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

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

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

Friday, December 8, 2017

An Interview with Lin Wood

From Westword, dated Oct. 12:



240 comments:

  1. “Why would L-M have any kind of proof unavailable to LE?”

    I never said they had proof. What they do have is the truthful version of the events provided by the Ramseys.

    “What about that alleged meeting with Ressler wherein you took your vows of silence?”

    It was and still is a requirement that contents from any meeting presented inside the walls of that particular venue were to remain inside those walls.

    “Where did you see Patsy's medical records? Why would she release them if they contained information damaging to her?”

    I have not seen Patsy’s medical records. She would not release them. One has to ask, “Why not?” Or, “What do you have to hide?” If she had released those records Steve Thomas would have received more support regarding the theory he published.

    “L-M personnel could have been subpoenaed to appear before the GJ, had it been thought they had anything to contribute. None were.”

    CC, are you really that naive? If the US Government did not want their prized supplier to be subpoenaed, do you not think they could have flexed that particular muscle?

    Hercule

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

    ReplyDelete
  3. All that's missing from your latest tall tale is Russia and Wikileaks.

    You've gone from Frank Coffman to a grand conspiracy involving a major defense contractor and the government, all to protect the wife of a guy who sold computers in one of L-M's smallest companies. It's breathtaking, but . . .

    still provides no new information.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And once again, utterly unverifiable.

      You getting all this, Gumshoe?

      Delete
  4. “Hercule, in November of last year you said that you expected new information would be revealed soon. Was that information ever revealed? Were you referring to the announcement that new DNA testing was in the works?“

    Both answers to your questions are no. At the time, a former colleague paid me a visit while I was recovering from an illness. He had some information from a very reliable source that never before released evidence regarding JonBenet’s murder would be leaked to the media. To my knowledge, it has not. I have not since received the status of that evidence.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He had some information from a very reliable source that never before released evidence regarding JonBenet’s murder would be leaked to the media. To my knowledge, it has not."

      Several people on the forums somehow acquired never before seen photographs last month so maybe this leak will eventually make it up the food chain.

      Delete
  5. For the uninitiated, Frank Coffman is a self-styled journalist, sometimes substitute teacher, and the owner of a shop in Boulder that makes gorilla costumes. . .

    and Herc's questioned document examiner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could not care less what Coffman’s occupation and hobbies were, I think he did an excellent job breaking down the numbers and showing the probability of anyone other than Patsy Ramsey as the author of the ransom note. Frankly (no pun intended), we do not know if Frank Coffman actually came up with those numbers or if someone else provided it. He could have easily copied the information and posted it online. Either way, I agree with the formula that was presented. You are like a broken record, CC. Do us all a favor and stop circling back to the same old tired complaints.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting. A conspiracy that goes all the way to the federal government.

    Question 1: How can anyone take anything the Rs said as a truthful account?
    -Anon5

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have followed this Blog for quite awhile though I have never commented. While I do believe John Ramsey to be guilty in way or a other, I do have to say that John Ramsey is the only one guilty believers on this blog are very hypocritical and double standarded. Doc G and CC , you accuse Hercule of nothing but psychobabble in his evidence against PR yet neither one of you has anything more than pyschobabble in regards to JR being guilty. Your arguments and responses are that no one would call 911 with the body in the house, no one would do that, a mother wouldnt do that, JR has t9 be a pedophile etc etc. Docs list on the previous thread is nothing more than pyschobabble as well. You have to practice what you preach. Mothers have done misunderstandable killings of their children many many times and done many things in the process that make no rational sense. Saying that a mother wouldnt and couldnt do this is not a reasonable nor rational argument. Just my two cents.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, MM, but facts and logical inference are totally different from psychobabble and if you refuse to acknowledge that you are revealing your own bias. Hercule's take on this case is totally different from mine. That doesn't mean he has to be wrong and I have to be right. But it does mean that if you want to contest my analysis of this case you'll need to challenge the facts and logic on which it is based, which have nothing to do with the sort of psychological analysis (aka psychobabble) Hercule has been stressing so strongly here. Patsy may or may not have had psychological problems but none of that amounts to evidence of guilt.

      Delete
    2. As for my contention that Patsy would not have made that 911 call if she were guilty, that's based on simple logic and has nothing to do with her psychological state. You don't stage a phony kidnapping without getting rid of the victim's body before calling the police. And if you have second thoughts about dumping the body then you rethink your plan and forget about handing the authorities what they will clearly see as an attempt at staging.

      Delete
    3. Whilst I didn't understand much of your comment, MM ("double standarded", "Misunderstandable killings"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with these terms), I got enough of it to realize that you mustn't actually have read Doc's theory, as nowhere does it depend on the emotional state of John Ramsey in order for it to work. As far as I know, Doc hasn't bothered with a psychoanalysis of his suspect, because it's irrelevant to the outcome - the theory works whatever John's mental state may have been at the time, unlike Hercule's which works ONLY if Patsy is psychotic - a claim of which he has no proof of! He is under the impression that the absence of evidence (Patsy failing to hand over her medical records) is somehow evidence in itself.
      You may not agree with Doc's version of events, but to say he has formed his theory in the same manner as Hercule - whose entire theory hinges on his claim that Patsy had a psychotic break from reality and not much else - is demonstrably untrue.

      "JR has t9 be a pedophile etc etc."

      Nope. The evidence leads us to John whether we he is a pedophile or not. That's where Doc's theory differs so much from Hercule's - his theory works WITHOUT having to establish a motive.

      "Docs list on the previous thread is nothing more than psychobabble as well."

      Please copy/paste the "psychobabble" you speak of, as I am unable to locate it. I see inferences based on evidence, but no armchair psychoanalysis of his suspect.

      "Mothers have done misunderstandable killings of their children many many times and done many things in the process that make no rational sense. Saying that a mother wouldnt and couldnt do this is not a reasonable nor rational argument."

      Yes, sometimes mothers do kill their children, and to say Patsy couldn't be guilty due to the reasons you listed WOULD be an irrational argument ....however, that is not our argument all all, so you're presenting us with nothing more than a straw man. Nowhere have any of us claimed Patsy must be innocent because "mothers don't kill their children". The reasons we believe Patsy to be innocent have nothing whatsoever to do with our own personal bias, and if you were genuinely familiar with the JDI theory presented here, you'd know that already.

      Delete
    4. Ms D, you are quite humorous indeed. One does not have to read far into this blog to see that you are the queen of misspelling, typos and deleted comments, yet you constantly attack others, including myself because obviously you are quite pathetic and also very hypocritical. First, let me help you with your English. http://international-dictionary.com/definitions/?english_word=misunderstandable

      Delete
    5. "You are the queen of misspelling, typos and deleted comments..."

      Excuse me?! It is VERY rare I misspell, and my typos are rather infrequent also - I would argue I make less typos than anyone else here besides Doc, perhaps. That's not to say I don't make them on occasion, but "the queen" of typos? Come on...what utter crap! I'm anal about the use of proper grammar/spelling, and as a result, I re-read through my comments four or five times before I hit the publish button. As far as deleted comments go, I rarely delete my own (though I have on the odd occasion, but it usually isn't due to poor grammar, so your point is moot). Your claims are baseless, and demonstrably untrue.

      "You constantly attack others, including myself"

      I challenged two of your comments and questioned your knowledge of Doc's theory - hardly "constant", and hardly "an attack"!
      The only people I have "attacked" here are BDIs, and it is more a case of attacking their argument - though, admittedly, sometimes it does get quite personal - on BOTH sides. Everyone else here, I get along with just fine, thank you.....I've never attacked them, and they've never attacked me.

      Don't call me "pathetic", please, it is untrue and unnecessary....attack the ARGUMENT, not the PERSON. I pointed out two of your statements that didn't make sense, but I never resorted to personal attacks (ie: "You're a moron because you can't form a coherent sentence" - that's not my style), so there was no need for you to go there either.

      Of course I'm aware that "misunderstandable" is a word, however, it didn't make any sense in the context you used it, and "double-standarded" is NOT a word - I was merely pointing out the obvious, and if I didn't, someone else would have, no doubt.

      Delete
  9. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/us/brendan-dassey-confession-upheld/index.html

    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, Linda. Good news, as far as I'm concerned. I've watched much if not most of Brendan's interviews and the overall picture he presents is both compelling and convincing. While there is much in the interrogator's behavior that makes me wince, I see no sign of coercion, just some clumsy and heavy handed tactics.

      We should not forget that he had already given a very convincing account of what happened to his cousin, who then reported it, and even signed a written statement corroborating her story. The detective's questions were based on what she had revealed.

      It's totally beyond belief that these guys could have made up such a story and then managed to convince Brendan to feed it back to them in the manner he did. While he clearly lied from time to time and certain details are inconsistent this reflects the fact that he would have been under tremendous pressure from his family to avoid cooperating with the authorities. So, yes, he made up certain things and changed his story from time to time, and yes he was occasionally prompted. But he also offered important information of his own free will, without prompting, that only an eye witness to the truth could have provided.

      Those who see some sort of devious plot to coerce him into making up such an elaborate and damaging story are victims of the current rash of political correctness we now see all over the place, in an environment where critical thinking has been tossed to the winds.

      Delete
  10. “Question 1: How can anyone take anything the Rs said as a truthful account?”

    Thank you for asking a good question. Lockheed Martin had no reason to think that the Ramseys were being dishonest about the circumstances of JonBenet’s death because the lawyers who were hired by Lockheed Martin to represent the Ramseys (Haddon, Morgan, and Foreman) had ties to Lockheed Martin. So the version of events were provided by the Ramseys to their lawyers then to Lockheed Martin. There was no question who was producing this theatrical drama.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So the version of events were [sic] provided by the Ramseys to their lawyers then to Lockheed Martin".

      Attorney-client confidentiality prohibits Haddon Morgan and Foreman from sharing any such information with third parties such as LM. Didn't happen.

      Patsy is well and truly dead, Herc. She cannot be charged, she cannot be defamed. I maintain you and your confreres in that room have a duty, both judicial and moral, to step up and clear Burke and John - by your lights innocent parties being falsely accused, if you have real proof against Patsy, and should have done so long ago. You don't.

      Delete
  11. "I never said (Lockheed Martin) had proof. What they do have is the truthful version of the events provided by the Ramseys."

    Are you saying that the Ramseys told L-M that Patsy killed JonBenet? If so.....you know this, how?

    "It was and still is a requirement that contents from any meeting presented inside the walls of that particular venue were to remain inside those walls."

    Then why are you so insistent on spoon feeding us enough "clues" at every turn in the hopes we'll work it at ourselves? Isn't that virtually the same thing as telling us what you learned at the meeting? Isn't being here on this blog discussing your knowledge of "inside information", in effect, breaking your "vow"?!

    "I have not seen Patsy’s medical records. She would not release them. One has to ask, “Why not?” Or, “What do you have to hide?” If she had released those records Steve Thomas would have received more support regarding the theory he published."

    So you are merely assuming Patsy must obviously be a nutcase because she didn't release her medical records? Your ENTIRE theory hinges on the medical records you've never read?!

    Honestly, I think I had more respect for you when you weren't answering our questions. You've given us absolutely no information to support your argument, Hercule. The worst part is that this is actually the best you've got.....it's pretty obvious that bothering with any further questions will be time wasted.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “So you are merely assuming Patsy must obviously be a nutcase because she didn't release her medical records? Your ENTIRE theory hinges on the medical records you've never read?!”

    Actually, you are the one making assumptions. Patsy not releasing her medical records is suspicious at the very least, but obviously not enough to conclude she is guilty of murder. I have several reasons to believe she is the murderer and I do not need her medical records to confirm that, however, I do think it would have benefited Steve Thomas’s book.

    The information that I have seen comes from Patsy’s peers, former friends, and relatives. A lot of that information was given to the Grand Jury and it remains sealed. I can tell you that the statements were very damning against Patsy.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  13. “Attorney-client confidentiality prohibits Haddon Morgan and Foreman from sharing any such information with third parties such as LM. Didn't happen.“

    Oh really? Well, I am grateful to you for clearing that up. I am hoping that my sarcasm was not lost on you. CC, Lockheed Martin was in charge and they knew everything. Obviously, Haddon/Morgan/Foreman knew the truth. I think we can both agree about that based on their unrealistic demands to BPD and the way the Ramseys were methodically coached on how to give vague answers during their interviews and interrogations. Follow the money trail, CC. Conventional wisdom regarding confidentiality to third parties does not apply to this unique case.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it does. There are NO exceptions to the privilege; it even survives death.

      What you're peddling is impossible.

      Delete
    2. And not merely "conventional wisdom". It's the cornerstone of the Rules of Professional Conduct in every state in the country, and part of the foundation of the Sixth Amendment. We can lose our tickets for failing to comply.

