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.

Monday, January 22, 2018

The Gate

A gate can be either open or closed. If open, one can pass through. If closed, it becomes a barrier. Nevertheless, there is always a way to overcome such a barrier, by climbing over it or tunneling under it or breaking the lock, etc. But when the gate is a gateless gate, no barrier presents itself, in which case there is nothing to climb over, tunnel under or break. Consequently, the gateless gate is impenetrable.


The Japanese term for such a gate is "mumon." "Mu" is a negative term, meaning no, not or without. "Mon" means, simply, gate. The masters of Zen Buddhism composed little stories or prose poems, called koans, that function as gateless gates. If the disciple can penetrate the koan, the gate will open. But the koans are impenetrable, so the gate will always remain closed.

 Franz Kafka wrote of a man who stood at such a gate for most of his life and was never able to pass through. The Spanish filmmaker Luis Bunuel created a film about the gateless gate, The Exterminating Angel. It's about a group of people who gather together for a dinner party but, when it's time to leave are unable to do so. Nothing prevents them from passing through the door, which presents no barrier, as it isn't locked. But for them it becomes a gateless gate and they remain trapped inside for months. The wealthy, privileged and spoiled partiers of Bunuel's film start the evening happy and carefree, but as the film progresses, food and water become increasingly scarce and the social order disintegrates.

Our president could certainly use such a gate at the Mexican border -- it would save a lot of trouble and expense.

I raise this issue here because I've gradually come to realize that the investigation of the JonBenet Ramsey case is a perfect example of a gateless gate at work. The situation should have been obvious. The body of a child named JonBenet Ramsey is found in the basement of a house in which the parents have found a rather long and detailed ransom note. It is subsequently learned that the note was written on paper from a notepad found in the kitchen of this same house. While all the doors were reported as locked by the victim's father, John Ramsey, a broken window is found in the basement, with a hard suitcase propped just underneath it, flush with the wall, suggesting that an intruder must have entered and possibly also left via that window. However, only a few pieces of broken glass are found on the floor -- and Mr. Ramsey has claimed that he himself broke that window months earlier, after accidentally locking himself out. But Mr. Ramsey has never explained the presence of the suitcase, nor has he provided an explanation as to why he, by his own admission, closed that window after finding it open and never reported what he had found to the police on the scene at the time. And as was reported very early on, the housekeeper who had recently been spending a lot of time in that basement denied any knowledge of any broken window.

Since there was in fact no kidnapping, and since there is no logical reason why a would-be kidnapper would not prepare his ransom note prior to entering the house, coupled with the fact that to this day no conclusive evidence of an intruder's presence has ever been found, it seems obvious that the "ransom note" could not have been written by a real kidnapper, but must have been written by someone living in the house, with the intention of staging a phony kidnapping. Meaning that the child must have been killed by one of the three people residing in the house that night.

While it's been suggested that both John and Patsy Ramsey must have colluded to cover up what really happened by staging a fake kidnapping, Patsy called 911 first thing in the morning to report that her daughter was missing and that a ransom note had been found. It therefore makes little sense to suspect Patsy of involvement in either the crime or the staging, since the long, carefully composed note was clearly written with the intention of disposing of the body prior to calling the police. By calling them while the body was hidden away in the most obscure corner of the house, Patsy nullified the effect of the note, which she would not have done if she had either written it or had been involved in the staging. As should have been evident once the body had been found, something had gone wrong with the planning behind the note and that something could only have been Patsy's 911 call.

Despite all the suspicions centering on Patsy nevertheless, no one has ever been able to come up with a plausible motive for her to kill the child who had become the center of her whole existence, on which she had been lavishing huge amounts of attention and expense. Nor has anyone ever been able to come up with a motive for Patsy or John to go to such bizarre extremes to cover for their young son, Burke, on the assumption that he might have inflicted the head blow on his sister, a wound that could easily have been explained as an accident.

In fact, the only motive that makes any sense at all can be inferred from  the finding of a group of pediatric experts, as reported in Steve Thomas's book: JonBenet had almost certainly been sexually molested prior to the attack that killed her. While it's never been possible to unequivocally identify the person who molested her, the desire to prevent her from exposing him as guilty of both child abuse and incest is in fact a very persuasive motive for murder and indeed, once an intruder has been ruled out, the only plausible motive that's ever been raised for anyone to do all the things that were done to her that night. It thus makes a great deal of sense to infer that the person who murdered her is the same person who had been abusing her. Since the only mature male in the house at the time she was murdered was her father, John Ramsey, and since it was Patsy, not John, who made the 911 call that would never have been made by someone who had been staging a kidnapping, it stands to reason that there was more than enough in the way of probable cause for John Ramsey to be indicted and put on trial for this crime.

Not only did this not happen, but due to factors that I've elucidated many times on this blog and need not repeat here, John was ultimately all but ruled out as the possible abuser/ murderer, with all attention  focused on either his wife or his frail 9 year old son. Steve Thomas announced to the world that he had given John "a pass," James Kolar refuses to even consider John in his book, and the investigators in the CBS special, when evaluating all possible suspects, including both Patsy and Burke, fail to even mention John's name.

