after around 10am? (Linda A said he was pacing etc.)
      It would have behooved him to continue to act cool and collected, no?

      FY

      Delete
    7. "Boy, being a non-JDIer sure is easy; you can't be wrong!"

      Exactly, Mike. They have all bases covered: Burke delivered the head blow, John strangled her and Patsy wrote the ransom note (whilst John dictated - this way they can conveniently explain why the writing style they deem to be "feminine" contains so many lines from John's crime books and favourite movies, of course). Some even throw a bit of Doug Stein and JAR into the BDI mix, just to be sure they've covered absolutely everyone.

      So, they really can't ever be wrong.

      Assuming we ever find out who killed JB - regardless of who it is - this will be every BDI's response:

      "John did it? Ohhh, I knew he was guilty!"
      "Burke did it? Ohhh, I've been saying that all along!"
      "Patsy did it? I always knew that bitch murdered her kid!"

      I'm just waiting for them to incorporate aliens into their theory, just in case...it wouldn't surprise me, they seem to be big on conspiracy theories.

      Delete
  7. I think you are underestimating John Ramsey. He likely planned this out in a very detailed way. First he hid the body - from Patsy, from view. His note said we have your daughter - so the first place she would have checked would be JB's room. Not there - then run to Burke's room - not there. Go back and read the note - there are ransom demands. Does she go down to the basement and back into the wine cellar room - no. "We have a kidnapping" she tells the 911 operator. She believed they did. This is what she thought they had. She's now so unbelievably dis wrought she doesn't heed the note's warnings, she calls the police. As she said the note said this and that and "blah blah blah" - the stuff of the note wasn't important, only getting police over there to help find her. John's plan is foiled. Had she not done that he was planning on moving the body, he figured that out in advance. And so given she foiled his plan I think he broke the window next - not in the middle of the night. The note was written with the idea of having it be a kidnapping - and so, no body. There couldn't be a "they" in this, had they colluded on a coverup he could have taken the body out hours before. I don't write as well as Doc, but I think this is what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There was no way to "see" local phone calls beteeen landlines in 1996.

    There were few security cameras in 1996, pre 9/11.

    $118K was an amount John was willing to part with by leaving it on a rock in the mountains.

    His alibi would be delivering the ransom.

    He would have left the body in the same general area he left the ransom, then gone home and called LE to report the kidnapping, say the kidnappers didn't return his daughter, and they'd find her body when they subsequently searched the area of the ransom drop.

    Nothing complicated about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The $118,000 wasn't money that he was OK to part with. The point of it being basically his bonus was to push suspicion onto a coworker. Otherwise just make the amount $100,000 or $150,000. His freedom was on the line...the dollar amount wouldn't matter. It was specific for a REASON and that was to draw attention to somebody who knew him through work or a close personal relationship.

      Also, cameras are on thing, but so are eye witnesses. Neighbors and ANYBODY who saw him that day would talk about what they saw him doing.

      "Nothing complicated about it." --this comment in reference to a case that has been unsolved for 20 years. Yea CC, nothing at all complicated about it ;-)

      -J

      Delete
    2. He was a multi-millionaire, it was a bonus, "found" money, and he was buying his way out of a potential charge of incest and child sexual abuse - cheap at the price.

      CU was on Christmas break, and if he dumped the body and left the ransom at night up in the mountains the chances of being seen were slim, and hey - he was just delivering the ransom.

      It IS straightforward and uncomplicated, but the BPD and Alex Hunter screwed it up beyond redemption. What's complicated is staging a murder and failed kidnapping to cover up an accident.

      Delete
    3. John may have had framing a co-worker in mind; perhaps one living in relative solitude whose log cabin home and backyard abutted a forrest? Maybe one owning a typewriter John, after burying JonBenet in this co-workers backyard, planned to use to type a "master original" ransom note he would subsequently "plant" as incriminating evidence in this co-workers house, implying a "co-worker/kidnapper" who had used it to copy (in Patsy's handwriting?) onto a notepad owned by, and found in the house of, the Ramseys? I mean if people want to obfuscate the search for truth by holding out as serious possibilities theories incorporating "reverse psychology", two can play at that game.

      Mike

      Delete
  9. Why was the practise note that was started left in the bin to be found? Would anyone be that careless? John and Patsy together or John alone. Patsy could have gone to that bin at anytime between finding the Ransom note and John getting her out of the house regardless of John hoping 911 would not be called, and if both were involved why was it left there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No practice note was found in a bin or anywhere else. The so-called "practice note" consists solely of the words "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line. That's it.

      Delete
    2. Don't understand Doc, you say a so called practice note with Mr and Mrs, are you saying this was not a practice note? as I thought LE said all along this was what they believed to be a start of a RN.

      Delete
    3. That's what it's been called, yes. But to me the words "Mr. and Mrs." hardly constitutes a note of any kind. I've never seen a copy of it and have no idea whether it matches the ransom note or not. Not sure if it's even possible to tell, given how few letters there are. In any case, whatever you want to call it, that's ALL there is. Nothing crumbled up in a waste basket or anywhere else, so far as I've been able to determine.

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

    ReplyDelete
  11. Here is something interesting for the JDI's...

    DR. MCCANN

    "In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos."
    "The examination also indicated that the assault was done while the child was still alive because of the redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area."

    "McCann stated that this injury would have been very painful
    because the area of the injury as indicated by the bruise was at the base of the hymen were most of the nerve endings are located. Such an injury would have caused a six year old child to scream or yell. The doctor also stated that he assumed the object did not have jagged edges because there were no evidence of tears in the bruised area."

    This would indicate that JBR was tortured before being murdered and therefore alive. So your theory of JR staging the garrote and the penetration of the paintbrush after death is contradicted by these findings.

    What say you?

    EG


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

      Delete
    2. Speaking only for myself, the violation eith the paintbrush occurred after she was rendered unconscious - was, in fact, one of the reasons to make her so - but before the garrote.

      Unlike Doc, I do not believe JR was seeking gratification that night. I think the mutilation, what you call torture, was intended to obliterate any signs of prior abuse.

      Delete
    3. And that brings me to the million dollar question.

      Why would JR think violating JBR with a paintbrush that night would cover months/years of ongoing sexual abuse?

      EG

      Delete
    4. Desperate times, desperate measures, E. Had he been able to dump the body in the mountains and it not been discovered immediately, decomposition may have done the rest of the job for him.

      Delete
    5. CC and I don't see this the same way. I think John probably did sexually assault JonBenet, probably after clubbing her, which did NOT kill her, by the way. So she was still alive when that was done. And the penetration with the brush handle strikes me as a myth, based on the fact that material from the surface of the brush was found in her vagina. Consistent with digital penetration, probably via a gloved finger that had already handled the paintbrush. The injuries would have been very different if she'd been penetrated with that brush handle.

      Delete
    6. "Why would JR think violating JBR with a paintbrush that night would cover months/years of ongoing sexual abuse?"

      I answered this question of yours no fewer than three times in the space of as many days not too long ago, EG, and we had the same discussion about it as we're having now!
      Had you bothered to read just one of those replies - which you have admitted you don't even look at, even though it was you who asked the questions - you would have not needed to ask a fourth time. And, strangely enough, CC's response was virtually no different to mine...did you expect it to be?
      This is one of biggest issues I've always complained about with BDI.....their persistence in asking the exact, same, questions on every, single thread, despite the fact they've been answered over and over again. It can only mean one of two things: BDIs aren't interested in listening, only talking, or they have profound memory problems.....of course, it could just be that they enjoy winding us up, who knows?!

      Delete
    7. But there was blood, Doc, in her underwear and on her thigh. Small amounts, granted, but the wiping may have removed more.

      Regardless what he used, it seems to me his intent was to destroy what was left of her hymen, and to make the assault obvious enough to suggest it had been done that night. McCann's remark, quoted above by EG, seems to corroborate my belief.

      Delete
    8. Seems to me you're making my case for premeditation, Doc, if you think he sexually abused her AFTER the head blow.

      Delete
    9. I don't see a contradiction, CC. I think he slaked his lust on her inert body AND in so doing was hoping to destroy any evidence of prior molestation. As for premeditation, I've seen that as a possibility for some time.

      Delete
    10. I wish I could get to the point where I buy the JDI theory without question. I just can't seem to get there. My reasons are that the more I read of the autopsy, etc, the more I see what a truly brutal and vicious attack this was. If JR wanted to get rid of his daughter to silence her, there were other ways in which to do so without the brutality inflicted upon this child's body.

      To me, the person who murdered JBR hated her. There is rage here, jealousy, brutality. I don't believe the same person who murdered her, would have wrapped her in a blanket with her favorite nightgown and hidden her away.

      It just doesn't make sense to me.

      EG

      Delete
    11. .....on the other hand, I am torn with the BDI theory because.....

      I can't believe that if JR and PR came upon the body of their daughter in such a state, that they'd not try to remove the garrote from her neck. I would think that would be instinctual, especially as a parent. **This point was made by one of the earlier posters (2014 I'd say)and when I came upon it, I had to agree**

      It's no wonder we are all captivated by this case. None of it makes any sense.