      Delete
  14. “I maintain you and your confreres in that room have a duty, both judicial and moral, to step up and clear Burke and John...”

    Obviously, nothing legally can be imposed on Burke. If you are referring to his reputation, then I will refrain from chuckling. Do you really believe Burke or John care to be cleared? Certainly, Lin Wood vehemently would advise against it. They have made a great deal of money playing the unfairly targeted victims of libel and slander. Should the truth ever come out, they would be in hot water. If they had come forward shortly after Patsy’s death, there would have been no more lawsuits for them to benefit from. The obligation, therefore, rests on the shoulders of John and Burke.

    As far as the duty of my “confreres” are concerned, the meeting was not orchestrated for entertainment value. The purpose of Ressler’s presentation was not only to seek the truth about an unsolved murder, but also to close the case. If there had been like-minded people with the power to make that happen, then we would not be having this conversation today.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the presence of people with power was required to satisy the key objective for meeting---to "close the case"---the meeting failed before it started. Kangaroo courts are illegitmate even in Australia, aren't they Ms D?

      Mike

      Delete
    2. " I could tell you who killed JonBenet, but then I'd have to kill you." Hercule

      Delete
  15. I'm talking about a young man who's lived under a cloud his entire life, and continues to be maligned, most recently on national television.

    I think anyone who can relieve him from that burden has an ethical imperative to do so. As your group could not "close the case", you clearly had no real facts or actual proof, much as you bob and weave.

    Had Patsy actually done it, she would have confessed on her deathbed and spared her husband and son any further pain. Now THAT would have given John a real bestseller.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Excuse me, CC...but DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME THAT THERE WERE NO “REAL FACTS” OR “ACTUAL PROOF” PRESENTED AT THAT MEETING! DO NOT LECTURE ME ON ETHICS! YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH TIME AND WORK WAS PUT INTO THE RAMSEY CASE AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR OUR EFFORTS! KNOWING NO MATTER WHAT WAS DISCLOSED THAT IT WOULD BE REFUTED. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS FAILED JONBENET BECAUSE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO BE HUMAN! SO DO NOT TELL ME WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE I KNOW ALL TOO WELL!

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop shouting. It makes nothing you say more believable.

      Your latest theory, the Lockheed Martin Conspiracy is utterly beyond the pale, and as ever you offer no facts - just factual errors.

      For years you've told us you have inside information, yet in one of your posts yesterday you admitted you have no access.

      Now you admit that your triple secret meeting resulted in "nothing to show for our efforts".

      What DO you have, Herc?

      Delete
    2. I think it's high time to place Hercule on double secret probation!

      Mike

      Delete
    3. "For years you've told us you have inside information, yet in one of your posts yesterday you admitted you have no access.
      Now you admit that your triple secret meeting resulted in "nothing to show for our efforts"."

      Indeed. You've been disingenuous from the moment you posted your first comment on this blog, which you've demonstrated time and time again. Now we have you admitting you are not in possession of any earth shattering knowledge about the case, and you cannot actually produce any convincing evidence at all.
      So it begs the question, why didn't you just come here and offer your theory like everyone else, without the self-aggrandizing and claims of virtual omniscience? Why the need for such pretense?

      Delete
  17. After reading this post on reddit, I was shocked by the comments that follow it, incuding those belonging to the author himself, who apparantly believes an IDI. And all because handwriting experts "ruled out" you know who.

    Doc...you need to be at the trial, if it happens, sitting in the first row behind the CBS attornies, to slip them notes as you deem necessary. Better yet, you need to arrive in Michigan early, to reserve the three seats next to you for your own team, to slip you notes, as each team member deems necessary. May I suggest CC, Ms.D, and myself, in that order, unless CC is as cute and smart as Ms D is, in which case, I'll trade seats with Ms D?

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/5jkrlf/10_days_of_jonben%C3%A9tday_5_the_vaginal_trauma_by/

    Mike



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hehe.....well, thank you, Mike. I'd love to join CC and yourself on Doc's team. You can park yourself right in the middle.....CC and I will make a Mike sandwich out of you, if you're game - although, I'm sure CC has made a meal out of many an unsuspecting victim in her time!

      Delete
  18. To CC and Ms Dee:

    I have never claimed to have Patsy’s medical records. I have never admitted to not having any “earth shattering knowledge about the case.” You two are either putting words in my mouth or making wild assumptions about my answers to your questions. Both of you think in terms of absolutes. If it’s not white then it must be black. Unfortunately for you, there are shades of gray. Either you do not realize that or you are both simply trolls who would rather unleash hate to anyone who does not share your parochial views.

    You say that you want answers, but instead you are disrespectful and rude. Why would I want to share any knowledge with people who have already decided that they have nothing else to learn? You are a waste of my time. If you really want sexy answers maybe you should try asking sexy questions. I can explain every aspect of how and why Patsy killed JonBenet. She was the only suspect that could logically be the killer. John is a good suspect to a point but later falls off the map completely.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No lawyer risks his license by breaching the attorney-client privilege. Not for Lockheed-Martin, not for the US government, not under subpoena or by judicial order, not for nothin' nohow. The only exception is crime-fraud, very rare and inapplicable in the instant case.

      You've come up with another outlandish notion, been bested again, and you're pissed. I get it.

      Respect is earned, Herc.

      Delete
    2. "I have never claimed to have Patsy’s medical records. I have never admitted to not having any “earth shattering knowledge about the case."

      No, you never made that claim, but you certainly alluded to that being the case on several occasions. You had "inside information". You were privy to details us mere mortals couldn't access. But it turns out you know no more than anyone else who has their own pet theory to promote here.

      I'm sure you're very familiar with the phrase" "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

      "If you really want sexy answers maybe you should try asking sexy questions. I can explain every aspect of how and why Patsy killed JonBenet. She was the only suspect that could logically be the killer."

      I don't want "sexy answers", my own theory is anything but, and I desperately want it to be proven wrong - that's why I'm disappointed you didn't deliver.
      As it was Patsy who invited LE over to find her daughter's body, thus negating the kidnapping scenario so intricately outlined in the note, I think it is entirely ILLOGICAL for her to have been the killer - and if her plan was to stage a botched kidnapping, why would she use her paintbrush, her notepad, her pen, then invite the police over to find these incriminating pieces of evidence, along with her daughter's body in the single most remote room of the house?
      Doesn't it make much more logical sense to assume that the killer never intended for these items (along with the body) to be discovered by LE? That the final steps of the staging were quite obviously incomplete? That the note was indeed intended to be seen as a genuine ransom note, and not merely an attempt to misdirect police (there were far more efficient, less incriminating ways of doing that, quite obviously)?
      Why would John allow his LIVING son's life to be ruined in order to continue to protect a DEAD Patsy? He's already lost two children, surely a man who has suffered so much grief would feel he has a duty to protect his living children - one of whom a good majority of the world believe to be a psychopathic, child killer?

      You say you can explain every aspect of why Patsy must be JB's killer, yet you've never managed to convince one, single, person here of your claim, because you've never sufficiently backed it up. Face it - your theory *only* works if we subscribe to your presumption of psychosis on Patsy's part - none of which you've ever presented any proof for. So, if you're not going to provide evidence that shows us definitively that Patsy was insane, be fair and make your case without referring to her alleged mental state in the hopes that your saying so will be enough to convince us - if your theory is as solid as you claim it to be, the evidence should speak for itself.

      Delete
    3. Are you going to attempt to answer the questions I asked in the fifth paragraph, Hercule? You said you were willing to answer all of our questions, but you've been avoiding the trickier ones.....

      Delete
    4. Well look at that.....Herc isn't talking anymore.
      Didn't he say he'd be here all month to answer all of our questions?!

      Who could possibly have predicted this outcome?

      Delete
  19. Please tell us your pdi theory and why wouldn't she confess on her deathbed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously she would, Janis. In fact, for the benefit of the BDIs, I submit that had she, desperately, participated in some bizarre cover up of Burke's actions, she would have made a deathbed confession to clear him for all time. She did not.

      Herc's theory, based on Steve Thomas, is The Poopy Pants Theory: Patsy struck her daughter a fatal blow because she pooped her pants, then staged an elaborate cover up. Herc's embellishments are psychological - based on no anecdotal evidence nor a contemporaneous diagnosis.

      Delete
  20. Herc, I’ve no interest in challenging you. But folks have been trying to tie LM to a conspiracy for some time. There’s never been one verifiable memo, statement etc., that proves they were pulling strings to have the case suppressed or placed on the back burner in order to keep scandal away. So, as a simple observer with no inside track at all, it appears to me to be another story which can’t be proven. I’d be very interested to hear how you connect the dots to LM.

    BTW, Radar Online put some of JB’s drawings up. I’ll let you make your own conclusions about JonBenét’s Timeline. The figure with the curly hair I believe to be Patsy.
    https://radaronline.com/photos/jonbenet-drawings-sketch-child-abuse/
    -Anon5

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lockheed Martin, a multi-national aeronautical company and defense contractor had 90,000 employees worldwide, Anon5...less than 300 of them at AG in Boulder. That they might participate in some elaborate, highly illegal cover up to protect the wife of a guy who sold computers there and was responsible for less than 1% of their revenue in 1996 is patently absurd.

      Delete
  21. Herc,

    I agree there are a lot of gray areas in this case. Nothing here is black and white. And I, too, have a difficult time drawing the line from JR being the cold, arrogant, absorbed, domineering husband to a sexual abuser of children, specifically his daughter.

    I also understand the LM thing and have read that LM had a protocol that was to be adhered to in the event of an executive or any member of his family being kidnapped. In the case of JBR, it wasn't followed at all. Now, either your theory is correct OR JR was only a small fish in a big pond, where LM was concerned. I am not familiar with the finances of LM, as it relates to AG, therefore wouldn't know if he would be entitled to the same security measures as let's say their top executives were.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  22. “I also understand the LM thing and have read that LM had a protocol that was to be adhered to in the event of an executive or any member of his family being kidnapped. In the case of JBR, it wasn't followed at all.”

    John was in contact with Lockheed Martin on the morning of the 26th, but not until after Patsy called 911. Initially, Lockheed Martin only knew what John had told them. JonBenet had been kidnapped and there was a ransom note. Lockheed Martin did not receive the truth until the 27th. By this time, John was 100% convinced that Patsy was responsible for JonBenet’s death. John had to be honest with his lawyers to ensure they would take every precaution necessary to keep the truth hidden.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herc,

      That's my point exactly. If they were made aware of the kidnapping on the morning of the 26th by John, why didn't they follow their own procedures, regarding the security measures to be taken in the event of a kidnapping?

      When you say "the truth", do you mean that she was found murdered or do you mean that PR did it?

      And if John thought Patsy did it, why would he trust her to look after Burke without possibly losing it and murdering him as well?

      BTW, I am with you when it comes to government cover up. Just look what's happening today with our own FBI. The level of corruption is downright frightening. Just not sure they'd cover for PR in this case. What would be their reason for doing so?

      EG

      Delete
  23. So, John thought the best way to handle this was to implicate former co-workers, neighbors, his best friend, his best friend's wife, Santa Claus, Mrs. Claus,(did I forget anyone?, all the while thinking it would also be a good idea to let crazy Patsy continue to raise his other child?

    Okay, well Doc's theory sounds more logical to me.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Lockheed Martin did not receive the truth until the 27th."

    And you know this how?

    "By this time, John was 100% convinced that Patsy was responsible for JonBenet’s death."

    And you know this how?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose it does not matter, Doc. Regardless of what I say, it will be refuted. I am a “poseur” after all, correct? A charlatan? There you have it. CC has it all figured out.

      Sorry Gumshoe. So you see, I cannot be the brilliant mind you have been seeking. No one has any credibility unless CC clears them first.

      Hercule

      Delete
    2. "I suppose it does not matter, Doc. Regardless of what I say, it will be refuted. I am a “poseur” after all, correct? A charlatan? There you have it. CC has it all figured out."

      Hercule, that has never stopped you before, has it? So why let it stop you now? Is it because you know you can't answer Doc's questions? If you do have the answers, why don't you just try us - what do you have to lose? You made a very bold assertion, so I think it's only fair you back it up with evidence. I want to know - as I'm sure all of us here do - how you know John became aware that Patsy was responsible for their daughter's death, and told LM this. It's a very reasonable question, and you had to know it was coming.

      Delete
    3. Hercule, I'm still waiting.....you said you'd be here "all month", yet you've visited us maybe twice in that time. Stop being a coward and put your money where your mouth is, or cease making baseless claims you KNOW will be challenged.
      Have you learned nothing in all the years you've been here? When you make an assertion and posit it as fact, people are going to demand you name your source - surely that is obvious (and more than reasonable).