Considering the above, reinforced by all the other facts, evidence and inferences presented by me along with many others throughout this blog, this should have been an open and shut case. The door was in fact wide open and the solution clearly available for all informed persons to see. But no one in a position to make a difference has been able to pass through that door. Why? Because, like the gate in Kafka's fable, or the front door in Bunuel's film, it is a mumonkan -- a gateless gate.

So what's the catch? What IS  this "gateless gate"? Is it a total mystery or is some sort of explanation possible? Well, as I now see it, after many years of pondering the possible meanings of Zen, and realizing that no, it is not a form of mysticism, but an eminently practical philosophy, I have a theory. What is known in Zen as the gateless gate is a set of obstructions placed in everyone's mind that prevents them from seeing what is simply there before them -- unless they are psychologically prepared to see it. Because of the manner in which this case developed such an obstruction arose very early on, based on various factors, primarily the dubious, but NEVER contested, decision to rule John out as writer of the note and the conviction that, given no intruder, both John and Patsy ("the Ramseys") MUST be in it together. This interpretation has ultimately become a mind set, a barrier, preventing so many from even contemplating the very simple evidence, facts and logic of the case. Thus no amount of evidence, new or old, is going to change anything, because the case is really not about evidence at all, but the impossibility for so many of penetrating that gateless gate -- the mindset that holds us back, time after time, from accepting what is so obvious about the world around us and even the  nature of our own existence.

As I wrote some time ago on a very different blog:
The koan has been described as a hot coal stuck in the throat that one can neither spit out nor swallow. The Gateless Gate is the Gate of Hell.


222 comments:

  1. Very interesting book and perception. Did it ever occur to you that it is you and the few people you have convinced to buy into your theory, who may indeed be the ones whose minds are being held in by this gateless gate ?

    First off, you have and keep claiming that JR was ruled out because of the handwriting analysis. This is 100% completely not true and you know it. JR was still the main suspect after being "ruled out" as the writer of the note. JR being ruled out as the writer was taken with a large grain of salt by all who investigated this case and what you are claiming was the initial suspicion of LE and the general public for a very long time after JR was "ruled out" and investigated ad nauseam. Most of LE thought JR to be involved, in, at the least, the cover up of this murder, thus he was never "ruled out" by anyone other than by Mary Lacy. Feel free to concede this point.

    You pull out a couple of points of interest out of a slew of evidence in this case and claim to draw logical inferences off of them while ignoring and excusing away a huge handful of other ones, which have a more viable and larger likelihood of being true. For instance, the fibers and pineapple. Pineapple and bowl on kitchen table, pineapple not fully digested in murdered person's stomach. Mom and son's fingerprints are on bowl. The logical inference to this is quite obvious to the large majority of people. You "illogically" excuse this (and all other evidence that points away from your theory, and there is alot of it) in favor of saying it could have been this or it could have been that. It is a much easier and more logical, logical inference to infer who touched that pineapple bowl than it is to infer that the basement window was broken by JR that day. Using your logic that window COULD have been broken long before, especially after being confirmed as being broken before by BR. The 911 call to most is a sham, you use this as the anvil in your theory, claiming it to be the only logical inference plausible. It is just as logical and plausible that PR got cold feet about disposing of her daughter's body in that manner and called 911 or that there was never any actual plan to dispose of the body at all. The plan was to make it look like a kidnapper was going to dispose of the body. I personally think they wanted the body to be found by someone other than themselves, the police were just to stupid to do so. The ruse PR threw up by calling the neighborhood over is a most obvious "logical inference" to many but not you. You have honed in on a couple of assumed behaviors, drew what you call logical inferences off of them and try and hammer them into evidence, all while not being able to logically inference much of anything else in this case. It is your mind or your agenda that is held in by a gateless gate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John was certainly ruled out because of the handwriting analysis, for sure. Yes, they didn't find pornography on his computer and no, they could not find incontrovertible evidence of any prior involvement in pedophilia, but none of that is sufficient to rule him out as a suspect. He spent a great deal of time away from home, allegedly on "business trips," and no one knows what he might have been up to at those times. And of course he systematically lied to his wife over a period of one or two years while having an illicit affair.

      The decision by the "experts" to rule John out was apparently never contested and their report has never been made available to public scrutiny. If John did not write the note, then the only other person who could have done it was Patsy, so sure enough, all attention became focused on her. The FACT that this was a ransom note obviously designed to stage a fake kidnapping, and the FACT that Patsy is the one who called the police first thing in the morning, before the body could be removed from the house, thus foiling the plan so clearly implied by the note, may not be proof positive of Patsy's innocence, but it most certainly cannot be ignored -- and yet, in effect, it was. Once he'd been ruled out and she had not, the blinders were firmly in place, regardless of the facts staring everyone in the face.

      It's not so much that the facts and logic I've presented are necessarily incontrovertible proof of guilt, it's the unwillingness of the authorities and the public to acknowledge these facts and the logic behind them that is so disturbing.

