Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
The Case Against Self-Driving Cars
I have pretty strong feelings on this topic. For details, see my other blog, Things to Come. For more on the Ramsey case, stick with this one. :-)
Does anyone have any examples of where Patsy or John have repeated phrases from the ransom note? I just watched the depositions from the Wolf lawsuit and noticed John used the phrase "well rested" and Patsy used the word "particularly". FY
Everyone uses "particularly," particularly folks like me. Was "well rested" something he quoted from the note? For more on John's use of such phrases, see my post titled "Johnisms."
I just read the Johnisms and found a link to the transcript of the Newseum interview because I was shocked he used the words "and hence", I have never heard anyone use and with hence except in that ransom note. I also noticed this quote from John: "Uh, we are fully prepared to meet them in a full court of law, and I promise you…it's the only thing I'll promise you…we will…be victorious." Victorious just like Victory! in the ransom note! FY
Ok, so I just searched the John Ramsey handwriting sample compared to the RN..I kept going back and forth realizing both were a very sloppy style of hand writing. They look very similar at a glance. Then I noticed the misspellings of “occassions” in johns and “bussiness” in the RN. I am left handed and practiced writing with my right hand...the natural position and way to form letters with my right matched exactly to the “disproving” notations in the guide on the left of the page.
This guy totally wrote this with his other hand. It was literally obvious to me as I started doing it myself.
Yep. Why he was "ruled out" is anyone's guess... Had he not have been ruled out as the author of the RN, I believe there's a good chance he'd be serving time for the murder of his daughter today. A lot of mistakes were made with this case, but eliminating John as the author of the note was the single, worst thing that happened to this investigation.
John Ramsey's high-priced lawyers, being in the league of intelligence of DocG, likely told their client, John, that Patsy had something going for her in a big way, which was that she had been the one who called the police to the house in defiance of the kidnappers' note, and "who would call 911 on themselves?" Sound familiar?
Thus they needed to have the court of public opinion see a couple of things in the public record (in advance of a possible trial during which husband/wife privilege would block the introduction into evidence of a counter-narrative from John that he "told Patsy to call" during their discussion just prior to the call): One, a showing that Patsy made the call as John's proxy, that is, at his urging, so he got that out there whenever he could (over Patsy's objection or not, who knows, and her own lawyer should have been suspicious of that and seen what was happening to his/her client, particularly when she started taking all the flak in the press once John was "ruled out"), and Two, they needed some experts to rule him out as the ransom note's writer, and quickly, as he was a, if not "the", primary suspect.
Yes. There is no way the contradiction between Patsy's version (via the A&E special) and John's can be resolved and that in itself could have been hugely damaging for John. What saved him in this regard was (is) the widely held certainty that the two of them had to be in it together. Given that assumption, their lawyers could argue that the call demonstrated their innocence -- as no guilty person would have made such a call knowing his victim was still in the house.
And by the way, Patsy's lawyer wound up being John's lawyer as well, since the strategy was to join them at the hip from day one. If her lawyer had done his job, he'd have divorced himself from John's legal team and worked out an independent defense, but that never happened.
Thanks, Zed, for that very welcome info. In my experience, if you have a legitimate argument, you ought to be able to state it briefly and simply. What Zellner did was the exact opposite, muddying the waters with a huge long list of what amounted to little more than red herrings, aka tossing fistfulls of spaghetti on the wall and hoping something would stick. I don't care how "successful" she's been, what she did in this case was a disgrace to the profession. And when we add all her many tweets and her 100 point "challenge," it's hard to see how she can show her face in court again.
Agree completely. I expected better from her to be honest. Yet, she is now tweeting they have new evidence and witnesses!!?? I have no doubt she has been involved in some good wins in the past but she is coming across as a complete amateur at the moment.
Why was the chronic sexual abuse downplayed and was not front page news? I know there were a few experts that disagreed on the abuse but I would think that LE would focus on finding out who was sexually abusing JonBenet in order to find her killer?
I never thought the staging was made to look like a pedophile or sexual assault, if that were the case, why were JBR's pants not off,clothes torn, etc? It makes sense that it was premeditated seeing how as the note was absolutely perfect with no I's left undotted and T's crossed, margins aligned. But Why was the note still in perfect shape after being handled, no DNA even on the note, no fingerprints, etc? That makes me think that both the parents were involved, otherwise, the other one would have handled it more and read and re read and re read.
If both parents premeditated their daughter's murder, as you suggested, K1234, why didn't they complete the staging before dialing 911? Essentially, they would have had an unlimited amount of time to do so if the murder were planned in advance. And what do you think their shared motive for murdering their daughter could be?
Fingerprints are entirely dependent upon the amount of oils in the skin. John was right out of the shower, and Patsy had just finished her morning ablutions, dressed and put on make up. I don't find it surprising or sinister they didn't leave fingerprints.
I believe the note was left on the stairwell as three separate sheets next to each other, rather than as a stack. So, one could read it in full without touching it. Further, while it probably had several handlers, one imagines them handling it with care for fear they obliterate evidence from the kidnapper. Regardless, Patsy only read enough to understand her daughter was kidnapped. I imagine Patsy feared for Burke's safety more than she was curious about what he knew.
After she knew Burke was safe, the next thing would be to ask him if he heard anything during the night. That's just common sense to me. But nothing about this case makes any sense.
From what I've read there were no fingerprints on the RN but a smeared palm print was found. I believe the findings were inconclusive.
The only fingerprints on the RN were those of Chet Ubowski of the CBI.
You say that a lot, E, but what's your source? It would have taken but a second for John or Patsy to ask Burke if he'd seen or heard anything, and for him to reply in the negative. Do you know for a fact they were ever asked in any of their LE or media interviews? Or that the cop who questioned Burke briefly at the Fermies' (or was it the Whites') didn't ask?
But we know from Burke's interview that he wasn't asleep at all. His parent(s) had very likely asked if he'd seen or heard anything when they checked on him, before he was sent to the Whites', and the cop who spoke to him there probably asked him that very obvious question right off the bat.
I see no reason, and certainly no evidence, that supports your continual assertions.
Yes, we do know that Burke was awake, because he did say that he heard his parents that morning and even said his mother came into the room screaming, "where's my baby" or something like that. I don't recall him saying that his mother stopped and asked him if he had heard anything. Do you have any sources that said that either JR or PR questioned him?
This was from his interview with Dr Phil:
“The first thing I remember is my mom bursting in my room really frantic, saying, ‘Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh!, running around the room, now I know, looking for JonBenet,” he told the show’s host, Phil McGraw. “I was scared I think,” he said. “I didn’t know if some bad guy was downstairs (who) my dad was chasing off with a gun or ... I had no idea.” Ramsey remembered later being asked by another police officer where JonBenet might be and suggesting that she might be hiding. Later, at the home of a family friend, his father John Ramsey told him that his sister was dead. “My dad just said, ‘She’s in heaven,'” he said. “I was kind of like, ‘How is that possible?'”
Do you see anything in there mentioning JR or PR questioning him? I don't.
Oh, I see. So, you're assuming the R's asked him the question.
I am not doing the same thing at all. I am quoting what BR said in an interview with Dr Phil regarding the events and how they unfolded that morning from BR's perspective. Nowhere in there does he say that his parent's asked him if he heard or saw anything.
I heard what BR said, and what he didn't say. He never said he was questioned by his parents. In fact, he didn't know what happened at all according to his own words.
Well duh. You miss my point. I'm not attempting to offer proof - you are. "Did you see or hear anything?" was the very obvious question of Burke, yet it does not appear in anyone's account of the 26th, or in any subsequent interviews of anyone, including the cop who questioned Burke briefly on the 26th or the social worker who questioned him, on tape, in January of 1997.
Yet you assert it as fact that it was NOT asked, by John when he checked on his son, or by Fleet as he drove Burke to his home, or by the cop who questioned him briefly at the Fernies' later that day, or by the social worker who, famously, interviewed him on tape in January of 1997.
You continually assert he was NOT asked. I maintain that of course he was, and he had nothing to offer.
Well duh, you miss my point entirely. Of course he should have been asked, but evidently he wasn't because it's nowhere to be found. That's my point exactly.
I have no argument with that, and I do agree that LE most likely DID ask BR if he saw or heard anything that night. My issue is with the R's not asking him immediately upon finding the note. They claimed when LE arrived, that BR remained sleeping, and they didn't disturb him.
That - and sending Burke off to the Whites' - has always struck me as an effort to protect him from his mother's hysteria and the chaos and fear a police presence creates at a crime scene.
Yes and I can understand that and take no issue there either, however, I would've insisted on a police presence wherever he went, especially in light of the fact that there was a kidnapper on the loose targeting the R's.
BR was asked by Detective Patterson (at the White's) if he had heard anything. According to Kolar:
"The only noise he reported hearing after going to bed was the “squeaking water heater.” He did not hear any “scream, cry, yell or any raised voices” during the night."
Some think it's suspicious that PR and/or JR may have failed to ask BR what he heard that night. However, I think that no matter the scenario--JDI, BDI, PDI, IDI--PR and JR would have been experiencing a range of emotions and not necessarily thinking clearly/rationally. The responding officers, who had no emotional attachment to the victim, would have been thinking/reacting much more logically to the situation at hand. Both Kolar and ST reported that upon arrival, Officer French was told that BR was upstairs asleep. Both Kolar and ST also reported that Officer Reichenbach performed a search of the house, which included entering the bedroom of a "sleeping" BR. Neither officer woke BR to ask him if he had heard anything. If both officers failed to wake BR and question him, why is it so suspicious that PR/JR may have also failed to wake BR and question him?
Also, if BDI, why would PR run into BR's room, frantically asking, "where's my baby?"
For the same reason she made the call to 911 saying "we have a kidnapping." It was all part of the plan.
I do know that people react differently, especially in times of great distress and so this is pure speculation and opinion. However, I still find it suspicious. I do accept, respect and even welcome other opinions and perspectives. They allow me to see a situation from another's standpoint, which is always good.
I agree, EG. Even opinions I don't agree with still give me food for thought.
I assume you believe she called 911 that morning to get the ball rolling. Therefore, her call had a purpose--to alert the authorities/put their plan into action. What would be the purpose of her rushing into BR's room, asking "where's my baby?" She reportedly did this before LE arrived. If she, JR and BR were all aware of what had happened to JBR, why would she do this?
I've thought about that one, HKH and I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done. I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there. They assessed the situation, covered things up and never told him what he had done. In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister. Otherwise, to me, it doesn't make any sense. If JR had done it, PR would've known and she would've never covered for him. If PR did it, JR would've known and I doubt he would have covered for her. It only makes sense to me, if BR did it, because they'd both cover for him.
EG
Initially, I thought PR did it. I thought after a long day, she became enraged over a bedwetting incident. The fact that things were thrown around in the room, and the housekeeper saying PR often went into a rage shoving JBR into the bathroom when she had an accident. However, JR would have known that, and I doubt he'd have covered for PR.
"I've thought about that one, HKH and I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done. I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there. They assessed the situation, covered things up and never told him what he had done. In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister."
Burke Ramsey is socially awkward, not retarded.
Come on, EG, he'd have to be the world's dumbest kid to not be ale to put two and two together. This scenario has no credibility whatsoever. At any rate, you have previously stated you believe he did it all - the strangulation and the head blow - so how could he not be aware?!
"Otherwise, to me, it doesn't make any sense. If JR had done it, PR would've known and she would've never covered for him. If PR did it, JR would've known and I doubt he would have covered for her. It only makes sense to me, if BR did it, because they'd both cover for him."
Or, if no one was actually "covering" for anyone.....
I don't know what happened and neither do you. It's my belief that something happened that night that involved the children (some type of play that went wrong) and the adults covered for him/them. That's all I am saying because I do not believe that PR or JR would've covered for each other. I also don't believe that JR would think that sticking a paintbrush up his daughter's vagina would cover chronic sexual abuse. To suggest that, is absolutely ridiculous. JR wasn't retarded either.
And you don't know what BR remembers or doesn't remember. Traumatic incidents can cause amnesia especially in a young person's mind. Perhaps that's why BR is socially awkward and always will be.
EG, all I know is what you said here not so long ago, and what you said was that you believed Burke both struck his sister and strangled her to death, so I am merely asking you, how could it be that he was unaware of what he'd done? If we all have to maintain that Burke must have amnesia in order for your theory to work, you have to admit, that's not a very sound theory.
"I also don't believe that JR would think that sticking a paintbrush up his daughter's vagina would cover chronic sexual abuse. To suggest that, is absolutely ridiculous. JR wasn't retarded either."
We've been through this many, many times before. He didn't think it would cover previous abuse, hence his plan to dump the body where it wouldn't be found. The difference is, EG, your theory has two people colluding in a cover up, thus there would be no surprises when the police are called to the house. Staging would be complete before the call was placed, and stories would be in sync. Unlike the JDI theory, which has him being caught off guard, thus all subsequent staging is amateurish and rushed because it was NOT part of the original plan. This would simply not be the case if both parents decided to call the police when they did. The JDI theory doesn't require him to be "retarded" - no one is suggesting he has total amnesia, as you are with your BDI theory! Our scenario simply suggests he was in a position (after the police were called) that offered him no other alternatives but to muddy the waters as best as he could, which is exactly what he did. I doubt he expected it would work, and it probably wouldn't had he not been "ruled out".
First off, I still believe BDI all, what I am not sure about is who else was involved as in another child, or maybe not. I don't know because I wasn't there. I base my theory on the odd behaviors before and after the murder, as well as thinking the parents would not cover for each other.
If JR planned on dumping the body where it wouldn't be found, why bother staging the body? Why bother redressing her, using the paintbrush as he did? That makes no sense at all.
EG
Again, these were not career criminals. They were dealing with a stressful situation in a chaotic state.
"If JR planned on dumping the body where it wouldn't be found, why bother staging the body? Why bother redressing her, using the paintbrush as he did? That makes no sense at all."
Oh my gosh, EG, I've answered this exact same question from you no fewer than two or three times just in the last few weeks alone.....sheesh! Now I'm not sure if you're just feigning ignorance, or actually not bothering to read the responses I give you, which deters me from spending the time it takes to give you detailed answers in the future. You've been here long enough to not have to keep asking the exact, same, questions over and over again, surely.
If you believe Burke did it all, then please explain the comment you made a couple of days ago:
"I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done."
Then, please explain this one:
"I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there.....In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister."
How is a brutal, deliberate, strangulation "a horrible accident"?
How is it that Burke is smart enough to fool seasoned detectives, but too stupid not to realize how unlikely it was that a kidnapper came in and abducted his already DEAD sister (he killed her before going to bed according to your very own theory), then decided to leave her body in the basement in the very same state Burke had left her in (garrote twisted around her neck), but added some duct tape to his dead victim for good measure, then compiled a detailed ransom note for a ransom he never intended to collect?!
EG, I guess my first question, and my biggest problem with BDI, is why would the Rs not call an ambulance had a horrible accident occurred? Some BDIs' response to that question is that the Rs thought she was dead. But she wasn't dead. Even if her vitals were undetectable to the untrained, why would the Rs feel confident in determining she was already dead? Unless a child exhibited obvious signs of death--lividity, rigor mortis, decomp., etc.--I can't imagine a parent, with no medical expertise, deciding it was too late to try to save their child.
Another response I've seen BDIs offer as to why an ambulance wasn't called, and this seems to be your belief, is that BR did it all. She really was dead when the Rs found her, and because she had been strangled, there was no way to explain her death away as an accident.
If you believe that's the case, then we're back to my original question: why would PR run into BR's room asking, "where's my baby?" If BR did it all, there is no way he could be fooled into thinking he wasn't responsible for JBR's death, and therefore, no reason for PR's "charade" that morning. The Rs couldn't have covered the whole thing up and not told BR what he had done. He would have been well aware of what he had done.
"If you believe that's the case, then we're back to my original question: why would PR run into BR's room asking, "where's my baby?" If BR did it all, there is no way he could be fooled into thinking he wasn't responsible for JBR's death, and therefore, no reason for PR's "charade" that morning. The Rs couldn't have covered the whole thing up and not told BR what he had done. He would have been well aware of what he had done."
This is precisely my point, HKH, but EG is no longer answering my questions (conveniently), so hopefully, you might get somewhere.....though I can't see how that rather monumental flaw in her argument (that, after killing JB, Burke went and told his parents, hopped into bed, then was told in the a.m that his DEAD sister had been kidnapped for ransom....or not, as her body was found in the basement. Burke believes this kidnapper comes in, carries his already dead victim to another room of the house - presumably John and Patsy just left their dead daughter in her bed, where the kidnapper found her, after Burke told them what he'd done - sticks around long enough to write a 3 page ransom note, but then decides to leave the victim behind and not bother to call to demand the ransom) can be explained away rationally.
Amongst the many glaring holes in this theory, the most obvious is: why the heck would Burke believe an intruder tried to abduct his already deceased sister???
Ms D, I guess my post did end up being kind of a rehash of what you had already said. I often start writing a response and get sidetracked, only to come back hours later and refresh the page, and see my points have already been made.
Story time...I knocked my sister unconscious when we were little. She was under a blanket, asleep on the couch, and I didn't know she was there. I ran down our long hallway and flung myself onto the couch where she was laying. We bonked heads. When my mom picked her up, she slumped over and was unresponsive. Panicked, my mom called my dad and had him pulled out of a meeting with the governor, then she rushed my sister to the ER. This is the normal response of a parent who finds their child injured. Although I was younger than BR, I still remember bits and pieces of it.
I just don't think a 9 year old could be convinced he had nothing to do with it. Even more so, if he had been the one to do all of those horrible things to her--the sexual assault and strangulation.
No, they did not. They had to call Mike Archuleta by 6 or so, but all they had to tell him was JBR had been kidnapped. No time constraints on calling police - in fact it would have made more sense, and bought them 4 hours, to wait 'til after 10:00, the "kidnappers" deadline, before calling authorities.
Perhaps they thought they had finished. These weren't mastermind criminals, but rather desperate parents.
As far as cleaning up the glass, it was a small pane, so evidently wasn't too much to clean up. And as I've said before either way JR had an excuse for the broken window.
Why would he have needed an excuse? If all had gone according to plan, the broken window, glass and all, could have been exhibited as the entry and/or exit point for the "kidnapper." But he would first have to complete the staging, which would have been no problem if both he and Patsy were in it together.
I think JR staged it, together with the suitcase and scuff mark on the wall, to make it look like it was a point of entry/exit for an intruder.
Maybe it was an old break and when someone was boosted out of that window, an old piece of glass fell onto the suitcase. Someone claimed to have heard the sound of a grate moving. Perhaps someone small statured, as in a youngster.