      So here goes again: How do you know that John informed Lockheed Martin of Patsy's crime on the 27th December (or any other date)? If this is verifiable (which I assume it must be, as you submitted it as fact, not opinion), this is huge, and such information will surely convince even the staunchest JDI/BDI/IDI that your theory is true, so where is the evidence? This is your chance....why are you being so coy?

      Delete
  25. MS D, here is your psychobabble,

    Hercule, surely you are intelligent enough to recognize:

    1. that a woman whose much doted-upon daughter had just been killed unintentionally would hardly be capable of pulling herself together in the wake of that event to compose a fully coherent and reasonably convincing two and a half page "ransom note," with all i's dotted, all t's crossed, margins strictly adhered to, text firmly grounded on the notepad guidelines, with consistent spacing between words throughout. Unless you prefer to argue that the killing was intentional, and the note prepared in advance, in which case one must ask what motive a loving mother would have had to intentionally murder a child who was obviously the apple of her eye.

    2. that someone intending to call the police the following morning would have included all those dire threats warning the reader very specifically NOT to call the police. 

    3. that someone staging a kidnapping would have decided to call the police knowing full well that the victim's body was still in the house, meaning that sooner or later it would be obvious that no kidnapping had taken place and the note was a ruse.

    4. that someone who had printed that note by hand would have deliberately planned on handing it over to the police, thus providing them with evidence that could be traced to HER.
    Anyone calling this evidence or even a "logical inference" is reaching quite a bit as PR has all the same kind of "logical inferences" only many more of them than JR that point directly at her.


    Nope. The evidence leads us to John whether we he is a pedophile or not. That's where Doc's theory differs so much from Hercule's - his theory works WITHOUT having to establish a motive.

    Again Ms. D, there HAS to be a motive in any case and yes I have read enough of this blog to see that every shred of Doc's theory on this blog, completely and 100% depends upon JR being a pedophile and molesting his daughter. Apparently YOU need to read more. As far as that goes there is not a single shred of evidence against JR molesting his daughter or any evidence otherwise for that matter. That was THE most unsubstantiated investigated claim
    in this case. As some of you claim JR was let off the hook because of his handwriting analysis, that is false as well. JR was under heavy investigation for that EXACT claim for well over a year. The very first year of this murder case actually. Every single detective and anyone on the Boulder PD dropped this because they could not find evwn the slightest hint of evidence of it and because the evidence took them in another direction. But of course the 4 of you on this blog who believe this ridoculousness are smarter and have more insode knowledge then the people who actually worked on the case ??? I think NOT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "MS D, here is your psychobabble,"

      First of all, it would make things a lot clearer, Mr. "Anonymous," if you would use quotation marks.

      As far as "psychobabble" is concerned, nothing in the list I provided for Hercule's benefit could be characterized by that term. The term "Psychobabble" is based on someone's dubious claim of expertise in the field of psychology, and the drawing of inferences based on such claims, based on his "scientific" research.

      The points I was making are not based on any claims of psychological expertise, which aren't necessary in this case. They are based on simple logic, aka "common sense." No need to consult a learned tome, just the ability to put two and two together to make four.

      "Anyone calling this evidence or even a "logical inference" is reaching quite a bit as PR has all the same kind of "logical inferences" only many more of them than JR that point directly at her."

      Can you name some?

      Delete
    2. She was caught repitively in lie after lie after lie. Yet after her being caught in an enormous amount of lies you then excuse her on her "unconfirmed lies" such as the window and who called 911 etc etc. She is a confirmed liar and the rule with liars is that if someone lies then they are lying to hide something bigger. That is common sense. Her fibers were all over that crime scene, in more places than anyone else in that house. Now you can say it is possible that she transferred those fibers earlier but is it likely ? Probably not. Now if you want to debate that the unlikely is possible than you have to apply that same rule to JR and anyone else, as there is nothing in this case that is concrete. To be perfectly honest those fibers are probably the closest thing to anything equating to evidence here. As far as pyschobabble goes, you and your whole theory depend on labeling JR as a pedophile and child molester with not a single shred of anything even close to evidence. Nor could anyone involved in investigating this case find anything even close to it. How is that not psychobabble ?If you are going to say that your theory does not depend on it than I beg to differ. There is, and always has to be a motive and without JR molesting JBR than there is no motive for JR to have committed this murder.

      MM

      Delete
    3. Just because you prefer to see certain statements of hers as lies does not make it so. I've already posted a long list of her so-called "lies" and in all but two instances they can easily be explained as due to confusion, either on her part or the part of over-eager would-be sleuths. When evaluating such statements it is essential to ask the question: how did this "lie" (or other suspicious act) help her case? For example her responses to questions regarding the over-sized panties are sometimes a bit confused -- but what could have been her motive for misleading the police on that score? If she were deliberately lying, then why, what was the point?

      In only two instances can we say with certainty that she actually did lie: the version of the 911 call presented in their book, where she says that John told her to make the call, is in complete contradiction with the version she provided in the A&E documentary. One of these is a lie for sure. And again, we must ask what her motive for lying would have been. If she and John were in it together, then why would she have wanted to present two contradictory versions of what happened?

      The other instance is her statement that she and Linda cleaned up glass from the broken window after John supposedly broke it the previous summer. Again, we must ask: why would she have included Linda in her lie, knowing full well that Linda would deny any involvement in this episode?

      I've argued that both of these "lies" can be attributed to manipulation by John. For full details you'll need to consult the search mechanism on this blog.

      And of course, neither "lie," nor any other statement or behavior on her part, is evidence of guilt -- if you prefer you can regard them as suspicious, but certainly not evidence of guilt.

      Delete
    4. As for the fibers, that evidence is worthless, as Patsy had been in close touch with her daughter all day and her fibers could easily have transferred from her to JonBenet and from JonBenet to her attacker.

      The case against John is NOT based on any assumptions regarding lies, suspicious behavior, fibers or any other so-called "evidence," all of which has been declared "inconclusive." Nor is it based on an assumption that John had been molesting his daughter. It is based purely on the logic revealed by incontrovertible facts, as outlined in the first two posts of this blog, and detailed in many subsequent posts.

      There is little question that JonBenet had been sexually molested previously, and the most likely molester would be her father. That does not constitute absolute proof, no -- but it does provide us with a very likely motive, yes.

      What proves John's guilt, as far as I am concerned is: 1. the absurdity of any possible intruder theory; 2. Patsy's 911 call, which would not have been made if she were involved in staging a kidnapping. Once we realize that only John could have written the note and staged the kidnapping, then we have no choice but to conclude that he killed his daughter. Once we arrive at that conclusion then it's not difficult to see the motive behind it. But establishing motive isn't really necessary in order to obtain a conviction. All that's necessary is proof of guilt.

      Delete
    5. It's still baffling to me why Patsy would embellish the story of the broken window so profoundly by bringing in Linda, cleaning up the glass, every piece, and vacuuming it up - if she wanted so desperately to believe and convince the police of an intruder scenario. That certainly didn't help their case. Confusion and misdirection was more John's game. I'll have to go with your explanation Doc, as to why John broke the window, and then scattered glass back around - because he may have thought it looked too obvious to have a broken window near where the body was found or would be found. And that had Patsy not called 911 there would have been no body to find. Thus John very well could have broken that window AFTER Patsy called 911, and screwed with the glass. But Patsy's embellishment is beyond bizarre, showing her to be clueless, but nevertheless not guilty of murder and crime staging. And I would offer given this very embellishment alone, does anyone think she could have single-handedly covered for Burke, as the CBS special implied.

      Delete
    6. Castor, you seem to be confusing the original staging with the later attempt to UNstage. As I see it, John must have broken the window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder's entry/exit point. And that would have left broken glass on the floor. No need to scatter it around.

      It would have been only after Patsy made the 911 call that he would have needed to unstage, and that would have entailed picking up the glass, NOT scattering it around. He needed to unstage because Patsy's call destroyed his plan, and his staging was incomplete at that time.

      John needed Patsy to back up his story about breaking the glass earlier. It would never do if she told the police she had no knowledge of any broken window. So he would have had no choice but to somehow convince her that he actually had broken the window the previous summer. Getting her to deliberately lie would not work, as she would have become suspicious and very possibly reported him.

      As she had undergone heavy duty chemotherapy and had also been heavily sedated since JonBenet's death, it would not have been that difficult to convince her that she had had a memory lapse. The police use that tactic routinely when questioning suspects, which has led to so many false confessions.

      So he implanted the memory of cleaning up the glass in her mind and she accepted it. She certainly had no doubts as to John's innocence and that would have made his task much easier. Unfortunately for John, she included Linda in her memory because Linda would have helped her clean up, as she always did. Fortunately for John, the police never seem to have considered the possibility of a failed plan that would have required him to unstage.

      "Thus John very well could have broken that window AFTER Patsy called 911"

      Where did you get that idea? If he'd wanted to break that window he would have done it the previous night -- which, imo, he certainly did.

      Delete
    7. First I see many instances of Patsy embellishing on her answers so I have no problem with her either being convinced something must have happened as John said it happened, being convinced or manipulated, and adding her own flourishes.

      Trying to unstage the broken window - trying to essentially "take it back" by also telling LE that he thought he had broken in the previous summer, why would he do that - yep, that's where I get stuck. That makes no sense. Break the window, Patsy calls 911, John goes back and hides the glass all but a shard that is left out in the open where Fleet finds it, and then tells the police he broke it when he climbed in the previous summer. We've been over and over it, so you can just leave me in mystery if you want - to me the best part of your theory is that Patsy called 911 and wouldn't have undone her note if she acted alone or in conjunction with Burke, nor left the body in the house. That I'm satisfied with.

      Delete
    8. If John broke the window that night, then after Patsy called 911 he went back and picked up glass (yes, it was the peanuts you said he scattered around, not the glass) because he thought an intruder would have broken in and taken the body and the body was not taken, that was dumb. He should have just waited until a Lou Smit came along and said the kidnapper broke in, intended to kidnap JB for a (paltry) $119K, but something frightened him and he killed her instead and left back out the window. Suitcase to boost himself back out.

      Delete
  26. We he Ms D ? Who is we he ? Apparently you need to retake grammar as well ? ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know what you're talking about, but if I said "We he" somewhere, I had probably deleted a sentence, but accidentally left in the original pronoun (We) before rewriting the new sentence, which started with a different pronoun (He). I still maintain that my errors on this blog are infrequent, and are usually due to carelessness/sleepiness rather than a poor understanding of the English language. At any rate, pointing out such a *minor* mistake really is a little petty, I only take the time to correct someone's grammar when what they've said doesn't make any sense - hell, I even bit my tongue when Doc said "your" instead of "you're" on two, separate occasions! And if I started on Zed's spelling/grammatical errors...we'd be here all day! :D

      BTW, none of the examples you gave consist of "psychobabble". NOWHERE in those statements did the writer attempt to analyse Patsy's PSYCHOLOGICAL state.

      "Again Ms. D, there HAS to be a motive in any case and yes I have read enough of this blog to see that every shred of Doc's theory on this blog, completely and 100% depends upon JR being a pedophile and molesting his daughter."

      Well, actually, I believe it was CC who suggested John may have been having an incestuous relationship with JonBenet, well after Doc had already outlined his theory, IIRC, so obviously, the theory doesn't "100% depend upon JR being a pedophile". Almost all of the circumstantial evidence points to John, regardless of whether motive is established or not. Hercule's theory, however, depends 100% on Patsy being psychotic enough to club, then strangle, her daughter to death because she soiled her bed.

      Delete
  27. PR's lie about the Christmas Bear won by JBR is key in this case because it shows that PR was trying to make up an intruder from day 1. This falsity was claimed before any fingers were pointed at her or pointed at BR or JR. Timing is key here and shows that she, at the least, had prior knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it doesn't. It simply shows that Patsy didn't remember seeing the bear before. When my daughter was very young, there's no way I could have kept track of all of her stuffed animals either.

      Delete
    2. Tell me this, Anon....if Patsy was so desperately trying to push an intruder theory, why did she use HER paintbrush to fashion the murder weapon.....and leave it attached to her daughter's body for the police to find?!

      Delete
    3. I agree completely that I can not keep track of all of my childrens stuffed animals either. However, PR accepted that bear on JBR'S behalf for winning a pageant just about a week before her murder. There are pictures of it sitting right on a table in front of PR at that pageant that LE had. That was how she got caught in that lie.

      Delete
    4. Patsy was obviously eager to find any sort of evidence that an intruder had been present. Not because she was guilty, but because, as she knew very well, she and John were under that "umbrella of suspicion." So she conveniently blotted out any memory of the Santa doll because, yes, it suited her agenda. If it were actually a lie it was certainly a very clumsy one, because she would have known very well that it would soon be exposed -- as it was.

      Patsy saw what she wanted to see: intruder evidence. Just as you are seeing what YOU want to see: evidence of Patsy's guilt.