      EG

      Delete
    12. If you have the time EG, go back and read (hope I have the right moniker) "Bluenote"'s posts, long conversations about being torn.

      Delete
    13. Will do and thanks!

      EG

      Delete
    14. I can't believe this. You non-JDIers are just narrowing the possibilities as to who killed JonBenet down to just one with your questions! Go with abuse while she was conscious? Then go with the neighbor who swore she heard a shrilling scream around mid-night!

      Mike

      Delete
  12. CC..

    I'd buy that, it's reasonable. Similar to what happened with Casey Anthony, in finding the body decomposed.

    What do you make of this:

    "TT: When you saw the white blanket, was JonBenet completely covered up? How was she laying there, cause I wasn’t there that day."
    "JR: She was laying on the blanket, and the blanket was kind of folded around her legs. And her arms were tied behind her head, and there was some pieces of black tape (inaudible) on her legs, and her head was cocked to the side."

    This is the first time I am reading about black tape on her legs.

    What do you make of this?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes EG, the statement about black tape on the legs. Also John says she was "laying on the blanket" which would suggest the blanket was not thrown over her but that she was on top of it, maybe placing her on it and then it was folded around her legs he says. He's mentioned before she was wrapped "papoose style." He would then likely see the black tape, once he picked her up if he actually remembers the exact sequence of seeing her body. In any event what would be the reason for an intruder to put black tape on her legs, or a family member? Were they used to bind, or just pieces put there. There was a black tape dispenser found in the basement, in one of the crime photos, but very little mention was made of it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes. to me, that would indicate that her legs were somehow bound, perhaps to prevent her from struggling as she was being brutally murdered. I recently read where someone thought perhaps she was taped and/or tied to a chair and strangled from behind, hence the multiple lines around her neck. The body was then moved into the WC.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do we keep seeing references to "the WC"? She was not found in the bathroom, but in the windowless room (WR, if you like).

      Delete
    2. Well, first of all it was never a wine cellar. And secondly, WC is a common abbreviation for "water closet" aka bathroom, so referring to that room as the WC could be misleading.

      Delete
    3. They call it the "WC" on the other sites when discussing the JonBenet case, Doc, so I think it's probably just the accepted term - people familiar with this case know what it means. :)

      Delete
  15. I wanted to comment on something you said yesterday "redness in the surrounding tissue and blood in the area" - an inflammatory response can still show up or occur after death. How much inflammation is dependent on the amount of time that lapses between the injury and death, so that if she were sexually assaulted soon after death there can be an inflammatory response to cell death - long story short she may not have to have been alive when sexually assaulted.

    Your present comment, I believe they determined she was strangled face down where her bladder gave out just outside the wine cellar room. I cannot figure out the necessity for black tape pieces. I don't know EG, would Burke have it in him to do all of that? And if not, and there was parental coverup, why so brutal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I read CC and Doc's post where they believe she was struck on the head first, then sexually assaulted, which would mean she was still alive. That makes sense then for the redness to be there.

      EG

      Delete
  16. I do see where you are going though EG, that the headblow came second, to quiet the struggle and scream. I think you are probably just investigating this idea and aren't yet married to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the source of the confusion, Castor/Inq and EG? The AUTOPSY REPORT says she died of ligature strangulation, so clearly the head blow came first.

      I'm all for intellectual curiosity, but this was the conclusion of one of only two docs who actually saw the body, and the one who performed the autopsy.

      There was subdural hemmorhage, and swelling of the brain. There was significant petechial hemmorhage. What more do you want?

      Delete
    2. One cannot scream whilst they are being strangled to death, Castor, thus John didn't need to club her in order to quieten her. At any rate, as CC says, the autopsy report shows us she was strangled some time after the blow to the head, so what's there to discuss? It's not a mystery. Aside from not wanting her to struggle or suffer, I'm sure John wouldn't have wanted his daughter to know what an evil bastard he was, even in the last moments of her life.....after all, he was the one who was supposed to protect his little girl from monsters like himself.

      Delete
  17. Castor,

    Yes, exactly--I am not married to any of it, just reviewing things and trying to come up with something that makes sense.

    I have questions with the JDI theory that he was going to dispose of the body the next day. I am not sure how he could've pulled that off. Was his plan to get PR and BR out of the house and if so, how? Where were they going? How many people would have to be told and all of them expected to remain silent while JR went about his business of dealing with the kidnappers?

    Then, once out of the house, he was going to get the money to the kidnappers, how? They were going to call him, wouldn't that show up on a phone record?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, E, but I'm beginning to understand MsD's point - everything you're asking has been answered in the last few threads; one question was answered (again) just yesterday. Do you not read any replies?

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

      Delete
    3. CC,

      Maybe it wasn't answered to my satisfaction or maybe I'd like other people to respond who might have something new to add. Or yes, it's possible, I may have missed it.

      Considering I work 60 hours a week and do this when I have time, I hope you can forgive my somewhat haphazard navigation around this blog. There are days when I go back and read posts from prior years.

      So, yes, be my guest and leap onto Ms D's bandwagon. I'm sure she'll make room.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Hi E, I agree with MsD and also CC. Same questions will probably get the same answers from Doc and the rest here who support his theory. There could be a few discrepancies among us, regarding premeditation or details in the mechanic of the murder but overall motive and psychology behind the crime, we kinda agree on every point. So, if you are not satisfied with the responses or would like to see another take, it's understandable but you are not gonna get a different answer just because the same question is asked in a different way many times. if you wanna come up with something that makes sense, but you don't rule JR in as the sole perp, I am sorry but I don't think you will be able to find the way out the maze.

      Delete
    5. I think you're shortchanging CC by presuming she is leaping on to anyone's bandwagon, EG. She is clearly strong willed and independent.....she just sees for herself that you ignore answers often, because you've done it several times to her also. You even admitted you don't bother to read certain posts, so why would you be surprised that she has noticed?

      For the record, I work long hours also, but when I make the decision to come here, I am committed to it, which means reading all of the posts (even those I disagree with) and taking the time to respond to them, and I would expect others to do the same.....it's common courtesy. After all - we come here of our own accord, no one is forcing anyone to participate.

      But, enough of that. I would like to address your two comments, EG:

      "If JR wanted to get rid of his daughter to silence her, there were other ways in which to do so without the brutality inflicted upon this child's body."

      I think that rendering her unconscious was probably the most merciful thing to do before killing her, in fact he probably thought the head blow would kill her outright, which is why I believe the strangulation occurred some time later - John thought she was already dead.
      I think that at the time of her murder, John saw JonBenet as nothing more than a serious threat to his lifestyle and, more importantly, his reputation, and he simply wanted to eliminate the source of his worry. Pain and torture weren't the goal, he just needed the problem to be gone.

      "To me, the person who murdered JBR hated her. There is rage here, jealousy, brutality. I don't believe the same person who murdered her, would have wrapped her in a blanket with her favorite nightgown and hidden her away."

      I think there was a degree of rage - abusers more often than not blame their victim: "See what YOU made ME do?!" So that fits in perfectly with John being the murderer. I don't see any jealousy, however....what is it about the crime that makes you feel her killer was jealous? As far as "her favourite nightgown" goes, well there's a good chance that was just stuck to the blanket John removed from the basement dryer, and he had no idea it was even there (his words upon seeing the crime scene photo of the nightgown near the blanket always struck me as very telling: "That's not supposed to be there." I believe he was, for once, telling the truth. The nightie wasn't supposed to be there, meaning he didn't knowingly put it there, and he was surprised to see it. The fact is, NOTHING was "supposed" to be there, not least his six year old daughter, so his words give him away here). I don't believe for a second she was "lovingly wrapped up" in the blanket.....the blanket was bundled over her as a means of keeping her hidden. This child was left on a moldy concrete floor, wearing urine stained pants and a ligature "necklace" - there was nothing "loving" about the scene at all.

      Delete
    6. I might have just wasted 45 minutes of my time composing that response for you, EG.....but I'm here for the mutual dialogue, even if you aren't. Hopefully you read it, and all is not lost? :)

      Delete
    7. Alas, it appears I am indeed wasting my time.
      I find it quite disappointing (and rude) that someone would completely ignore a person who takes the time to consider their questions and respond to them. You may not care for me, EG, but I ALWAYS give you thoughtful, detailed replies. A public forum is for talking AND listening.
      How many times has it turned out the question you asked had already been answered in one of my posts, but you didn't bother to read it?

      Delete
  18. Marcela,

    I know this is Doc's blog and I know what his theory is, as well as CC's and yourself. But there are others on this blog who have differing opinions. There are also new people who come to this blog I would imagine who might also contribute something new or look at a question and come up with a different answer. I am just trying to explore every angle, see every possibility. I've served on many a jury in my time and if I was about to convict someone of a heinous capital crime, I'd want to know that I left no stone unturned. My bad, I guess.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read every book, article and transcript available, as well as Doc's entire blog, the Jonbenet Encyclopedia and everything on acandyrose, admittedly over a period of years. I even check out reddit and Topix from time to time, in case someone has new information (and I'm supposedly semi-retired, though I still bill 60 hours/week).