Do we know conclusively if that was an old break or a new one? I don't recall a definitive answer on that one from LE. I may have missed it though am not sure.
"Do we know conclusively if that was an old break or a new one? I don't recall a definitive answer on that one from LE. I may have missed it though am not sure."
Ha! The million dollar question! In fact, there are entire chapters here on this blog dedicated to this subject, EG - discussions YOU'VE been a part of, so I'm kind of scratching my head over why you asked that one.....
As for the "scuff mark", I read somewhere recently (FFJ? Websleuths? I can't remember, and I can't seem to locate it) a post by a tradesman of some variety, who said it looked like it was actually some kind of water damage under the window, as he'd seen the exact same thing in many houses.
If John had to clean up the broken glass under the basement window to unstage but Patsy made the 911 call and police arrived within minutes and was present when Patsy opened the door to police when did he clean up the glass? Officer French went down to the basement shortly after arriving at the house. FY
He could have cleaned up the glass before the police arrived, while Patsy was still on the phone calling their friends. He could have taken advantage of the confusion after the police arrived and snuck down into the basement to clean up the glass before anyone noticed. We don't really know exactly who did what at any given time, but we do know that John said he was in the basement early enough to notice an open window and close it. And when Fleet went down there he reported that the window was closed. So John must have been down there before Fleet went down there. It was a small pane and a small break within the pane so there could not have been that much glass. Collect it into a paper bag, place the bag in an unobtrusive corner of the basement, wait till the opportunity arose, go back down there, smash all the glass into tiny bits and flush it.
How could he have run upstairs to get dressed (he was in his underwear) and still have time to go down to the basement to find a bag and clean up the glass and still be upstairs when Officer French arrives 7 minutes after the 911 call? FY
Please reread what I wrote, OK? There are many possible scenarios. Also, we have no reason to believe their report about what happened prior to the 911 call. Patsy's version is totally inconsistent with John's version. He may well have been fully dressed at the time. Or he may have found a way to sneak down after the cops arrived. Cleaning up a few shards of glass might well have taken no more than a minute or so.
Didn't Patsy agree that he was in his underwear? Didn't French search the basement right after arriving at the house? I believe Fleet found the window closed like he said but that John lied about finding it open and closing it. (Just another one of John's many lies). FY
Yes, Patsy said he was in his underwear. She also said that he told her to make the 911 call. But in the A&E interview she presented a totally contradictory description of what happened where and who said what. I've already covered the question of why Patsy would have lied. If you're curious look it up. (See the post titled "White Lies.) Fact is, the Ramseys were suspects and it's absurd to take the word of suspects when assessing any case. I happen to think they must have had a long discussion about what to do after Patsy read the note to John, and probably argued about it. As I see it, Patsy's ultimate version of what happened is due to her being manipulated by John, as explained in my post.
It's also a mistake to make any assumptions about what happened that morning and when. There are several different and contradictory timelines and we have no reason to accept any one over the other.
Now if you prefer to accept the absurdities of the intruder theory or if you prefer to accept the equally absurd story John told about breaking that window months earlier, then I suppose you can then accept the notion that there was no window glass to clean up.
However, as far as I'm concerned, no intruder theory makes sense and John's window story is clearly a fabrication to deflect attention from his breaking that window the night of the crime to stage an intruder. If that's the case, and I'm sure it is, then we have no choice but to accept that John would have found some way to clean up that broken glass (or at least most of it).
If you have a better theory, then by all means share. That's what this blog is for.
Thanks for sharing. But that is not a better theory, it is a worse theory. How was the staging complete, given:
1. The very suspicious break in a window that obviously no one had passed through, as there was no sign of any disturbance in the window sill.
2. The very suspicious presence of a suitcase propped under that same window.
3. The presence of the victim's body wrapped in a blanket and hidden in the most remote room of the house. Why would an intruder bother to wrap and hide the body rather than leaving it out in the open and taking off?
If both Patsy and John were in it together they would surely have completed the window staging and they would certainly NOT have wanted the police to find a hidden body wrapped in a blanket. They would have had plenty of time to do all that was necessary before calling the police.
John's many trips where he was unaccounted for, his disappearances and re-appearances going through his mail, closing the window, going back down with Fleet, shows someone who was not comfortable with the way things were left and had to do more to manipulate the scene.
Exactly, Castor. John conducted further staging of the crime scene, as photos of moved objects in the basement show. For an hour or more, his presence was unaccounted for...unlike Patsy, who never left the sun room, because innocent people have no need to run or hide.
I think I remember a cigar box was moved? What is the reason to move that as part of the staging? What was the significance of the objects that were moved? Also was John ever questioned about the moved objects and what was his reply? FY
There was some talk that some unsavory photos of JB were discovered in the basement, and in the discussion with Patsy involving the photos, LE also seemed to be very interested in this "wandering" cigar box. So, my guess - and it is just that, nothing more - is that the pics of JB were found inside said cigar box, and that is the reason why John moved it, possibly to a more remote location of the basement in the hopes it wouldn't be found. Had Patsy and he been in cahoots, I'm sure he would have known to dispose of such incriminating evidence BEFORE inviting the police over to find his daughter's body in the very same location he kept such photos. It is my belief that JB was no stranger to being brought down to the basement by Daddy in the wee hours of the morning, where he took photos of her, amongst other things.
JR was asked about the cigar box during his 1998 BPD interview. He said that he had originally placed the box on top of one of the paint cans in the WC. When shown crime scene photos by LE, he described the box as being overturned and lying on the floor. Actually, he specifically said that it looked like the box of cigars might have been dumped out. He also, later on, said that there was (another?) box of cigars that he didn't remember being there. IIRC, FW reported handling the cigar box when he went back down to the WC after JBR's body had been found.
IMO, not everything that was claimed to have been moved, or out of place, was done as staging. I think the movement of some of these items was unintentional, but then later used to add to the idea of an intruder.
Several days ago, looking into the lack of prints on the note from the Ramsey's and also the question of whether Burke was questioned by either Ramsey during or after the chaos of that morning I re-read the 1998 police interview with Patsy by Haney. Patsy excitedly tells Haney she came downstairs and had gotten all the way to the bottom of the stairs (which she indicates possibly on a police photograph with an X) before she noticed a note, and turns around to read it. She says she read a few lines, croaked out John's name (said she could barely get his name out), ran upstairs, pushed open JB's door, saw JB wasn't there (and a discussion ensues about whether her lamp was on) and went back downstairs to the note. She does not tell Haney in this interview that she checked on Burke, but Burke's account to Dr. Phil was that she ran into his room and turned his light on and off "acting all psycho." She's now back downstairs, John comes down, and she tells him there is a note and picks it up and hands it to John. She goes over this several more times, where she repeats she picks up the note and hands it to him. She also says he takes the note from her. He then fans it out on the stairs and reads it. In his underwear. There is then some unaccounted for time when Patsy assumes John checks on Burke as he returns and says Burke is okay. Not clear whether he gets dressed at the same time or not because she says he comes downstairs dressed as well. She says he tells her to call 911, to call the police.
Does she not remember going into Burke's room - or did she go into Burke's room only to see if JB was there, not to check on Burke. Did John really check on Burke? Handling the note too - there would surely be stress related sweat on her fingertips, or from the exertion of going up and down the stairs and into rooms and back downstairs. John being careful with the note I can understand, but Patsy is a different story. And was there concern for Burke? Or was the concern mostly in the telling of the story later for the police, in John's account.
The timing of that interview though Doc, 1998. Patsy certainly could have changed her story over who suggested calling 911, and leaving out the detail of whether she went into Burke's room or not. What could only have been accomplished had they been questioned separately, the evening of the 26th or morning of the 27th. What a travesty of justice.
Right EG. Simple math - subtraction. The man who wasn't there. The woman who's prints aren't visible, and the boy who was asleep.
Shifting to the new DNA testing in a CNN article dated 12/14/2016 D.A. Stan G. said he isn't sure whether they will use DNA from pieces of evidence or only re-test results they already have. And, "Boulder police officials said they will only have comments if there is new information to be announced." So if we are waiting for results it could be there are results, but there is nothing new. And it backs up what Doc has said all along, that this isn't a DNA case. So now what.
Castor....I agree with Doc on that as well and am sure the DNA testing will be inconclusive. And you're so right when you said the R's should've been separated and questioned. The RN threw LE off, as they were then looking for a kidnapper.
Ms. D.....I have to admit that I seldom read your posts. They tend to go on and on into meaningless, accusatory and condescending drivel which turns me off completely.
I suggest you do the same with mine, as you seem to have trouble understanding another's perspective on things and responding in a respectful way. And the last thing I want you to do is repeat yourself. I'm sure it's hard enough for people to read through your posts the first time.
EG, you're the one who keeps asking me the same questions, and now you tell me you rarely bother to read my responses....yet I'm the rude one? Pot, meet kettle.
"I'm sure it's hard enough for people to read through your posts the first time."
Most people here seem to do just fine, actually. The majority of my posts to you are respectful.....your above comment to me, on the other hand, was not. If you are going to demand answers on a public forum, at least take the time to read them, isn't that the point of being here? To discuss differing opinions? I may not agree with your viewpoint, but at least I respect you enough to read through your comments and respond as best as I can.
Ms. D, I thoroughly enjoy reading your well-researched, articulate posts and your replies to others. Keep doing what you do best, which is to net out a logical argument. Personally, I only skip over the posts of those who keep changing their point of view with every post or resort to belittling someone when they don't like the rebuttals they receive. So... I have to skip over EG unfortunately. -LE
Thank you, LE! I must admit, I am very disheartened to know that after spending a great deal of time compiling responses to the very questions EG asks me to answer, she doesn't even bother reading them. I find that to be more discourteous than any comment I've ever read here, and it really does make me wonder why people come to a discussion board when they have no interest in engaging in rational discourse with others who may not share their point of view. Glad to see you appreciate my posts though, LE, as I do yours! As long as I have the respect of the people here who count - those who have a genuine interest in mutual dialogue, and are capable of displaying a level of common sense and logic - I'll stick around.....I don't have to be liked by everybody, being popular is not my purpose for being here (which is lucky for me, huh?!) :)
That really should have read "composing responses", shouldn't it? "Compiling" just isn't right.....maybe "composing" isn't either.....gee, I need some sleep, because I just can't seem to get a grasp of the English language these past few days. I blame the new ketogenic diet - my brain is suffering the effects of a lack of sugar!
I'd like to see both MsD and EG get along. I think you are both well thought- out ladies, who have alot to contribute here. You have both helped me learn about this case beyond what I read for myself.
Ms D, since I have a computer programming background, "compiling" something makes total sense to me! Then again, that dates me as an former mainframe type. Ah well, I'd rather be a sleuth. -LE
Castor, I have absolutely nothing against EG whatsoever (though, knowing she skips over entire responses does sour things somewhat, admittedly). It is her most recent argument I have an issue with and I am simply asking that she defend it using logic and reason, which - given the purpose of this blog - is more than reasonable, I think.....don't you?
Ms. D presented a premeditation scenario regarding the plane and JR’s plan to conceivably send Patsy and BR away, which I found very compelling. While an internally devised plan can’t be proven it still paints a picture of calculations which make sense. (Tip of the hat, Ms. D)
Essentially I agree the case most likely will not see a court room, unless additional forensic evidence is developed. It’s always been a circumstantial case which called out for forensic evidence to seal it.
But just for discussion on putting together a circumstantial case, placing Ms. D’s thoughts together with CC’s theory of JR’s panicked mindset after the Dec. 17th emergency calls, I’m wondering if the airlines have records of when the Atlanta to Minneapolis flights for the older kids were arranged. If he used his frequent flier number, those records might still exist and determine if the flights for the kids were changed to Charlevoix via Minneapolis when he learned on the 17th his daughter might need to have a more extensive examination. Simply a late-hour thought here. -Anon5
There are a lot of comments about whether the staging was complete or not. My take is that they probably thought the staging WAS complete. When staging the window, they were very limited with what they could do. At the time of morning that they were staging, there was snow on the ground, so they couldn't risk footprints being seen in the snow nor could they risk being seen breaking their own window by a neighbor. Therefore the Ramsey's were limited to staging an entry point from inside the house. The alibi would be that they were asleep and heard nothing. That alibi gets destroyed if they are seen leaving the house by anybody. The spider web being in tact is simply an oversight and not something that would have been easily noticed in the middle of the night
But then why undo all of that staging by calling the police. What reason would they have for stating their daughter has been kidnapped, via the note, and then not have it BE a kidnapping?
At the very least you would have to say that two heads were worse than one if you think they were both involved.
It is my contention that IF it was solely John responsible and his master plan was to dump the body, then Patsy never makes that 911 call. For one thing, John wakes up 1st to ensure he has "read" the note first to control the scene. It makes zero sense that John would leave EVERYTHING up to chance that Patsy believed the warnings in the note that he didn't put until a few lines into the note.
The body was hidden in the house. The hope would be that the police believed the note so much that all resources would be sent away from the house.
Then J, she shouldn't have called the police in the first place. Your hypothesis is that they were in on it together. They staged the scene. They wrote the note. Then why bring the police in to it at all? They didn't call the police, she did.
"The body was hidden in the house. The hope would be that the police believed the note so much that all resources would be sent away from the house." The police believed in the note. And all efforts were being put in dealing with a kidnapping. But it was John who "found" the body in the house basement. Why did he find it if it was their plan to hide the body in the house and fool the police using a ransom note? If they were in on it together they could have dumped the body before calling the cops and family friends.
I hit publish before finishing my thought :( I believe Patsy lied many times. If those lies did or didnt help her, I don't know but I know that an innocent person doesn't lie. So, I'm really confused about that. Howevert, I can't find a reason why she would call the police if she was in on it with John. That call totally changed the game. If we can find a sensible answer to that dilemma, only then we can consider she was involved in the crime and/or cover up.
Doc has offered a rather credible explanation as to why Patsy might have lied to LE once she knew John had been "ruled out" - and, as a result, she was now suspect number one. She felt she had no choice but to remain united with John, and this meant corroborating John's version of events. Not to mention, we know that much of what is put down to "Patsy's lies" aren't, in fact, lies at all. What was going through Patsy's mind in the months/years after her daughter's murder, and how much she may have suspected her husband, I have no idea, and I often wonder (though her words to Det. Arndt shortly before her death suggest Patsy really did believe JB was killed by an intruder). All I'm certain of, is that when Patsy placed that 911 call on the 26th Dec, 1996, she couldn't have known her child lay dead in the basement, and I think Doc's theory has virtually all but proven this is the only viable scenario.
I don't know how much stock I put into linguistics, but I was reading over JR's 1998 BPD interview again, and this response stood out to me.
"We have said to ourselves, look, there is never going to be a victory in this, there is no victory, but if we can find who did this, there could be some closure..."
I know this has been discussed repeatedly, but I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation to why Patsy (June 1998 transcript) claimed she saw a red heart on JonBenet’s palm the morning of the 26th despite saying only a few minutes earlier that she had not noticed any sort of marks on her body the night before. After a brief recess, Patsy returned to the interrogation with an opportunity to provide an understandable reason why she verbally slipped. The best Patsy could do was say that she could not remember if she actually saw the heart or had only read about it. Keep in mind, only minutes ago during the interrogation, Patsy was adamant that she had seen the heart and even went so far as to remark on how well it was drawn. What does this tell us for certain? At the very least, Patsy was involved.
HANEY: On the 25th, 12 Christmas, when you put JonBenet to bed, did she 13 have any marks on her? 14 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I noticed. 15 THOMAS HANEY: Any scratches, cuts, 16 bruises? 17 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I noticed. 18 THOMAS HANEY: How about, did she 19 have any marks from markers or anything like 20 that? 21 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't notice 22 anything that night when she went to bed. And, 23 you know, I know there was a red heart on her 24 hand or her forehead. I don't know when that -- 25 I mean, you know, I didn't -- I didn't inspect 0195 1 her when I put her to bed. 2 THOMAS HANEY: But when you put her 3 to bed, let's talk about that. We will go into 4 a little more detail later, because we have some 5 photographs and we want to talk about that. You 6 were -- at least changed part of her clothing 7 when she is asleep? 8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum, right. 9 THOMAS HANEY: Doesn't -- 10 (INAUDIBLE). Did you notice anything? 11 PATSY RAMSEY: (No response.) 12 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have 13 washed her hands at a particular time? 14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, at dinner, she 15 rarely washed her hands. 16 THOMAS HANEY: Would she, or 17 perhaps she had been eating crab and you have 18 that slimy stuff all over? 19 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I think she is 20 going to wash her hands. But I didn't see her. 21 I don't know. 22 THOMAS HANEY: Getting her ready 23 that early afternoon, four or five o'clock, did 24 you give her a bath, did she take a bath? 25 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think so. 0196 1 THOMAS HANEY: You don't think you 2 gave her one? 3 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh. 4 THOMAS HANEY: Do you think she 5 took one? 6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, she didn't take 7 one (INAUDIBLE). 8 THOMAS HANEY: Showers? 9 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh. 10 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have 11 washed her hands before getting ready to go? 12 PATSY RAMSEY: I'd like to think 13 so, but I just don't know for sure. 14 TRIP DeMUTH: At the Whites, did 15 somebody say, oh, here, get ready for dinner? 16 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at 17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that? 18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. 19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about 20 washing her hands? 21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid, 22 you know, if she can get by with it, she 23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much 24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.) 25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to 0197 1 that at all Christmas Day? 2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I 3 don't remember exactly, but I may have. 4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there 5 was a heart on her hand? 6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on 7 there in the morning, that's why. 8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it 9 from the next morning? 10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum. 11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next 12 morning? 13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum. 14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next 15 morning, did you remember it from the previous 16 evening? 17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No 18 response.)
Time becomes warped during crisis. Patsy saw her daughter's body in full rigor, arms (and hands) frozen above her head, around 1:00. Morning, afternoon, lose all meaning under life-and-death stress.
CC - details matter. I could still tell you my exact movement from the morning of 9/11. You can only use the "Patsy was under distress" excuse so many times before a pattern emerges. Every clue matters, so a drawing on her hand that wasn't there when she goes to bed and then appears the next day is not something you forget
If we isolate simply this incident, then no, there isn't anything necessarily sinister about this one single event. The problem is that with Patsy, the JDI crew have had to make excuses for all of her odd behavior.
-She lied for John about the window because he gaslit her -Shes wearing the same outfit because she probably fell asleep in it -JB may or may not have taken a bath -She was acting weird because of medication -She couldn't remember specific details because she was under stress -She wouldn't necessarily have known that JB was being abused even though she took her to a million doctors appointments -She believed the RN to be real, but didn't care about the phone call from the kidnappers because she was under so much stress -She called friends to come over and that isn't weird because who are we to judge what she would do
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on.......the reason that the apologists come out for Patsy is very simple. Patsy Ramsey being involved at all = JDI falls apart. Therefore Doc, Ms D, CC and others always poo poo all of Patsy's behavior as being normal because they can't admit that maybe just maybe, Patsy was involved.