      Delete
  28. Also, claiming that no one would write that note and then hand it over to LE holds no value in this context because surely if JR wrote it, as you claim, then he would have destroyed it or "made it disappear" before LE got there. That would have been the very first piece of evidence to deal with at any cost. The very last thing JR would have wanted would be to hand that RN over to LE.

    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How was he supposed to get rid of the note in the six minutes between the 911 call and the police arriving, MM? And what was he going to tell Patsy happened to it without rousing her suspicion?

      Delete
    2. If you believe tbat JR was so desperate that he disappeared for an hour to stage and to arrange a "getaway flight" right in front of LE and BR and PR then surely getting rid of that note in those 6 mins would habd been top priority, at any cost. You disagree ? I know that he called to arrange to get himself, PR and BR all out of dodge, not just himself. PR was well aware, however you all on here somehow maintain the belief that either PR does not know JR made that call and never knew about it or that she knew about JR trying to escape but it was not obvious to her that JR was guilty. Either/or are very far fetched.

      MM

      Delete
    3. "... because surely if JR wrote it, as you claim, then he would have destroyed it or "made it disappear" before LE got there."

      Come again? How could he have destroyed it after Patsy had already called 911 to report on its existence?

      Delete
    4. "PR was well aware, however you all on here somehow maintain the belief that either PR does not know JR made that call and never knew about it or that she knew about JR trying to escape but it was not obvious to her that JR was guilty."

      Not one person here, that I'm aware of at least, has ever claimed Patsy didn't know about that phone call. Why would Patsy believe that John making this call somehow implied his guilt? He would have told her exactly what he told LE - that they couldn't stay in the house, and it would be better to be close to Patsy's family in Atlanta. In light of what we now know about John's actions that morning, along with his subsequent statements which are verifiably false, the call looks pretty damning, but I don't think anyone here feels that the call alone is a strong indication of guilt. You're cherry picking instead of looking at the totality of the evidence against John.....you also keep insisting on making straw man arguments because it's virtually impossible for anyone to defend an argument they're not actually making.

      Delete
  29. Well said MM.

    NurseG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MM has said a number of things, none of them well. She's said silly, foolish things, displayed a near-total ignorance of case facts, law, logic and the English language, but has now gone over the edge.

      Really, MM? Applauding yourself while donning another hat? Like we've never seen that before.

      Delete
    2. CC: You blew Nurse Gollum's cover! MM is obviously her conjoined twin!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUvRDHHvkRc

      Mike

      Delete
    3. What was he going to do say he lost the note or threw it away. He couldn't get rid of it. That's ridiculous. Of course the police would ask to see it. It was the biggest piece of evidence at the time

      Delete
    4. It doesnt matter one bit what he said happened to the RN, at that point it only matters that LE does NOT have it. He could claim his wife is delusional, blind and mentally incompetent as you claim on here. Him disappearing into the basement to stage while LE is all over in his house is not riskier than getting rid of the bivgest piece of evidence handwritten by none other than himself ??? He was either in desperate risk taking mode and willing to do anything or he was not. You cant have it both ways. Yes, Doc on a prior thread in here claimed that PR never knew about the call made by JR to get out of Colorado and it has been implied by many JDI, on this blog that JR was trying to make an OJ like escape, ALONE

      Delete
    5. "Him disappearing into the basement to stage while LE is all over in his house is not riskier than getting rid of the bivgest piece of evidence handwritten by none other than himself ??? "

      No, conducting some last minute staging, though risky (but entirely necessary - if he hadn't have done so, we wouldn't be discussing the case today because JonBenet's killer would be in prison), was certainly not riskier than destroying the ransom note. There was a reasonable chance he wouldn't be detected down in the wine cellar, the most remote room in the house - which is precisely why he chose that particular location - but there was ZERO chance he would be believed by Patsy, or anyone in LE, if he claimed he didn't know what happened to the ransom note that he was reading a mere six minutes earlier. You've got some issues with your logic here, and they're not going to be fixed by simply creating fake accounts in order to give yourself "high fives" (which is really bizarre, and more than a little creepy, btw).

      Delete
    6. "He could claim his wife is delusional, blind and mentally incompetent as you claim on here."

      Yeah.....pretty sure no one here has actually made that claim.
      When you're done with the constant barrage of straw man arguments, maybe people will begin to take you seriously and you won't have to invent people in order to make you appear credible.

      Delete
  30. The notion that John could have destroyed that note after Patsy called 911 to report it is just about the most bizarre thing anyone has ever posted here. If you want to be taken seriously, MM, you'll need to do better. And no, I never claimed PR didn't know about that call by John. Of course, she was a basket case by that time and may well not have noticed -- at the time. But it's unlikely she never found out. Why would it make a difference anyhow? John claimed he wanted to take his family to a safer place.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The RN actually saved JR's butt. Once he was ruled out as the writer, he was pretty much cleared of the crime.

    ..and didn't JR make that call to get out of dodge while LE was there and was told by them, that they couldn't leave. "They" meaning the R's because he said he wanted to get "them" out of there and back home to Georgia. I don't think he was looking to fly solo and leave PR and BR behind.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, EG. I don't recall anyone here ever suggesting that John was planning on doing "a runner" back to Atlanta without Patsy and Burke in tow. MM has a lot of her information a little twisted.

      Delete
  32. Doc, I was wondering if we could explore the possible scenarios of when the basement window was broken how it came about. John claimed he broke the window in the summer of 1996 after returning ALONE from a business trip while Patsy, JonBenet, and BURKE were at their lake home in Charlevoix. Yet Burke claimed that he was with John when the window was broken. Does it seem likely that on more than one occasion that John not only broke a basement window, but also had it repaired multiple times? If the same window was repaired, don’t you think they would have information on who repaired it?

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what troubles me with the JDI theory. If we assume John committed the murder, we have to assume Patsy thinks it was an intruder. So why would Patsy go along with John's plan to lie to police about the window being broken previously? If the window was truly broken by John that night, Patsy surely would have assumed that is where the intruder entered and would not cover it up in some elaborate story. That is absolute blasphemy.

      Delete
    2. Are you asking having read or not read Doc's book? Or do you wish to remain silent AND anonymous on that one?

      By the time the police were able to corraborate their stories individually and through separate interviews, weeks had passed. By that time, a confluence of events some planned, some not, came to John's rescue. Patsy had become the police's prime suspect. She was highly-medicated (unknowingly over-medicated perhaps?), depressed, and isolated in Atlanta, a thousand miles away from the triggering, always accurate, albeit unpleasant memories of a proximate crime scene, and where old friendships had become tenuous at best. She was perfect clay for the psychological moldings and machinations of a billionaire businessman, womanizer, and military veteran krafted in the arts of deception and two-steps-ahead-of-the-audience extra-sensory-perception.

      Yes Sir, John was, and still is, the consumate Gambler.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

      Mike G.

      Delete
    3. "Doc, I was wondering if we could explore the possible scenarios of when the basement window was broken how it came about."

      Doc has covered this topic more than just about any other detail in many, many of his posts over the past five years. I think one or two entire threads are dedicated to this very subject. In fact, the window - along with the ransom note - is the cornerstone for his entire theory. I have to say (and I sincerely mean no malice here, Gumshoe, I always enjoy your comments), I am extremely surprised that you have missed his many posts regarding the subject, and that you mustn't have read his initial blogs posted in 2012, because they cover the broken window at great length. It's all here.....but perhaps Doc will kindly post the links to a couple of these discussions, and you can make up your own mind as to what it all means - if you feel it means anything at all, or is just another one of John's many red herrings.

      Delete
  33. Here's what's happened with J. Ramsey v. CBS since Dec 15th, copied directly from Michigan's Third District Court's website:

    2/15/2017 Motion for Summary Judgment/Disposition, Filed
    12/18/2017 Praecipe, Filed (Judicial Officer: Groner, David A. )
    12/19/2017 Status Conference (8:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)
    12/14/2017 Reset by Court to 12/15/2017
    12/15/2017 Reset by Court to 12/15/2017
    12/15/2017 Reset by Court to 12/19/2017
    Result: Reviewed by Court
    12/19/2017 Status Conference Scheduling Order, Signed and Filed (Judicial Officer: Groner, David A. )
    04/19/2018 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)
    06/20/2018 Case Evaluation - General Civil
    08/02/2018 Settlement Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Groner, David A.)

    What all this means, I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a trial will be coming anytime soon...

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  34. What is the whole of your theory Hercule? Nevermind the troll, I'm listening, others are listening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not "trolling", Castor. I have asked Hercule many questions regarding the information he claims to be in possession of, and I'd argue that all of those questions have been reasonable. If I wasn't listening, I wouldn't bother repeating these questions to him in the hopes of getting an answer. If he presents evidence that supports the claims he's been making here for several years now, believe me, I'll do more than listen -I'll rethink my entire JDI theory.

      Delete
    2. I wasn't referring to YOU as trolling MsD. A troll to me is someone who comes here to criticize only. You, I believe, want to extract clarity from statements that make little sense, so that you may better understand and others too. You are not a troll.

      There are two ways I see Hercule. One is that he "knows something", has experience in a particular field that would have him know something. On the otherhand is he writing his knowledge as if one were writing a mystery novel, "sprinkling" little clues here and there waiting until some end to give it all, and that all never comes complete with cliffhangers. He's having us on. He's writing a book. So has he made up his own character here and is it all a scam? If so, it's a pretty clever one as a year later and we're all still waiting for the final clue. There may not be one. How very mischievous Hercule. So again, I ask Hercule for his theory in whole, not sprinklings of it, and allow it to be refuted as Doc's theory has been, or embraced and stand on it's own (and if it's Steve Thomas's theory then we haven't learned anything new).

      Delete
  35. I have said from the very beginning that Doc’s theory was impressive. If John had killed JonBenet, many aspects of Doc’s theory would have made for an excellent blueprint for John to follow. Such a plan would ONLY work if John was the killer.

    If you JDIs will allow for a moment, let us assume that Patsy did in FACT kill JonBenet. Obviously, Patsy was not going to prepare a ransom note for the purpose of dumping her daughter’s body. How would Patsy manage to convince John that she should be the one to stay at home ALONE and not only wait for the “kidnappers” to call, but also pick up the money from the bank and deliver it to them? What sort of husband would allow his wife to handle such a dangerous mission without his assistance? Furthermore, if she insisted on handling the kidnappers alone, that would be incredibly suspicious.

    Can you imagine how difficult it would be to tell your spouse, who had already suffered through the agonizing loss of one daughter, that you are responsible for the death of another? The potential consequences of that admission could certainly cause someone to think irrationally and commit illogical, desperate acts.

    Think about what some of those consequences would be in Patsy’s mind. Would John turn her in to police? After all, their relationship had been rocky at best. She was already suspicious that he was having an affair. At the very least, he would never be able to forgive her. Everyone would know what happened. Even if Patsy lied and said JonBenet had an unsupervised accident a lot of people would rather believe something more sinister had happened. Either way, Patsy knew her pristine reputation would be forever tarnished.

    She would never be able to explain to her mother, Nedra, what had really happened. She would be branded as an unfit mother. No one would trust her to be alone with Burke again. What would Burke think of her? Her sisters? Her father? Her friends? The possibilities were too much to bear. There had to be another way.

    Simply leaving JonBenet in the floor for John to find in the morning would not work. He most likely had heard the quarrel from upstairs. Burke obviously would have heard too. No, Patsy had to stage a murder that John could not fathom was committed by her despite all of the fighting he had heard. Since JonBenet was an attractive pageant child, it was most logical to stage her death as a sex crime. To make this faux killer more credible for John, Patsy authored a ransom note that included a sum related to his bonus. Since John had no idea that Patsy knew about that number, this kidnapping would carry more weight. Besides, John had many tussles with former employees. In the business world, is was not unusual to acquire a relatively large number of disgruntled associates over a period of time. There would be plenty of suspects out there with viable motives.

    The more Patsy thought about it, the more she realized that she could make this work. It had to work. Reminding herself that she was a talented performer capable of playing the role of an innocent victim in the most convincing of manners would be the elixir for keeping herself composed enough to stage this elaborate crime.

    To be contd...

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  36. Contd...

    So I ask you Doc and all of the other JDIs, BDIs, and IDIs:

    After staging JonBenet’s death, why would Patsy NOT call 911? Doc insists that a guilty John or Patsy would not call 911 with the body still in the house. My question is: How could Patsy have gotten rid of the body by herself without suspicion? At some point, one of them would have to call 911 anyway. Why not do it early? Patsy could claim that she did not read the threats on page two (which she did claim). Not making any threats about calling police, FBI, and law enforcement until the 2nd page was most likely by design. Why even include the threats you might ask? Because virtually all ransom notes do. Without those threats, it would draw suspicion.

    It is certainly possible that John agreed with Patsy to call 911 before he too was able to read the threats. If John had written the ransom note, do you not think he would have provided those threats in the first paragraph if it was so vital to his plan?