      I think you'll find most JDIs equally well read...I know Doc is, as is HKH. We keep up with Doc's latest thread, and read all posts - even yours.

      It seems to me rather rude that you cannot return the favor. It would certainly save wear and tear on the oldtimers.

      And at the very least it would give you enough information to come to your own informed opinion, as we have done.

      You claim you want to leave no stone unturned - very well then, get to it. There's a lot of information out there - do the work, as we have done.

      Delete
  19. Eg, you had a couple of questions in your previous posts, I would like to address one of them but first we need to understand the dynamic in a couple like JR and PR. He was always the one calling the shots and she followed. Although, none of us knew them personally, this way clearly seemed to be the way they functioned as couple and family.
    He was the one making the big important relevant decisions in the family and he constructed his plan upon this premise. That he would say and they would follow. It had always been that way and he probably thought under the circumstance of a kidnapping Patsy would follow his lead.
    He had a plane ready to leave to Charlevoix at 6 am and that is how he planned to get PR and BR out of the house. This was shared by MsD a few threads ago. I read it. I chewed on it. I think it could have been perfect for him to send her as far as possible as everything was prepared and waiting for her and Burke. This makes sense to me. How about you ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, Marcela, I don't see him planning on putting them in a plane, Patsy would never have agreed to that. But I do see him insisting that she take Burke to a friend's house for their safety while he deals with the kidnappers. I think this is the reason he addressed the note to himself, to give the impression that it was "up to him" to raise and deliver the ransom.

      EG, I can understand how you might feel skeptical regarding the scenario I've outlined, but what that "ransom note" tells us, once we accept the absurdity of any intruder theory, is that the intent of the killer was to stage a kidnapping. And such staging is possible ONLY if he victim is removed from the house.

      Sure, it would have been risky. Patsy might not have been willing to go along (just as she wasn't willing to delay calling the police). But the alternative of just leaving the body hidden in the house was far worse, since once it was found, the "ransom note" worked against him rather than for him.

      I hear all the time from people who keep reminding me that "he got away with it," but he got away with it through sheer luck, because the manner in which his plan was foiled by Patsy turned the case into an impossible conundrum. And his being "ruled out" as writer of the note was a huge piece of luck.

      Actually, however, he never really got away with it, because his multi-millionaire lifestyle was destroyed, he was financially ruined, couldn't even get a decent job, and to this day the great majority following the case are convinced he was involved in the coverup, at the very least, if not the murder -- and for good reason.

      Once he killed his daughter, his options became extremely limited, EG, and there was no strategy that did not entail extreme risk. The notion that he could safely dump his daughter's body at night, under cover of delivering the ransom in case anyone spotted him, may have seemed quite elegant and simple to him. Certainly simpler than inviting the police over to show them her body just lying there after having been sexually assaulted. As we know, family members are the most likely by far to have committed such a crime, so he would have been suspect no. one. If he could have pulled off a kidnapping, that would have taken the heat off him. At least this is what he may have believed.

      As for the phone call, as I've demonstrated in the past, he could easily have faked it by calling his own home from a remote phone booth and letting his answering machine respond.

      And sure, the police would have been suspicious. But if he was careful enough to get rid of all the evidence, he'd be home free -- and everyone would be seeing John and Patsy as innocent victims.

      Delete
    2. Well, Doc, I understand your point and I don't see Patsy agreeing and flying to Charlevoix either but I see John, at least, suggesting it. What's more, if they had a heated discussion after Patsy found the RN, it makes more sense to me that they could be arguing about her leaving the house with Burke to "leaving him alone to deal with the kidnappers" rather than wether or not they should call the police, which was clearly stated in the note no to. I think this particular point in this sequence of events hinges on wether you believe or not in premeditation. And I believe he premeditated it.

      Delete
    3. Doc,

      I agree with you in that PR would never have boarded the plane under those circumstances. And I also see your point regarding the RN. I can see how it was addressed to JR and meant to keep PR from calling 911 with the multiple warnings and threats. And of course, only a kidnapping scenario would work if the body was removed from the house. That all makes sense to me.

      I always felt that PR wrote that note, because to me it sounded like it had a feminine touch to it, and because she was never ruled out as the writer. And yet, JR was. But you do make a good point, that if PR wrote the note, why call LE before the body was removed. If they were in it together, they would've continued with the plan and gotten rid of the body in the morning.

      Another thing--the black tape that JR said was on her legs in the interview with TT and yet not mentioned anywhere else. Perhaps JR knew he wrapped her body like a papoose using that black tape to secure the white blanket for easier transport of the body?

      Also what's got me thinking is the fact that FW said he checked that WC, and saw nothing. Perhaps the body was hidden elsewhere in that basement and moved by JR during his absence upstairs? Maybe the body was in the trunk of his car and when LE mentioned the cadaver dogs at the ready, he knew they'd find the body in his car awaiting transport, therefore had to move it back into the basement?

      And lastly, I do believe JR called the shots in that house. He was in charge and everyone around him did his bidding for sure so naturally he would think PR would be easy to control and do as she was told.

      Thank you for taking the time to respond and address my concerns in a respectful, insightful fashion. I am equally frustrated with this case, and it has taken up much more of my free time than it should have. I am frustrated by the way everything seemed to go the way of the R's. From the inept LE all the way up to the GJ true bills being basically ignored. It's maddening.

      I am getting there, Doc...and I will continue to come here with questions, until it's crystal clear to me. Until I am as sure as you are. Only then, will I rest my case. :)

      CC ....you know I have a great deal of respect for you and would never question your knowledge of this case. In fact, much of what you've posted here has been responsible for my taking a second look, making me question my own theory. I must admit there are one or two people here whose posts I totally ignore, but rest assured you are not one of them. As far as being rude, well yea, I guess I can be at times. Comes with being a native New Yorker.:) BTW, hope you're back to normal from the hurricane.

      EG


      Delete
    4. You are a stellar person, EG. Class A all the way, I mean that.

      There's another possibility why Fleet didn't see the body of course - he didn't know what he was really looking for in the dark. Whereas John was able to determine right away that the white luminescent lump on the floor was JB as soon as he opened the door. Of course he had actually found her much earlier he told John Andrew, but didn't tell anyone.

      Delete
    5. Thanks, E, for the kind words, and your concern. All's well here.

      If I can help privately, you have my blind e-mail address, and if you're willing to tolerate my time constraints and the fact that I put Doc's blog first, before any other online activities, I'm willing to do what I can to help anyone with a sincere interest. And if it keeps you from adding to MsD's frustration, all the better.

      Delete
    6. Thank you, Castor. You're a pretty classy lady yourself.

      Thank you, CC. You know I will take you up on that, should I go back and re-question something. Which I often do, as I mull over this case.

      EG

      Delete
    7. This love fest makes me want to throw up ;-)

      -J

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

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ok yes I believe jdi but who would kill your daughter on Christmas? That is really sad to me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, its sad. Anyone who would molest their very young daughter and then kill her to cover it up certainly doesn't give a rip about the sentimentality of Christmas, IMHO. Sad, too, that we as a people have a hard time accepting that even educated, wealthy, accomplished men are capable of the most crass, unacceptable human behavior. -LE

      Delete
    2. I sympathize. I am fully JDI but have no satisfying answer for why the crime was done when it was done, i. e. on Christmas. Maybe it was just a move calculated to make the crime that much easier, knowing some police and such would be on holiday. That seems to have been the result, and it's certainly not the first crime done around Christmas. The Scott Peterson case comes to mind (the case against John is much stronger than against Scott, imo).

      I've seen four other ideas floated around for why then. The first two feel it had something to do with an upcoming family trip to Charlevoix, either to get Patsy and Burke out of the house (and the state) or for fear of JonBenet confiding in other family members about John molesting her. MsD seems to think the former, and Doc the latter.

      John was flying the family to Minneapolis I think, and then they'd meet up with the rest of family and go to Charlevoix. Well, obv, John cannot fly them to Minneapolis if he is dealing with the 'kidnappers'. And, as Doc said, would Patsy have really agreed to leave the state with her daughter kidnapped? Then again, John was already bold enough to think she would not call police.

      Given the crime scene, molestation certainly had something to do with it. John apparently even told the family doctor he was "so sorry" after the murder. But was John incapable of keeping JonBenet quiet? He seemed confident he was able to manipulate Patsy, and despite JonBenet seeming pretty outgoing for her age it never came out.

      Then there is CC's theory, which says it was because of an upcoming pelvic examination which would show the signs.

      The fourth possibility, which has been floated by Doc, is that he wanted her to have one last Christmas. This might be consistent with e. g. the 'mercy blow' to the head, buying her presents, etc.

      Delete
    3. Christmas makes total sense. The whole town is in serious "psychological and physical lockdown" if you will. The night after Christmas even Santa Clause would be in bed wiped out from the night before, nary a creature stirring, while all through the house, John would be staging---the miserable louse!