- I'm staunchly JDI and think "gaslighting" is a crock. - She wore the same outfit because it was a Christmas one, and the people she was going to meet had not seen her in it the night before. - Insofar as I know, Patsy was not medicated until afternoon/evening of 26th. - Patsy told LE that JBR had NOT taken a bath. - Absent a full pelvic exam there was no way to determine abuse. - She called friends because her husband was a cold fish and utterly unsupportive during her recent health crisis.
CC since you are the only JDIer that doesn't believe in the gaslighting can you help me with these questions I have? I am leaning heavily towards BDI because I think Patsy was involved in the coverup and the only person she would cover for is Burke.
Why do you think JB's hairstyle was different when she was discovered if is she was sleeping all night?
Why did Patsy first tell French that she checked on JB first found her not in her room and then went downstairs and found the ransom note and then changed her story?
Why did she tell officers she put here to bed in a red turtleneck and then changed her story?
Why did she say John checked on Burke and then changed her story that both did?
Why did she say in one interview she saw JB's room bedroom door closed that morning but then changed her story to it was left slightly open as usual?
Why did she say she was shocked in one of her interviews when told there was evidence of previous sexual molestation when before that interview she was on a TV interview sitting next to John while he said something to the effect of we heard there was previous sexual abuse found?
Why did she say had no idea of why she called Dr Beuf 3x on 12/17?
Patsy in one of her interviews said she usually made sure JB went to pee before bed so she would not have an accident and wet the bed. Why would Patsy not have woken her up Christmas night?
Maybe Patys didn't want to wake her since they would have to get up really early the next day but why not put the diaper on her which were already in her room? FY
Haney's not too bright. He should have told Patsy to answer yes or no for the record - I honestly don't know if "U-hum", or "Uh-uh" means yes or no, and a head shake shouldn't have been given a free pass either.
"Why do you think JB's hairstyle was different when she was discovered if is she was sleeping all night?"
Can you cite your sources, please, FY? The photos of JB at the White's party were not released publicly, and I can't find any statement by Patsy, or LE, that says JB's hairstyle was not the same as it had been when she attended the party (two ponytails - one at the top, one at the bottom - tied in blue, elastic hair bands)
Seriously? That's your evidence for her hairstyle being changed? ST asked Patsy about the jewelry and hair ties because she was found wearing both. I have no clue where you got the idea JB's hair had been changed, so you will have to provide a transcript where it explicitly states that she was wearing her hair differently on the night she was murdered as to how it was when she was found. Not the way she "normally" wore it, as was asked in the transcript above, but the way she wore it the night she was killed.
To all the many questions regarding Patsy's supposedly suspicious words and behavior I have the same response: what is your point? If she were involved what advantage would those actions and responses have given her?
E.g: if she was the one who painted the heart on JonBenet's palm, then how easy it would be to lie and say "yes, I painted that on her the night before."
Why would she lie about the red turtleneck, what would she have had to gain by that? Similarly, why lie about the oversize panties? If she's the one who changed her, why not say she changed her before putting her to bed?
Etc. -- figure the rest out for yourself. Nothing she's been accused of lying about means anything unless she had something to gain by lying.
As for the events that transpired prior to the 911 call, I see no reason to believe any of it. Since there are serious contradictions in different versions of what happened there is no question that all three lied. The question for me is: why?
IF she isn't involved, then regardless of how small the detail is, it matters. The original hope is to find JB. Then once the body is found, the hope is to find the killer. To mis-remember things or not be sure about almost anything should be troubling. Not to mention, neither of the Ramsey's were very cooperative which is puzzling IF you are innocent.
I haven't commented here for a while as I've not had anything to add I do read all the comments every day to see if if there's anything new with the case. Unfortunately, as with the madeleine mccann case I still feel the same. The cadavers dogs present evidence the parents could have been I valved. The timeline of events suggest they were not. My problem has been patsy since the beginning when I got over LHP. I don't want her to be involved, she sounds genuine in interviews and on the 911 call. A bit of reading has me informed that people that lie use "we" rather than I or my. The other things mentioned by J and zed over the years are also troubling to me. One thing for sure that we all agree on is John. On a side note, is it correct that fibres from the cord and from the brown bag in the spare bedroom that contained rope not owned by Ramsey's, were found on JBR and in her bed and the body bag. Also the baseball bat found on the north side of the garden, reportedly not belonging to the Ramsey's has fibres from basement carpet?
From John's 1998 interview: 1 MIKE KANE: I think you touched on this, 2 and I want to go into it a little bit more than 3 this. You were pretty adamant about calling the 4 police and the FBI obviously and all these 5 references to knowledge of police tactics and 6 stuff like that. 7 Was there any discussion about not calling the 8 police? 9 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, for a moment. I mean, 10 Patsy said, it says not to call the police. I 11 said, call them anyway. We called them. I mean, 12 there's no question in my mind that that was the 13 right answer. 14 MIKE KANE: Did you have any concern 15 about doing that? Even when you had made that 16 decision, did you have any concerns? 17 JOHN RAMSEY: No. No. Because we couldn't 18 just sit there. We would have gone mad.
From Patsy's 1998 interview. 1 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometime 2 between 5:30 and 6 a.m. And walked around 3 here to the bathroom and I did not take a shower 4 that morning, so I don't know, you know, what 5 exactly I did here. I mean other than just get 6 dressed, brush my teeth, put on my make up. And 7 get ready to go. 8 And then I walked down downstairs 9 here, came to the landing there (showing 10 document) and there was an ironing board here, 11 some clothes, I had a plastic bag kind of right 12 in here somewhere that I had just things to 13 throw, throw in, to take for my trip. And I 14 think I was here for a couple of minutes, just 15 getting some clothes, things. 16 And then I started down the stairs, 17 this staircase, to go to the kitchen. And the 18 note was on the landing, on the stairs, the 19 bottom of the stairs here. And I, there was 20 some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights 21 (INAUDIBLE) and looked -- you know, started 22 reading the letter. 23 And after the first couple of 24 sentences realized, you know, what was 25 happening, and I ran back up these stairs, okay, 0010 1 and pushed her door to her room right here, and 2 she was not in her bed. So I went over to these 3 stairs and yelled out for John, called to him 4 and he came down. And I said "she's been 5 kidnapped, here's a note," whatever. And I was 6 panicking, you know. I think -- I can't 7 remember exactly what I did then, whether -- I 8 think I ran downstairs again. 9 I said, you know, "what do we do, 10 what do we do?" 11 He said, "call 911, call the 12 police." 13 I ran upstairs, and I think -- I 14 think -- I -- I can't remember if -- I think 15 asked him to check on Burke, one of us checked 16 on Burke, and I remember just seeing him at the 17 phone, trying to -- and then I looked down and 18 John came down and on the floor, down here 19 (indicating), I came in here, here, and John 20 came down, I went to the telephone here, and he 21 kind of crouched on the floor, he was in his 22 underwear, and read the papers on the floor 23 right there, and you know, I was trying to get 24 this 911 person to -- it just seemed like it 25 took forever, to drag through, you know, crazy 0011 1 by that time. 2 Anyway, got the message across, she 3 said she would send somebody out, and oh, God in 4 heaven. Oh, then I phone -- called our friends, 5 Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White and Mr. and 6 Mrs. Johnson, they live in Boulder. I think 7 John went back up to get dressed. 8 And I called them and told them 9 that she's been kidnapped, she is missing. And 10 then I walked out through here, and opened the 11 door, and started waiting for -- front door -- 12 started waiting for the police to show up. 13 (INAUDIBLE). 14 I was standing on the (INAUDIBLE) 15 and pretty soon a squad car came -- you know, 16 officer came up. And I remember thinking 17 because it said somewhere in the note, if you do 18 that, if you call somebody, that's not good. 19 Blah, blah, blah. And I just remembered 20 thinking oh, my God, I hope they are not 21 watching me. I mean, what if they are watching, 22 if the policeman comes, I mean all this was just 23 rushing through my head.
Following Doc's reasoning, it seems the broken window must have been left for Patsy. The note was for Patsy. The body was hidden from Patsy. If she hadn't called 911 and John had been left alone to deal with the kidnappers, then he would have had plenty of time to break a window. No need to do it the night of the murder and possibly wake people up. Unless he figured Patsy would have been searching for an entry point, which seems reasonable.
Perhaps John knew it was not good enough for police though, and then resorted to unstaging. It seems hard for me to believe he was prepared to go through that window, either because he forgot his keys one night or to stage an entry point for an intruder.
It is a wonder the unstaging worked, given Fleet White picking up some remaining shards, and the one on the suitcase which John seemed to grant was suspicious.
The broken window was there to stage an intruder entry. But you have a point, because if it weren't for Patsy he could have broken it the following day and done a more thorough job of staging. I think he broke it when he did so he could show it to Patsy if she got suspicious, or if she went to the basement looking for JonBenet.
I tend to think that too.....of course, he could have just as easily opened a door though, couldn't he (which would have aroused less suspicion in the event a neighbor heard the breaking of the glass)? This is just one of many reasons I firmly believe there is more to the broken window than a simple case of staging/unstaging.
John told the officer he had gone around and checked all the doors and windows that morning - but later he intimated that the butler door may have been left open, clearly looking for other outs to suggest an intruder scenario. Clearly he gathered steam as he went along, on the one hand appearing helpful (pointing out the broken window) and later offering a list of possible suspects to LE.
Yes, John could easily have left a door ajar. However, as we know from so many cases, when a breakin is staged, the staging almost always includes a staged break-in point -- a broken window, a broken lock, a smashed in door, etc. The guilty party needs to provide solid evidence of the break-in. An open door could mean anything. A broken window can mean only one thing.
J claimed "the Ramseys" staging was complete at the window by the time Patsy made the 911 call. Of course, if that were the case, 'they' would have never cleaned up the glass. However, the sense that the staging was complete seems only satisfied by recognizing John alone as perpetrator, where he breaks the window for Patsy, who he hoped would not call 911 per the ransom note, and then cleans up the glass for the cops.
Ms D's response is quite interesting. One does have to wonder why a broken window and why in that spot. I think Doc's answer is probably the correct one. An open door was not enough to imply a breakin. Then again, the note suggests at least three people, which need a bigger space than that window. I recall talks of "pry marks" on several doors, none of which managed to force the door open, but without any reference to how "fresh" they were. Perhaps the broken window was a "plan b" and John could not force a door open.
I have also speculated that the window was near where John struck JonBenet. The basement and the kitchen seem the two options there, and I never could get my head around the kitchen as the spot. One wonders what he used to break the window if not the same thing he used to strike JonBenet. I don't think you'd want to strike her near a door. There might be glass in the door for people to see and she might run out the door if John were to somehow slip up.
Also the likelihood that they would have heard a door or upstairs window break-in is more likely than an intruder who entered through the basement where no one would have heard and more believable when quizzed by the cops.
Well, whatever the case, John must have broken that window solely for the purpose of fooling Patsy, because his master plan didn't involve the police being called to the house that morning, period. Any subsequent staging that needed to be performed to fool LE would have been carried out *after* Patsy and Burke had been sent away (to Charlevoix - as pre-arranged weeks ago for this very purpose - is my guess).
The #1 reason I believe Patsy was involved was French said when he came up from searching the basement she was watching him through splayed fingers. FY
If you're going to base Patsy's guilt solely on the words of one officer who was on the scene that morning, what do you make of Det. Arndt, who said that upon seeing Patsy's reaction to seeing her dead daughter, she knew she wasn't involved? (In stark contrast to her account of John's reaction, whom she said was "groaning" but allegedly couldn't even manage to squeeze out an actual tear. How little he cared about his daughter...so very sad. I believe the only emotion JR felt that morning was relief.)
Patsy's mourning was genuine, she was devastated but that does not mean she wasn't involved in the coverup. French did not have a reason to lie about seeing Patsy looking at him through splayed fingers? FY
FY, I don't think Ms D was insinuating that French was lying. I think she was pointing out that French's report of PR's actions is just one person's interpretation.
How is looking through splayed fingers a sign of guilt? Please explain that to me. Maybe she suspected French was goofing off instead of doing his job.
Rick French was coming up from the basement WHERE THE BODY WAS and observed that Patsy was looking at him through splayed fingers. What person wouldn't go "DID YOU SEE ANYTHING?" Remember..her daughter was kidnapped in her mind right? IF she was innocent...instead Patsy invited friends over and was in mourning all morning. My opinion is that she already knew she was dead and was curious if French found the body...which is why she was looking at him through splayed fingers.
You have to admit that an adult looking through splayed fingers is a bit odd, especially under those circumstances. It's like she was hiding behind her hands, peeking out. No?
EG, there is no way to innocently explain why an adult would be peeking through splayed fingers, that is why that is the #1 reason I believe Patsy already knew her daughter was already dead that morning.
He also said she appeared agitated (or it was the other first officer on the scene) that he was wearing a gun. Then we have Linda Arnt stating she was mentally counting the bullets in her gun, not sure if they would all get out of there alive. Some of this is just red herring stuff, and I'd take it with a grain of salt.
Yes, I saw the interview Arnt gave and to me, she looked like she had her own issues. I am sure she knew something didn't add up that day, and her intuition was probably right.
all these years later Officer French says he's still upset he didn't open the wine cellar door on that morning - John pretty much effectively steered him away from it
1. She would not have called 911 if she'd been staging a kidnapping, as that call totally blew the staging.
2. She would not have called 911 if she knew her daughter's body was hidden in that remote, filthy room, waiting to be discovered.
3. She would not have handed the police a note in her own handwriting, especially if it could be so easily identified by all those "experts."
4. If she had discovered JBR in an unconscious state she would have called 911 immediately -- no reason to stage a kidnapping when it could have been reported as an accident.
5. She and John would have completed the staging before calling in the police.
6. She would certainly not have covered for John if she knew he had killed the child she doted on.
7. She had no motive for deliberately killing that child.
8. If it had been an accident she would have reported it as such, rather than get involved in the elaborate staging of a kidnapping that never took place anyhow.
Everything she said or did that looks suspicious can easily be explained and her "lies" mean nothing since none of them actually helped her case.
It's much more than just an opinion since it's backed up by several pieces of evidence combined with simple common sense. On the other hand, I could be wrong, so it's not irrefutable proof either.
I wasn't trying to attack you, but almost everything you wrote is simply your take on it. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but doesn't mean you are right either. When you finally come around to BDI, then you will finally have found the truth ;-)
Well then, J, why don't you offer a compelling counter argument by compiling a list, like Doc's above, listing eight reasons why Burke had to have been the killer? If you do better than Doc, we'll have to concede you might have a point.
Maybe we can all agree that Burke was a victim in all of this as well. If he had hit his sister that night and told a parent she wasn't coming to, was he then put to bed not knowing what might happen next, shuttled off the next morning and told his sister was kidnapped? And there was a note? How would that have helped Burke? And so twenty years goes by and he has to live with the stigma, has to live with himself, that he likely killed his sister but was persuaded somehow it was a pedophile from the pageant circuit? He has had to grow up under an umbrella of everyone else's suspicions that he was involved, and left to defend himself against lawsuits. To me the person who wrote that note was covering their OWN butt, not someone else's.
CC, the CBS show was actually what sparked my interest in the case. As a noob, I probably didn't watch it as intently as others might have. I remember a segment where they analyzed PR and JR's behavior during various media appearances--basically asserting how suspicious a lot of their responses were. I also remember they said that JR could be heard on the 911 call. At the shows conclusion, the "experts" flat out said the Rs covered up BR's murder of JBR by staging the crime.
This is all I can see cc. Tweet Sign up Log in Conversation Lin Wood Lin Wood @LLinWood · 20 Sep 2016 In May 1999, Boulder DA & PD publicly stated Burke was not a suspect. Not even a possible suspect. 6 6 Teri Cooper Brown Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294 · 21 Sep 2016 New advances show Burke awake during 911 call. No 9yo child fakes sleeping when sister gone! 3 3 Lin Wood Lin Wood @LLinWood · 21 Sep 2016 No new advances. See pp 14-15 of 2000 paperback by Steve Thomas. 911 claim is 16 years old. 3 1 Diane Diane @Lesliediane79 · 21 Sep 2016 claim confirmed by aerospace. Dismissed by blind. 1 1 Lin Wood Lin Wood @LLinWood · 21 Sep 2016 Don't let the truth hit you in the rear on the way out, Diane. 2 1 Teri Cooper Brown Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294 · 21 Sep 2016 How do you sleep? John R said investigation was worse than JB's death. Great Dad. 1 2 Lin Wood Lin Wood @LLinWood Replying to @terib3294 and 3 others I sleep quite well at night. Thanks for asking. 4:22 am · 21 Sep 2016 3 Likes Joseph Joseph @JosephThropp · 21 Sep 2016 Replying to @LLinWood and 4 others these white moms are going hard as hell over here, Diane a savage 2 1 Diane Diane @Lesliediane79 · 21 Sep 2016 Lin took his toys and went home. Blocked me. How does he handle court? 2 2 Teri Cooper Brown Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294 · 22 Sep 2016 How mature! 1 1 Diane Diane @Lesliediane79 · 22 Sep 2016 I don't think Lin likes when women challenge his opinion. #nosamwich4lin 1 1 Teri Cooper Brown Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294 · 22 Sep 2016 Agree. I believe John Ramsey thought Patsy was a nutcase - condescending toward her. 1 Diane Diane @Lesliediane79 · 22 Sep 2016 dr Phil said today, nothing to hide, hide nothing to guest. Except Ramseys I guess.
Thanks, Eve. The Daily Camera article said John filed his suit on September 14th. I'm guessing he had to file within one year of the defamatory words/acts, or be barred by the Statute of Limitation in Michigan
Perhaps this is some sort of strategy on Wood's part, to put additional pressure on the defendants, force a settlement.
CC: I think Wood might be out of it alltogether. John A. Lesko is John Ramsey's attorney, and all the defendants named in the suit appear to be represented by one James E. Stewart.
Could Lesko's strategy be to "join John to the hip of Burke" to once and for all exonerate all possible combinations of Ramseys? Afterall, as Doc has repeated until he's blue in the face, the Boulder authorities and all the various courts of opinion are convinced that if one Ramsey is guilty, at least one of the other two Ramseys in the house that night, conspired in a coverup. Could, paradoxically, lights shed on John at trial potentially incriminate him more if CBS were entirely focused on Burke?
A Michigan native, Mr. Lesko is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. During college, he was accepted into the Honors Program, awarded Class Honors, and achieved a perfect score on his Law School Admissions Test -- a feat unmatched by any president, supreme court justice, or member of congress.