    The 911 call tells me that Patsy wanted someone else to find the body. Finding it herself would only make her look suspicious. Patsy did not want John or Burke to find the body for the same reason. Calling the Whites and Fernies IMMEDIATELY over to the house would not only aid in polluting the crime scene, but also increase the chances that SOMEONE ELSE would find JonBenet’s body. When Patsy spied at officer French through her splayed fingers as he returned from searching the basement, she fully expected that he was about to announce his discovery.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Hercule, for this clarification of your take on the case. As an explanation of your thinking (essentially the same as Steve Thomas's), it is useful. But as an attempt to solve the case it is woefully lacking. First of all, you offer no evidence whatsoever, only an attempt to explain why Patsy MIGHT have acted as you assume she did. Everything is based on your conviction that Patsy killed her daughter and wrote the note, but you offer no reason why she would have done that nor any evidence that she did.

      "Doc insists that a guilty John or Patsy would not call 911 with the body still in the house. My question is: How could Patsy have gotten rid of the body by herself without suspicion?" Your logic is rather fractured here, Hercule. I agree that Patsy would not have planned on gettting rid of the body if she'd been acting alone and had not called 911. But John COULD have and imo did. HE is the one designated by "the kidnappers" to deal with the ransom. HE is the one who handled their finances and would have been able to raise the ransom from the bank as ordered. It was "up to you, John", as stated in the note. Patsy is not mentioned.

      The note is clearly part of a plan, but what sort of plan could Patsy possibly have had in mind? Why go to all that trouble to stage a kidnapping that never happened? Why include all those dire warnings if your plan is to call the police despite the warnings? Why hide the body at all, why not just place it on her bed, where the intruder allegedly assaulted her?

      Your take on this case is based on a long series of assumptions and speculations, based essentially on your prior conviction that Patsy MUST have done it, because for you, as for Steve Thomas, no other explanation makes sense. Once you accept that John could not have written the note, and you realize (correctly) that there could have been no intruder, then Patsy does seem to be the only alternative, no? In formulating a case against Patsy, that's your best bet, not all these speculations about what MIGHT have been going on in her mind that night.

      Only the case against Patsy falls apart once we question the decision to rule John out. Which, as the Ramsey's own attorney has argued, is based on pseudoscience. Once John is ruled back in, then as I see it, all the pieces fit together, which is not the case with PDI.

      Delete
  37. Hercule

    Your theory is possible I suppose, however in a previous post you said that JR figured out that PR did it. My question is, if JR thought that PR murdered JBR, why would he trust her to continue raising BR?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, you could say John figured it out, but I also think he was almost positive that Patsy was guilty from the start. John would have heard the fighting, screaming, and more than likely noticed how quickly the noise came to an end. I do not think Patsy was rational enough to understand that the chances of being able to fool John was next to none. It was pure desperation.

    Why would John trust Patsy after that? I think he realized that JonBenet’s skull injury was an accident. The garrote was part of the staging, but unbeknownst to Patsy, it also strangled JonBenet, who was barely still alive until then. In John’s mind, the chain of events that night started with an accident and everything else that transpired was unintentional murder while in the process of staging. I am not sure that John really ever trusted Patsy again, but he certainly found himself handcuffed to her with their lawyers holding on to the key.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual... Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous." Wikipedia

      Drawing directly from the above text, that Patsy or John AND Patsy, prior to calling police, chose to stage a failed kidnapping instead of staging a successful kidnapping constitutes, given the "totality of circumstances...an inchoate..'hunch'..based on non-specific inarticulable facts from which no rational inferences can be drawn."

      To argue that said choice is reasonable because it is associates suspicion with two "specific individuals" treated as one is specious. Precedent has given judges great latitude when instructing jurys on the definitions of probable cause, reasonable doubt, and reasonable suspicion. While (so far as I know---OKAY CC?) no precedents for "reasonable suspicion" have been firmly established beyond those appertaining to "unreasonable search and seizures", new precedents are established are established all the time by individuals, judges, and law enforcement officials not for sale, willing to push the envelope, or who have the power yet remain reclusive hiding behind, perhaps out of fear, a veil of anonymity.


      Taken individually each of the "reasonable" facts in this case are "innocuous". Combine them as Doc did (notice I did not say the "way" Doc did) in "Just the Facts, Maam", and reasonable suspicion eliminates all possible suspects but one.

      Mike












      Delete
    2. "yet who have the power to do so..."

      sorry for the other typos and grammatical hiccups....

      Mike

      Delete
    3. If you think John is the only viable suspect who was in the house that night then perhaps you need to reacquaint yourself with the evidence in this case. There is FAR MORE inculpatory evidence against Patsy. If you think John Ramsey is such a slam dunk suspect, why was he not ever arrested? Doc wants you to think it was merely because his handwriting was ruled out. Police departments do not RULE OUT suspects over handwriting analysis alone. Not unlike polygraph testing, handwriting analysis is utilized to initially narrow the suspect pool and to perhaps produce a confession during an interrogation. There was no evidence whatsoever that suggested John Ramsey was a pedophile, incestuous, or violent. Doc’s theory is thought provoking, but is lacking in key areas:

      1. The broken basement window was an old break. Burke testified that he was with John the first and only time it was broken. The window was never repaired. John simply could not remember on which occasion he broke the window. The night John had been locked out from the previous summer after returning from a business trip, the window had already been broken that is why John used that method to enter the house.

      2. If JonBenet had been sexually abused prior to the night of the murder, there were plenty of other attractive suspects that had just as much ample opportunity to commit that vile act.

      3. The fiber evidence, particularly the amount of fibers found on the cord and duct tape are very damning to Patsy.

      4. Patsy blatantly lied and unintentionally revealed damning information on multiple occasions.

      5. It was Patsy who routinely checked JonBenet in the middle of the night to see if she soiled herself. If JonBenet was dry and clean, Patsy would wake her up to use the toilet.

      6. Patsy wore the same outfit from the previous evening. She was either too rattled to notice, or it was a deliberate act to ensure that any fibers found on JonBenet could be accounted for once Patsy threw herself on the body shortly after it was discovered.

      7. Handwriting analysis showed that the author attempted to disguise their hand. For the most part, the handwriting was well disguised. How the handwriting looks can easily be altered, but there are many aspects of writing that the layperson does not think to disguise and that is how so many experts were able to conclude that Patsy wrote the note.

      Hercule

      Delete
    4. Sorry, Hercule, but I don't see Patsy as a "viable suspect" at all. Not in the least. JonBenet was absolutely the apple of her eye, she doted on her, fussed over her endlessly, and had great plans for her future. Accidents will happen, for sure. But what happened that night went well beyond an accident, as you well know. To suspect Patsy one has to suspend logic, common sense and critical thinking and blast off into the twilight zone.

      What mother would be capable of pulling herself together to compose that 2 1/2 page "ransom note" just after accidentally clobbering her beloved daughter over the head? What mother would then be moved to penetrate her daughter's vagina, in an absurd effort to "cover up" what could have been explained as an accident by staging a sexual assault? and then go on to construct a garrote-like device to strangle her with, leaving deep fissures in her neck?

      And having gone to all that trouble to stage, then call the police, knowing full well the body of the "kidnap" victim was still in the house?

      As for your other points:

      1. If the broken basement window was an old break, dating from the incident related by Burke, then why didn't John describe it as such, instead of testifying that he broke it the previous summer, while Burke, JonBenet and Patsy were out of town.

      2. While other individuals had access to JonBenet, John was the only one who murdered her, making him the most likely perpetrator of the abuse as well. Don't forget, I've never claimed the prior abuse was murder evidence, but the other way 'round. Since it's clear to me that John murdered his daughter, then his complicity in the sexual abuse can easily be inferred from that fact, as silencing her is the most likely motive by far.

      3. Even Steve Thomas conceded that the fibers on the tape were useless as evidence, since the tape came in contact with the blanket just after the body was discovered. As for the other fibers, Patsy had been in close contact with her daughter all day, so there would have been no need for her to fall on the body to account for any fibers that might have been found at the crime scene. Your conviction that these fibers constitute "damning" evidence, is evidence only of confirmation bias on your part.

      4. Name one such occasion on which Patsy "blatantly lied" or otherwise dissembled.

      5. Totally irrelevant.

      6. So you are saying that Patsy either never went to bed that night at all -- or returned to bed wearing the same outfit as the day before? And John noticed nothing unusual when he awoke before she did to take his shower?

      7. As you very well know, Patsy's handwriting evidence is controversial. All but one of the unbiased professionals who examined her writing found it "unlikely" that she wrote it. Only one saw some evidence of that, but not sufficient for him to so testify in court. All the other so-called "experts" were clearly biased, looking for anything they could find in her writing that resembled the note. I've exposed their incompetence several times on this blog.

      Delete
  39. "John would have heard the fighting, screaming, and more than likely noticed how quickly the noise came to an end."

    Yet did not get up to investigate?

    ReplyDelete
  40. If it was not unusual to hear Patsy and JonBenet fighting then I do not think John would feel it necessary to interfee. Most likely John’s main concern would be drifting back to sleep as soon as possible.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  41. Merry Christmas to you, evej, and everyone else as well. Even CC. Yes, you read that correctly :)

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  42. I hope everyone had a nice Christmas and that no one got coal in their stocking. Happy Boxing Day too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, DL. And lest we forget: today is the anniversary of JonBenet's brutal murder.

      Delete
  43. Happy Holidays.

    Thank you Hercule for your synopsis. I'm hoping for a little more. For instance your timeline theory, when you think the injury to the head happened and what precipitated it. We do know there were no wet sheets on the bed (unless you think Patsy was up all night doing laundry in addition to everything else). I'm not being facetious, just want your theory.

    Also I am going to have to agree with your point #1 regarding the broken window. Sorry Doc. I just can't make sense of a staging and unstaging scenario. John said himself he rarely went down to the basement, if Burke played down there it would have been in the train room, the broken window was forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then what about the suitcase, found propped against the wall directly beneath that broken window? What about the small shard of glass Lou Smit discovered on top of that suitcase, how did that get there? And can you explain why John and Patsy were both questioned at length about that window on two separate occasions -- if the glass had been encrusted with 6 months worth of dust, why would the police need to ask them about it at all, and why would they need to ask them if it had ever been repaired?

      Ask yourself also how a broken window could have gone unnoticed in a cold and windy Boulder winter? Or why the housekeeper testified that she knew nothing about any broken window or broken glass down there? Ask yourself also why John would have closed that window when he found it open, and say nothing about it until months later. And why he would blatantly lie about it years later, claiming that he reported it to a detective and she ignored him?

      Sorry if you can't make sense out of the staging-unstaging scenario I've proposed. But to me nothing else about that window makes any sense at all.

      Delete
  44. Well we agree that nothing (else) about the window makes any sense.

    When asked, John told LE all of the windows and doors were locked. The police would ask about a broken window no matter whether it was dirty, dusty, or clean. A window break in a home where a girl is missing and a ransom note is left is a crucial piece of evidence. Do you think the Boulder police were competent enough to determine whether or not the edges of the glass denoted a fresh break or an old break? Officer French's "search" of the basement was neither thorough nor complete. I doubt he stayed at the house long enough to gather much evidence or grill the parents.

    There were many instances of John mucking up the crime scene - closing the window was just another one. Not mentioning that he did that right away was worse. Let me ask you, if John went back to the broken window and removed glass why didn't he also move the suitcase back away from the wall, or sweep up the packing peanuts if his intention was to unstage?

    When was the suitcase pushed up against the wall under the window? Does any one know?

    Didn't Fleet say he picked up a shard of glass and placed it on the window sill? He may have been confused as to whether he put it on top of the suitcase or just where he put it. If John's intention was to unstage after a staging, his unstaging was sloppier than the staging.

    How often did the housekeeper go down to the basement? Most likely her duties were confined to a very large upper 3 floors of the house. The kitchen, the washer and drier off JonBenet's room, the beds, the bathrooms and changing Patsy's purses for her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Do you think the Boulder police were competent enough to determine whether or not the edges of the glass denoted a fresh break or an old break?"

      According to Kolar, the broken glass was examined by forensic professionals, who were unable to determine whether or not it was an old break. If they had found a layer of dust on the edges that would have been a sure sign of age, but obviously that is not what they found. Seems as though those edges were clean and they were just being cautious in drawing their conclusions, especially since John's story corroborated the earlier finding that no one had passed through that window recently.

      The area around where the window was located was used to store Xmas presents, Xmas trees, etc. and was also the center of activity for the workmen who were doing repairs shortly before Christmas. Surely someone would have noticed cold air emanating from that broken pane of glass.

      "Let me ask you, if John went back to the broken window and removed glass why didn't he also move the suitcase back away from the wall, or sweep up the packing peanuts if his intention was to unstage?"