      Mike

      Delete
    4. Just wondering about any links to the information on an upcoming pelvic exam and the doctor story? Just curious!
      -SM

      Delete
    5. No links, SM. It's my theory, based on Patsy's three calls to the pediatrician between 5-6 PM on 12/17, which Mike Kane asked her about in the 2000 interview in Atlanta.

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

      Delete
    7. Not sure if I should treat "upcoming pelvic exam and the doctor story" as one unit, referring to CC's theory, or as two "the upcoming pelvic exam", CC's theory, and "the doctor story", John telling the doctor that he's "so sorry".

      In case it was the latter; In Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, page 27 we find:
      Michael Bynum, John Ramsey's close friend and corporate attorney, who had been away snowshoeing, now arrived at the Fernies' house. As he walked in, the family was kneeling in the living room praying with Rev. Hoverstock. Around 7:00 P.M. John Ramsey went for a walk with John Fernie and Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's physician, who had brought over some medication for Patsy. When they returned a half hour later, Ramsey asked Bynum to represent him.

      "'I'm sorry, I'm so sorry,' Ramsey told his friends over and over. Then just after 8:00 P.M., he left alone to take a walk in the nearby foothills."

      It's a bit unclear to whom he is speaking.

      Delete
  22. Surely it makes more sense that Burke and JB had "experimented" in the past. And then Burke whacked her over the head over something. Parents could not handle the criticism, the embarassment and Burke's life would have also changed forever. So they staged a failed kidnapping. Seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. Just read through this blog and the JDI theory is completely and 100% ridiculous. Thank god none of you are detectives.

    Pammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that you think anything about this case is logical and straightforward speaks volumes. Thank God YOU are not a detective.

      Delete
    2. But they didn't just stage a failed kidnapping, did they, Pammy? You're conveniently leaving out some key elements, as all BDIs are so adept at doing (they would have us believe the crime began and ended with the head blow, but are loathe to talk about that pesky strangulation which doesn't work so well with their theory). According to BDI, the Ramseys brutally strangled their daughter to death, all for the sake of saving themselves some "embarrassment". Yet, they could have just as easily saved themselves the "embarrassment" by dialing 911, saying JB accidentally fell, thereby saving her life AND their reputation, along with Burke's. What is "straight forward" about two parents deciding to sacrifice one child's life for another, all just to save face? What is logical about two parents staging a failed kidnapping, yet opting to leave damning physical evidence of their own involvement littered throughout the crime scene (paintbrush handle, pen, paper, "practice note"), then inviting the police over to find it? Tell me, what is logical about staging first degree murder - thus risking the death penalty - to cover what is ultimately just an accident?
      You come here five years after this blog was created and offer nothing but criticism towards long time JDI contributors, despite the fact your own theory can be virtually debunked in about five minutes. Hypocrisy, much?

      Delete
    3. Pammy,

      I was much the same way about BR, and I thought he was responsible for the entire murder, the head bashing and the strangulation. However, something I read here from back in 2014 hit me like a light. Why would two loving parents, who found their daughter in such a state, not immediately try and remove the garrote and call 911? To me, that would be instinctual.

      Then I thought about what Doc has stated so many times. The note was written to stage a kidnapping, not a fake one. If both parents were in on it, why call 911 before removing the body. And the one who made the call to 911 was PR, not JR. That allowed me to come to the realization that they were NOT a team working together.

      I thought about what CC said in that JR had hoped by the time the body was found, it had decomposed enough so there was no evidence of sexual abuse, but needed to cover it somehow, in case it had been discovered, hence the violation to her vaginal area.

      Now, I admit I still do question some things, and will work them out eventually. I also think there was something incestuous about BR and JBR's relationship. I still believe that BR was jealous of JBR and all of the attention she was getting.

      I question why PR was peeking through splayed fingers as French ascended the basement steps. Was she waiting to see if he discovered the body?

      I still question why the RN was laid out on the floor untouched, sans sweat, tears, saliva, fingerprints.

      I question the relationship with the Stine's after the fact.

      I question JR's answers regarding how many bikes were purchased that year for Christmas.

      The 911 call on 12/23.
      The three calls to Dr Beuf on 12/17.
      The special visit from Santa.

      But, as I told Doc, I am getting there. Slowly perhaps, but surely. This is not a simple case, it's full of twists and turns and characters right out of a novel. Which I suppose is why we are still captivated after all these years.

      EG

      Delete
    4. I'm at a point where I don't think any more reading is going to help. I've read absolutely everything except Death of Innocence (I knew I wouldn't get any truth there) or Woodward's book. Maybe I should, but I can see evidence of John's carefully constructed narrative on the Darnay Hoffman deposition videos. I've also read fictionalized accounts of the murder, hoping for insight, and of course transcripts. What's missing for me is transcripts of interviews and interrogations of other suspects. John supplied Lou Smit with a long list of suspects - what did they have to say when questioned? They were cleared, some with spurious alibis, but I'd still like to read what they were asked and how they answered. The last night John was with JB over at the White's, playing on the floor with Fleet and Daphne, what did Fleet and John talk about? Did Fleet notice anything unusual about John that night? On the Darnay Hoffman videos John says JB fell asleep in the back seat almost as soon as they got in the car, to deliver their gifts on the way home. Then why is he confused about whether she went into the Stine house? She's apparently "still asleep" when he carries her in the house and up the stairs. He then says he went to bed but "didn't recall" ( still on the Hoffman videos) whether Patsy was in bed or not. But after he performed his bed time routine, took his clothes off, put on pajamas, brushed teeth she was in bed he says. He then had to be asked whether he read, yes he read, and whether or not he took something - yes, he took a melatonin. It seems possible to me like HE was the one that never went to bed. Since he originally told Officer French he read to JB, could he have helped Burke with his toy, walked Burke back to bed, then gone into JB's room and read to JB, at which point, at that point, something went wrong. No pajamas, no brushed teeth, no reading in bed, no melatonin, and yes, Patsy in bed and asleep, black fiber from John's shirt found in crotch. He never went to bed.

      Delete
    5. Pammy - I am giving you a high five. Congratulations for using logic. Ms D and her band of JDI's are obviously not happy with you.
      Stay strong....they will use the same arguments over and over

      -J

      Delete
    6. "I thought about what CC said in that JR had hoped by the time the body was found, it had decomposed enough so there was no evidence of sexual abuse, but needed to cover it somehow, in case it had been discovered, hence the violation to her vaginal area."

      I told you that months ago, EG - two or three times in the same thread, I believe - so not sure why it's some sort of revelation only now.

      "I also think there was something incestuous about BR and JBR's relationship."

      Why? What evidence is there to support it?

      Delete
    7. Castor,

      You bring up some good points, and I am in agreement with you. There is still so much out there that we do not know and don't have access to. Not to mention 9 months after JBR was murdered, another girl "Amy" I believe her name was, was attached in much the same way. Luckily for her, her mother awoke and scared off the intruder. Lots of similarities there in that they thought he'd been in the home for quite awhile before mother and daughter returned home. Of course there was no RN, but then again, he was startled by the mother. He was described as a ninja I believe who ran out quickly almost "ghostlike" I believe is the word they used.

      Just lots of stuff to make you go hmmmmmm.

      EG

      Delete
    8. Ooops..attacked, not attached. In addition I believe Amy was also in the pageant world or in the same dance class that JBR was in.

      EG

      Delete
    9. "Stay strong....they will use the same arguments over and over"

      And you don't?
      I'm pretty sure we all do, J, let's get real. As long as we stick to the same theory, of course our arguments are going to remain the same, geez. It's when the QUESTIONS (questions that have been answered ad nauseam) remain the same that things begin to stagnate.....

      At least I have an argument. I didn't see one from Pammy. All I saw was an assertion followed by an insult, so not sure what you're giving her props for. I couldn't care less about the theory one subscribes to, I just don't like posters who hit and run, and it just so happens that BDIs do it the most frequently.

      Delete
    10. That's fair...she probably didn't need to insult anybody

      I don't think I use the same arguments at all. Back to the pineapple..... :-)


      -J

      Delete
    11. Staging a failed kidnapping? Sounds like spam, Pam.

      Delete
  23. Excuse me the parents would have called 911 and dealt with Burke later. They would have done anything to save her. They're not going to pick 1 child over another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides they managed to seal Burke's medical records so the information that could have been released to the public could be an accident caused by Burke nothing more.

      Delete
  24. uh oh...Steven Averys lawyer has new evidence showing Halbach was alive after she left his house. Most on here don't see it, but the police framed Avery. They had millions of reasons to do so

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is anyone else getting this error message every time they post? I've been getting it for a few days now:

    "Whoops, that's an error.

    We apologise for the inconvenience.

    Try refreshing the page to see if things are back in order."

    ReplyDelete
  26. the Russians are interfering with your blogging

    ReplyDelete
  27. Who purchased the doll that was sent to Access Graphics addressed to JB after the murder and why? It was paid by money order so the payee could not be traced.
    FY

    ReplyDelete
  28. For Doc:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/making-a-murderer-defense-implicates-new-avery-nephew-in-murder-w510242

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. Zellner has totally gone off the deep end. I can't imagine how any judge can take her seriously any more. She had months and months to prepare her case and came up empty. She will never ever give in and any judge who let's her get away with this nonsense is totally irresponsible.