      Fibers and fingerprints from people already living in the house mean nothing as evidence. Patsy calling her friends over might be something you or I would not do, but it too is hardly evidence of guilt, as poor judgement can be exercised by the innocent as much as the guilty. The investigators deluded themselves by focusing on trivia such as this, while blissfully ignoring the simple facts right in front of their eyes -- which is what this blog post is about.

      Delete
  2. Your objectivity has betrayed you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand the "logic" of your theory in terms of the puzzling facts regarding the downstairs window. But ultimately it is premised on the claim that JR is a pedophile. What actual evidence do you have of this? Consider:
    1. Melinda Ramsey was questioned and denies that John ever even tried to molest her.
    2. John's computer was seized and no evidence of pornography--child or otherwise--was found on it even though "Almost all pedophiles have a collection of pornography, which they protect at all costs." https://www.thoughtco.com/profile-of-pedophile-and-common-characteristics-973203.
    3. No other parents, friends or relatives have come forward with first-hand accounts or even expressions of concern about John's being a pedophile even though arguably there might be a huge payday (and kudos for bringing a slimeball to justice) for anyone willing to do so.
    4. And if you peruse the list of characteristics of pedophiles at the link provided, virtually none of them apply to John.

    So according to your theory, out of the blue--despite no evident prior history--John molested JBR but not another daughter to whom he had equal access/ability to exploit if so inclined. Nor did he ever apparently molest any of JBR's friends or pageant contestants even though he arguably would have had plenty of "access" to them too had he been so inclined and even though "It is not uncommon for them [pedophiles] to be developing a long list of potential victims at any one time."

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you really confident your theory meets this bar? I'm not asking for a rehash of your theory: only a focus on the concrete evidence you have that John was the pedophile your theory requires him to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post is not primarily about my theory of the case per se, which I've already presented in great detail in earlier posts. It's about the "gateless gate," i.e., the power of a prior mindset to blind us to what is right there before our eyes. Nothing in what I've written above is based on assumptions, all is based on facts and simple logic derived from those facts. All of which seem to have been ignored by both the investigators and the great majority following the case, to the point that John has in effect been given "a pass" as one who could not possibly be guilty of murder.

      Ms. Marple, I never claimed that John was a pedophile. A great many victims have come forward to name fathers who had upstanding reputations, with no record of pedophilia or any other signs of aberrant behavior. Nor did I claim that it was possible to prove that John had to have been the one who'd been molesting JonBenet. Nevertheless, the need felt by someone guilty of incest to protect himself from exposure and ruin is certainly a convincing motive for murder. And in this case, once we rule out an intruder, it is the ONLY motive that makes any sense at all. The great majority of experts have concluded that JonBenet was indeed molested prior to the night of the murder. And given the circumstances, the most likely culprit is certainly the only mature male living with her.

      In assessing the meaning of this evidence it is important to reverse the direction implied by your critique. I'm not claiming that John's apparent molestation of his daughter tells us that he is the one who killed her. I'm claiming that once we realize that he is by far the most likely one to have killed her, we can then infer with some degree of confidence that he is the one most likely to have been molesting her -- which is in turn the most likely motive for his actions that night.

      Delete
    2. But perhaps it is you Doc, that is blinded by your claim that John is by far the most likely one to have killed her. And that blindness causes you to infer that he is the one most likely one to have been molesting her. Both the claim and the inference is supposition, not supported by fact. You have ruled out an accident with subsequent cover up even though investigators believed no one in that house wished JonBenet dead, or intended to kill her. Interesting blog however, and interesting theory.

      Delete
    3. I've never claimed I was infallible, only that my theory of this case is based on facts and logic, NOT assumptions. I certainly could be wrong. But I must insist that I have not been blinded. Unlike the authorities who so superficially investigated this case, I have never ignored or downplayed any evidence, even when it did not seem to support my theory.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I agree with you on that account Doc. From the outside looking in it did seem like a superficial case, using handwriting experts that changed their minds, taking lie detector tests not from the FBI or police department, and then having several failed attempts at the truth from both Patsy and John until finally they passed. Not sealing the house immediately and allowing others to contaminate the scene - might have had more luck with the apple dumpling gang. Some of their answers seemed robotic and rehearsed, yet there were contradictory statements and can't recalls sprinkled throughout. However you cannot say, for a fact, that it was John who was molesting his daughter. You can cite statistics that fathers abuse daughters but statistics can be cited of siblings who also abuse. Or uncles, grandfathers, even mothers. And without using abuse as a motivation for murder, you have no other motivation for murder. Or if you do I'd like to know what it is. John was molesting his daughter; therefore he killed his daughter is a leap at the most and a logical fallacy at the least.

      Delete
    5. It's the other way round, Lou. Without abuse as a motive, there is no case at all, because once we rule out an intruder, the desire to cover up such abuse is the ONLY viable motive that's ever been offered for all that was done by JonBenet's killer. Bed wetting was never a credible motive -- and there is no way an accident can explain the devastating head blow that cracked her skull wide open.