      He would have had very little time to do any unstaging and the broken glass would certainly have been his priority. He could have been interrupted at any moment by police, so it's not surprising that he was unable to do a more thorough job. The real question you need to ask is: who placed that suitcase under the window and why? If you have an answer I'd love to hear it.

      Delete
    2. from a candyrose, picture from Lou Smit's files of suitcase under basement window

      04-14-2000 Larry King Live with former Det. Steve Thomas

      LK: "what about the suitcase under the bedroom window?"

      ST: "well, I think that's easily explained - under the basement window."

      LK: "basement window."

      ST: "One, a witness in the house that day moved the suitcase, but I don't think these crime scene photos that some are relying upon are necessarily indicative of what a true pristine crime scene was that day."

      LK: "Meaning?"

      ST: "Meaning, the suitcase was moved at one point during the day before that photograph was taken."

      "at one point during the day" doesn't help figure out who or when, or even why. But Steve Thomas says "a witness in the house that day" moved it. Would Thomas have called John "a witness"?

      Delete
    3. No mystery there. Fleet White testified that he moved the suitcase while looking for shards of glass. The photo to which Thomas refers represents the state of things AFTER White moved it. Both John and Fleet testified that the suitcase was initially flush against the wall.

      Delete
    4. Point well taken, Doc. However there is a strong possibility when John was locked out the summer before, looking for entry into the house, he spotted the hole in the basement window with the suitcase already flush against the wall, took the screen off (the screen was off according to crime scene tech), reached through to unlock the window and climbed in, stepping on the suitcase or scraping his shoe along the wall attempting to climb in. Another rather large shard of glass was dislodged at that time, the piece Fleet found and placed on top of the suitcase. The suitcase was used to "get in", not "get out" as Smit proposed.

      John made the shoe scuff on the wall when he was lowering himself down through the window. Do you think he came back to the crime scene and scuffed up the wall that night or morning?

      Fall leaves, dirt and debris covered the window sill and well as the season changed from summer to Fall to Winter, covering where John climbed in the summer before.

      The suitcase was flush under the window for who knows how long, being placed there during a previous time, shoved out of the way, by anyone in the house.

      Delete
    5. Interesting theory, Castor. But it doesn't gibe with John's testimony. He said he broke the window the previous summer, after returning alone from a business trip. And later he said the suitcase "did not belong" where he found it on the morning of the 26th.

      Delete
  45. Good morning everyone!

    I think the strangest thing about the window is the fact that JR found an open basement window on the day his daughter was "kidnapped" and never told the police. I would think that would be the first thing you'd tell LE when they arrived on the scene. You certainly wouldn't close it and say nothing.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the time John reported closing that window, he'd been "ruled out" as writer of the note, so he'd have felt relatively secure at that point. Also by that time, Lou Smit had decided to ignore the evidence and declare that window as the "intruder's" entry and exit point, very publicly demonstrating how easy it was for someone his size to climb through. To corroborate Smit's theory, it was necessary for John to claim he'd found that window open -- if he'd found it closed, then obviously Smit would have been wrong.

      Delete
  46. Hi, thought I'd chime in. There's been much made about John being this big time powerful CEO whose wife was uninterested in sex because of her cancer recovery. Yet instead of finding any other woman he desired, he took a sexual interest in his own six year old daughter?????? Sorry, but that is absolutely preposterous.

    -RTG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John had a thing for beauty pageant participants and glam. He married a former beauty queen, allegedly had an affair with a woman from Arizona he had dress up in gowns, and his present wife designs pageant costumes.

      Adult beauty queens are thin on the ground in Boulder; small wonder he was attracted to his over-sexualized, tarted-up daughter in her very adult pageant costumes.

      Delete
    2. RTG, are you sincerely suggesting that powerful CEOs can't be pedophiles?! MOST pedophiles can find "any woman they desire".....clearly, a lack of viable, mature, females is NOT the reason pedophiles seek out younger prey. People who think like yourself are the reason why children usually don't report sexual abuse.....no one can accept that a "cordial", good looking, successful, family man could ever be guilty of such a crime. Do some research. Many predators aren't too different from John Ramsey. Your comment smacks of ignorance.
      The fact is: JonBenet was sexually abused at the time of her murder, and JR was the only adult male in the house at the time - ponder that for a while.

      Delete
    3. I dusagree, MsD. I do not believe John was/is a classic pedophile. I think his sexual abuse of JBR was entirely situational, triggered by her pageant participation and adult-like costumes and performances in same.

      Delete
    4. Yes, CC, I know you believe that, and I do tend to agree with you.....I think. However, he would still have to have some kind of pathological issue regarding sex in order for him to feel attraction towards his six year old daughter, and to suggest that he wouldn't be capable of such sexual deviancy because he's a successful CEO, as RTG alluded to in his/her comment, is more preposterous than any JDI theory I've read.

      Delete
    5. Good point Ms. D.

      Call it what you want, "pedophilia" or "situational deviancy", the fact is anyone who has sex with a six year old then murders them is a psychopath who has committed a crime and should be punished as severely as the law allows.

      Just as the law doesn't respectively leave alone or lock up first-timers or repeat-offenders likely to commit some crimes but not others before any crimes have been committed---thresholds for probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt should not vary subject to the vicissitudes of crimes committed or past criminal histories.

      Mike

      Delete
  47. “He would have had very little time to do any unstaging and the broken glass would certainly have been his priority.“

    Sorry, Doc. I do not buy that. If John was already cleaning up glass around the suitcase, would he not have moved it completely out of the way first? Why would he then take the time to return the suitcase flush against the wall directly under the broken window if he was in such a hurry?

    The only scenario that makes sense is that Patsy placed the suitcase under the window in a sloppy attempt to suggest an intruder used it to exit the basement. The already broken window was convenient to stage an intruder. Perhaps it was Patsy, and not John, who had been too much in a hurry to consider the spiderweb and dirt on the sill. Obviously, she was not a perfect criminal. She did, however, think to scatter debris from the window well throughout the basement and wine cellar.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Hercule. IF Patsy had not been the one to call 911; IF John had not been the one to find that window open and then close it, without reporting this key piece of evidence to anyone at the time; IF John's story about breaking that window earlier were not shot through with contradictions, absurdities and "can't recalls"; IF either of the Ramseys had been able to recall whether or not the window had ever been repaired; IF the forensics experts had been able to find an encrustation of dust and dirt on the edges of the glass; IF Linda had not testified that she knew nothing about any broken window or broken glass in the basement:

      THEN it might be possible to consider the possibility that John was innocent of the crime and Patsy was the one who placed the suitcase under the window in an attempt to stage an intruder exit point. Since all the evidence points to duplicity on John's part, however, I find it safe to conclude that HE was responsible for the scene at the window, including the placement of the suitcase, a crucial piece of evidence which HE failed to report.

      Delete
    2. In the crime scene photos, I spied a stool in the basement. What I find curious is why John (or Patsy, if one subscribes to Hercule's theory) didn't place this under the window if the intention was to stage what appeared to be the exit point of said intruder. Why would an intruder use an unsteady suitcase to bolster themselves up to the window when there was a sturdy stool nearby? It would appear that the perpetrator hadn't actually planned on staging an intruder crime scene at that early point - this perp was clearly caught off guard - and only went with that idea some time after the fact, once the idea was floated by Lou Smit months later, in which case the suitcase could *now* seem like a convenient prop for the mythical intruder (which of course goes against Hercule's theory that Patsy was staging the scene to look like an intruder from the get go, and supports Doc's, which suggests that John didn't consider completing the staging of the exit point because he never intended for anyone - certainly not LE, at any rate - to be down in the basement that morning).

      Delete
    3. I can't think of any other reason for the placement of that suitcase than to suggest an exit point for an intruder. Perhaps the stool you noticed was broken or weak.

      Delete
    4. You probably will like this idea least of all, but I think that it's possible JBR did all of this to herself.

      Delete
    5. I have always thought the suitcase was put under the window rather than a stool or chair, to suggest that it was intended to take jbr out in the suitcase, and allow LE to speculate that the intruders were somehow disturbed. This somewhat helps with jbr being found in the home

      Delete
    6. JB gave herself a lethal head wound, then managed to tie a garrote at the back of her neck (her hair was entwined in the knot) and twisted it until she died, Blogger101?

      Who tied her hands together (and why)?
      Who placed the duct tape over her mouth (and why)?
      Who wrote the ransom note (and why)?
      Did JB penetrate her vagina herself, or was that someone else?

      I sincerely hope you're joking.....if not, please elaborate.

      Delete
    7. Little kids sometimes can cause accidents. Or, someone put the idea into her head and she went through with the idea.

      Delete
    8. Your idea that the suitcase was intended to further suggest an intruder is a good one, eve. Nice catch.

      Delete
    9. You didn't answer my questions, Blogger101, you merely made the same assertion you made in your earlier post. I'm well aware that "little kids sometimes can cause accidents", what I would like to know is, if this was self inflicted, how did JonBenet manage to do the following:

      Deliver a mortal head wound to herself with enough force to crack her skull, then, as she lay dying, fashion a garrote around her neck and tighten it until she stops breathing.....and all whilst her hands are tied together?!
      Write a two and a half page ransom note, using such terms as "counter measures", "foreign faction" and "adequate sized attache", even though she cannot yet read?
      What would possess a six year old to mutilate their own genitalia, bash their skull in, then strangle themselves to death?

      Just when I thought NO theory could possibly be more preposterous than BDI, and along comes JBDI!



      Delete
    10. I never said any of this. I answered you, but you mistook me, once again.

      Delete
    11. This might make things more clear: http://extras.denverpost.com/jonbenetAMA.html

      Delete
    12. I've read that interview before, 101. Thanks for the link, but it doesn't contain any information I didn't already know, and doesn't make your theory any clearer, sorry.
      How about you simply outline your theory of what you believe happened, and why the parents felt the need for an elaborate cover up?

      Delete
    13. That's okay. If you really don't know, you don't need to know.

      Delete
    14. That's just silly.....why would you come to a crime blog, state your theory, then refuse to share the details?
      There's no doubting I'm a royal pain in the ass here at times, but asking you to share the details of the theory you came here with the purpose of sharing is surely more than reasonable? Isn't that the entire purpose of entering a discussion.....to share a mutual dialogue?

      I'm aware you think JB choked herself to death in some sort of "choking game", as a handful of others have postulated on various JBR forums, what I'm not so clear on is your ideas about the head blow, which came before the choking, so where does it fit in with said game? I'm also unclear on why you believe her parents would go to such elaborate lengths to stage a botched kidnapping/pedophile attack if JB died by accident.

      There's no need to be cagey. You obviously came here to discuss.....so discuss. :)

      Delete
  48. Hercule: "She did, however, think to scatter debris from the window well throughout the basement and wine cellar."

    I don't agree. If it was an old break, as you stated in your #1 point and one I agree with, then debris from the window well could have blown in, as well as scattering anything else light such as packing peanuts from the cluttered basement, around. John also states the window was open, but not wide open as perhaps some are visualizing. No need for Patsy to do any scattering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On this point I agree with Castor.

      Delete
  49. Hercule, I'm still very interested in seeing some evidence for your claim that John confessed Patsy's crime to his lawyers on the 27th Dec. Is that an assumption on your part, or do you know this as fact?

    If John has known all along that his wife is responsible for his daughter's death, why is he continuing to allow the public to believe his nine year old son killed his sister? John strikes me as a bit (well, a lot) of a narcissist, and he certainly had no problem throwing just about everyone he knew under the bus in order to take the heat off of himself, so why should we believe he would care so much about protecting Patsy - the person who killed his beloved child - that he would agree to remain "under the umbrella of suspicion", along with his innocent son? What could possibly be motivation enough for him to live his entire life being known as a child killer?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Something else I have a major problem with, Hercule, is: why wouldn't Patsy, upon learning she was going to die, not have set the record straight? I'm sure it hurt her greatly to see her son accused of the murder of his sister, and on her death bed, she clearly no longer had to worry about prosecution.....so why wouldn't she confess, and instead choose to allow her son and husband to live with the stigma for the rest of their lives? I just can't accept she would not have lifted that burden from them. She had nothing to lose by that point, and Nedra (if she had ever feared her reaction, as you alluded to in one of your posts) had already passed on.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "On Dec. 27, 1996 Patsy Ramsey, being exhausted and lying down, reached up and touched the face of a friend, Pam Griffin, the woman who had made JonBenet's pageant costumes. Griffin thought Patsy was delirious when she asked, “Couldn’t you fix this for me?” as though a sewing machine could bring back her daughter. She then remembers Patsy saying, “We didn’t mean for this to happen” and Griffin got the definite feeling that in her weakened condition, Patsy had revealed that she knew who the killer was."