      Delete
    2. Hahaha thought you may say that.

      For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree.

      Delete
  29. I just read this old article from People magazine, http://people.com/crime/read-peoples-original-1997-story-on-the-jonbent-ramsey-murder/

    In the article it states:
    "Although JonBenet’s half-brother John, 20, had been with the family Christmas Day, the only people known to have been in the Ramsey home that night are JonBenet, her older brother, Burke, 9, and her parents, Patricia (Patsy), 40, Miss West Virginia of 1977, and John, 53, a successful computer executive, who found his daughter’s body."

    What???

    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting at first glance.....until one considers the source: "People Magazine".

      Delete
    2. It would be great MsD if only it were John Andrew - his bedroom next to hers, his weekends there, his reported obsession with her pageant photos, his recognizing the movie quotes right off in the note, his suitcase with the adult Dr. Seuss book and stained duvet cover inside, etc, etc, but he wasn't anywhere near there Christmas day/night. I wonder why John didn't sue People magazine.

      Delete
    3. Well, the article didn't libel JAR in any way, it did say he wasn't in the house at the time his sister was murdered, so I'm not sure on what grounds he could sue, but I know absolutely nothing about the law, that is CC's domain.
      On the surface, JAR looks like a prime candidate - he had regular access to JB, seemed to be quite enamored with her, his duvet, suitcase and book were found at the crime scene.....except we know his DNA wasn't found on JB's body, he has at least two witnesses that place him in Atlanta on Christmas night, including an ATM photo and a movie ticket stub (the latter, admittedly, is not exactly compelling evidence), and his sister boarded a flight with him very early on boxing day morning. I also can't think of one compelling reason Patsy would cover for him. The evidence tells us that JAR couldn't have committed this crime, and it appears as though he was never a serious suspect.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Mrs D, I agree.

      FY

      Delete
  30. This proving we're not robots will soon require AI!

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  31. Questions. JB's body was battered. There was a large red inverted triangular "burn" on one side of her neck, and a long red bruise on the right side of her neck under the cord. There were bruises on her shoulder as if she had been held down, there was a round dark abrasion the ME called it, on her cheek under her ear, there were two odd, one small one large dark abrasions on her shoulder, scrapes on the back of her leg - we've all read the ME report and seen pictures of her body. If John struck the head blow first what would be the need for all of the abuse on top of that? Doc, you said long ago that she possibly got those marks on her body from rolling around on the litter on the floor, but then that would indicate a struggle, which some investigators believed there was none. If she got those bruises and abrasions from falling off her bike Patsy would have noticed, wouldn't she? She would not look pageant-worthy with a large circular bruise on her face. So it happened that night. Who would torture or fight with her before death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question, Castor. We have no way of knowing what happened that night, obviously. But there are all sorts of possibilities. Looks to me as though John must have sexually assaulted her shortly after bludgeoning her, and her wounds could have been sustained during that time, as he might have gotten carried away and gotten rough. It's very difficult to imagine what his state of mind might have been and what he might have done to what he assumed was her already dead body. If she'd been battered while still conscious her screams would most likely have awakened the entire neighborhood.

      Delete
    2. Okay, that explanation does quiet my mind a bit. It's also hard to imagine that Patsy would have gotten so rough, or that Burke would have experimented on his sister without her yelling out for help.

      Delete
    3. As far as the "large red inverted triangular "burn" on one side of her neck", that is seen on most strangulation victims, the rest could have come from dragging and positioning whilst she was still alive, but unconscious. I've read conflicting stories regarding the mark on her face - some say it was decomposition, some say it was an injury.

      Delete
    4. Ms D you have stated at least once before, including in response to my quoting this past August in the Burke thread, of Dr. Spitz's hypothesis about the strangulation and head blow in the course thereof, that "most strangulation victims show the triangular bruise" similar to the one on JonBenet's neck. In doing so you have linked to a very thorough analysis, with photos, of the triangular bruise to JonBenet's neck.

      However, the author of that analysis appears to believe the darkest green oval mark at the base of the triangle was the epicenter of a pressure applied in strangling the victim.

      From the link, and notice the experimental coincidental reference to "thumb and fingers":

      "The area we are most interested in is the carotid triangle shown here:

      If you place your thumb and fingers around your own neck and apply a little pressure, you can feel the area this is referring to. You’ll notice also by feeling around a bit that this triangular area has no muscles or structures close to the surface, and it represents somewhat of a voided area in this respect."

      The author appears be explaining a view that the central initial force occurred in the carotid triangle, and in the spot shown in the darkest green oval area in the illustration, approximately two inches below the garrote cord.

      See quote:

      "I believe that the reddish triangular (or cone-shaped) area shown in the autopsy photos and described in the autopsy report is caused by the rupture of a blood vessel, or a number of small capillaries, in the area of the base of the triangle (or cone). As these capillaries bled outward from the center of the traumatized area along the subcutaneous layer, the blood would be slightly restricted within the carotid triangle, an [sic,"and"] eventually work its way upward as it begins to trail off toward the apex and end at where the ligature furrow is."

      So the link to which you cite appears, to me anyway, to actually lend support to Dr. Spitz's view that the first strangulation occurred with a grab of the front of the neck without the [eventually inflicted] garrote.

      The point being that the perpetrator in the JonBenet case, if trying to cover up a digital assault with a broken paintbrush some time later, could also have tried to disguise (while also, perhaps knowingly or unknowingly, administering the final coup de grace) the initial manual strangulation with the use of a garrote, particularly if the perpetrator noticed the forming of the triangular bruise on the victim some time after the initial assault.

      For a chilling account of a survivor of a sexual assault/strangulation (notice her account of being able to scream during the struggle), please see the link just below published by the Wisconsin Medical Society, which then discusses the four usual methods of strangulation, including by hand and by ligature of some sort, including garrote. It is not for the faint of heart so be warned.

      http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/_WMS/publications/wmj/pdf/102/3/41.pdf

      Please notice on page 43 bottom left the quote about a "singular bruise being most often inflicted by the thumb of the assailant."

      Black Sheep

      Delete
    5. Thanks for your thorough and detailed reply, Black Sheep.
      One thing I have always maintained since joining this blog is my belief that the "garrote" was not used to kill JB (I've long believed she was strangled by other means, although, admittedly, I dismissed the idea of manual strangulation) and that it was probably used purely for staging purposes, as with the duct tape and wrist ligatures.

      Delete
    6. It's a bit overkill however to suggest that she was first strangled with, say, a scarf (where - bedroom/ kitchen/bar area?) then taken to another location where a second strangulation took place more vicious than the first such that strands of her hair were ripped out of her head at the knot at the back of her neck and around the knot around the paint stick. Looping the cord around her wrists resemble staging, and of course the duct tape over the mouth (since she was dead when that occurred) but the garotte was likely pulled tightly and twisted into her neck while still alive (but unconscious) from the head blow. That it didn't look like anything the genteel Ramsey folk would have done was the point.

      Delete
    7. From Kolar’s book:

      “Upon returning from Atlanta on January 2, 1997, Kaempfer spoke to fellow parent Susan Stine and was told about a conversation Stine had overheard taking place between Burke and her son, Doug. This was reported to have taken place on the afternoon following the grief counseling session that had been hosted at JonBenét’s school on the morning of Saturday, December 28, 1996. Stine appeared to Kaempfer to have been disturbed by the conversation and had listened to Burke and Doug talk about how JonBenét had been strangled. Based upon Kaempfer’s statement, it appeared that Stine had over overheard the boys discussing whether or not manual strangulation had been involved in JonBenét’s death. Stine described the conversation as being ‘very impersonal,’ and it struck her that the discussion about the details of JonBenét’s death was like the boys were ‘talking about a TV show.’ This discourse between Burke and Doug had taken place no more than two days following JonBenét’s murder and apparently had such an impact upon Stine that she brought it up in conversation with Mary Kaempfer at the first opportunity.”

      Delete
    8. "It's a bit overkill however to suggest that she was first strangled with, say, a scarf.....then taken to another location where a second strangulation took place more vicious than the first."

      The whole scene is "overkill" whichever way you look at it. My belief is that she was viciously strangled, thus the staging with the garrote had to be equally as brutal if it was to cover up the first. Her hair being entwined in the knots isn't particularly "vicious" - she was already dead (or unconscious, at the very least).

      "...The garrote was likely pulled tightly and twisted into her neck while still alive (but unconscious) from the head blow. That it didn't look like anything the genteel Ramsey folk would have done was the point."

      The "garrote" didn't function as one though, which is precisely why I believe it wasn't used to commit the murder, but rather, was just "window dressing". Precisely for the reason you mentioned above: a parent wouldn't garrote their child, that would have to be the work of a sadistic psychopath intruder, one belonging to a foreign faction, perhaps.