With his choice of top legal programs, Mr. Lesko accepted a scholarship to Michigan Law, ranked among the best schools in the country. While there, he earned one of the top grades in his Constitutional Law Course, receiving the highest score on a major exam section. He was also a Michigan Law Sports Champion, and had his writing used as a model for other students.
After law school, Mr. Lesko worked in Washington, D.C. for several major international firms. He worked in a variety of areas, including white-collar criminal defense, employment law, and excess-carrier insurance defense.
Mr. Lesko now operates his own Detroit-area practice with the goal of providing top-quality legal services on a personal, affordable level. He recently obtained a Million-dollar judgment in a civil assault case, and has achieved successful resolutions in cases involving felony drug offenses, medical malpractice, employment disputes, property disputes against local municipalities, insurance claim appeals, alcohol-related driving offenses, and telemarketing harassment claims.
Lin Wood is not licensed to practice in Michigan. One way around that is to associate oneself with an attorney who is, and petition the judge for permission to try the case as co-counsel. It's what Wood did in Burke's case, and what he's likely doing in John's as well.
“...if she was the one who painted the heart on JonBenet's palm, then how easy it would be to lie and say ‘yes, I painted that on her the night before.’”
Not very easy considering that Patsy would be implicating herself with the red heart used to outline John’s photo in a recent article found inside the Ramsey home.
Doc, how can you explain Patsy’s remark concerning how well the red heart was drawn and later dismissing that observation by saying she might not have even seen it at all?
Interesting news about this second lawsuit. I have no idea why John would want to complicate things this way. But of course the show not only implicated Burke, but also John, as an accomplice.
Hercule, please explain what Patsy would have had to gain by that remark or how it implicates her in her daughter's death. Yes, Patsy's remark is a bit puzzling, but it's puzzling in either case, whether she was innocent or guilty.
"Not very easy considering that Patsy would be implicating herself with the red heart used to outline John’s photo in a recent article found inside the Ramsey home."
How do the drawings implicate her, Hercule? Why didn't she just say "Yeah, I drew the heart on JB's hand at the xmas party, and I outlined the red heart (do we know it was red?) on John's photo a couple of days ago. I fail to see how a denial - or an admission - is an indication of guilt. What am I missing here?
Regarding my above comment (I know I've said it before, but geez I wish there was an edit option!) I'm aware the drawing on JB's palm was in red ink (though it never did look like a heart to me, honestly), but do we know it was a red marker that was used on John's newspaper article? And regardless of whether two hearts were drawn in red marker or any other colour, doesn't this simply tell us that JB was probably the one who scribbled the "heart" on her hand AND on her father's newspaper? Young girls are quite fond of drawing love hearts.....
Yes, I think the most logical explanation is that JBR drew this herself or maybe another child drew it during the party. Patsy probably didn't notice it when she put her to bed. What she said about it speaks only to her confusion. If she were involved in the coverup she'd have had an answer prepared and would not have responded in such a confusing manner.
If you want to assume she painted that herself, after JBR's death, then you need to explain why she would want to give herself away by saying she saw it on her that morning. That's the last thing she'd have wanted to say.
What's significant to me is how easily so many have jumped on this and other ambiguities in Patsy's testimonies and interviews as proof-positive of her guilt. That says more about the state of mind of her accusers than anything else.
Not to mention, if Patsy went to such lengths to stage a botched kidnapping/pedophile intruder/revenge killing etc., why in the heck would she add such an obviously personal touch, like a love heart, on her daughter's palm? (The same reason she called 911, I suppose...she was hell bent on undermining her staging, huh?!) There's something that just doesn't add up here, Hercule: you're asking us to believe that this woman brutally strangled her daughter to death, defiled her dead body, left her on a cold, hard, mouldy, basement floor.....but during all this unspeakable violence, she took the time to lovingly draw a heart on the hand of the child she'd just garroted to death?! And you wonder why no one takes you seriously, here...
Possibly simply for easier disposal of the body (her favourite blanket being the one nearby). Or, perhaps Caylee's was an accidental death which resulted in a cover up. Hercule is asking ask to believe that Patsy murdered her daughter in the most violent of ways, but lovingly drew a heart on her hand, which runs contrary to her violent actions, and I don't think he can have it both ways in this case. There is absolutely nothing about JB's murder that suggests this was the work of someone who loved her and had regretted what they'd done (the garrote was way too tight to be mere staging, as I've argued before).
One more thing, J...the PDI theory proposes that - unlike Casey Anthony, who had the common sense to dispose of the victim's body - Patsy was staging a botched kidnapping where her daughter's body would be found that day in her very own basement, therefore drawing a heart on the victim's hand after staging it to look like the work of a sadistic intruder would be a pretty stupid thing to do, don't you think? Especially after using her own materials to commit the murder and write the ransom note. Patsy may as well have worn a sign that morning that said "I'm guilty, arrest me."
Caylee Anthony's body was disposed of - clearly, her murderer didn't want it to be found. According to PDI, the body being discovered shortly after LE arrived was part of the plan, so Patsy would have obviously had to do things quite differently, as she didn't have the luxury of waiting for the elements, and time, to destroy vital evidence, as Casey did.
Therefore, two entirely different scenarios that cannot be compared.
Is this what it's come down to, Herc? Positing that a drawing of a "heart" (I don't see it either, D...looks like a lumpy trapezoid to me) is somehow evidence of Patsy's guilt?
Where is Gumshoe, P.I. with her goofy, exalted theories about you? What to make of this, Gumshoe?
As a child who loved to draw, I was always using colourful markers, and as a result, almost always had markings on my hands. They might have looked like doodles - and sometimes they were - but more often than not, they were just accidental markings.
I really fail to see Hercule's point here, and as usual, he's being intentionally evasive by refusing to outline his point in a non cryptic manner.....why do you do that, Hercule? Could it be an attempt to make it look as though you're telling us something, when you're really offering us nothing at all?
According to the precis of his remarks I just read on Westword, Lin Wood says they've only just briefed and held oral argument on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and are now awaiting the judge's decision on those Motions.
THEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN DISCOVERY, the depositions and interrogatories I so dearly hope will leak.
This thing is moving with all the speed of a glacier. . . Very discouraging.
TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you recognize this 3 particular bat? 4 PATSY RAMSEY: Not, you know, like I said, 5 Burke would be the better one to know which was 6 his bat and which wasn't. 7 TOM HANEY: Sure. 8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). 9 TOM HANEY: And would you be able to 10 distinguish one bat from another? 11 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably not. 12 TOM HANEY: Okay. Not a big baseball, 13 softball fan, player? 14 PATSY RAMSEY: No. 15 TOM HANEY: Okay. 16 PATSY RAMSEY: Unh-unh (no).
Patsy was on a women's softball team, why is she lying?
"Patsy was on a women's softball team, why is she lying?"
Who says she's "lying"?
Tom Haney asked her if she was a "big baseball/softball fan/player", to which she responded "no", because it might well have been the truth. Her and some of the local moms formed a softball team for a bit of fun, and I'm not even sure how often they met up and actually played. Was it a regular thing, or did Patsy only play once or twice? I belonged to a softball team in my youth, but I certainly wasn't a big fan of the game - I barely knew the rules - and I couldn't have picked out my bat from anyone else's on the team.
If the question was: "Have you ever played softball?" and Patsy responded: "No", only THEN would it have been a lie.
I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway. Let's say you're correct, and Patsy did lie about the softball bat, what does it even imply? If Patsy is the murderer, and the bat was the weapon - which is obviously the implication being made here - she still has nothing to lose by admitting it was her bat shown in the photograph, or that she had previously played softball...she had no problem admitting the materials used for the RN were hers, did she? Or the paintbrush that was used to fashion the garrote? Therefore, in this instance, I take her at her word: she didn't recognize the bat.
Thanks for the heads up HKH. And Mike G. Item number 142 in the complaint is bothersome though - can you guess why? (under "Key Facts About the Murder of JonBenet & Law Enforcement's Investigation"). I understand Lin Wood is alluding to the magical Intruder, and that she would not have struggled with a family member, but if she was hit first and knocked unconscious then where was the struggle?
Do you also think if something is printed in the paper it must be true, Virginia? You don't think lawyers like Lin Wood are given to hyperbole, exaggeration, even falsification, if it suits their purpose? Did you not read his Complaint in Burke v. CBS?
It isn't right, and it sure ain't what most of us do, but I suppose it's one way to fill a 1200-page Complaint, and he's only in trouble if he's called on by the defense to prove it...as he undoubtedly would be in a trial.
But that won't happen, because these cases will settle long before trial, and so he's free to make these kinds of allegations for the media, for PR purposes.
Wood is making points for the Rs and IDI by throwing out chaff, much as fighter pilots do to confuse radar.
If he's ever called on it he'll swear up and down that the scrapes on her back and marks on her face are signs of a struggle, and that the DNA under her fingernails was not caused by the improper use of nail clippers, but rather belonged to a mysterious intruder.
John Ramsey's guilt is etched into the basement window. It is the key to the case as DocG has pointed out.
When Ramsey's behavior induced Linda Arndt to tell Ramsey to search the house top to bottom and he tore off into the basement with Fleet White, he knew this was it. He was going to bring Jonbenet's body up for better or worse. The blood must have been pounding in his head. But before he performed that final sordid act, consider the glaring, pulsating fact that the FIRST thing he did was lead Fleet White to the basement window so as to make sure that he saw the window break, then together go through the motions of looking for glass that he knew he had cleaned up earlier, giving himself the opening to self-servingly announce to a potential witness (White) in his impending murder trial, that he had broken the window earlier that summer and gotten into the house.
Again, he did that FIRST, while knowing he was about to recover Jonbenet's body and bring it up for all to see and react to. He had to first cover the window as he knew it had not been sufficiently staged and that he was going to be arrested. He needed to be telling someone other than police that he had broken that window before, to try and account for the partially staged window scene and save himself. Pure desperation. This was a high IQ brain in overdrive. Survival instincts on steroids. To think he couldn't have written that ransom note under crushing pressure compared to that moment is a non-starter.
Question: What if Smit, who was smaller than Ramsey, had not later been able to wriggle through that window? Ramsey's summer break-in story would have been exposed as a lie, and his basis for getting away with the un-staging of the basement window would have come unwound.
Thus, Ramsey had to have known before he committed to the summer break-in ruse that it was possible for a man to get through that window.
I believe that even before he broke the window to fool Patsy, he put the suitcase under it, stood on it, and inserted his shoulders through the window to test whether it was feasible as an intruder entry. That exercise accounts for the mussing of the outer window sill, the loose debris on the floor, and the scuff on the wall coming back down feeling for the suitcase with his feet. The kernel of glass on the suitcase came from a second post-window break foray up through the window for an attempt to dislodge the grate, perhaps with a golf club, dragging glass down onto the suitcase on the way back down, a kernel of which didn't get cleaned up. The dangling spider web in the lower left corner of the window could have survived his movements. Who knows but that the web was larger before he angled his shoulders through the window?
He couldn't have committed to the summer break-in story without knowing for sure it was at least physically possible.
Shoulders on a man are narrower than hips so he was confident in making up the summer story if his shoulders got through. As DocG points out in his book and this blog, Ramsey evaded and could not recall or state exactly how he got through the window when recounting it to police. That's because he had never done it. Had he done it, he would have had everything to gain and nothing to lose by describing exactly how he did it, step by step, but he couldn't, because he had never fully done it.
All he was sure of was that a man could at least get through the window, otherwise he'd never have committed to that story to cover the incomplete window staging.
It was in his mind to point out that the suitcase was a boost for an intruder's exit, because he had performed that act himself.
Does anyone know what they are talking about here? This is from Patsys 1998 BPD interview.
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on 17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the 18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning 19 photo of the kids. 20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Oh, God. 21 TOM HANEY: Before we, before we talk too 22 much about the next photo, if you can -- 23 TRIP DeMUTH: You want to just take that 24 out for a minute? 25 TOM HANEY: Let's talk still about the 0528 1 120TET. Like I say, this was on your role of 2 film and it's not exactly the same photograph 3 that was taken by the police. 4 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). 5 TOM HANEY: But it's, it's, it shows -- 6 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. 7 TOM HANEY: -- pretty much, I guess, or can 8 you tell me when that would have been taken? 9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't have a clue why 10 anybody would take a picture like that. I don't 11 know (inaudible). Who took the picture? 12 TOM HANEY: Well, it's on your roll -- 13 PATSY RAMSEY: It's on my -- 14 TOM HANEY: -- of film on your camera. 15 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. 16 TOM HANEY: And this legal pad that you -- 17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. 18 TOM HANEY: -- identified -- 19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. 20 TOM HANEY: -- do you know when that would 21 have been in that position? 22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. So this, this was taken 23 before photo one was? 24 TOM HANEY: Before the police photos. 25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, okay. I don't know 0529 1 when this was taken, or why it was taken. I 2 mean, it's nothing. 3 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize that pad, I 4 know it's (inaudible) photo? 5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but we had a lot of 6 those around. There was a picture in another 7 one. I think. 8 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes) 9 PATSY RAMSEY: I bought like those Office 10 Depot's or Office Max or whatever they are and I 11 usually kept a bunch of them, you know, kept 12 them over here, right around here in the 13 kitchen. 14 TRIP DeMUTH: By the telephone? 15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but, you know, they 16 float all over. 17 TRIP DeMUTH: So it wouldn't have been 18 unusual to be where it is? 19 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. Gosh. 20 TOM HANEY: Just a second, okay? 21 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). 22 TOM HANEY: So would this particular note 23 pad be, belong to somebody in particular or -- 24 PATSY RAMSEY: No, not necessarily.
I guess something is different from the photo the family took compared to the police photo but what and why is it important? I have no idea that's why I am asking.
The notepads that appear and disappear, Anon. There were a couple of notepads on the side table close to kitchen that are seen on the family photos but then they were apparently removed from there before police took the crime scene pictures. They look out of place in the family picture.
John Ramsey handed LE a pad belonging to Patsy, containing her handwriting samples, then took another from the wrought iron side table and wrote "The Quick Brown Fox" at the cops' behest.
Check the search warrant returns. Pads did not "appear and disappear". Many pads were collected.
Does anyone have any examples of where Patsy or John have repeated phrases from the ransom note? I just watched the depositions from the Wolf lawsuit and noticed John used the phrase "well rested" and Patsy used the word "particularly".
ReplyDeleteFY
Everyone uses "particularly," particularly folks like me. Was "well rested" something he quoted from the note? For more on John's use of such phrases, see my post titled "Johnisms."
DeleteI just read the Johnisms and found a link to the transcript of the Newseum interview because I was shocked he used the words "and hence", I have never heard anyone use and with hence except in that ransom note. I also noticed this quote from John:
Delete"Uh, we are fully prepared to meet them in a full court of law, and I promise you…it's the only thing I'll promise you…we will…be victorious."
Victorious just like Victory! in the ransom note!
FY
Oh wow, thank you.
ReplyDeleteFY
Ok, so I just searched the John Ramsey handwriting sample compared to the RN..I kept going back and forth realizing both were a very sloppy style of hand writing. They look very similar at a glance. Then I noticed the misspellings of “occassions” in johns and “bussiness” in the RN. I am left handed and practiced writing with my right hand...the natural position and way to form letters with my right matched exactly to the “disproving” notations in the guide on the left of the page.
ReplyDeleteThis guy totally wrote this with his other hand. It was literally obvious to me as I started doing it myself.
Yep. Why he was "ruled out" is anyone's guess...
DeleteHad he not have been ruled out as the author of the RN, I believe there's a good chance he'd be serving time for the murder of his daughter today. A lot of mistakes were made with this case, but eliminating John as the author of the note was the single, worst thing that happened to this investigation.
Geez he has good handwriting for his opposite hand. Whoever wrote "rainbow fish players" wrote the note in my opinion....
DeleteJohn Ramsey's high-priced lawyers, being in the league of intelligence of DocG, likely told their client, John, that Patsy had something going for her in a big way, which was that she had been the one who called the police to the house in defiance of the kidnappers' note, and "who would call 911 on themselves?" Sound familiar?
DeleteThus they needed to have the court of public opinion see a couple of things in the public record (in advance of a possible trial during which husband/wife privilege would block the introduction into evidence of a counter-narrative from John that he "told Patsy to call" during their discussion just prior to the call): One, a showing that Patsy made the call as John's proxy, that is, at his urging, so he got that out there whenever he could (over Patsy's objection or not, who knows, and her own lawyer should have been suspicious of that and seen what was happening to his/her client, particularly when she started taking all the flak in the press once John was "ruled out"), and Two, they needed some experts to rule him out as the ransom note's writer, and quickly, as he was a, if not "the", primary suspect.
Black Sheep
Yes. There is no way the contradiction between Patsy's version (via the A&E special) and John's can be resolved and that in itself could have been hugely damaging for John. What saved him in this regard was (is) the widely held certainty that the two of them had to be in it together. Given that assumption, their lawyers could argue that the call demonstrated their innocence -- as no guilty person would have made such a call knowing his victim was still in the house.
DeleteAnd by the way, Patsy's lawyer wound up being John's lawyer as well, since the strategy was to join them at the hip from day one. If her lawyer had done his job, he'd have divorced himself from John's legal team and worked out an independent defense, but that never happened.
Doc, Avery's request for a new trial denied:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.joe.co.uk/news/making-murderers-steven-avery-144048
Hardly suprising given the crappy case Zellner put together. Looks like he'll be staying behind bars where he belongs.
Thanks, Zed, for that very welcome info. In my experience, if you have a legitimate argument, you ought to be able to state it briefly and simply. What Zellner did was the exact opposite, muddying the waters with a huge long list of what amounted to little more than red herrings, aka tossing fistfulls of spaghetti on the wall and hoping something would stick. I don't care how "successful" she's been, what she did in this case was a disgrace to the profession. And when we add all her many tweets and her 100 point "challenge," it's hard to see how she can show her face in court again.
DeleteAgree completely. I expected better from her to be honest. Yet, she is now tweeting they have new evidence and witnesses!!?? I have no doubt she has been involved in some good wins in the past but she is coming across as a complete amateur at the moment.
DeleteWhy was the chronic sexual abuse downplayed and was not front page news? I know there were a few experts that disagreed on the abuse but I would think that LE would focus on finding out who was sexually abusing JonBenet in order to find her killer?
ReplyDeleteIt was front page news, as soon as it was leaked.
DeleteWhich experts disagreed?
LE asked John if he'd abused his daughter, and he denied it. What could they have done next, Anon?