      It is perfectly possible to make a circumstantial case based on the likelihood that this was indeed the motive, and the only mature male living in that house is certainly the most likely to have been her abuser. What must be proven, by the way, is the murder itself, not the motive behind it, which may never be known for sure in just about any case.

      "John was molesting his daughter; therefore he killed his daughter is a leap at the most and a logical fallacy at the least."

      Yes I agree. It's nothing more than an assumption. An assumption I have never made. My case is based on facts and logic, not assumptions.

      Delete
    6. "the only mature male living in that house is certainly the most likely to have been her abuser."

      Not necessarily so. That she had injuries to her vagina that appeared older than the night in question has been debated. That they were signs of sexual abuse has not been established. And that the only mature male living in that house was the most likely to have caused them is your own bias. I suggest that Burke had the most access to his sister on a regular basis. That he was resentful at the extreme amount of attention she was given by both his mother and his grandmother. His father was rarely home.

      Something angered someone that night. Something precipitated the head blow. To say that it was a threat of exposure to sexual abuse at that particular moment, the day before a trip, you have to ask yourself who really stood to gain? Certainly not John. He lost everything.

      I agree. There is no case at all. Unintentional homicide by a minor is no case.

      Delete
    7. "That she had injuries to her vagina that appeared older than the night in question has been debated."

      No it hasn't. There was evidence of "chronic" abuse that predated the night of the murder. Whether or not you believe the abuse was sexual in nature is another matter.....but the evidence showing prior damage isn't up for debate.

      "You have to ask yourself who really stood to gain? Certainly not John. He lost everything."

      Only because the plan didn't go accordingly. Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? Had it gone as intended, this would have been an open/shut kidnapping with the victim never being found, and we wouldn't be talking about it today, which I have no doubt would have been the case if not for Patsy's unexpected call to 911.

      Delete
    8. The plan did go accordingly though. The plan was to never have the public know Burke had accidentally or intentionally killed his sister.

      Delete
    9. "I agree. There is no case at all. Unintentional homicide by a minor is no case."

      How did Burke "accidentally" bludgeon AND strangle his sister to death?

      How is it that no forensic child psychologist, or investigator, managed to detect deception in Burke's story? Are you suggesting he was some kind of ten year old criminal mastermind well versed in the art of deception?

      Furthermore, if it was an accident, what do you make of the charges in the indictment which state that John and Patsy "rendered assistance to a person knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the FIRST DEGREE and child abuse resulting in death"? This, in no uncertain terms, indicates the GJ believed this to be a premeditated murder, not an accidental death. And of course, as we all know, Burke could not have been charged with first degree murder due to his age, thus the GJ *cannot* be alluding to Burke as the unnamed suspect.

      Delete
    10. "The plan did go accordingly though. The plan was to never have the public know Burke had accidentally or intentionally killed his sister."

      Says you (and was it an accident or intentional? Before, you claimed it was an accident, now you're making sure to cover all bases, as BDIs tend to do when pressed, because they know how absurd it is to suggest that two, loving parents would tie a ligature around their daughter's throat upon finding her unconscious rather than call for help). And yet, the vast majority of the public DO believe Burke killed his sister.....and Patsy went to her grave allowing them to continue to think it, when she was in a position to offer a false confession instead, at a time when she no longer had anything to lose. According to you, this was a woman willing to risk the death penalty in order to protect a son that couldn't even have been charged, so a false confession seems like the next logical step if it meant saving her son's reputation. So, I would argue, if the plan was to spare Burke, as you claim - it failed miserably.

      Delete
    11. Why do you think the Grand Jury got this right? They took months and months, took more months off, came back, couldn't decide who did what, and came up with a verdict that was vague - enough so that Alex Hunter knew he couldn't prove anything. It wouldn't be the first time a jury couldn't decipher evidence or that a proper case wasn't made.

      It can be an accident and intentional. An intentional head blow to stop the person from doing something or vocalizing something but not intended to cause death, so an accidental death. I have no way of really knowing.

      I do not in any way think either parent tied a garrote around her neck and strangled her.

      Patsy told Lin Wood to take care of (or protect) Burke, and so far, he has.

      Delete
    12. Haven't you ever wondered why the extended family never pressed the issue, if they even had an inkling that the father had killed the daughter? The grandparents, Patsy's sisters, John's brother - not a single soul stood up and said we think our brother in law did this, or we think our son in law did this. No, they were told exactly what happened and that it was a mistake, an accident, and knowing nothing could be done about it kept it quiet.

      Delete
    13. Good point, Lou! I, too, don't believe the parents tied that garrote around her neck either. The GJ got it right, as you stated, after months of testimony and evidence that we are not privy to.

      EG

      Delete
    14. The grand jury true bill referred to.. "prosecution, conviction, and punishment" for the crime of first degree murder. Burke was 9. I'm not sure I'm understanding you.

      Stan Garnett has said he'd love to be able to file charges in open court and tell the world who killed JonBenet. How does that statement fit a Burke did it theory? It really doesn't for me.