      Delete
    9. Yes I've read this story several times, Anonymous. If the details are accurate, then it proves a couple of things:

      1. The Stines weren't trying to protect their son or Burke, as many BDIs here have speculated.
      2. If Burke was genuinely unsure of the details regarding his sister's murder, then clearly, he wasn't involved.

      Delete
    10. In regards to dot point 2 above:

      Really? How can you say that? If Burke was the one who delivered the head blow, he wouldn't know what happened after. Saying this conversation alludes to Burke not being involved at all, is a huge assumption to make. The fact that Burke was talking about this so matter-of-factly shows he may have had some pretty serious issues.

      Delete
    11. You BDIs are everlastingly repetitive, but answer no direct questions, ever. Take your best shot at these, Zed, for once:

      If Patsy did both the murder and the cover-up, or just conspired with John in the latter, why did she use her own paintbrush and notepad?

      If Patsy and John colluded, why weren't their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911 in perfect synch, since they had four months in which to rehearse those stories before their first interview with LE in April of 1997?

      If John and Patsy conspired in the cover-up, why did they not finish staging the train room window, scattering broken glass on the floor, disruptung the dirt and dust in the window well, perhaps even using a golf club to displace the grate?

      If John was able to take a shower and change, why didn't Patsy?

      If Patsy and John were acting in tandem to " protect" Burke, why would two intelligent, educated, otherwise rational adults choose to risk the death penalty by strangling their daughter rather than calling an ambulance when she was found uunconscious?

      Delete
    12. Waiting, Zed. Ever so patiently. Again.

      Delete
    13. I don't live on this blog like you do CC. I'd be lucky to check it once per day.

      Just read your above post....are those questions the best you got? All of those questions can be answered with very simple and rationale answers.

      But given you have directed this post to “BDIs”, I’ll pass. I am not, nor have I ever been, a BDI believer.

      Delete
    14. Oh right. You're a proudly self-styled BSI. Answer 'em.

      Delete
    15. "Just read your above post....are those questions the best you got? All of those questions can be answered with very simple and rationale answers."

      So you keep telling us, but fail to prove that to be the case every, single, time. I mean, you never even try, Zed.....you're comments are so disingenuous, it's actually painful to read your posts sometimes. I don't think you realize how transparently obvious it is to most here that you refuse to answer because you can't.

      "But given you have directed this post to “BDIs”, I’ll pass. I am not, nor have I ever been, a BDI believer."

      You're seriously using a "loophole" as an excuse not to answer CC's questions? Please.....you have a different excuse every time her or I ask you these questions - even though they can apparently be answered "simply and rationally", which doesn't say a lot about you, does it?
      CC's questions above are ALL consistent with "BSI", so you have no credible reason for not even attempting to answer them.
      You do realize that BDIers like yourself who are consistently evasive, cocky and deflective (and there are so many of you, it seems) actually do more harm than good when it comes to defending your theory, don't you?

      Delete
    16. *The above should read "your comments." I know this isn't important to most, but I'm absolutely anal when it comes to "your/you're" and "there/they're/their!

      Delete
    17. I'm not BDI Ms D, but you already knew that didnt you. You get up EG for not reading posts...then you do the same. I am BSI or RDI or whatever else you want to call it, so please stop labeling me otherwise.

      And no, I am not evasive or cocky. You just don't like the answers you are given. Its JDIers who seem hell bent on defending their little theory...you know that does your theory more harm than good, right?

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

      Delete
    19. Ummm....no. Presenting a good argument and defending it does not do one's argument any harm, don't be so silly. Making constant, inane excuses as to why you won't answer your opposition's questions (such as someone not referring to you as you wish to be labeled) makes you look as though you are avoiding answering because you're well aware of how weak your argument is.

      "I'm not BDI Ms D, but you already knew that didnt you. You get up EG for not reading posts...then you do the same."

      Oh for Pete's sake, I clearly alluded to the fact you're a "BSI" by the words in my comment: "CC's questions above are ALL consistent with "BSI", so YOU have no credible reason for not even attempting to answer them".
      Clear enough for you?
      When I later made the statement "you BDIers" (I can't believe we're actually having this discussion.....how old are you, twelve?), I use the term for anyone who thinks Burke was INVOLVED in his sister's murder. Come on, Zed, MOST BDIs only believe he delivered the head blow and the parents did the rest - you're not Robinson Crusoe there, despite your claims - yet they don't get their knickers in a twist when I don't call them "BDIs", which is what they consider themselves to be. You are BDI, so why don't you stop arguing semantics in order to derail the conversation, and get over it.

      This conversation is so utterly ridiculous.

      Delete
    20. By the way, I "get up EG" for IGNORING my posts, which I find to be very rude, and entirely missing the point of a public forum. I read ALL of your posts, Zed, so I'm not doing the same at all. If you have an issue with the semantics I used - fine - but don't say I don't read your comments, because, quite clearly, this is demonstrably false, as I always answer you (much to your chagrin), and usually include your very own quotes.
      Again.....a completely disingenuous response on your part.

      Delete
    21. I answered the questions 12 hours before you replied with the above. But as I expected, you and CC completely ignored it. I wonder why.

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

      Delete
    23. Will you stop with this "ignoring" bullshit? You know damn well I respond to EVERYTHING you say, because you've told me it pisses you off! Can't have it both ways, Zed.....do I ignore you, or do I hound you, which is it?

      I read your answer AFTER posting my above comment and it was so full of holes I knew I'd have to give a detailed rebuttal and didn't have the time to do it before leaving for work - some of us do have to work, Zed, we're not all as fortunate as you, alas. You didn't offer one, single, reasonable rebuttal for any of the points CC listed, but you did answer (technically), so I accept that's as good as we're going to get from you.

      I respond to almost every single comment on this blog, no matter how ludicrous those comments might be, so I don't want anyone telling me otherwise - I'm here probably the most, along with Castor, maybe. It is YOU, Zed, who is the MASTER of ignoring posts, a fact that has been pointed out many, many times.....your hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

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

      Delete
  32. On another incidental note of interest to readers of this blog, regarding the all important DNA exoneration, notice, first of all, the scrutiny (including requiring detailed descriptions from the surviving victim of the alleged kidnapping, resulting in two police sketches of the female captors) by police applied to the victim's statements regarding her alleged kidnapping last November, and interestingly the back of the hand that law enforcement appears to be giving to the female DNA found on the victim's body, which "doesn't match anyone in the police database" or words to that effect.

    It has a familiar ring to it doesn't it?

    Link: http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/cops-say-details-in-abducted-joggers-story-dont-add-up/

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
  33. Does anyone know what the black dime-sized mark is just below JonBenet’s ear? I thought it could have come from a cigar butt. John Ramsey stored a box of cigars in the wine cellar. Fleet White picked up the box but never could explain why he did. Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it did Anonymous, then we go back to a bind torture kill scenario, there would be no need for it, and/or she would have screamed.

      Delete
    2. Castor,

      She did scream according to that one neighbor. I know she later said she could've been dreaming, etc, However, what if she wasn't dreaming, what if she really heard a scream.

      EG

      Delete
    3. She did hear a scream, then her husband said he heard the sound of metal scraping on concrete. Ear and eye witness accounts, sadly, are usually discounted because a memory is an interpretation, not a record, a well-known movie critic from L.A. said.

      Delete
    4. Yep, makes you wonder, doesn't it, Castor? They did find that metal bat laying outside which had a fiber on it from the basement rug. To me, her body looks bruised and battered and the strangulation, horrific.

      EG

      Delete
    5. Wrong again, as ever, Inq/Castor/Pollux. The scraping metal sound was not heard by the husband of the scream-hearing woman, who recanted altogether, and then later said it may have been JonBenet's negative vibes she heard, or some such Boulder shit.

      Delete
  34. Q. If Patsy did both the murder and the cover-up, or just conspired with John in the latter, why did she use her own paintbrush and notepad?

    A. Because there had to be a note. Her notepad was a logical item for this purpose. They wouldn't have known it could be traced back to that specific notepad but they didnt have many other options. And even if it was traced back, the pad was something an intruder could have found and used. Would have been more suspicious if it was paper that was more difficult to find in the house. Same story with the paintbrush. Not sure how this rules out Patsy in any way.

    Q. If Patsy and John colluded, why weren't their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911 in perfect synch, since they had four months in which to rehearse those stories before their first interview with LE in April of 1997?

    A. The Ramseys constantly changed stories. Both of them. They both lied countless times. Who knows what version of the 911 call is correct. John didnt gas light or trick Patsy into saying things though. She sometimes said what she wanted, which probably infuriated John at times. The window is confusing with whatever theory you look at.

    Q. If John and Patsy conspired in the cover-up, why did they not finish staging the train room window, scattering broken glass on the floor, disruptung the dirt and dust in the window well, perhaps even using a golf club to displace the grate?

    A. They did stage the train room window. But they werent seasoned criminals. I doubt I would ever think of getting rid of dust. You dont seem to be able to comprehend how frantic they would have been that night and how little time they had after writing the RN. Nothing about the train window points to Patsy not being involved. It just points to two parents trying to cover their tracks as best they could with no idea what they were doing. I am sure that window/scene was on John's mind all morning and who knows what he changed.