I never thought the staging was made to look like a pedophile or sexual assault, if that were the case, why were JBR's pants not off,clothes torn, etc? It makes sense that it was premeditated seeing how as the note was absolutely perfect with no I's left undotted and T's crossed, margins aligned. But Why was the note still in perfect shape after being handled, no DNA even on the note, no fingerprints, etc? That makes me think that both the parents were involved, otherwise, the other one would have handled it more and read and re read and re read.
ReplyDeleteIf both parents premeditated their daughter's murder, as you suggested, K1234, why didn't they complete the staging before dialing 911? Essentially, they would have had an unlimited amount of time to do so if the murder were planned in advance. And what do you think their shared motive for murdering their daughter could be?
DeleteWhy would PR not wake her sleeping child even for comfort if not to ask questions?
ReplyDeleteK1234..
ReplyDeleteThose are my questions as well. The note was pristine and why not awaken BR and ask him questions, as the only possible witness.
EG
Fingerprints are entirely dependent upon the amount of oils in the skin. John was right out of the shower, and Patsy had just finished her morning ablutions, dressed and put on make up. I don't find it surprising or sinister they didn't leave fingerprints.
DeleteWas the note devoid of any fingerprints or just the Ramsey's?
ReplyDeleteI believe the note was left on the stairwell as three separate sheets next to each other, rather than as a stack. So, one could read it in full without touching it. Further, while it probably had several handlers, one imagines them handling it with care for fear they obliterate evidence from the kidnapper. Regardless, Patsy only read enough to understand her daughter was kidnapped. I imagine Patsy feared for Burke's safety more than she was curious about what he knew.
ReplyDeleteAlso, John sure licks his lips a lot.
After she knew Burke was safe, the next thing would be to ask him if he heard anything during the night. That's just common sense to me. But nothing about this case makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read there were no fingerprints on the RN but a smeared palm print was found. I believe the findings were inconclusive.
EG
The only fingerprints on the RN were those of Chet Ubowski of the CBI.
ReplyDeleteYou say that a lot, E, but what's your source? It would have taken but a second for John or Patsy to ask Burke if he'd seen or heard anything, and for him to reply in the negative. Do you know for a fact they were ever asked in any of their LE or media interviews? Or that the cop who questioned Burke briefly at the Fermies' (or was it the Whites') didn't ask?
They said BR was sleeping through the whole thing, didn't they when LE arrived?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I'd say it meant they hadn't disturbed him and didn't want anyone else to either.
EG
But we know from Burke's interview that he wasn't asleep at all. His parent(s) had very likely asked if he'd seen or heard anything when they checked on him, before he was sent to the Whites', and the cop who spoke to him there probably asked him that very obvious question right off the bat.
DeleteI see no reason, and certainly no evidence, that supports your continual assertions.
Having said that, I'd be happy to accept what you assert (over and over) as fact . . . provided you can supply me a source. Can you?
DeleteYes, we do know that Burke was awake, because he did say that he heard his parents that morning and even said his mother came into the room screaming, "where's my baby" or something like that. I don't recall him saying that his mother stopped and asked him if he had heard anything. Do you have any sources that said that either JR or PR questioned him?
ReplyDeleteThis was from his interview with Dr Phil:
“The first thing I remember is my mom bursting in my room really frantic, saying, ‘Oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh!, running around the room, now I know, looking for JonBenet,” he told the show’s host, Phil McGraw.
“I was scared I think,” he said. “I didn’t know if some bad guy was downstairs (who) my dad was chasing off with a gun or ... I had no idea.”
Ramsey remembered later being asked by another police officer where JonBenet might be and suggesting that she might be hiding. Later, at the home of a family friend, his father John Ramsey told him that his sister was dead.
“My dad just said, ‘She’s in heaven,'” he said. “I was kind of like, ‘How is that possible?'”
Do you see anything in there mentioning JR or PR questioning him? I don't.
EG
No more than you have saying they did not, which is precisely my point.
DeleteAnd the cop who questioned Burke at the Whites'? And the fact that LE never asked the Rs in their interviews?
I submit that it was an obvious question, and one that was answered early on, to the satisfaction of the BPD.
Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, please share.
Oh, I see. So, you're assuming the R's asked him the question.
ReplyDeleteI am not doing the same thing at all. I am quoting what BR said in an interview with Dr Phil regarding the events and how they unfolded that morning from BR's perspective. Nowhere in there does he say that his parent's asked him if he heard or saw anything.
EG
Ya' got evidence, please share. Otherwise your assumption is just that.
DeleteNone of the transcripts say Burke was questioned by his parents. If YOU CC have evidence that his parents questioned him, prove that.
DeleteShe can't prove something didn't happen. That's trying to prove a negative.
DeleteThanks, Castor. CC is assuming BR was questioned by his parents, based on what?? I have no idea.
DeleteI am assuming he wasn't questioned based on his own words. She wanted a source. Well, that came right out of the horse's mouth, so to speak. :)
EG
I heard what BR said, and what he didn't say. He never said he was questioned by his parents. In fact, he didn't know what happened at all according to his own words.
ReplyDeleteEG
Well duh. You miss my point. I'm not attempting to offer proof - you are. "Did you see or hear anything?" was the very obvious question of Burke, yet it does not appear in anyone's account of the 26th, or in any subsequent interviews of anyone, including the cop who questioned Burke briefly on the 26th or the social worker who questioned him, on tape, in January of 1997.
ReplyDeleteYet you assert it as fact that it was NOT asked, by John when he checked on his son, or by Fleet as he drove Burke to his home, or by the cop who questioned him briefly at the Fernies' later that day, or by the social worker who, famously, interviewed him on tape in January of 1997.
You continually assert he was NOT asked. I maintain that of course he was, and he had nothing to offer.
Well duh, you miss my point entirely. Of course he should have been asked, but evidently he wasn't because it's nowhere to be found. That's my point exactly.
ReplyDeleteEG
C'mon, E. It's nowhere to be found because it was asked and answered, and the answer accepted as fact.
DeleteI have no argument with that, and I do agree that LE most likely DID ask BR if he saw or heard anything that night. My issue is with the R's not asking him immediately upon finding the note. They claimed when LE arrived, that BR remained sleeping, and they didn't disturb him.
DeleteEG
That - and sending Burke off to the Whites' - has always struck me as an effort to protect him from his mother's hysteria and the chaos and fear a police presence creates at a crime scene.
DeleteYes and I can understand that and take no issue there either, however, I would've insisted on a police presence wherever he went, especially in light of the fact that there was a kidnapper on the loose targeting the R's.
DeleteEG
BR was asked by Detective Patterson (at the White's) if he had heard anything. According to Kolar:
ReplyDelete"The only noise he reported hearing after
going to bed was the “squeaking water
heater.” He did not hear any “scream, cry,
yell or any raised voices” during the night."
Some think it's suspicious that PR and/or JR may have failed to ask BR what he heard that night. However, I think that no matter the scenario--JDI, BDI, PDI, IDI--PR and JR would have been experiencing a range of emotions and not necessarily thinking clearly/rationally. The responding officers, who had no emotional attachment to the victim, would have been thinking/reacting much more logically to the situation at hand. Both Kolar and ST reported that upon arrival, Officer French was told that BR was upstairs asleep. Both Kolar and ST also reported that Officer Reichenbach performed a search of the house, which included entering the bedroom of a "sleeping" BR. Neither officer woke BR to ask him if he had heard anything. If both officers failed to wake BR and question him, why is it so suspicious that PR/JR may have also failed to wake BR and question him?
Also, if BDI, why would PR run into BR's room, frantically asking, "where's my baby?"
For the same reason she made the call to 911 saying "we have a kidnapping." It was all part of the plan.
ReplyDeleteI do know that people react differently, especially in times of great distress and so this is pure speculation and opinion. However, I still find it suspicious. I do accept, respect and even welcome other opinions and perspectives. They allow me to see a situation from another's standpoint, which is always good.
EG
I agree, EG. Even opinions I don't agree with still give me food for thought.
DeleteI assume you believe she called 911 that morning to get the ball rolling. Therefore, her call had a purpose--to alert the authorities/put their plan into action. What would be the purpose of her rushing into BR's room, asking "where's my baby?" She reportedly did this before LE arrived. If she, JR and BR were all aware of what had happened to JBR, why would she do this?
I've thought about that one, HKH and I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done. I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there. They assessed the situation, covered things up and never told him what he had done. In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister.
DeleteOtherwise, to me, it doesn't make any sense. If JR had done it, PR would've known and she would've never covered for him. If PR did it, JR would've known and I doubt he would have covered for her.
It only makes sense to me, if BR did it, because they'd both cover for him.
EG
Initially, I thought PR did it. I thought after a long day, she became enraged over a bedwetting incident. The fact that things were thrown around in the room, and the housekeeper saying PR often went into a rage shoving JBR into the bathroom when she had an accident. However, JR would have known that, and I doubt he'd have covered for PR.
"I've thought about that one, HKH and I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done. I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there. They assessed the situation, covered things up and never told him what he had done. In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister."
DeleteBurke Ramsey is socially awkward, not retarded.
Come on, EG, he'd have to be the world's dumbest kid to not be ale to put two and two together. This scenario has no credibility whatsoever. At any rate, you have previously stated you believe he did it all - the strangulation and the head blow - so how could he not be aware?!
"Otherwise, to me, it doesn't make any sense. If JR had done it, PR would've known and she would've never covered for him. If PR did it, JR would've known and I doubt he would have covered for her.
It only makes sense to me, if BR did it, because they'd both cover for him."
Or, if no one was actually "covering" for anyone.....
MsD..
DeleteI don't know what happened and neither do you. It's my belief that something happened that night that involved the children (some type of play that went wrong) and the adults covered for him/them. That's all I am saying because I do not believe that PR or JR would've covered for each other.
I also don't believe that JR would think that sticking a paintbrush up his daughter's vagina would cover chronic sexual abuse. To suggest that, is absolutely ridiculous. JR wasn't retarded either.
And you don't know what BR remembers or doesn't remember. Traumatic incidents can cause amnesia especially in a young person's mind. Perhaps that's why BR is socially awkward and always will be.
EG
EG, all I know is what you said here not so long ago, and what you said was that you believed Burke both struck his sister and strangled her to death, so I am merely asking you, how could it be that he was unaware of what he'd done? If we all have to maintain that Burke must have amnesia in order for your theory to work, you have to admit, that's not a very sound theory.
Delete"I also don't believe that JR would think that sticking a paintbrush up his daughter's vagina would cover chronic sexual abuse. To suggest that, is absolutely ridiculous. JR wasn't retarded either."
We've been through this many, many times before. He didn't think it would cover previous abuse, hence his plan to dump the body where it wouldn't be found.
The difference is, EG, your theory has two people colluding in a cover up, thus there would be no surprises when the police are called to the house. Staging would be complete before the call was placed, and stories would be in sync. Unlike the JDI theory, which has him being caught off guard, thus all subsequent staging is amateurish and rushed because it was NOT part of the original plan. This would simply not be the case if both parents decided to call the police when they did.
The JDI theory doesn't require him to be "retarded" - no one is suggesting he has total amnesia, as you are with your BDI theory! Our scenario simply suggests he was in a position (after the police were called) that offered him no other alternatives but to muddy the waters as best as he could, which is exactly what he did. I doubt he expected it would work, and it probably wouldn't had he not been "ruled out".
Ms D..
DeleteFirst off, I still believe BDI all, what I am not sure about is who else was involved as in another child, or maybe not. I don't know because I wasn't there. I base my theory on the odd behaviors before and after the murder, as well as thinking the parents would not cover for each other.
If JR planned on dumping the body where it wouldn't be found, why bother staging the body? Why bother redressing her, using the paintbrush as he did? That makes no sense at all.
EG
Again, these were not career criminals. They were dealing with a stressful situation in a chaotic state.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"If JR planned on dumping the body where it wouldn't be found, why bother staging the body? Why bother redressing her, using the paintbrush as he did? That makes no sense at all."
DeleteOh my gosh, EG, I've answered this exact same question from you no fewer than two or three times just in the last few weeks alone.....sheesh! Now I'm not sure if you're just feigning ignorance, or actually not bothering to read the responses I give you, which deters me from spending the time it takes to give you detailed answers in the future.
You've been here long enough to not have to keep asking the exact, same, questions over and over again, surely.
If you believe Burke did it all, then please explain the comment you made a couple of days ago:
"I am not sure to what extent BR knew what he had done."
Then, please explain this one:
"I think something happened that night, a horrible accident involving the children, and BR woke them up, at which time they told him to go to his room and stay there.....In keeping with that, PR acted out a charade the next morning allowing BR to think someone had kidnapped his sister."
How is a brutal, deliberate, strangulation "a horrible accident"?
How is it that Burke is smart enough to fool seasoned detectives, but too stupid not to realize how unlikely it was that a kidnapper came in and abducted his already DEAD sister (he killed her before going to bed according to your very own theory), then decided to leave her body in the basement in the very same state Burke had left her in (garrote twisted around her neck), but added some duct tape to his dead victim for good measure, then compiled a detailed ransom note for a ransom he never intended to collect?!
EG, I guess my first question, and my biggest problem with BDI, is why would the Rs not call an ambulance had a horrible accident occurred? Some BDIs' response to that question is that the Rs thought she was dead. But she wasn't dead. Even if her vitals were undetectable to the untrained, why would the Rs feel confident in determining she was already dead? Unless a child exhibited obvious signs of death--lividity, rigor mortis, decomp., etc.--I can't imagine a parent, with no medical expertise, deciding it was too late to try to save their child.
DeleteAnother response I've seen BDIs offer as to why an ambulance wasn't called, and this seems to be your belief, is that BR did it all. She really was dead when the Rs found her, and because she had been strangled, there was no way to explain her death away as an accident.
If you believe that's the case, then we're back to my original question: why would PR run into BR's room asking, "where's my baby?" If BR did it all, there is no way he could be fooled into thinking he wasn't responsible for JBR's death, and therefore, no reason for PR's "charade" that morning. The Rs couldn't have covered the whole thing up and not told BR what he had done. He would have been well aware of what he had done.
"If you believe that's the case, then we're back to my original question: why would PR run into BR's room asking, "where's my baby?" If BR did it all, there is no way he could be fooled into thinking he wasn't responsible for JBR's death, and therefore, no reason for PR's "charade" that morning. The Rs couldn't have covered the whole thing up and not told BR what he had done. He would have been well aware of what he had done."
DeleteThis is precisely my point, HKH, but EG is no longer answering my questions (conveniently), so hopefully, you might get somewhere.....though I can't see how that rather monumental flaw in her argument (that, after killing JB, Burke went and told his parents, hopped into bed, then was told in the a.m that his DEAD sister had been kidnapped for ransom....or not, as her body was found in the basement. Burke believes this kidnapper comes in, carries his already dead victim to another room of the house - presumably John and Patsy just left their dead daughter in her bed, where the kidnapper found her, after Burke told them what he'd done - sticks around long enough to write a 3 page ransom note, but then decides to leave the victim behind and not bother to call to demand the ransom) can be explained away rationally.
Amongst the many glaring holes in this theory, the most obvious is: why the heck would Burke believe an intruder tried to abduct his already deceased sister???
Ms D, I guess my post did end up being kind of a rehash of what you had already said. I often start writing a response and get sidetracked, only to come back hours later and refresh the page, and see my points have already been made.
DeleteStory time...I knocked my sister unconscious when we were little. She was under a blanket, asleep on the couch, and I didn't know she was there. I ran down our long hallway and flung myself onto the couch where she was laying. We bonked heads. When my mom picked her up, she slumped over and was unresponsive. Panicked, my mom called my dad and had him pulled out of a meeting with the governor, then she rushed my sister to the ER. This is the normal response of a parent who finds their child injured. Although I was younger than BR, I still remember bits and pieces of it.
I just don't think a 9 year old could be convinced he had nothing to do with it. Even more so, if he had been the one to do all of those horrible things to her--the sexual assault and strangulation.
And, if John and Patsy were acting in concert, why not delay the 911 call until the staging had been completed?
ReplyDeleteI think because they were running out of time. They knew they had to discover the RN early, as they had planned a trip that morning.
DeleteEG
No, they did not. They had to call Mike Archuleta by 6 or so, but all they had to tell him was JBR had been kidnapped. No time constraints on calling police - in fact it would have made more sense, and bought them 4 hours, to wait 'til after 10:00, the "kidnappers" deadline, before calling authorities.
DeletePerhaps they thought they had finished. These weren't mastermind criminals, but rather desperate parents.
DeleteAs far as cleaning up the glass, it was a small pane, so evidently wasn't too much to clean up. And as I've said before either way JR had an excuse for the broken window.
EG
Why would he have needed an excuse? If all had gone according to plan, the broken window, glass and all, could have been exhibited as the entry and/or exit point for the "kidnapper." But he would first have to complete the staging, which would have been no problem if both he and Patsy were in it together.
DeleteDoc,
DeleteI think JR staged it, together with the suitcase and scuff mark on the wall, to make it look like it was a point of entry/exit for an intruder.
Maybe it was an old break and when someone was boosted out of that window, an old piece of glass fell onto the suitcase. Someone claimed to have heard the sound of a grate moving. Perhaps someone small statured, as in a youngster.
Do we know conclusively if that was an old break or a new one? I don't recall a definitive answer on that one from LE. I may have missed it though am not sure.
EG
"Do we know conclusively if that was an old break or a new one? I don't recall a definitive answer on that one from LE. I may have missed it though am not sure."
DeleteHa! The million dollar question! In fact, there are entire chapters here on this blog dedicated to this subject, EG - discussions YOU'VE been a part of, so I'm kind of scratching my head over why you asked that one.....
As for the "scuff mark", I read somewhere recently (FFJ? Websleuths? I can't remember, and I can't seem to locate it) a post by a tradesman of some variety, who said it looked like it was actually some kind of water damage under the window, as he'd seen the exact same thing in many houses.
If John had to clean up the broken glass under the basement window to unstage but Patsy made the 911 call and police arrived within minutes and was present when Patsy opened the door to police when did he clean up the glass? Officer French went down to the basement shortly after arriving at the house.
ReplyDeleteFY
He could have cleaned up the glass before the police arrived, while Patsy was still on the phone calling their friends. He could have taken advantage of the confusion after the police arrived and snuck down into the basement to clean up the glass before anyone noticed. We don't really know exactly who did what at any given time, but we do know that John said he was in the basement early enough to notice an open window and close it. And when Fleet went down there he reported that the window was closed. So John must have been down there before Fleet went down there. It was a small pane and a small break within the pane so there could not have been that much glass. Collect it into a paper bag, place the bag in an unobtrusive corner of the basement, wait till the opportunity arose, go back down there, smash all the glass into tiny bits and flush it.