    She was never going to give up the whole scheme of blaming this on an intruder and on someone in her family nor had the finger been pointed at Burke publicly at all. They had spent millions on defending their names. Would this not be quite obvious ?? Silly questions. I am sure by her statement made to Pam Griffin it is quite clear to anyone with a lick of commom sense that PR, at the least knew what happened but feel free to continue on with the charade you have going on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your muddled syntax makes it impossible to determine what you're trying to say. It's also a dead give away, MM. You can post anonymously, but you're easily recognizable.

      IMO, Patsy's statement to Pam indicated her regret at exposing her daughter to predators via her pageant appearances.

      You've been doing this periodically for years, and insofar as I can determine your only point is that Patsy had some involvement in, or knowledge of, her daughter's murder. Why the anger at those of us who do not agree?

      Delete
  52. What anger ? Other than a couple of 1 letter typos there are no muddled syntax errors, the text is very easy to read and most of all very easy to understand. Typos are something you and Ms D try commonly use as an attack method and an excuse for lack of common sense. When typing 30 words per minute on a smartphone, it happens frequently with all posters on all sites. I am not going to spend the time nor can I go back and redo the typos while posting without a hat. Nor do I care to. You can go back and reread Ms.D's 7000 deleted and redone posts for perfect spelling and punctuation if you desire. I certainly have not posted here for years and the snide remarks from you and Ms. D towards every and anyone who does not agree with the ridiculous notion of JDI have given every blogger that was on this site an attitude. In effect you and her have killed this blog, to the point where only JDI are left here, (all 5 of you) and there is nothing more to debate nor anyone to discuss it with. Your dysfunction of coming up with illogical excuse after excuse to exclude any and all evidence other than trying to "make-up" evidence of JDI is humorous to most. I could come up with 15 points of evidence, some damning and you will make irrational excuse after excuse, most ridiculous in nature as to how PR's memory completely failed her and how beyond stupid she really is. Had she thought JBR was killed because of the pageants than she would have acted as she always had, by pointing her finger at all that false intruder evidence that she kept repitively and falsely conjuring up, not by blaming herself for putting her into pageants on her deathbed. If that were the case she would have stated as much, so as to not be misinterpreted. The person who was there and knew PR well is going to know better than you are. You would be better off with the usual, PR is being framed by the detectives, experts and everyone else in the world strategy used here, or better yet, the repitively used, highly improbable strategy resorted to by JDI. The pineapple bowl could have been from last year . The fibers could have been transferred. She could habe got amnesia. It is ALL possible right ? Only if you completely lack common sense, sure it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence which points to a particular person to the exclusion of all others. Any list you offer is entirely subjective. Likewise, I have no evidence that JDI. It's all a matter of one's perception.

      This IS a JDI site, and I agree with most of Doc's theory. Hardly surprising, then, that I defend my position.

      Doc's blog is far from dead; most of us are just disinclined to beat dead horses for the sake of the confused.

      Delete
    2. And you don't think the idea of stuffing JB into the suitcase or trying to suggest an intruder may have had that in mind; or strangling JB with a Christmas-gift scarf isn't a confused idea? Nope, that's a "good catch".

      There were by far more fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the body, intertwined in the cord, than one little fiber from John's shirt - which I'm still waiting for the lab report reference to that which has never been provided here. So let's throw out all of the fiber evidence.

      At 5:52 a.m. Patsy calls 911. Officer French is dispatched at 5:55 a.m. and arrives at the house at 5:59 a.m. John now has 7 minutes to run down to the basement and pick up glass and hide it (not knowing Patsy would call 911 and so now has to re arrange his whole staging ideas)get back upstairs, dress, and gracefully come back down the stairs to greet Officer French. While I don't believe Patsy killed her daughter, it's not necessary to add details to bolster Doc's case.

      Delete
    3. "You can go back and reread Ms.D's 7000 deleted and redone posts for perfect spelling and punctuation."

      Why do you keep bringing this up? I think I've deleted a total of maybe three posts due to spelling/grammatical errors. When I delete a comment - which isn't as often as you appear to think it is - it's usually because I thought better of it after posting. What's wrong with that? Since when was being conscientious a bad thing? I would argue that it is preferable to posting indecipherable gibberish.
      We haven't "killed the blog", we've just hopefully weeded out a few of the idiots (clearly not all of them), and Doc's blog is better for it.
      This is a JDI BLOG.....what do you EXPECT to be discussed here?
      Re-read your own catty comments, and stop playing the victim. You - like everyone else here who loves to cry "foul" - give every bit as good as you get.

      Delete
    4. There was a chair outside the train room door; MsD has spotted a stool, both sturdier choices for a boost than a wobbly suitcase. Ergo, the suitcase was chosen for another reason. Evie's idea that it further suggested an intruder is, in fact, a good one. It wasn't until years later that it was proved JBR's body would not fit in that particular piece of Samsonite.

      I've never suggested JBR was strangled with a scarf.

      The confusion is all yours, Castor.

      Delete
    5. "There were by far more fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the body, intertwined in the cord, than one little fiber from John's shirt - which I'm still waiting for the lab report reference to that which has never been provided here. So let's throw out all of the fiber evidence."

      Where is the lab report referencing the fibers that matched PR's jacket, Castor?

      None of us know how many of PR's jacket fibers were found in/on the cord. Nor do you know that only "one little fiber" from JR's shirt was found.

      That's the problem with the fiber evidence. There is no way to gauge it's importance without a lab report and a decent understanding of fiber transfer/evidence/analysis. Are all fibers recovered from a crime scene significant, or would something like white cotton fibers (say from a man's undershirt, or countless other types of garments) be so common, that they are of little value, and therefore, not investigated?

      Delete
    6. H: Do you recall reading about a friend of John's named Mike (I want to say Mike Quinn, but that's likely wrong)? They were friends in Michigan, Mike later moved to Atlanta and Boulder, and iirc, worked for AG for a time.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    7. CC, there's a Mike Glynn. He worked for AG, but I don't think he met JR until the 90s when the Rs moved to Boulder.

      Jeff Merrick and Jim Marino both worked for AG at some point and both knew JR from back in the day (long before the Rs moved to Boulder.) Maybe you're thinking of one of them.

      Delete
    8. You're right, I am. I was thinking of Jim Marino, the friend who described catting around with JR in Michigan, cruising for women, and who later, in Atlanta, described PR as "John's Jackie O".

      Thanks.

      Delete
    9. HKN, it was brought up several times in here, and then discussed by CC and E.G.

      I've searched the internet for any kind of report regarding a black fiber from John's expensive foreign-made shirt found in the crotch of JB's panties and have wondered if that was some sort of National Enquirer or Globe piece of false information.

      Regarding fibers from Patsy's jacket on the sticky side of the duct tape over JB's mouth - again, I have no lab report but have read that info many times over and it has been discussed here, along with fibers from her jacket on the cord. I agree with you, there is no way to gauge it's importance without a lab report and and qualified analysis.

      Delete
    10. Ms D suggested JB was strangled with a scarf. But we all have our side theories so I don't mean to offend. Just wanted to illustrate that Doc's theory is beautiful in it's simplicity and adherence to logic (other than the unstaging :)).

      Delete
    11. Mike Kane attempted to question John about the fiber(s) from his Israeli-made shirt in the August, 2000 interview. Wood shut down that line of questioning absent a copy of the lab report, which Kane had not brought from Boulder to Atlanta.

      There were, iirc, 4-6 fibers from Patsy's jacket on the duct tape.

      This kind of forensic evidence, along with fingerprints and DNA, is meaningless in a shared home, and disallowed in court.

      Delete
    12. Of course you meant to offend, Castor: "Nope, that's a good catch", and advising Herc to ignore "the troll" yesterday.

      Just because my usual practice is to ignore you (other than when you make gaffes like the one above regarding fiber evidence, The Globe and The Enquirer), that does not mean I am unaware.

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

      Delete
    14. Do not presume to understand my relationship with Gumshoe, which went back several years, and which she blew up, not I.

      For the rest, I lack Doc's patience and do not suffer fools. I take particular exception to those who post misinformation or flat-out foolishness: "If JDI he would have destroyed the RN before LE arrived". Good god.

      People used to come here for informed debate; this was known as the smart site. We lost bright participants to the endless BDI droning, and because of folks like Inq, who treated this as a chat room. I miss those bright people and their ideas, conversations and debates.

      Delete
    15. At some point during the course of this blog you decided which way it was going,which way it needed to go, and whether you liked it or not. If you are a former prosecutor then you decided to treat this forum as an opportunity to haul every participant up onto the stand and impeach their comments, who should go, who should stay. You've name-called, blind-sighted, and played favorites in an attempt to have this forum go the way you want it to go. You have decided who is bright and who is not. You have decided who has an idea and who is just chatting. You have become offended at the blog administrator when nearly all of your comments of the nasty sort are removed and blame others for their colossal gall making a point that's contrary to yours. There is a learning curve to participating on a blog, if one has never done so before but you have not the patience for anyone's questions dismissing them sending them back to read Doc's threads or telling them to read up. "Those bright people" that you like to refer to have other things to do than be here 24/7, but it's that you have appointed yourself the judge and jury of who is allowed to question, comment, who is bright and who is not that is so utterly offensive. Hercule mentioned to two trolls, but I see only one. You would never be able to run a blog successfully as Doc has done. I'd like to see you try though. See if anyone goes over to your blog.

      Delete
    16. No thanks. I like Doc, like his theory, and like it here.

      Delete
  53. “...why wouldn't Patsy, upon learning she was going to die, not have set the record straight?“

    That is a fair question. I think that keeping the truth away from Burke was just as important as keeping it away from the police and media.

    Hercule

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

      Delete
    2. Apparently it's only a fair question when someone else asks it, eh?

      What possible purpose would have been served by keeping it away from Burke, LE and the media that would have outweighed the obvious benefit of clearing her son?

      Again, Patsy would have made a deathbed confession had she in fact done the deed.

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

      Delete
  54. How could PR possibly "clear her son", when according to JDI, he was not even a suspect or so much as "on LE's radar at the time ? As far as why she would not confess on her deathbed to anything, they had spent millions on lawyers and tried to blame it on "an intruder". You think she is going to implicate JR or BR or both when they would have to deal with the implications that come with that for the rest of their lives ? After blowing almost every dollar they had and all the effort they spent trying to convince the world otherwise ? The question is why would she ? Pretty simple answer there ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Clear her son" in the minds of the general public: Burke had been accused in tabloid headlines several times; many of the early defamation suits were brought on his behalf.

      No, I do not think she was "going to implicate" JR or BR - just the opposite. I think had she killed her daughter, borne the guilt for ten years while watching Burke trashed in the media, she would indeed have made a deathbed confession to relieve him of that burden.

      Delete
    2. How often do you hear of anyone making a "deathbed confession" ? Never. She and the Ramsey family would and will take the truth to the grave. The other Ramseys kmow what happened and they will all tale it to their grave. You do not spend millions of dollars and pull the publicity stunts tbey pulled just to go amd make a confession. The heat was never on BR. Other than a couole of tabloids like Enquirer. In the Ramsey's eyes they have forever fooled the world. Going by this theory we should have a confession from JR coming soon ? I dont think so....

      Delete
    3. Upon viewing the body, Patsy exclaimed that she had never before seen the underwear on her daughter’s corpse. Detectives later found out that Patsy had recently purchased that pair of underwear at Bloomingdale's in New York for her 12-year-old niece, but that JonBenet begged to have it kept for her, so Patsy kept it for her. Prior to the murder, even friends of the family knew of this underwear story. If Patsy did recognize the distinctive underwear, and was lying, then she was trying to point the police to the exculpatory evidence, which she knew had been planted. (Recovery of such vital evidence occurred despite Boulder's untrustworthy and obstructionist district attorny running interference for the Ramseys, for example, by repeatedly denying search warrant applications and hindering investigators' standard efforts to obtain credit card and telephone records, etc.)

      Delete
    4. I don't know what you're quoting, but it's wrong. In one of her three interviews with LE Patsy said she bought a package of days-of-the-week underwear for JBR and another for her niece, Jenny.

      The remaining pairs were not collected in any of the 15th Street searches, but were sent by the Rs from Atlanta a year or more later.

      Delete
    5. That is incorrect, the underwear were bought for her niece but JBR wanted them so PR let her keep them. That is in 2 or 3 of the books (Kolar and Thomas' I believe) and 1 of her interviews I believe. I can source but who knows with PR's changing stories how many different ones there are.

      Delete
    6. Yes, I'm aware Patsy let JBR keep the size 12s.

      My point is that you attempted to cast aspersions on Patsy by implying that she lied about the underwear to LE, which she did not, and that they discovered this lie via some sort of "recovery", which they did not.