    Q. If John was able to take a shower and change, why didn't Patsy?

    Umm, maybe Patsy didn't feel like having a shower. Maybe they decided it seemed too suspicious if they both took a shower. Not sure how this question is relevant in any way.

    Q. If Patsy and John were acting in tandem to " protect" Burke, why would two intelligent, educated, otherwise rational adults choose to risk the death penalty by strangling their daughter rather than calling an ambulance when she was found uunconscious?

    A. This has been answered so many times before so I'm not going to answer again.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You may already have this Doc, but there is quite a nice paragraph of John and Patsy's lefthand writing sample hand printing I know I hadn't seen before, ordered by the investigation from link below. It's longer than the little sample we had of John's work related sentences. I juxtaposed the samples next to the ransom note sample and my verdict is John wrote the note with is right hand, not left, and Patsy same. Or Patsy could have used right and left hands (if she wrote note). Neither were a match. But maybe you will see something I don't see. I also think when you are writing with a Sharpie pen your letters will appear fatter than normal. I can email it to you if you have difficulty pulling it off this site. Scroll down past Patsy and John's wedding photos, past Linda Arnt's report (interesting reading) about 2/3 of the way down.

    https://shakedowntitle.com/cases/jonbenet/

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

      Delete
    2. You're busted, Castor/Inq - only Inq misspells "Arndt" every time out of the box, posts compulsively, thinks van der Leek is a worthwhile source.

      Delete
    3. I just read Linda Arndt's report and noticed she said that Patsy told her she called her mother to tell her about the kidnapping that morning.

      When Patsy get the opportunity to call Nedra since the police arrived shortly after the 911 call? (Patsy called the Whites and the Fernies right after 911 and then was waiting at the door for the police)

      Did she call on the house phone or a cell phone?
      Was there a phone record of that call?

      FY

      Delete
    4. It has NOTHING to do with Van Der Leek. Are you going to say printing pictures of Patsy and John's wedding have to do with Van Der Leek as well? This is a copy of a document that was asked of the Ramsey's to comply with. Words from the ransom note, written with their left hand. Get a grip.

      Delete
    5. Good, FY. Of course we'll never see those phone records.

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

      Delete
    7. Inq is also the only poster here who says "in here" or "in this blog" rather than "on this blog". Yup, you're busted, Inq.



      Delete
    8. That was a great website you posted, Castor! Lots of information and pictures I hadn't seen anywhere before.

      Thanks for posting that. I've bookmarked it so I can go back to it. I've spent a lot of time there tonight.

      EG

      EG

      EG

      Delete
    9. OOopss..not sure why the EG went crazy there.

      Sorry about that, folks!

      Delete
    10. Castor, I was unable to find the documents you referred to so, yes, please email them. Thanks.

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

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

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

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

      Delete
    2. It's getting personal again. Please stay on topic.

      Delete
  39. Hey stop the personal attacks. I love cc's posts. I think she is quite intellegent and insightful

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm with you, Anon. CC is only one of a handful of posters here whose comments are worth reading.....even though I read them all because, clearly, I'm a masochist. :)

      Delete
  40. “When Patsy get the opportunity to call Nedra since the police arrived shortly after the 911 call?“

    The call was made from John’s cell phone. The police didn’t allow any outgoing calls to be made from the home line since they were expecting a kidnapper to be calling.

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Gumshoe!
      I wonder if anyone overheard the call and what Patsy said to Nedra.

      FY

      Delete
  41. I've been thinking about the sequence of the phone calls on 12/26.

    Patsy calls the Whites then the Fernies way before calling her family in Atlanta.
    Why wouldn't she have called Nedra right away?
    Yes physically the family was in Atlanta but it seems odd to me to reach out to friends first.

    Also why didn't John call his kids right away?
    He never did call his kids at all that day, one of the Ramseys called the pilot only. The kids called the house after the pilot informed them of what happened.

    Seems odd to me.

    FY

    ReplyDelete
  42. FY...

    Some believe that JR/PR called neighbors in order to compromise the crime scene.

    Some believe, PR called them because she was scared and figured there was safety in numbers.

    I have no idea why JR didn't call his kids right away. Perhaps he wasn't thinking clearly, or perhaps he asked the pilot to call them for him.

    There are lots of questions that come to mind where the R's are concerned, as far as their behavior before, during and after the crime.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  43. I also heard their cell phone records show no calls were made in the month of December, how could that be possible if Patsy called Nedra that morning on the cell phone?

    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy told LE in her April, 1997 interview that John had lost his cellphone some time in 1996 and got a new one for Christmas. She received one as well.

      Delete
    2. Correct CC, but why wouldn't the call to Nedra on the 26th show up on the cell phone record?

      FY

      Delete
    3. Maybe she used her own, or borrowed Fleet's. What does it matter, FY?

      John didn't call Melinda and John Andrew because they were in the air. Mike Archuleta called the airline company at the Minneapolis airport.

      Delete
    4. John having lost his phone explains the no calls on his phone but wouldn't LE looked at the records for both his and Patsy's phones?

      I am just trying to find out if it checked out- that there were no suspicious calls found on either one of their cell phones on 12/25 or 12/26.

      FY

      Delete
    5. One would assume so. Again, Patsy just received hers and John just got a replacement for Christmas, less than 24 hours before. Not much to see.

      Delete
    6. One of Steve Thomas's complaints was that Hunter's office would not subpoena phone, bank and credit card records, and they were not obtained until years after the murder, iirc.

      Delete
    7. CC, do we know why Hunter didn't subpoena the Ramsey's phone records etc.? Isn't that standard procedure?

      Delete
    8. It is S.O.P., and my best guess is that Hunter was too cozy with defense counsel as well as disinclined to approach any case with real investigative or prosecutorial vigor.

      Thanks for the kind words earlier, D. Right back atcha'.

      Delete
  44. FYI, I'm still at the office, Inq, and that ain't unusual. Fully half my practice is pro bono in these, my golden years, and so billable, but a write-off. Further, I never use my firm's computers, tablets or devices when contributing to this site. To avoid any conflict of interest I only use my personal smartphone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc - Are you Ok with me asking CC about the stuff going on in Washington? It's your blog so I dont want to write political stuff if you are opposed. I guess you will just delete this if you don't want it on here...but I am curious about the legality of everything

      Here are my questions CC:

      -How much can Trumps words to Lester Holt or the firing of Comey go against him in an obstruction case?
      -If he gets impeached and Pence pardons him, is he clear of everything?
      -Is Trump allowed to pardon anybody at any time?

      I check my twitter feed every minute for an update, but it's hard to get good information about some of the legal aspects of everything.

      -J

      Delete
    2. If Trump did indeed ask Comey to "lay off" on the investigation into Mike Flynn's Russian ties, and if Mueller can prove it, he attemped to obstruct justice. The Lester Holt interview was improper, but probably not obstructive, at least based on my memory of it.

      Yes. A presidential pardon wipes the slate clean - which is precisely what Ford did for Nixon, and yes, a president may pardon any citizen of any misdeed.

      I'm fascinated by it, too, J, and check CNN several times a day. Robert Mueller is a prosecutor's prosecutor, the antithesis of Alex Hunter.

      If you want, or if Doc finds the topic inappropriate, I'll send you my blind e-mail address.

      Delete
    3. I, for one, find the goings on in D.C. at many levels to be both fascinating and sickening at the same time. I'm talking about both political parties, too. The problem I have is that I don't know who to believe and what news sources to trust. I basically don't trust any of them so to have a discussion, even if on another blog, we would need a good source for just the facts, ma'am.

      Delete
    4. I have no problem with anyone who wants to discuss the current political situation on this blog, especially pertaining to Trump-Comey-Mueller. Might perk things up a bit here.

      My own take is a bit complicated, as I have very mixed feelings regarding Trump's qualifications for the presidency. (I'm a long-time liberal and voted for Hillary.) But my feelings are NOT mixed regarding the allegations that Trump is/was involved in some sort of conspiracy, involving collusion with the Russians (i.e., Vlad "the Impaler" Putin) to promote his campaign.

      To put it in the simplest terms, if such a conspiracy existed, Trump would certainly have kept a tighter rein on his son, son-in-law and other assorted associates, and their contacts with influential Russians would have been made under a thick veil of secrecy rather than a thin glaze of easily exposed denial.

      Here is Comey's version of Trump's controversial request, from a BBC report (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40196105):

      "He alleges Mr Trump asked him to drop the investigation into then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn."[Trump] said, 'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.' I replied only that 'he is a good guy.'"

      The key word here is "hope," which appears twice in the request attributed to Trump. According to Comey himself, Trump never actually ordered him to drop the Flynn investigation, only expressed a "hope" that he would, based on his assessment of Flynn as basically "a good guy," implying that his intentions were good even if his actions were questionable or even, strictly speaking, illegal.