DeleteHow could he have run upstairs to get dressed (he was in his underwear) and still have time to go down to the basement to find a bag and clean up the glass and still be upstairs when Officer French arrives 7 minutes after the 911 call?
DeleteFY
Please reread what I wrote, OK? There are many possible scenarios. Also, we have no reason to believe their report about what happened prior to the 911 call. Patsy's version is totally inconsistent with John's version. He may well have been fully dressed at the time. Or he may have found a way to sneak down after the cops arrived. Cleaning up a few shards of glass might well have taken no more than a minute or so.
DeleteDidn't Patsy agree that he was in his underwear? Didn't French search the basement right after arriving at the house? I believe Fleet found the window closed like he said but that John lied about finding it open and closing it. (Just another one of John's many lies).
DeleteFY
Yes, Patsy said he was in his underwear. She also said that he told her to make the 911 call. But in the A&E interview she presented a totally contradictory description of what happened where and who said what. I've already covered the question of why Patsy would have lied. If you're curious look it up. (See the post titled "White Lies.) Fact is, the Ramseys were suspects and it's absurd to take the word of suspects when assessing any case. I happen to think they must have had a long discussion about what to do after Patsy read the note to John, and probably argued about it. As I see it, Patsy's ultimate version of what happened is due to her being manipulated by John, as explained in my post.
DeleteIt's also a mistake to make any assumptions about what happened that morning and when. There are several different and contradictory timelines and we have no reason to accept any one over the other.
Now if you prefer to accept the absurdities of the intruder theory or if you prefer to accept the equally absurd story John told about breaking that window months earlier, then I suppose you can then accept the notion that there was no window glass to clean up.
However, as far as I'm concerned, no intruder theory makes sense and John's window story is clearly a fabrication to deflect attention from his breaking that window the night of the crime to stage an intruder. If that's the case, and I'm sure it is, then we have no choice but to accept that John would have found some way to clean up that broken glass (or at least most of it).
If you have a better theory, then by all means share. That's what this blog is for.
I believe BDI and both parents covered it up, and if both parents were involved the staging was pretty complete when 911 was called.
DeleteFY
Thanks for sharing. But that is not a better theory, it is a worse theory. How was the staging complete, given:
Delete1. The very suspicious break in a window that obviously no one had passed through, as there was no sign of any disturbance in the window sill.
2. The very suspicious presence of a suitcase propped under that same window.
3. The presence of the victim's body wrapped in a blanket and hidden in the most remote room of the house. Why would an intruder bother to wrap and hide the body rather than leaving it out in the open and taking off?
If both Patsy and John were in it together they would surely have completed the window staging and they would certainly NOT have wanted the police to find a hidden body wrapped in a blanket. They would have had plenty of time to do all that was necessary before calling the police.
John's many trips where he was unaccounted for, his disappearances and re-appearances going through his mail, closing the window, going back down with Fleet, shows someone who was not comfortable with the way things were left and had to do more to manipulate the scene.
DeleteExactly, Castor.
DeleteJohn conducted further staging of the crime scene, as photos of moved objects in the basement show. For an hour or more, his presence was unaccounted for...unlike Patsy, who never left the sun room, because innocent people have no need to run or hide.
I think I remember a cigar box was moved? What is the reason to move that as part of the staging? What was the significance of the objects that were moved?
DeleteAlso was John ever questioned about the moved objects and what was his reply?
FY
There was some talk that some unsavory photos of JB were discovered in the basement, and in the discussion with Patsy involving the photos, LE also seemed to be very interested in this "wandering" cigar box. So, my guess - and it is just that, nothing more - is that the pics of JB were found inside said cigar box, and that is the reason why John moved it, possibly to a more remote location of the basement in the hopes it wouldn't be found. Had Patsy and he been in cahoots, I'm sure he would have known to dispose of such incriminating evidence BEFORE inviting the police over to find his daughter's body in the very same location he kept such photos. It is my belief that JB was no stranger to being brought down to the basement by Daddy in the wee hours of the morning, where he took photos of her, amongst other things.
DeleteJR was asked about the cigar box during his 1998 BPD interview. He said that he had originally placed the box on top of one of the paint cans in the WC. When shown crime scene photos by LE, he described the box as being overturned and lying on the floor. Actually, he specifically said that it looked like the box of cigars might have been dumped out. He also, later on, said that there was (another?) box of cigars that he didn't remember being there. IIRC, FW reported handling the cigar box when he went back down to the WC after JBR's body had been found.
DeleteIMO, not everything that was claimed to have been moved, or out of place, was done as staging. I think the movement of some of these items was unintentional, but then later used to add to the idea of an intruder.
I just read on Topix that JR filed a complaint against CBS Et Al on September 14, 2017. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
ReplyDeleteThe case can be found on that same site that we've used in the past to check for updates on BR's case.
https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/default.aspx
Several days ago, looking into the lack of prints on the note from the Ramsey's and also the question of whether Burke was questioned by either Ramsey during or after the chaos of that morning I re-read the 1998 police interview with Patsy by Haney. Patsy excitedly tells Haney she came downstairs and had gotten all the way to the bottom of the stairs (which she indicates possibly on a police photograph with an X) before she noticed a note, and turns around to read it. She says she read a few lines, croaked out John's name (said she could barely get his name out), ran upstairs, pushed open JB's door, saw JB wasn't there (and a discussion ensues about whether her lamp was on) and went back downstairs to the note. She does not tell Haney in this interview that she checked on Burke, but Burke's account to Dr. Phil was that she ran into his room and turned his light on and off "acting all psycho." She's now back downstairs, John comes down, and she tells him there is a note and picks it up and hands it to John. She goes over this several more times, where she repeats she picks up the note and hands it to him. She also says he takes the note from her. He then fans it out on the stairs and reads it. In his underwear. There is then some unaccounted for time when Patsy assumes John checks on Burke as he returns and says Burke is okay. Not clear whether he gets dressed at the same time or not because she says he comes downstairs dressed as well. She says he tells her to call 911, to call the police.
ReplyDeleteDoes she not remember going into Burke's room - or did she go into Burke's room only to see if JB was there, not to check on Burke. Did John really check on Burke? Handling the note too - there would surely be stress related sweat on her fingertips, or from the exertion of going up and down the stairs and into rooms and back downstairs. John being careful with the note I can understand, but Patsy is a different story. And was there concern for Burke? Or was the concern mostly in the telling of the story later for the police, in John's account.
The timing of that interview though Doc, 1998. Patsy certainly could have changed her story over who suggested calling 911, and leaving out the detail of whether she went into Burke's room or not. What could only have been accomplished had they been questioned separately, the evening of the 26th or morning of the 27th. What a travesty of justice.
DeleteI agree, Castor. The absence of anything Ramsey is highly suspicious.
DeleteEG
Right EG. Simple math - subtraction. The man who wasn't there.
DeleteThe woman who's prints aren't visible, and the boy who was asleep.
Shifting to the new DNA testing in a CNN article dated 12/14/2016 D.A. Stan G. said he isn't sure whether they will use DNA from pieces of evidence or only re-test results they already have. And, "Boulder police officials said they will only have comments if there is new information to be announced." So if we are waiting for results it could be there are results, but there is nothing new. And it backs up what Doc has said all along, that this isn't a DNA case. So now what.
Castor....I agree with Doc on that as well and am sure the DNA testing will be inconclusive. And you're so right when you said the R's should've been separated and questioned. The RN threw LE off, as they were then looking for a kidnapper.
ReplyDeleteMs. D.....I have to admit that I seldom read your posts. They tend to go on and on into meaningless, accusatory and condescending drivel which turns me off completely.
I suggest you do the same with mine, as you seem to have trouble understanding another's perspective on things and responding in a respectful way. And the last thing I want you to do is repeat yourself. I'm sure it's hard enough for people to read through your posts the first time.
EG
EG, you're the one who keeps asking me the same questions, and now you tell me you rarely bother to read my responses....yet I'm the rude one? Pot, meet kettle.
Delete"I'm sure it's hard enough for people to read through your posts the first time."
Most people here seem to do just fine, actually.
The majority of my posts to you are respectful.....your above comment to me, on the other hand, was not.
If you are going to demand answers on a public forum, at least take the time to read them, isn't that the point of being here? To discuss differing opinions? I may not agree with your viewpoint, but at least I respect you enough to read through your comments and respond as best as I can.
Ms. D, I thoroughly enjoy reading your well-researched, articulate posts and your replies to others. Keep doing what you do best, which is to net out a logical argument. Personally, I only skip over the posts of those who keep changing their point of view with every post or resort to belittling someone when they don't like the rebuttals they receive. So... I have to skip over EG unfortunately. -LE
DeleteThank you, LE!
DeleteI must admit, I am very disheartened to know that after spending a great deal of time compiling responses to the very questions EG asks me to answer, she doesn't even bother reading them. I find that to be more discourteous than any comment I've ever read here, and it really does make me wonder why people come to a discussion board when they have no interest in engaging in rational discourse with others who may not share their point of view.
Glad to see you appreciate my posts though, LE, as I do yours! As long as I have the respect of the people here who count - those who have a genuine interest in mutual dialogue, and are capable of displaying a level of common sense and logic - I'll stick around.....I don't have to be liked by everybody, being popular is not my purpose for being here (which is lucky for me, huh?!) :)
That really should have read "composing responses", shouldn't it? "Compiling" just isn't right.....maybe "composing" isn't either.....gee, I need some sleep, because I just can't seem to get a grasp of the English language these past few days. I blame the new ketogenic diet - my brain is suffering the effects of a lack of sugar!
DeleteI'd like to see both MsD and EG get along. I think you are both well thought- out ladies, who have alot to contribute here. You have both helped me learn about this case beyond what I read for myself.
DeleteMs D, since I have a computer programming background, "compiling" something makes total sense to me! Then again, that dates me as an former mainframe type. Ah well, I'd rather be a sleuth. -LE
DeleteCastor, I have absolutely nothing against EG whatsoever (though, knowing she skips over entire responses does sour things somewhat, admittedly). It is her most recent argument I have an issue with and I am simply asking that she defend it using logic and reason, which - given the purpose of this blog - is more than reasonable, I think.....don't you?
DeleteMs. D presented a premeditation scenario regarding the plane and JR’s plan to conceivably send Patsy and BR away, which I found very compelling. While an internally devised plan can’t be proven it still paints a picture of calculations which make sense. (Tip of the hat, Ms. D)
ReplyDeleteEssentially I agree the case most likely will not see a court room, unless additional forensic evidence is developed. It’s always been a circumstantial case which called out for forensic evidence to seal it.
But just for discussion on putting together a circumstantial case, placing Ms. D’s thoughts together with CC’s theory of JR’s panicked mindset after the Dec. 17th emergency calls, I’m wondering if the airlines have records of when the Atlanta to Minneapolis flights for the older kids were arranged. If he used his frequent flier number, those records might still exist and determine if the flights for the kids were changed to Charlevoix via Minneapolis when he learned on the 17th his daughter might need to have a more extensive examination. Simply a late-hour thought here.
-Anon5
Thank you, Anon5.....that would indeed be very interesting to find out!
DeleteDoes anyone have a link to the Aerospace version of the 911 call?
ReplyDeleteFY
There are a lot of comments about whether the staging was complete or not. My take is that they probably thought the staging WAS complete. When staging the window, they were very limited with what they could do. At the time of morning that they were staging, there was snow on the ground, so they couldn't risk footprints being seen in the snow nor could they risk being seen breaking their own window by a neighbor. Therefore the Ramsey's were limited to staging an entry point from inside the house. The alibi would be that they were asleep and heard nothing. That alibi gets destroyed if they are seen leaving the house by anybody.
ReplyDeleteThe spider web being in tact is simply an oversight and not something that would have been easily noticed in the middle of the night
-J
But then why undo all of that staging by calling the police. What reason would they have for stating their daughter has been kidnapped, via the note, and then not have it BE a kidnapping?
DeleteAt the very least you would have to say that two heads were worse than one if you think they were both involved.
It is my contention that IF it was solely John responsible and his master plan was to dump the body, then Patsy never makes that 911 call. For one thing, John wakes up 1st to ensure he has "read" the note first to control the scene. It makes zero sense that John would leave EVERYTHING up to chance that Patsy believed the warnings in the note that he didn't put until a few lines into the note.
DeleteThe body was hidden in the house. The hope would be that the police believed the note so much that all resources would be sent away from the house.
-J
Then J, she shouldn't have called the police in the first place. Your hypothesis is that they were in on it together. They staged the scene. They wrote the note. Then why bring the police in to it at all? They didn't call the police, she did.
Delete"The body was hidden in the house. The hope would be that the police believed the note so much that all resources would be sent away from the house."
DeleteThe police believed in the note. And all efforts were being put in dealing with a kidnapping.
But it was John who "found" the body in the house basement. Why did he find it if it was their plan to hide the body in the house and fool the police using a ransom note?
If they were in on it together they could have dumped the body before calling the cops and family friends.
I hit publish before finishing my thought :(
DeleteI believe Patsy lied many times. If those lies did or didnt help her, I don't know but I know that an innocent person doesn't lie. So, I'm really confused about that. Howevert, I can't find a reason why she would call the police if she was in on it with John. That call totally changed the game. If we can find a sensible answer to that dilemma, only then we can consider she was involved in the crime and/or cover up.
Doc has offered a rather credible explanation as to why Patsy might have lied to LE once she knew John had been "ruled out" - and, as a result, she was now suspect number one. She felt she had no choice but to remain united with John, and this meant corroborating John's version of events. Not to mention, we know that much of what is put down to "Patsy's lies" aren't, in fact, lies at all. What was going through Patsy's mind in the months/years after her daughter's murder, and how much she may have suspected her husband, I have no idea, and I often wonder (though her words to Det. Arndt shortly before her death suggest Patsy really did believe JB was killed by an intruder). All I'm certain of, is that when Patsy placed that 911 call on the 26th Dec, 1996, she couldn't have known her child lay dead in the basement, and I think Doc's theory has virtually all but proven this is the only viable scenario.
DeleteJ,I agree. Is it a fact that Burke was already in therapy before 12/26?
ReplyDeleteFY
I don't know how much stock I put into linguistics, but I was reading over JR's 1998 BPD interview again, and this response stood out to me.
ReplyDelete"We have said to ourselves, look,
there is never going to be a victory in this,
there is no victory, but if we can find who did
this, there could be some closure..."
Who changed JB's hairstyle after the White's party? When she was found dead she had a different hairstyle.
ReplyDeleteFY
I know this has been discussed repeatedly, but I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation to why Patsy (June 1998 transcript) claimed she saw a red heart on JonBenet’s palm the morning of the 26th despite saying only a few minutes earlier that she had not noticed any sort of marks on her body the night before. After a brief recess, Patsy returned to the interrogation with an opportunity to provide an understandable reason why she verbally slipped. The best Patsy could do was say that she could not remember if she actually saw the heart or had only read about it. Keep in mind, only minutes ago during the interrogation, Patsy was adamant that she had seen the heart and even went so far as to remark on how well it was drawn. What does this tell us for certain? At the very least, Patsy was involved.
ReplyDeleteHANEY: On the 25th,
12 Christmas, when you put JonBenet to bed, did she
13 have any marks on her?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I noticed.
15 THOMAS HANEY: Any scratches, cuts,
16 bruises?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I noticed.
18 THOMAS HANEY: How about, did she
19 have any marks from markers or anything like
20 that?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't notice
22 anything that night when she went to bed. And,
23 you know, I know there was a red heart on her
24 hand or her forehead. I don't know when that --
25 I mean, you know, I didn't -- I didn't inspect
0195
1 her when I put her to bed.
2 THOMAS HANEY: But when you put her
3 to bed, let's talk about that. We will go into
4 a little more detail later, because we have some
5 photographs and we want to talk about that. You
6 were -- at least changed part of her clothing
7 when she is asleep?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum, right.
9 THOMAS HANEY: Doesn't --
10 (INAUDIBLE). Did you notice anything?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: (No response.)
12 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have
13 washed her hands at a particular time?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, at dinner, she
15 rarely washed her hands.
16 THOMAS HANEY: Would she, or
17 perhaps she had been eating crab and you have
18 that slimy stuff all over?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, I think she is
20 going to wash her hands. But I didn't see her.
21 I don't know.
22 THOMAS HANEY: Getting her ready
23 that early afternoon, four or five o'clock, did
24 you give her a bath, did she take a bath?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think so.
0196
1 THOMAS HANEY: You don't think you
2 gave her one?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.
4 THOMAS HANEY: Do you think she
5 took one?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No, she didn't take
7 one (INAUDIBLE).
8 THOMAS HANEY: Showers?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.
10 THOMAS HANEY: Would she have
11 washed her hands before getting ready to go?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: I'd like to think
13 so, but I just don't know for sure.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: At the Whites, did
15 somebody say, oh, here, get ready for dinner?
16 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at
17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about
20 washing her hands?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid,
22 you know, if she can get by with it, she
23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much
24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.)
25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to
0197
1 that at all Christmas Day?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I
3 don't remember exactly, but I may have.
4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there
5 was a heart on her hand?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on
7 there in the morning, that's why.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it
9 from the next morning?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next
12 morning?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next
15 morning, did you remember it from the previous
16 evening?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No
18 response.)
Hercule
DING DING! Absolutely zero doubt in my mind that Patsy was involved. This is a good catch
Delete-J
It's a catch Eve J made here years ago.
DeleteTime becomes warped during crisis. Patsy saw her daughter's body in full rigor, arms (and hands) frozen above her head, around 1:00. Morning, afternoon, lose all meaning under life-and-death stress.
CC - details matter. I could still tell you my exact movement from the morning of 9/11. You can only use the "Patsy was under distress" excuse so many times before a pattern emerges. Every clue matters, so a drawing on her hand that wasn't there when she goes to bed and then appears the next day is not something you forget
Delete-J
She spent the prior afternoon playing with Daphne White and others. Little girls draw on their hands and arms. Why is this somehow sinister?
DeleteIf we isolate simply this incident, then no, there isn't anything necessarily sinister about this one single event. The problem is that with Patsy, the JDI crew have had to make excuses for all of her odd behavior.
Delete-She lied for John about the window because he gaslit her
-Shes wearing the same outfit because she probably fell asleep in it
-JB may or may not have taken a bath
-She was acting weird because of medication
-She couldn't remember specific details because she was under stress
-She wouldn't necessarily have known that JB was being abused even though she took her to a million doctors appointments
-She believed the RN to be real, but didn't care about the phone call from the kidnappers because she was under so much stress
-She called friends to come over and that isn't weird because who are we to judge what she would do
It goes on and on and on and on and on and on.......the reason that the apologists come out for Patsy is very simple. Patsy Ramsey being involved at all = JDI falls apart. Therefore Doc, Ms D, CC and others always poo poo all of Patsy's behavior as being normal because they can't admit that maybe just maybe, Patsy was involved.