      K

      Delete
    15. I'm sure Stan Garnett meant well, and he had a great track record solving and prosecuting cold cases but he said many things. He has also said there were "problems with the case from the start", and "we'd love to solve the Ramsey case" and asked if he could file a case said "it would depend on what the evidence turns into" but the bottom line, as he leaves office at the end of next month, is the evidence must not have turned into anything.

      Delete
    16. Yes EG, there was more to the GJ verdict, and for some reason it's staying hidden.

      Delete
    17. Lou, you keep (conveniently, as do all BDIs whenever the subject is broached) refusing to address the fact that the true bills state that John and/or Patsy "rendered assistance to a person knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE", which rules out Burke, as he, in the eyes of the law, cannot be culpable of murder in the first degree. So how do you reconcile this inconvenient truth with your BDI theory?

      Delete
    18. Nor have you addressed the fact that, in order for your theory to be true, a ten year old boy would have to have somehow been capable of deceiving seasoned detectives who are trained to spot deception in criminals a lot savvier than Burke. He never gave himself away to any one of his school friends, despite the fact he was only a child. In order for your theory to be true, we not only have to suspend enough disbelief to accept that his parents inexplicably decided to draw further attention to themselves by staging a phony kidnapping-cum-sex crime (which would be sure to warrant a thorough criminal investigation) rather than an accident (which would have drawn considerably less attention, thus seems to be the wiser option if protecting their son is the goal), we also have to accept this ten year old is some kind of savant, criminal mastermind...

      Delete
    19. It sounds to me like the Grand Jury had a prime suspect in mind - Patsy Ramsey - when they rendered their verdict. But we'll never see or hear the questioning of Burke, considered a witness at the time, who apparently didn't hear or see anything. Possibly wasn't asked if he DID anything. It's moot, however, Alex Hunter said he was cleared. Another stellar example of someone who likes to get to the bottom of things.

      Delete
    20. Your response didn't actually answer any of my questions, Lou....are you avoiding answering them intentionally?

      It's always such a drawn out process trying to get anything of value from a BDI.

      Delete
    21. And I'm still waiting......
      I'll give it one more shot, because I've watched the sun come up, and it's unlikely I'm going to get any sleep now that it's starting to really heat up, so why the hell not?

      How did Burke "accidentally" bludgeon, then strangle his sister to death? (In reference to your comment: "Unintentional homicide by a minor is no case", you obviously assume it was an accident). Which brings me to my next question...

      The true bills state that John and/or Patsy "rendered assistance to a person knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree" (note: it says nothing about an "unintentional homicide", so we can rule out the accidental death theory). We know that Burke, due to his age, couldn't be culpable of murder in the first degree, so don't the true bills alone disprove BDI entirely?

      How did a ten year old boy manage to deceive seasoned detectives, forensic psychologists, and an entire Grand Jury? (In response to your comment, "Possibly wasn't asked if he DID anything": Yes, he was interviewed by forensic child psychologists and LE, all of whom said he showed NO signs of deception. So, unless you're privy to information they weren't, I'm presuming they know what they're talking about). This was a ten year old boy, not an experienced criminal mastermind trained in the art of manipulation and deception.

      Delete
  4. "I personally think they wanted the body to be found by someone other than themselves, the police were just to stupid to do so."

    Nonsense. If John and Patsy wanted JB's body to be found by police, they would NOT have hidden it in the most remote room of the house, but some place a little more accessible, clearly.

    "You have honed in on a couple of assumed behaviors, drew what you call logical inferences off of them and try and hammer them into evidence, all while not being able to logically inference much of anything else in this case."

    Senseless gibberish. Even without the signature, it's rather obvious who posted this. As with the term "psychobabble", you don't completely understand what the term "logical inference" means, MM. Your comment: "The ruse PR threw up by calling the neighborhood over is a most obvious "logical inference" to many but not you", is further evidence of this, as the example you've given is not of a "logical inference" at all, but of something entirely different.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I personally think they wanted the body to be found by someone other than themselves, the police were just to stupid to do."

    Exactly!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ms D:

    "Nonsense. If John and Patsy wanted JB's body to be found by police, they would NOT have hidden it in the most remote room of the house, but some place a little more accessible, clearly."

    What a load of nonsense. In a "real" kidnapping, John and Patsy would have searched the entire house looking for their daughter. They couldn't leave her somewhere that was easy to find...there would have been some serious question marks on their heads if they did that.

    It's obvious they wanted someone else to find the body, most likely LE. Patsy also added as much noise/interference as possible by inviting friends over. One of their friends finding their daughter would have been ok as well.

    So the basement room was the perfect spot. LE were too hopeless to go inside, despite hovering close by. Fleet looked inside but never turned the lights on. At this stage John and Patsy must have been freaking out because they just wanted the discovery of the body to be over and done with. So John works up the courage to find her and Patsy cries as she suspiciously peeks through her fingers.