      Delete
  55. "Later a friend, who had come out from Boulder for the services, recalled that she was asked by Patsy to retrieve the black jeans Patsy had worn on the morning of December 26. Although the friend said Patsy really liked those jeans, I could only think of another reason why she would want those particular jeans from fifteen hundred miles away, since she had plenty of money and credit cards with her: fiber evidence."

    ReplyDelete
  56. Even Barbara Fernie, according to friends, began to have doubts. For months, she and Patsy had been inseparable - shopping, lunching, chatting on the phone. By early spring, Fernie began telling people, "I am the one grieving. Something is wrong with Patsy." Soon, friends say, Barbara was dropped from the Ramsey inner circle, though her husband, John, has continued his relationship with Ramsey, as have many other business associates.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Apples and oranges. Patsy was dying and had nothing to lose; John is very much alive and has plenty on the line.

    The legal "heat" was never on Burke because he was too young to be charged, but media speculation about his involvement was not confined to a few stories in the tabs.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the expensive IDI defense mounted by the Rs would somehow outweigh the value of removing suspicion from their son? That's almost as silly as insisting that John should have destroyed the RN before the arrival of LE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I surely am. The value of having none of the Ramsey family involved was well worth it to them. Again, the heat was never on BR by LE or the DA. You have argued the exact opposite of this on this blog CC. Are you now going to infer that the Grand Jury was possibly looking at BR as a/the main suspect ?

      Delete
    2. I have quoted Beckner and Hunter, who both stated Burke was never a suspect. I have steadfastly maintained that Burke could never have been under GJ scrutiny. I've no idea what you mean by ". . . [I] have argued the exact opposite. . ."

      Delete
  58. Hoffmann-Pugh has been talking with the media about her opinions on the case. The difference is that now when she describes things she believes about the case she can also say she has said the same thing in front of the grand jury.

    But she may not disclose what questions she was asked or describe any reactions she may have seen from grand jurors, her New York attorney Darnay Hoffman told reporters after the today's hearing.

    The Ramseys were not a party to the case, but their attorney Lin Wood said he agreed with the judge's decision. "Our preference would be for the public to know the complete truth," he said by telephone from Atlanta where the Ramseys now live.

    The former housekeeper can for instance, relate how she told the grand jury that she hid a Swiss army knife that was found near JonBenet's body and that she believes only Patsy Ramsey would have known where the knife was.



    The relationship between Hoffmann-Pugh and the Ramseys deteriorated after the child's body was discovered in the family's home in December, 1996.

    Initially the housekeeper sup

    ReplyDelete
  59. 14 Q. And the second trip that you and
    15 your husband and the Steins took, was that
    16 also November, but later in the month, or
    17 was that a December trip?
    18 A. I think it was December.
    19 Q. And maybe this will help jog your
    20 memory as to time. I believe that was the
    21 time of the Christmas parade in Boulder.
    22 A. Yes.
    23 Q. Is that correct?
    24 A. Yes.
    25 Q. Were you out of town?

    0080
    1 A. I remember that.
    2 Q. Which of those two trips did you
    3 purchase the Bloomi's?
    4 A. The first trip.
    5 Q. Was it something that was selected
    6 by JonBenet?
    7 A. I believe so.
    8 Q. Was it your intention, when you
    9 purchased those, for those to be for her,
    10 not for some third party as a gift?
    11 A. I bought some things that were
    12 gifts and some things for her. So I
    13 don't --
    14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is
    15 your best recollection that the purchase of
    16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the
    17 week, was something that you bought for her,
    18 whether it was just I am buying underwear
    19 for my kids or these are special, here's a
    20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your
    21 intention that she would wear those?
    22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
    23 package of the -- they came in a package of
    24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
    25 I think I bought a package to give to my

    0081
    1 niece.
    2 Q. Which niece was that?
    3 A. Jenny Davis.
    4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
    5 you remember that they come in kind of a
    6 plastic see-through plastic container.
    7 A. Right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She cannot give a straight answer. "Was it your intention that she would wear those?" The answer should have been "yes." She's not as good at manipulating the interviewer as John is.

      Delete
    2. You're right, Castor. PR never did give a straight answer, always vague. "Well I think I bought a package to give to my niece". Seems like an easy yes or no would do on that one.

      JR as well. He couldn't remember if he got out of the car at the Stine's house on Christmas night.

      EG

      EG

      Delete
  60. “Again, Patsy would have made a deathbed confession had she in fact done the deed.“

    CC, stating your opinion as if was a fact seems a bit hypocritical based on several of your critical retorts to comments made on this blog. I cannot imagine why Patsy would want Burke to know that his own mother killed his sister. Not only that, his own father covered for her. If nothing else, John would have reminded Patsy on her deathbed that his reputation was still on the line and that it was best not to confess. Besides, Burke was not a suspect nor was he seriously considered one by the general public at the time of Patsy’s death. It certainly did not bother Patsy with the realization that John or Burke might continue to make a nice profit by suing their accusers.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Herc, you've been stating your opinions as facts for years, making your above criticism of me even more hypocritical.

      In any case, I don't believe Patsy killed her daughter, which renders the point moot.

      Delete
  61. "I cannot imagine why Patsy would want Burke to know that his own mother killed his sister."

    Funny that, because you have no trouble imagining that Patsy was o.k with Burke being seen - in the eyes of the public, at least - as the one who killed his sister. How does this jibe with your assertion that his parents are trying to "protect" him? You sound like the BDI crowd.....you're asking us to believe that John and Patsy went to extraordinary lengths outside of the realm of common sense in order to protect their son, yet failed do the single, most, obvious thing - stage an ACCIDENT....."voila", problem solved for ALL of them.

    "Not only that, his own father covered for her."

    Please cite your sources. I keep asking you to post the evidence you have that John confessed his wife's crime to his lawyers on the 27th, but you keep dodging it, every, single, time....why is that?

    "If nothing else, John would have reminded Patsy on her deathbed that his reputation was still on the line and that it was best not to confess."

    Yeah.....screw Burke's reputation, right?

    Patsy spoke to Linda Arndt during her last days on this earth, and she was still pleading with her to find her daughter's killer.....doesn't sound like a guilty woman who is afraid of the truth of her wicked deed being uncovered.

    "Burke was not a suspect nor was he seriously considered one by the general public at the time of Patsy’s death."

    He was not a suspect in the eyes of LE.....that didn't stop the media from suggesting he was a very likely candidate. Of course, since Patsy died, James Kolar wrote his book, and CBS named him as his sister's killer in no uncertain terms. John is still able to set the record straight. Usually, parents tend to not want their children to be labelled as murderers.....especially when they KNOW exactly who it was that killed the child they allegedly loved.

    "It certainly did not bother Patsy with the realization that John or Burke might continue to make a nice profit by suing their accusers."

    Again....list your sources, please.


    All I see from the guy who claims to have "inside knowledge", is faulty assumptions. If this is the best you have, it isn't any more than any other PDI I've debated with.

    ReplyDelete
  62. In the spirit of treating this as a chat room, Mike G. have you heard the 1976 New York outtakes of "Blood on the Tracks" Bob Dylan? I know you love Dylan since you have quoted him many times. The outtake versions are even more beautiful than the originals if that's possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, though I don't remember if all the songs on the final LP had NY outtakes. The outake I remember most and prefer over the album is Idiot Wind...incredible. Also Tangled Up in Blue.

      Other outakes from other albums have been better too. Someone's Got a Hold of My Heart is FAR superior, IMO, than, You've Got a Tight Connection to my Heart. Blind Willie Mctell is a masterpiece few know of. The list goes on and on...I better stop while I can! Mike

      Delete
    2. Yes, I get it Mike! I heard "If you see her, say hello" in a new way from the outtake, and the date was 1974 (New York) not 1976 sorry 'bout that. And your quote "blood on the saddle" referring to John was from Idiot Wind. Keep on rockin' and rolling Mike!

      Delete
  63. Unveiling the Truth: Luka Rocco Magnotta

    I wrote to Magnotta to ask him about some allegations that recently appeared on 4chan involving him in the JonBenet Ramsey case. He denied all allegations.
    The allegations are as follows:
    -Luka was fourteen in 1996, living in Toronto and was invited to Colorado by a man on the internet.
    -The man sent money and gifts to fourteen year old Luka in exchange for photos.
    -Luka was sent train tickets to Denver.
    -Luka was raped and forced to do as this man said.
    -Luka went to beauty pagents with this man.
    -This man brainwashed Luka and beat him.
    -They read John Ramsey came into a lot of money and they could hold his kids for ransom.
    -Would stage thing to look like a ransom and police wouldn't suspect a pedophile.
    -The man and Luka wore ninja costumes and waited outside the Ramsey home at night.
    -They climbed inside the basement window and hid under the bed upstairs.
    -They wrote ransom note about $100,000 and decapitation.
    -They lured JonBenet Ramsey into the kitchen and gave her pineapples.
    -Hit JonBenet on the head with a flashlight in the basement, grabbed rope and a stick and strangled her with a unique knot.
    -The man's DNA was left at crime scene.
    -Luka and the man left quickly and Luka was threatened never to tell.
    Again, I wrote Luka Magnotta and he denied everything. He said people write him all the time and try to get him to admit to past crimes he had nothing to do with.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Let me guess: Luka lives on the second floor?

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luka is living in prison but no idea what floor, lol. The only thing this sick puke has in common with other creeps whose names have been tossed in the mix to the Ramsey case, is he also killed kittens like that hideous Helgoth was accused of doing.

      Delete
    2. Kitten killers.....throw the lot of them in prison with the kiddy killers for the rest of their pathetic lives. There's no one I detest more than one who preys on the innocent and defenseless.

      Almost all serial killers start off by killing cats - there's definitely a pattern.

      Delete
  65. Doc:

    It's probably been a long time since "just another theory" on the Ramsey case hit the bookstores. So long in fact, a new one might draw conspicuous attention and sell well, particulary one as confidently titled as "Ruled In: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case". Have you found no publisher willing to risk being sued by team Ramsey Doc, and do you share that fear yourself by going public? The timing is perfect what with John's current lawsuit seemingly being dragged out.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the encouragement, Mike. I never even attempted to get a legit publisher interested in that book, because I was tired of dealing with publishers, editors and agents, in a process that can take years to complete. So I decided from the start to simply self-publish via Kindle. It's worked for me and I've had a decent run of sales over the years, though nothing spectacular. I have a feeling that a publisher would have contacted me by now if there were any interest, but that never happened.

      I do think the fear of a lawsuit could be a factor. With "legit" publishers, lawyers always get involved and lawyers are chronically over-cautious. I feel sure it would never occur to Lin Wood to sue me, because: 1. I don't have enough money for it to be worth it; and 2. such a lawsuit would enable me to, in effect, put John on trial and that would be a huge mistake. He would not be in a position to take the Fifth, so would have to either drop the case or take the stand.

      Delete
  66. Happy New Year!

    I'm trying to catch up on what I've missed here, starting with this from Hercule:

    "The 911 call tells me that Patsy wanted someone else to find the body. Finding it herself would only make her look suspicious. Patsy did not want John or Burke to find the body for the same reason. Calling the Whites and Fernies IMMEDIATELY over to the house would not only aid in polluting the crime scene, but also increase the chances that SOMEONE ELSE would find JonBenet’s body. When Patsy spied at officer French through her splayed fingers as he returned from searching the basement, she fully expected that he was about to announce his discovery."

    I have to admit as well, that is mighty suspicious. It was as if PR WAS waiting to see if French stumbled upon the body.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  67. As far as PR making a death bed confession, I believe that due to her being a devout Christian, she had already confessed to God and felt that she had been forgiven for the part she played in the murder of her daughter. She need do nothing further, her conscience was clear as far as she was concerned.

    Personally, and I've stated this many times here, in my opinion their guilt was blatantly evident in their behavior afterwards. Their unwillingness to cooperate with LE, and when they did finally agree to being questioned, their responses were vague for the most part.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  68. I'm not speaking of clearing her conscience, E, I'm speaking of clearing her son.

    Had Patsy really risked the death penalty by garroting her daughter in an attempt to "protect" Burke, confessing to absolve him of the crime seems but a small, obvious next step.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I don't think every BDI in here thinks Patsy garroted her daughter. They do believe she wrote the note, put the duct tape over JB's mouth, covered her with the blanket, and feigned hysterics enough to convince John a call had to be made to support the note she had written for a fake kidnapping.

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

      Delete
    2. Doesn't matter. Conspiracy to Commit carries the same penalties as Murder One.

      I believe that had Patsy been desperate enough, and sufficiently misguided, to cover for Burke rather than reporting an accident, the logical next step when she knew she was dying would be to confess to the entire crime, thereby taking the onus off Burke forever.

      Delete
  70. Castor: ". . . the note she had written for a fake kidnapping."

    Correction: It should read: "the note she had written for a fake FAILED kidnapping." Which would make this the first attempt in history to stage a kidnapping that never actually happened.

    ReplyDelete