-J
- I'm staunchly JDI and think "gaslighting" is a crock.
Delete- She wore the same outfit because it was a Christmas one, and the people she was going to meet had not seen her in it the night before.
- Insofar as I know, Patsy was not medicated until afternoon/evening of 26th.
- Patsy told LE that JBR had NOT taken a bath.
- Absent a full pelvic exam there was no way to determine abuse.
- She called friends because her husband was a cold fish and utterly unsupportive during her recent health crisis.
CC since you are the only JDIer that doesn't believe in the gaslighting can you help me with these questions I have?
DeleteI am leaning heavily towards BDI because I think Patsy was involved in the coverup and the only person she would cover for is Burke.
Why do you think JB's hairstyle was different when she was discovered if is she was sleeping all night?
Why did Patsy first tell French that she checked on JB first found her not in her room and then went downstairs and found the ransom note and then changed her story?
Why did she tell officers she put here to bed in a red turtleneck and then changed her story?
Why did she say John checked on Burke and then changed her story that both did?
Why did she say in one interview she saw JB's room bedroom door closed that morning but then changed her story to it was left slightly open as usual?
Why did she say she was shocked in one of her interviews when told there was evidence of previous sexual molestation when before that interview she was on a TV interview sitting next to John while he said something to the effect of we heard there was previous sexual abuse found?
Why did she say had no idea of why she called Dr Beuf 3x on 12/17?
Patsy in one of her interviews said she usually made sure JB went to pee before bed so she would not have an accident and wet the bed. Why would Patsy not have woken her up Christmas night?
Maybe Patys didn't want to wake her since they would have to get up really early the next day but why not put the diaper on her which were already in her room?
FY
Haney's not too bright. He should have told Patsy to answer yes or no for the record - I honestly don't know if "U-hum", or "Uh-uh" means yes or no, and a head shake shouldn't have been given a free pass either.
Delete"Why do you think JB's hairstyle was different when she was discovered if is she was sleeping all night?"
DeleteCan you cite your sources, please, FY? The photos of JB at the White's party were not released publicly, and I can't find any statement by Patsy, or LE, that says JB's hairstyle was not the same as it had been when she attended the party (two ponytails - one at the top, one at the bottom - tied in blue, elastic hair bands)
Thomas asked Patsy this in '97:
DeleteST: Did JonBenet normally sleep in addition to her jewelry with any hair ties in her hair.
PR: Usually, uh, a rubberband.
ST: Pulled back into a single ponytail.
PR: Back, ponytail, yeah.
Why would he ask her that?
FY
Seriously? That's your evidence for her hairstyle being changed? ST asked Patsy about the jewelry and hair ties because she was found wearing both. I have no clue where you got the idea JB's hair had been changed, so you will have to provide a transcript where it explicitly states that she was wearing her hair differently on the night she was murdered as to how it was when she was found. Not the way she "normally" wore it, as was asked in the transcript above, but the way she wore it the night she was killed.
DeleteThe R's were masters at answering questions with responses like "i don't recall, might have, could have, maybe, perhaps".
ReplyDeleteJR couldn't remember whether or not he got out of the car and went into the Stine's house Christmas night when they brought the Christmas gift over.
EG
To all the many questions regarding Patsy's supposedly suspicious words and behavior I have the same response: what is your point? If she were involved what advantage would those actions and responses have given her?
DeleteE.g: if she was the one who painted the heart on JonBenet's palm, then how easy it would be to lie and say "yes, I painted that on her the night before."
Why would she lie about the red turtleneck, what would she have had to gain by that? Similarly, why lie about the oversize panties? If she's the one who changed her, why not say she changed her before putting her to bed?
Etc. -- figure the rest out for yourself. Nothing she's been accused of lying about means anything unless she had something to gain by lying.
As for the events that transpired prior to the 911 call, I see no reason to believe any of it. Since there are serious contradictions in different versions of what happened there is no question that all three lied. The question for me is: why?
EVERY. DETAIL. MATTERS
DeleteIF she isn't involved, then regardless of how small the detail is, it matters. The original hope is to find JB. Then once the body is found, the hope is to find the killer. To mis-remember things or not be sure about almost anything should be troubling. Not to mention, neither of the Ramsey's were very cooperative which is puzzling IF you are innocent.
-J
I haven't commented here for a while as I've not had anything to add I do read all the comments every day to see if if there's anything new with the case. Unfortunately, as with the madeleine mccann case I still feel the same. The cadavers dogs present evidence the parents could have been I valved. The timeline of events suggest they were not. My problem has been patsy since the beginning when I got over LHP. I don't want her to be involved, she sounds genuine in interviews and on the 911 call. A bit of reading has me informed that people that lie use "we" rather than I or my. The other things mentioned by J and zed over the years are also troubling to me. One thing for sure that we all agree on is John. On a side note, is it correct that fibres from the cord and from the brown bag in the spare bedroom that contained rope not owned by Ramsey's, were found on JBR and in her bed and the body bag. Also the baseball bat found on the north side of the garden, reportedly not belonging to the Ramsey's has fibres from basement carpet?
ReplyDeleteSorry I meant to read before publishing for punctuation errors etc.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 911 call
ReplyDeleteFrom John's 1998 interview:
1 MIKE KANE: I think you touched on this,
2 and I want to go into it a little bit more than
3 this. You were pretty adamant about calling the
4 police and the FBI obviously and all these
5 references to knowledge of police tactics and
6 stuff like that.
7 Was there any discussion about not calling the
8 police?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, for a moment. I mean,
10 Patsy said, it says not to call the police. I
11 said, call them anyway. We called them. I mean,
12 there's no question in my mind that that was the
13 right answer.
14 MIKE KANE: Did you have any concern
15 about doing that? Even when you had made that
16 decision, did you have any concerns?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: No. No. Because we couldn't
18 just sit there. We would have gone mad.
From Patsy's 1998 interview.
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Sometime
2 between 5:30 and 6 a.m. And walked around
3 here to the bathroom and I did not take a shower
4 that morning, so I don't know, you know, what
5 exactly I did here. I mean other than just get
6 dressed, brush my teeth, put on my make up. And
7 get ready to go.
8 And then I walked down downstairs
9 here, came to the landing there (showing
10 document) and there was an ironing board here,
11 some clothes, I had a plastic bag kind of right
12 in here somewhere that I had just things to
13 throw, throw in, to take for my trip. And I
14 think I was here for a couple of minutes, just
15 getting some clothes, things.
16 And then I started down the stairs,
17 this staircase, to go to the kitchen. And the
18 note was on the landing, on the stairs, the
19 bottom of the stairs here. And I, there was
20 some lighting on, but it wasn't bright lights
21 (INAUDIBLE) and looked -- you know, started
22 reading the letter.
23 And after the first couple of
24 sentences realized, you know, what was
25 happening, and I ran back up these stairs, okay,
0010
1 and pushed her door to her room right here, and
2 she was not in her bed. So I went over to these
3 stairs and yelled out for John, called to him
4 and he came down. And I said "she's been
5 kidnapped, here's a note," whatever. And I was
6 panicking, you know. I think -- I can't
7 remember exactly what I did then, whether -- I
8 think I ran downstairs again.
9 I said, you know, "what do we do,
10 what do we do?"
11 He said, "call 911, call the
12 police."
13 I ran upstairs, and I think -- I
14 think -- I -- I can't remember if -- I think
15 asked him to check on Burke, one of us checked
16 on Burke, and I remember just seeing him at the
17 phone, trying to -- and then I looked down and
18 John came down and on the floor, down here
19 (indicating), I came in here, here, and John
20 came down, I went to the telephone here, and he
21 kind of crouched on the floor, he was in his
22 underwear, and read the papers on the floor
23 right there, and you know, I was trying to get
24 this 911 person to -- it just seemed like it
25 took forever, to drag through, you know, crazy
0011
1 by that time.
2 Anyway, got the message across, she
3 said she would send somebody out, and oh, God in
4 heaven. Oh, then I phone -- called our friends,
5 Mr. and Mrs. Fleet White and Mr. and
6 Mrs. Johnson, they live in Boulder. I think
7 John went back up to get dressed.
8 And I called them and told them
9 that she's been kidnapped, she is missing. And
10 then I walked out through here, and opened the
11 door, and started waiting for -- front door --
12 started waiting for the police to show up.
13 (INAUDIBLE).
14 I was standing on the (INAUDIBLE)
15 and pretty soon a squad car came -- you know,
16 officer came up. And I remember thinking
17 because it said somewhere in the note, if you do
18 that, if you call somebody, that's not good.
19 Blah, blah, blah. And I just remembered
20 thinking oh, my God, I hope they are not
21 watching me. I mean, what if they are watching,
22 if the policeman comes, I mean all this was just
23 rushing through my head.
Following Doc's reasoning, it seems the broken window must have been left for Patsy. The note was for Patsy. The body was hidden from Patsy. If she hadn't called 911 and John had been left alone to deal with the kidnappers, then he would have had plenty of time to break a window. No need to do it the night of the murder and possibly wake people up. Unless he figured Patsy would have been searching for an entry point, which seems reasonable.
ReplyDeletePerhaps John knew it was not good enough for police though, and then resorted to unstaging. It seems hard for me to believe he was prepared to go through that window, either because he forgot his keys one night or to stage an entry point for an intruder.
It is a wonder the unstaging worked, given Fleet White picking up some remaining shards, and the one on the suitcase which John seemed to grant was suspicious.
The broken window was there to stage an intruder entry. But you have a point, because if it weren't for Patsy he could have broken it the following day and done a more thorough job of staging. I think he broke it when he did so he could show it to Patsy if she got suspicious, or if she went to the basement looking for JonBenet.
DeleteI tend to think that too.....of course, he could have just as easily opened a door though, couldn't he (which would have aroused less suspicion in the event a neighbor heard the breaking of the glass)?
DeleteThis is just one of many reasons I firmly believe there is more to the broken window than a simple case of staging/unstaging.
John told the officer he had gone around and checked all the doors and windows that morning - but later he intimated that the butler door may have been left open, clearly looking for other outs to suggest an intruder scenario. Clearly he gathered steam as he went along, on the one hand appearing helpful (pointing out the broken window) and later offering a list of possible suspects to LE.
DeleteYes, John could easily have left a door ajar. However, as we know from so many cases, when a breakin is staged, the staging almost always includes a staged break-in point -- a broken window, a broken lock, a smashed in door, etc. The guilty party needs to provide solid evidence of the break-in. An open door could mean anything. A broken window can mean only one thing.
DeleteJ claimed "the Ramseys" staging was complete at the window by the time Patsy made the 911 call. Of course, if that were the case, 'they' would have never cleaned up the glass. However, the sense that the staging was complete seems only satisfied by recognizing John alone as perpetrator, where he breaks the window for Patsy, who he hoped would not call 911 per the ransom note, and then cleans up the glass for the cops.
DeleteMs D's response is quite interesting. One does have to wonder why a broken window and why in that spot. I think Doc's answer is probably the correct one. An open door was not enough to imply a breakin. Then again, the note suggests at least three people, which need a bigger space than that window. I recall talks of "pry marks" on several doors, none of which managed to force the door open, but without any reference to how "fresh" they were. Perhaps the broken window was a "plan b" and John could not force a door open.
I have also speculated that the window was near where John struck JonBenet. The basement and the kitchen seem the two options there, and I never could get my head around the kitchen as the spot. One wonders what he used to break the window if not the same thing he used to strike JonBenet. I don't think you'd want to strike her near a door. There might be glass in the door for people to see and she might run out the door if John were to somehow slip up.
Also the likelihood that they would have heard a door or upstairs window break-in is more likely than an intruder who entered through the basement where no one would have heard and more believable when quizzed by the cops.
DeleteWell, whatever the case, John must have broken that window solely for the purpose of fooling Patsy, because his master plan didn't involve the police being called to the house that morning, period. Any subsequent staging that needed to be performed to fool LE would have been carried out *after* Patsy and Burke had been sent away (to Charlevoix - as pre-arranged weeks ago for this very purpose - is my guess).
DeleteThe #1 reason I believe Patsy was involved was French said when he came up from searching the basement she was watching him through splayed fingers.
ReplyDeleteFY
If you're going to base Patsy's guilt solely on the words of one officer who was on the scene that morning, what do you make of Det. Arndt, who said that upon seeing Patsy's reaction to seeing her dead daughter, she knew she wasn't involved? (In stark contrast to her account of John's reaction, whom she said was "groaning" but allegedly couldn't even manage to squeeze out an actual tear. How little he cared about his daughter...so very sad. I believe the only emotion JR felt that morning was relief.)
DeletePatsy's mourning was genuine, she was devastated but that does not mean she wasn't involved in the coverup.
DeleteFrench did not have a reason to lie about seeing Patsy looking at him through splayed fingers?
FY
What coverup?
DeleteFY, I don't think Ms D was insinuating that French was lying. I think she was pointing out that French's report of PR's actions is just one person's interpretation.
DeleteHow is looking through splayed fingers a sign of guilt? Please explain that to me. Maybe she suspected French was goofing off instead of doing his job.
DeleteRick French was coming up from the basement WHERE THE BODY WAS and observed that Patsy was looking at him through splayed fingers.
DeleteWhat person wouldn't go "DID YOU SEE ANYTHING?" Remember..her daughter was kidnapped in her mind right? IF she was innocent...instead Patsy invited friends over and was in mourning all morning. My opinion is that she already knew she was dead and was curious if French found the body...which is why she was looking at him through splayed fingers.
-J
goofing off? yea, I am sure Patsy was wondering if he was playing hide and seek.
Delete-J
Exactly J!
Delete"goofing off? yea, I am sure Patsy was wondering if he was playing hide and seek. J" LOL!!!
FY
You have to admit that an adult looking through splayed fingers is a bit odd, especially under those circumstances. It's like she was hiding behind her hands, peeking out. No?
DeleteEG
EG, there is no way to innocently explain why an adult would be peeking through splayed fingers, that is why that is the #1 reason I believe Patsy already knew her daughter was already dead that morning.
DeleteFY
FY,
DeleteI have to admit, it's rather odd.
EG
He also said she appeared agitated (or it was the other first officer on the scene) that he was wearing a gun. Then we have Linda Arnt stating she was mentally counting the bullets in her gun, not sure if they would all get out of there alive. Some of this is just red herring stuff, and I'd take it with a grain of salt.
DeleteCastor...
DeleteYes, I saw the interview Arnt gave and to me, she looked like she had her own issues. I am sure she knew something didn't add up that day, and her intuition was probably right.
EG
Very true. Officer French's intuition about that morning as well.
Deleteall these years later Officer French says he's still upset he didn't open the wine cellar door on that morning - John pretty much effectively steered him away from it
DeleteWe know Patsy was not involved because:
Delete1. She would not have called 911 if she'd been staging a kidnapping, as that call totally blew the staging.
2. She would not have called 911 if she knew her daughter's body was hidden in that remote, filthy room, waiting to be discovered.
3. She would not have handed the police a note in her own handwriting, especially if it could be so easily identified by all those "experts."
4. If she had discovered JBR in an unconscious state she would have called 911 immediately -- no reason to stage a kidnapping when it could have been reported as an accident.
5. She and John would have completed the staging before calling in the police.
6. She would certainly not have covered for John if she knew he had killed the child she doted on.
7. She had no motive for deliberately killing that child.
8. If it had been an accident she would have reported it as such, rather than get involved in the elaborate staging of a kidnapping that never took place anyhow.
Everything she said or did that looks suspicious can easily be explained and her "lies" mean nothing since none of them actually helped her case.
"We know Patsy was not involved because:"
DeleteWe actually DONT know this. You make a good case, but it's simply an opinion.
-J
It's much more than just an opinion since it's backed up by several pieces of evidence combined with simple common sense. On the other hand, I could be wrong, so it's not irrefutable proof either.
DeleteI wasn't trying to attack you, but almost everything you wrote is simply your take on it. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but doesn't mean you are right either. When you finally come around to BDI, then you will finally have found the truth ;-)
Delete-J
Well then, J, why don't you offer a compelling counter argument by compiling a list, like Doc's above, listing eight reasons why Burke had to have been the killer? If you do better than Doc, we'll have to concede you might have a point.
DeleteMaybe we can all agree that Burke was a victim in all of this as well. If he had hit his sister that night and told a parent she wasn't coming to, was he then put to bed not knowing what might happen next, shuttled off the next morning and told his sister was kidnapped? And there was a note? How would that have helped Burke? And so twenty years goes by and he has to live with the stigma, has to live with himself, that he likely killed his sister but was persuaded somehow it was a pedophile from the pageant circuit? He has had to grow up under an umbrella of everyone else's suspicions that he was involved, and left to defend himself against lawsuits. To me the person who wrote that note was covering their OWN butt, not someone else's.
ReplyDeleteBREAKING NEWS! JOHN RAMSEY SUES CBS! WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_31366597/john-ramsey-files-lawsuit-against-cbs-after-series
Mike G
I posted the same up-thread the other day. No one responded.
DeleteSorry HKH. It's baffling.
DeleteDo you recall John being defamed in the CBS thing, H? I don't, but I quicklu grew disgusted with it, and confess I didn't pay strict attention.
DeleteHas anyone checked Lin Wood's twitter thing for comments? I haven't got the first clue how to go about it.
DeleteCC, the CBS show was actually what sparked my interest in the case. As a noob, I probably didn't watch it as intently as others might have. I remember a segment where they analyzed PR and JR's behavior during various media appearances--basically asserting how suspicious a lot of their responses were. I also remember they said that JR could be heard on the 911 call. At the shows conclusion, the "experts" flat out said the Rs covered up BR's murder of JBR by staging the crime.
DeleteI apologize for overlooking your original posting about John's lawsuit, H. My bad. You always get the scoops . . . You go, girl!
DeleteThis is all I can see cc.
ReplyDeleteTweet
Sign up
Log in
Conversation
Lin Wood
Lin Wood @LLinWood
·
20 Sep 2016
In May 1999, Boulder DA & PD publicly stated Burke was not a suspect. Not even a possible suspect.
6
6
Teri Cooper Brown
Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294
·
21 Sep 2016
New advances show Burke awake during 911 call.
No 9yo child fakes sleeping when sister gone!
3
3
Lin Wood
Lin Wood @LLinWood
·
21 Sep 2016
No new advances. See pp 14-15 of 2000 paperback by Steve Thomas. 911 claim is 16 years old.
3
1
Diane
Diane @Lesliediane79
·
21 Sep 2016
claim confirmed by aerospace. Dismissed by blind.
1
1
Lin Wood
Lin Wood @LLinWood
·
21 Sep 2016
Don't let the truth hit you in the rear on the way out, Diane.