    Logical and sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I personally never even thought of JR until I read Docs book. I had an awakening after reading it. However, the motive of killing her so he wouldn't be found out for molesting her is a stretch for me. Primarily, because he never had a history that we know of with children, and because I have never heard of any child being murdered because their abuser was in fear of being found out. Don't narcissists think they are invisible? I thought I read where someone referred to John as one. The other thing I questioned is, if she was cleaned up, where were her soiled clothes? The washer? I do believe she was abusrd, just not sure it was JR. I wonder about the older son, especially since they found his semen on the blanket in the suitcase.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have never had any obstructions in my mind on this. John did it. Alone. Premeditated. Motive obvious. Sometimes it's nice to be simple minded.

    Hotel California
    Eagles
    On a dark desert highway, cool wind in my hair
    Warm smell of colitas, rising up through the air
    Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
    My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
    I had to stop for the night

    There she stood in the doorway
    I heard the mission bell
    And I was thinking to myself
    'This could be heaven or this could be Hell
    Then she lit up a candle and she showed me the way
    There were voices down the corridor
    I thought I heard them say

    Welcome to the Hotel California
    Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    Plenty of room at the Hotel California
    Any time of year (any time of year) you can find it here

    Her mind is Tiffany-twisted, she got the Mercedes bends
    She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys, that she calls friends
    How they dance in the courtyard, sweet summer sweat
    Some dance to remember, some dance to forget

    So I called up the Captain
    'Please bring me my wine
    He said, "we haven't had that spirit here since nineteen sixty-nine
    And still those voices are calling from far away
    Wake you up in the middle of the night
    Just to hear them say"

    Welcome to the Hotel California
    Such a lovely place (such a lovely place)
    Such a lovely face
    They livin' it up at the Hotel California
    What a nice surprise (what a nice surprise), bring your alibis

    Mirrors on the ceiling
    The pink champagne on ice
    And she said, 'we are all just prisoners here, of our own device
    And in the master's chambers
    They gathered for the feast
    They stab it with their steely knives
    But they just can't kill the beast

    Last thing I remember, I was
    Running for the door
    I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
    'Relax' said the night man
    'We are programmed to receive
    You can check out any time you like
    But you can never leave!

    ReplyDelete
  9. To be clear, MM and Miss Marple, I've never accused JR of pedophilia - defined as a psychiatric condition (mental illness) wherein an adult male is irresistibly drawn to have sex exclusively with prepubescent females.

    I have accused John of a fetish for pageant queens and dress-up and an attitude of sexual entitlement, and there's evidence in support of both allegations.

    The fact is that JBR was chronically sexually abused. Burke was a self-absorbed little geek. John Andrew was in his sophomore year of college at CU, lived on campus, and had limited exposure to his half-sister. The literature and the anecdotal evidence supports Daddy. Someone killed her, and the only motive that I'd take into court is mine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there's evidence in support of both allegations." That's exactly what I was asking for, DocG. Please briefly enumerate said evidence (and your source for it) since I am unaware of it and would like to add it to the Encyclopedia if it exists.

      As for JAR, he may have had more limited exposure, but the "chronic" sexual abuse identified by the experts simply meant there was at least 1 or 2 prior times that she'd been abused. So JAR's "limited" access to JAR would in no way precluded his having been responsible for said prior abuse. Moreover, the blanket in suitcase under window had JAR's semen on it, not JR's. Meaning there's actually more concrete evidence linking JAR to this abuse than JR.

      But of course, JAR has a well-established alibi for 12/26/96, so attributing the prior sexual abuse to JAR really messes up your theory for why JR would be motivated to do what you claim.

      Delete
    2. I would argue that JAR being responsible for the prior abuse messes up EVERY theory (PDI, BDI, IDI, JDI), Miss Marple.

      JB was abused shortly before/after/during her murder. Therefore, the only logical inference to be made is that JB's killer was also her abuser. JAR was in Atlanta at the time of her murder, hence he's not her killer, thus unlikely to be her abuser.

      Everyone's making this way more complicated than it needs to be:
      Who was the only adult male in the home at the time of JB's murder?
      Who had regular access to JonBenet?
      Who found the body of the victim?
      Who was the ransom note addressed to?
      Who tried to flee the scene when the body was found?
      Whose shirt fibres were found precisely in the location of the vaginal penetration?!

      Any other case, and we wouldn't even be arguing about who the perpetrator is. Either the killer is desperately trying to frame John (which rules out PDI and BDI) or the killer WAS John.

      It's so straight forward, it's maddening.

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

      Delete
  10. Further, FWIW, I don't believe John broke the window the night of the murder. I think it was all he could do to execute his plan, and he relied on his RN to give him time to do the necessary staging on the 26th, when Burke and Patsy were out of the house.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Patsy reportedly told the Enquirer that she had once considered and rejected the possibility of JR abusing JonBenet. Does that strike anyone else as odd? Why had she even considered it?

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mildly amusing question, coming from you, Zed, as your only source is the much-traduced CBS TV "docuseries".

      Delete
    2. My theory never required a source. Only common sense.

      Delete
    3. But we here require sources. And yours is a trashy TV show made to exploit, and made for money.

      Delete
    4. Your experts were PAID, Zedley. These were not independent opinions, candidly expressed.