      I can imagine this sort of conversation taking place between many presidents and their subordinates. Take, for example, the relation between Bill Clinton and Mark Rich, whom, along with many others, he pardoned during his last days in office. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy)

      If Trump had actually ordered Comey to halt the investigation, that would certainly have been grounds for an obstruction of justice charge. But that did not happen. Now as far as Trump's firing Comey, that's another matter, but strictly speaking, as Comey's superior, he had every right to do so. Firing a subordinate is NOT obstruction of justice. (Though it was probably a mistake.)

      I'm amused at the reactions of the Democratic party mainstream, now praising to the skies the very guy they were attacking so viciously only a few months before, when Comey decided to release those additional emails.

      But the paranoia of the Democrats and the liberal press with whom they are so strongly aligned is beyond amusing -- it's alarming. I'll have more to say on that topic presently, if anyone is interested.

      Delete
    5. After he was fired, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he felt a "hope" from a sitting president speaking in the Oval Office WAS an order, and likened it, aptly imo, to the Henry II quote - "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" - which resulted in a'Becket's murder the next day.

      I too find the BBC the most (relatively) unbiased source of US news, but they, unsurprisingly, don't post breaking details as promptly as CNN, so I use the latter for instant coverage and later fact-check via the former.

      Delete
    6. I voted for Hillary, but in no way do I think she is above the law like a lot of the Trump supporters I know. If she broke the law, then she deserves to be “locked up” as they love to chant. Trump on the other hand seems to be above the law for those that voted for him and that frustrates me. This to me is the biggest admission of guilt by him:

      Trump lashes out at reporters, newspapers, actors, Democrats, Republicans or literally anybody who opposes him. He calls them names and whines about it on Twitter. Then news comes out that Manafort, Gates, Sessions, Papadopolous, Flynn, Don Jr and Jared Kushner all lied about their contacts with Russia. Their lies have put his Presidency and reputation in serious danger. So, IF Donald Trump is truly innocent, why doesn’t he lash out at these people? He’s not calling those people out because he knows what he did and doesn’t want them talking to the authorities about him.

      Very simply, he is the most corrupt and unqualified President we have ever had. Yes, I voted for Hillary and I am not a Mike Pence fan, but dear God, please bring some level of respectability and decency back to the most important job in the world.

      -J

      Delete
    7. It's not clear that they all lied, though some certainly did. And the contacts in question appear to have been innocuous. As I see it, the whole Russian thing has been blown way out of proportion. The only evidence that Putin ordered the DNC email "hack" comes from the same sources who gave us the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Iran-Contra scandal, the "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco, the "yellowcake uranium" allegations, and God knows what else.

      The culprit, as in so many other cases, seems to be our old friend, confirmation bias. They saw what they wanted to see, and because they wanted it so badly they became convinced it had to be true.

      No solid evidence of Russian involvement in the so-called DNC email "hack" has ever emerged. As I understand it, Podesta was scammed into revealing his password by someone on a phishing expedition. No need for sophisticated hacking methods -- a teenage kid operating out of his parent's basement could have done it, for all we know.

      And yes, Trump has lashed out right and left. That's his style. Bull in the China shop. He leads with his mouth, not his brain, and that's one of reasons I have such serious doubts about his competence. I must admit, however, that I find his outspoken style both amusing and refreshing. Unlike most politicians, we always know what is on his mind, because he has no compunctions about revealing it. Most politicians are smooth. Comey is certainly smooth. Obama is/was smooth. Hillary is smooth. Trump is crude. I'm tired of smooth, because smooth too often smooths over the harsh realities, smooths over the deceptions, the half-truths. It's the style of most politicians and its intent is to deceive. Which is what political correctness is all about. Say the "right thing" at all times and never reveal either your true feelings or the truths about yourself that must remain hidden at all costs. Trump hasn't got a politically correct bone in his body and when you totally reject p.c. you can come across as vulgar and crude, yes. But there is also some real honesty in it, even in the all too obvious "lies."

      Delete
    8. I take your point with regard to smooth/crude, Doc. Anyone who voted for Trump expecting him to change, to acquire gravitas, dignity and thoughtful discourse bought a pig in a poke, imo.

      The problem for me has always been foreign relations - in that respect he is truly terrifying, as his mouth has no filter, and his personality requires that he "win" every encounter, by any means.

      Delete
    9. CC - Thanks for the responses. My wife could care less about Russia-Gate, but I just can't get enough. I wasn't alive for Watergate, but have watched and read anything I can get my hands on about it. This current scandal will be the biggest political scandal in American history.

      I honestly think it's pretty simple what happened. The Republicans talked a big game for 8 years about winning this election along with repeal and replace of Obamacare. Then the primaries happened and to everybody's shock, it wasn't Jeb, Ted Cruz, Christie or Kasich...it was Trump who was leading the polls. The Republicans had a problem...they knew what he was, but the people were speaking so they had to go with it. From Trumps perspective, he tried his best to destroy Hillary, yet the polls were still saying he was going to get owned in the election. Then Russia comes along at some point offering a lifeline to his campaign and they took it. He thought he covered himself by having the Attorney General and part time Keebler Elf, Jeff Sessions to halt any investigation against him. He also had the NSA, Mike Flynn to help protect him. Then Sessions lied and had to recuse himself....Flynn had to resign and all hell is breaking loose. I am not sure they will get him on Russia, but possibly money laundering and other illegal activities. No chance in my mind that Trump sees 2019 as President...he will either be impeached or resign.

      -J

      Delete
    10. Nixon/McCarthy was the first election in which I was old enough to vote, and I had a bumper sticker on my Karmann Ghia that said "DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR McCARTHY.

      McCain (a lifelong hero of mine), Corker and Flake are bravely speaking out against Trump. If we're lucky there'll be a split in the Republican party because of them, between the Trumpsters and regular Republicans.

      Delete
    11. Doc,

      I agree with you. The thing I like about Trump is that he tells it like it is, no PC there. Total transparency.
      Oh yea, and he is a New Yorker! :)

      EG

      Delete
    12. Actually, E, he tells it like he wishes it was. A whole lot of his statements are exaggerations and outright falsifications, and the rest are self-serving and grandiose: "I have the best memory in the world". "I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me". In fact every time he says "believe me", one should not.

      And don't forget his prior shady business dealings - leveraged loans, loans to pay other loans, and four bankruptcies, from which he emerged even richer. As for the "total transparency" you just touted, he continues to refuse to release his tax returns - hardly even minimally transparent.

      And please explain to me the value of his "no PC" when it leads him to bully and name call the unbalanced leader of a totalitarian state that threatens nuclear retaliation?

      Delete
  45. I am a political junkie and find this whole thing fascinating. From the beginning when Trump announced he was running all the way up until the present, it's been much watch TV.

    What I feel right now is total disgust and mistrust. They are all so corrupt, that at this point, I think many people feel as if you can't believe a word any of them have to say.

    And I agree with you Doc, it is alarming and just downright scary. Institutions that we've long held in such high regard, like the FBI, are suspect. That, to me, is frightening.

    Would love to hear what everyone thinks about the current state of affairs in this great country of ours.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of what do you suspect the FBI and/or other institutions, E?

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately networks like Foxnews keep peddling conspiracy theories and there is a large portion of this country that gets their news only from them. The other night, Hannity downplayed what Papadopolous said because he was only 29.

      Trump can say whatever he wants about Comey...he fired him because Comey was moving in on the Russia investigation. From all accounts, the FBI highly respected Comey. There is one problem right now and it's Donald Trump and his administration. No President is perfect...I am a hige Obama fan and he had his faults. I wouldn't trust Trump to run a Pizza Hut. "Nobody knows more about pan pizza's..believe me"

      -J

      Delete
  46. CC...

    I watch the news every night and it sickens me. The whole Comey thing stinks, and how the investigation into the emails went. Laptops and phones were destroyed, servers were wiped.

    Is anyone held accountable? I guess it's okay to do that. It seems like these corrupt officials/politicians keep getting away with more and more.

    I feel we Americans had to choose between the lesser of the two evils in this past election. He's a dangerous windbag that's full of himself and she's a career politician who thought she was owed the Presidency. Unfortunately, you need big money to play in the big political leagues. Obviously, money can't buy class.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  47. "To put it in the simplest terms, if such a conspiracy existed, Trump would certainly have kept a tighter rein on his son, son-in-law and other assorted associates...." - DocG

    I get the impression that Trump has always thought himself above the law. He's certainly gotten away with a lot over the course of his lifetime -- domestic abuse, sexual abuse/harassment, fraudulent business practices -- just to name a few.

    He's not someone who's used to dealing with consequences, so I can believe that he wouldn't necessarily think a tighter rein was needed. It's an interesting point, though, Doc.

    CC, would you mind posting your blind email again? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw Trump up close and way too personal at a black tie charity event at The Breakers in Palm Beach in 1993 or 1994, with Marla Maples. He was horrid - loud, rude, boorish - and spent the evening looking down women's dresses and up their skirts, with one hand on Marla's breast or ass the entire time. Not hard to believe him guilty of sexual harassment, or to think himself above the law. I never for a minute thought him electable in 2915-16.

      Of course, Canuck, with pleasure: oceanview2519@gmail.com I look forward to hearing from you.

      Delete