2
1
Teri Cooper Brown
Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294
·
21 Sep 2016
How do you sleep? John R said investigation was worse than JB's death. Great Dad.
1
2
Lin Wood
Lin Wood @LLinWood
Replying to @terib3294 and 3 others
I sleep quite well at night. Thanks for asking.
4:22 am · 21 Sep 2016
3 Likes
Joseph
Joseph @JosephThropp
·
21 Sep 2016
Replying to @LLinWood and 4 others
these white moms are going hard as hell over here, Diane a savage
2
1
Diane
Diane @Lesliediane79
·
21 Sep 2016
Lin took his toys and went home. Blocked me. How does he handle court?
2
2
Teri Cooper Brown
Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294
·
22 Sep 2016
How mature!
1
1
Diane
Diane @Lesliediane79
·
22 Sep 2016
I don't think Lin likes when women challenge his opinion. #nosamwich4lin
1
1
Teri Cooper Brown
Teri Cooper Brown @terib3294
·
22 Sep 2016
Agree. I believe John Ramsey thought Patsy was a nutcase - condescending toward her.
1
Diane
Diane @Lesliediane79
·
22 Sep 2016
dr Phil said today, nothing to hide, hide nothing to guest. Except Ramseys I guess.
Thanks, Eve. The Daily Camera article said John filed his suit on September 14th. I'm guessing he had to file within one year of the defamatory words/acts, or be barred by the Statute of Limitation in Michigan
DeletePerhaps this is some sort of strategy on Wood's part, to put additional pressure on the defendants, force a settlement.
CC: I think Wood might be out of it alltogether. John A. Lesko is John Ramsey's attorney, and all the defendants named in the suit appear to be represented by one James E. Stewart.
ReplyDeletesee: https://cmspublic.3rdcc.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=3635723
Could Lesko's strategy be to "join John to the hip of Burke" to once and for all exonerate all possible combinations of Ramseys? Afterall, as Doc has repeated until he's blue in the face, the Boulder authorities and all the various courts of opinion are convinced that if one Ramsey is guilty, at least one of the other two Ramseys in the house that night, conspired in a coverup. Could, paradoxically, lights shed on John at trial potentially incriminate him more if CBS were entirely focused on Burke?
Mike
FYI:
ReplyDeleteJohn A. Lesko, Esq.
B.A., Political Science, University of Michigan, 1990
J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1995
Admitted to Michigan Bar, 1995
___________________________________________________________________
A Michigan native, Mr. Lesko is a graduate of the University of Michigan and the University of Michigan Law School. During college, he was accepted into the Honors Program, awarded Class Honors, and achieved a perfect score on his Law School Admissions Test -- a feat unmatched by any president, supreme court justice, or member of congress.
With his choice of top legal programs, Mr. Lesko accepted a scholarship to Michigan Law, ranked among the best schools in the country. While there, he earned one of the top grades in his Constitutional Law Course, receiving the highest score on a major exam section. He was also a Michigan Law Sports Champion, and had his writing used as a model for other students.
After law school, Mr. Lesko worked in Washington, D.C. for several major international firms. He worked in a variety of areas, including white-collar criminal defense, employment law, and excess-carrier insurance defense.
Mr. Lesko now operates his own Detroit-area practice with the goal of providing top-quality legal services on a personal, affordable level. He recently obtained a Million-dollar judgment in a civil assault case, and has achieved successful resolutions in cases involving felony drug offenses, medical malpractice, employment disputes, property disputes against local municipalities, insurance claim appeals, alcohol-related driving offenses, and telemarketing harassment claims.
Mike
Lin Wood is not licensed to practice in Michigan. One way around that is to associate oneself with an attorney who is, and petition the judge for permission to try the case as co-counsel. It's what Wood did in Burke's case, and what he's likely doing in John's as well.
ReplyDelete“...if she was the one who painted the heart on JonBenet's palm, then how easy it would be to lie and say ‘yes, I painted that on her the night before.’”
ReplyDeleteNot very easy considering that Patsy would be implicating herself with the red heart used to outline John’s photo in a recent article found inside the Ramsey home.
Doc, how can you explain Patsy’s remark concerning how well the red heart was drawn and later dismissing that observation by saying she might not have even seen it at all?
Hercule
Interesting news about this second lawsuit. I have no idea why John would want to complicate things this way. But of course the show not only implicated Burke, but also John, as an accomplice.
DeleteHercule, please explain what Patsy would have had to gain by that remark or how it implicates her in her daughter's death. Yes, Patsy's remark is a bit puzzling, but it's puzzling in either case, whether she was innocent or guilty.
"Not very easy considering that Patsy would be implicating herself with the red heart used to outline John’s photo in a recent article found inside the Ramsey home."
DeleteHow do the drawings implicate her, Hercule? Why didn't she just say "Yeah, I drew the heart on JB's hand at the xmas party, and I outlined the red heart (do we know it was red?) on John's photo a couple of days ago. I fail to see how a denial - or an admission - is an indication of guilt. What am I missing here?
Regarding my above comment (I know I've said it before, but geez I wish there was an edit option!) I'm aware the drawing on JB's palm was in red ink (though it never did look like a heart to me, honestly), but do we know it was a red marker that was used on John's newspaper article? And regardless of whether two hearts were drawn in red marker or any other colour, doesn't this simply tell us that JB was probably the one who scribbled the "heart" on her hand AND on her father's newspaper? Young girls are quite fond of drawing love hearts.....
DeleteYes, I think the most logical explanation is that JBR drew this herself or maybe another child drew it during the party. Patsy probably didn't notice it when she put her to bed. What she said about it speaks only to her confusion. If she were involved in the coverup she'd have had an answer prepared and would not have responded in such a confusing manner.
DeleteIf you want to assume she painted that herself, after JBR's death, then you need to explain why she would want to give herself away by saying she saw it on her that morning. That's the last thing she'd have wanted to say.
What's significant to me is how easily so many have jumped on this and other ambiguities in Patsy's testimonies and interviews as proof-positive of her guilt. That says more about the state of mind of her accusers than anything else.
Not to mention, if Patsy went to such lengths to stage a botched kidnapping/pedophile intruder/revenge killing etc., why in the heck would she add such an obviously personal touch, like a love heart, on her daughter's palm? (The same reason she called 911, I suppose...she was hell bent on undermining her staging, huh?!)
DeleteThere's something that just doesn't add up here, Hercule: you're asking us to believe that this woman brutally strangled her daughter to death, defiled her dead body, left her on a cold, hard, mouldy, basement floor.....but during all this unspeakable violence, she took the time to lovingly draw a heart on the hand of the child she'd just garroted to death?! And you wonder why no one takes you seriously, here...
Why would Casey Anthony wrap Caylee in her favorite blanket?
Delete-J
Possibly simply for easier disposal of the body (her favourite blanket being the one nearby). Or, perhaps Caylee's was an accidental death which resulted in a cover up. Hercule is asking ask to believe that Patsy murdered her daughter in the most violent of ways, but lovingly drew a heart on her hand, which runs contrary to her violent actions, and I don't think he can have it both ways in this case. There is absolutely nothing about JB's murder that suggests this was the work of someone who loved her and had regretted what they'd done (the garrote was way too tight to be mere staging, as I've argued before).
DeleteOne more thing, J...the PDI theory proposes that - unlike Casey Anthony, who had the common sense to dispose of the victim's body - Patsy was staging a botched kidnapping where her daughter's body would be found that day in her very own basement, therefore drawing a heart on the victim's hand after staging it to look like the work of a sadistic intruder would be a pretty stupid thing to do, don't you think? Especially after using her own materials to commit the murder and write the ransom note. Patsy may as well have worn a sign that morning that said "I'm guilty, arrest me."
DeleteCaylee Anthony's body was disposed of - clearly, her murderer didn't want it to be found.
According to PDI, the body being discovered shortly after LE arrived was part of the plan, so Patsy would have obviously had to do things quite differently, as she didn't have the luxury of waiting for the elements, and time, to destroy vital evidence, as Casey did.
Therefore, two entirely different scenarios that cannot be compared.
Is this what it's come down to, Herc? Positing that a drawing of a "heart" (I don't see it either, D...looks like a lumpy trapezoid to me) is somehow evidence of Patsy's guilt?
DeleteWhere is Gumshoe, P.I. with her goofy, exalted theories about you? What to make of this, Gumshoe?
As a child who loved to draw, I was always using colourful markers, and as a result, almost always had markings on my hands. They might have looked like doodles - and sometimes they were - but more often than not, they were just accidental markings.
DeleteI really fail to see Hercule's point here, and as usual, he's being intentionally evasive by refusing to outline his point in a non cryptic manner.....why do you do that, Hercule? Could it be an attempt to make it look as though you're telling us something, when you're really offering us nothing at all?
John Ramsey's Complaint For Defamation has been posted
ReplyDeleteJohn Ramsey v. CBS, et. al. docket number 16-017577-CZ
just google search it if you wish
this might help:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/document/361395795/John-Ramsey-v-cbs-et-al
type -exhibits at the end of above link to view exhibits
Oh, awesome! Thanks, Castor.
DeleteAccording to the precis of his remarks I just read on Westword, Lin Wood says they've only just briefed and held oral argument on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and are now awaiting the judge's decision on those Motions.
ReplyDeleteTHEY HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN DISCOVERY, the depositions and interrogatories I so dearly hope will leak.
This thing is moving with all the speed of a glacier. . . Very discouraging.
It's like waiting for a pregnant elephant to give birth. ;)
DeleteAlmost. Especially since for the last ten years we've seen the rise of something called "the rocket docket", touted as "one year from file to trial".
DeleteIt's intended to cut through lawyerly posturing and meaningless motions intended to delay - and it works a treat.
Speaking of Burke Ramsey v CBS, et. al.
ReplyDeleteTOM HANEY: Okay. Do you recognize this
ReplyDelete3 particular bat?
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Not, you know, like I said,
5 Burke would be the better one to know which was
6 his bat and which wasn't.
7 TOM HANEY: Sure.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
9 TOM HANEY: And would you be able to
10 distinguish one bat from another?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Probably not.
12 TOM HANEY: Okay. Not a big baseball,
13 softball fan, player?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
15 TOM HANEY: Okay.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: Unh-unh (no).
Patsy was on a women's softball team, why is she lying?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Patsy was on a women's softball team, why is she lying?"
DeleteWho says she's "lying"?
Tom Haney asked her if she was a "big baseball/softball fan/player", to which she responded "no", because it might well have been the truth. Her and some of the local moms formed a softball team for a bit of fun, and I'm not even sure how often they met up and actually played. Was it a regular thing, or did Patsy only play once or twice? I belonged to a softball team in my youth, but I certainly wasn't a big fan of the game - I barely knew the rules - and I couldn't have picked out my bat from anyone else's on the team.
If the question was: "Have you ever played softball?" and Patsy responded: "No", only THEN would it have been a lie.
I'm not even sure what your point is here anyway. Let's say you're correct, and Patsy did lie about the softball bat, what does it even imply? If Patsy is the murderer, and the bat was the weapon - which is obviously the implication being made here - she still has nothing to lose by admitting it was her bat shown in the photograph, or that she had previously played softball...she had no problem admitting the materials used for the RN were hers, did she? Or the paintbrush that was used to fashion the garrote? Therefore, in this instance, I take her at her word: she didn't recognize the bat.
Thanks for the heads up HKH. And Mike G. Item number 142 in the complaint is bothersome though - can you guess why? (under "Key Facts About the Murder of JonBenet & Law Enforcement's Investigation"). I understand Lin Wood is alluding to the magical Intruder, and that she would not have struggled with a family member, but if she was hit first and knocked unconscious then where was the struggle?
ReplyDeleteLin Wood says under item 142 "JonBenet's body showed many signs of a struggle with her attacker."
ReplyDeleteHave another look at the autopsy report. Dr Meyer noted no evidence of a struggle.
DeleteLin Wood has it listed as a "key fact about the murder". If it's false how can he do that.
ReplyDeleteDo you also think if something is printed in the paper it must be true, Virginia? You don't think lawyers like Lin Wood are given to hyperbole, exaggeration, even falsification, if it suits their purpose? Did you not read his Complaint in Burke v. CBS?
DeleteIt isn't right, and it sure ain't what most of us do, but I suppose it's one way to fill a 1200-page Complaint, and he's only in trouble if he's called on by the defense to prove it...as he undoubtedly would be in a trial.
But that won't happen, because these cases will settle long before trial, and so he's free to make these kinds of allegations for the media, for PR purposes.
Virginia?
DeleteI should have known better.
DeleteIt's a literary reference, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus".
Never mind, Castor.
ReplyDeleteWood is making points for the Rs and IDI by throwing out chaff, much as fighter pilots do to confuse radar.
If he's ever called on it he'll swear up and down that the scrapes on her back and marks on her face are signs of a struggle, and that the DNA under her fingernails was not caused by the improper use of nail clippers, but rather belonged to a mysterious intruder.
He'll even produce an "expert" to "prove" it.
John Ramsey's guilt is etched into the basement window. It is the key to the case as DocG has pointed out.
DeleteWhen Ramsey's behavior induced Linda Arndt to tell Ramsey to search the house top to bottom and he tore off into the basement with Fleet White, he knew this was it. He was going to bring Jonbenet's body up for better or worse. The blood must have been pounding in his head. But before he performed that final sordid act, consider the glaring, pulsating fact that the FIRST thing he did was lead Fleet White to the basement window so as to make sure that he saw the window break, then together go through the motions of looking for glass that he knew he had cleaned up earlier, giving himself the opening to self-servingly announce to a potential witness (White) in his impending murder trial, that he had broken the window earlier that summer and gotten into the house.
Again, he did that FIRST, while knowing he was about to recover Jonbenet's body and bring it up for all to see and react to. He had to first cover the window as he knew it had not been sufficiently staged and that he was going to be arrested. He needed to be telling someone other than police that he had broken that window before, to try and account for the partially staged window scene and save himself. Pure desperation. This was a high IQ brain in overdrive. Survival instincts on steroids. To think he couldn't have written that ransom note under crushing pressure compared to that moment is a non-starter.
Question: What if Smit, who was smaller than Ramsey, had not later been able to wriggle through that window? Ramsey's summer break-in story would have been exposed as a lie, and his basis for getting away with the un-staging of the basement window would have come unwound.
Thus, Ramsey had to have known before he committed to the summer break-in ruse that it was possible for a man to get through that window.
I believe that even before he broke the window to fool Patsy, he put the suitcase under it, stood on it, and inserted his shoulders through the window to test whether it was feasible as an intruder entry. That exercise accounts for the mussing of the outer window sill, the loose debris on the floor, and the scuff on the wall coming back down feeling for the suitcase with his feet. The kernel of glass on the suitcase came from a second post-window break foray up through the window for an attempt to dislodge the grate, perhaps with a golf club, dragging glass down onto the suitcase on the way back down, a kernel of which didn't get cleaned up. The dangling spider web in the lower left corner of the window could have survived his movements. Who knows but that the web was larger before he angled his shoulders through the window?
He couldn't have committed to the summer break-in story without knowing for sure it was at least physically possible.
Shoulders on a man are narrower than hips so he was confident in making up the summer story if his shoulders got through. As DocG points out in his book and this blog, Ramsey evaded and could not recall or state exactly how he got through the window when recounting it to police. That's because he had never done it. Had he done it, he would have had everything to gain and nothing to lose by describing exactly how he did it, step by step, but he couldn't, because he had never fully done it.
All he was sure of was that a man could at least get through the window, otherwise he'd never have committed to that story to cover the incomplete window staging.
It was in his mind to point out that the suitcase was a boost for an intruder's exit, because he had performed that act himself.
Black Sheep
Shoulders broader than hips, sorry.
DeleteBlack Sheep
Pretty arcane, BS.
DeleteDoes anyone know what they are talking about here?
ReplyDeleteThis is from Patsys 1998 BPD interview.
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on
17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the
18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning
19 photo of the kids.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Oh, God.
21 TOM HANEY: Before we, before we talk too
22 much about the next photo, if you can --
23 TRIP DeMUTH: You want to just take that
24 out for a minute?
25 TOM HANEY: Let's talk still about the
0528
1 120TET. Like I say, this was on your role of
2 film and it's not exactly the same photograph
3 that was taken by the police.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
5 TOM HANEY: But it's, it's, it shows --
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
7 TOM HANEY: -- pretty much, I guess, or can
8 you tell me when that would have been taken?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't have a clue why
10 anybody would take a picture like that. I don't
11 know (inaudible). Who took the picture?
12 TOM HANEY: Well, it's on your roll --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: It's on my --
14 TOM HANEY: -- of film on your camera.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
16 TOM HANEY: And this legal pad that you --
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
18 TOM HANEY: -- identified --
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
20 TOM HANEY: -- do you know when that would
21 have been in that position?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. So this, this was taken
23 before photo one was?
24 TOM HANEY: Before the police photos.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, okay. I don't know
0529
1 when this was taken, or why it was taken. I
2 mean, it's nothing.
3 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize that pad, I
4 know it's (inaudible) photo?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but we had a lot of
6 those around. There was a picture in another
7 one. I think.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes)
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I bought like those Office
10 Depot's or Office Max or whatever they are and I
11 usually kept a bunch of them, you know, kept
12 them over here, right around here in the
13 kitchen.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: By the telephone?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but, you know, they
16 float all over.
17 TRIP DeMUTH: So it wouldn't have been
18 unusual to be where it is?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. Gosh.
20 TOM HANEY: Just a second, okay?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
22 TOM HANEY: So would this particular note
23 pad be, belong to somebody in particular or --
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No, not necessarily.
??? Patsy's being shown photos from the family camera of Christmas morning - which were not, other than two or three - ever released to the public.
DeleteWhat's your point?
I guess something is different from the photo the family took compared to the police photo but what and why is it important? I have no idea that's why I am asking.
DeleteThe police photos were taken, at minimum, 24 hours later than any the Rs took Christmas morning. Many things may, and likely were, moved and changed.
DeleteThere were cops, victim advocates, and family friends all over 15th Street by that time.
I don't see any relevance.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe notepads that appear and disappear, Anon.
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple of notepads on the side table close to kitchen that are seen on the family photos but then they were apparently removed from there before police took the crime scene pictures. They look out of place in the family picture.
John Ramsey handed LE a pad belonging to Patsy, containing her handwriting samples, then took another from the wrought iron side table and wrote "The Quick Brown Fox" at the cops' behest.
DeleteCheck the search warrant returns. Pads did not "appear and disappear". Many pads were collected.
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't the disappearance of the notepads be explained because John handed them over to LE on the 26th though?
Well, the crime scene pictures were taken before the notepads were handed over, if I'm not mistaken.
ReplyDelete