      Delete
    5. The theory of both parents being involved existed many, many, many years before the CBS documentary....

      Delete
    6. Which explains your abrupt appearance here in September of 2016? You're just another CBS tramp with nothing to say.

      Delete
    7. Yes, I read it in a police interview also. Patsy said she entertained the notion of JR abusing their daughter, but as her mother, Nedra, slept in JBR's room whilst Pasty was receiving cancer treatment, she figured it wouldn't have been possible for John to have interfered with JB. I found her comment to be VERY unsettling.

      "My theory never required a source. Only common sense."

      So, let me get this straight, Zed - non BDIs must produce a source for all of their information, whilst BDIs are under no obligation to do the same? We should merely take you at your word?
      What blatant hypocrisy! This has to be the single most, inane comment you've made to date - though it does have some stiff competition.

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

      Delete
    9. I think you two are on the "sauce"

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

      Delete
    11. Hey ya Zed, I have had trouble trying to connect some of these posts. But I am dealing with a bad cold so that may have me muddled. But to go with the direction of some thoughts here, I think some 1973 Billy Preston funky soul of "Will it Go Round in Circles" fits the scene. :)

      Delete
    12. It's funny, Zed, as I was JUST thinking to myself before logging in, "geez, it's been a while since Zed has accused me of being drunk!" Then, voila, as if on cue, your comment, "I think you two are on the "sauce", appears.
      Not that I should feel the need to defend myself, but as this is now the fourth time you've accused me of being a drunk in order to damage my credibility, I'm going to, so we can put this subject to rest once and for all. I only drink alcohol, which consists of no more than one or two wine spritzers, when I cook, exclusively. I am not much of a drinker in my "older" age, as I prefer to keep my wits about me, especially in public discussions. So, when I tell you you're a blatant hypocrite for demanding a certain level of proof you yourself refuse to offer, you can be sure I am telling you this with a sober mind. Accusing me of being a lush is, in true Zed form, a non sequitur - your previous comment still requires an explanation, even if your accusation were true. Me being a boozer doesn't negate the fact your comment was ridiculous. You know it is unreasonable to request a standard that you are unwilling to meet yourself, so rather than even try to defend it, you (predictably) resorted your typical, "go to" response instead. You're as transparent as cling film, Zed - we all know your game by now. You'll always attack your opponent rather than defend your position, because you know you've got nothing.

      Delete
    13. Oh my god. I didn't even get half way through that and started to drift off to sleep. I'm not even kidding.

      You two on the "sauce" was clearly a joke in regards to the "source" comment.

      Source/Sauce = homophone. Google it.

      You must be the first Australian I've EVER spoken to who doesn't recognise a good pun. Come on, have a laugh, I'm sure you have a sense of humour DEEP inside you somewhere...

      Anyway, dinner time for me. May even get on the sauce whilst I'm at it ;)

      Delete
    14. I would have recognized the joke IF you hadn't accused me of "being on the sauce" three times prior over the course of the past year, when the homophone "source" wasn't even a factor in those discussions. What was your excuse then? Believe it or not, I am very much known for my sense of humour amongst my inner circle of friends, Zed, but your "jokes" read more like personal attacks than they do quips. I'm definitely no stranger to hurling my fair share of snide remarks on here, the difference is I don't dress up my insults and call them something else, nor do I ever offer insults purely as a substitution for an argument - my criticisms are always relevant to the discussion. Yours are not, they're just cheap shots (usually misogynistic in nature) aimed at mine or CC's personal lives.

      Delete
    15. defensive much?

      Delete
  12. ACandyRose. Patsy confirmed during her Dec. 11, 2001 deposition that she had granted an interview to the National Enquirer. How much of this interview to believe? I don't know, being that it's the NE.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  13. I studied Zen as a youthful undergraduate, along with many other pot-fueled philosophies. In my humble opinion you diminish your theory with this right-brain hippie shit.

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

      Delete
  14. 0CCs, just a question for you (and my fellow compatriot Ms D):

    Patsy printed ads/posters that detailed spots around the house that someone could have possibly gotten into the house, including some damage to a particular door (I believe it was scrape marks).

    Barbara Fernie had noticed this damage before the murder and had pointed it out to Patsy. When she saw the ads listing the damage on the door as possibly done by the intruder, she cut ties with Patsy/the Ramsey's.

    Why would Patsy add this in when she knew 100% it wasn't an intruder who had done this???

    Also, by early spring, Fernie began telling people, "I am the one grieving. Something is wrong with Patsy".

    Even one of Patsy's closest friends could see Patsy was firmly involved!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Patsy didn't print any such ads/posters. Ramsey lawyers ran the ad in a Denver newspaper featuring a photograph of an exterior screen door with damage to the latch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning that it was PR, not an appeal for information.

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

      Delete
    3. Cat got your tongue, CC?

      Delete
  16. Doc G , your are drawing logical inferences off of assumptions, that is a far cry from just drawing a logical inference. FYI.
    JR was NEVER ruled out as a suspect in this case because he was ruled out as author of the ransom note. He was investigated and the main suspect AFTER he was ruled out as author of the RN, which was within only a few weeks of JBR's murder. You cant draw logical inferences if you can not even get your facts straight to begin with. Like I said before , LE thought that both parents were involved and still do to this day so where you keep coming up with this I do not know but it is 100% not true. The only person who ever ruled JR out as a suspect was Mary Lacy. Period.
    The comments about PR in the enquirer are nothing more than BS, as are anything that comes out of tabloids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the decision to rule John out as writer of the note, the focus of the investigation turned to Patsy. And from then on the general assumption for some time was that Patsy killed her daughter "accidentally" or in a rage, with John aiding and abetting. Now the focus has turned to Burke, but since the decision to rule John out, he has effectively been given a "pass" to use Steve Thomas's expression. That does not mean that he is no longer a suspect, but he's suspected of aiding and abetting Patsy, not murdering his daughter.

      Delete
  17. "Nonsense. If John and Patsy wanted JB's body to be found by police, they would NOT have hidden it in the most remote room of the house, but some place a little more accessible, clearly."
    ��������������
    LMAOOO ! Brilliant! Clearly the body was very well hidden by being thrown on the floor in the middle of a room. I mean who would actually think to try and conceal a dead body in an available crawlspace or attic ? Possibly a closet or behind or under a bunch of junk in that mess of a house ? Who would have known that just dropping a dead body in the middle of a room would be considered "such a great hiding place ?!
    Only you Ms D ....
    Stick with piggybacking of of others comments, they make far more sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Meatloaf would say....you took the words right out of my mouth.

      :)

      Delete
    2. "LMAOOO ! Brilliant! Clearly the body was very well hidden by being thrown on the floor in the middle of a room."

      Her body was NOT "thrown on the floor in the middle of the room" - it was located in the corner of the single, most REMOTE room in the house, under a BLANKET, in a darkened basement! Hardly an obvious choice for someone wishing for the body to be discovered by Law Enforcement, or friends, ASAP.
      Stop your childish retorts, you're wasting everyone's time. Shouldn't you be in school? As far as me "piggybacking of of others comments" (which doesn't even make sense, as usual), I hold my own quite well on this blog, thank you very much. I believe you're confusing me with yourself, who is yet to contribute one, single, speck of meaningful dialogue. Do YOU even know what it is you're trying to say, or is your indecipherable blather lost on you as well? Do us both a favour.....don't engage with me anymore, I can't understand you, you argue like a child, and you're a drain on what little energy I have left these days.

      Delete
    3. "Her body was NOT "thrown on the floor in the middle of the room" - it was located in the corner of the single, most REMOTE room in the house, under a BLANKET, in a darkened basement! Hardly an obvious choice for someone wishing for the body to be discovered by Law Enforcement, or friends, ASAP."

      Sorry Ms D but I can't let that one pass. If a body is hidden in a house, then you EXPECT LE to find it. Simple as that. Doesn't matter if it is the most remote room or she's under a blanket, or the lights are off (lol).

      They made it more difficult for them to find as that looked less suspicious on them. But you would certainly expect LE to find her regardless.

      Delete
    4. My guess is JonBenet's body was not actually in the wine cellar initially, which is why Fleet White didn't discover it upon his first visit to the basement. Pure speculation on my part, of course, but I believe John had JB bundled up and ready to be disposed of, possibly in the trunk of his car, or maybe in the floor safe in the basement. When it became clear LE weren't going anywhere, and a full search was imminent, he had no choice but to move her to another location - a location away from prying eyes, and one he could feasibly say he'd never thought to check earlier (not knowing, of course, that Fleet had actually checked that room shortly after arriving).

      Delete
    5. Listen, if it was John and John alone, then I actually think what you just wrote makes sense. What did Fleet tell LE again when asked what he saw when initially checking that room?

      Delete
    6. It had to be a balancing act. Psychologically I have no doubt he wanted the safety net of either having someone else find her, or else at least have someone with him to witness his shocked discovery of her. So there's a balancing act: she has to be left in a location where officer French or Fleet White might plausibly have been expected to find her body - but - not somewhere so out in the open that John or Patsy's failure to find her all morning would look damningly suspicious. I'd say under a blanket in that room was as good a compromise between those needs as he could've come up with.

      Delete
    7. I believe Fleet said he couldn't locate the light switch, Zed.

      Yes, MHN, that's basically my line of thinking also.

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. I have to wonder if Patsy's apparent siding with John has something to do with the fact that, if she believes otherwise, then she has to confront that she could have died that night. Aside from the other dynamics like Patsy being a suspect and John and his lawyers being her ally. It seems something similar went on with e. g. Kato Kaelin and OJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, instead of thinking up crazy suggestions, we stick to the most realistic scenario.

      Patsy sided with John because she was involved in the events of that night (in some shape or form).

      Delete
    2. You are welcome to disagree with my OP - what's so crazy about it? But to jump to PDI or (both) Ramseys did it as a result is silliness. It is because of, among other things (like ruling in John as author of the note) on this blog, the realistic scenario that I dropped PDI and/or RDI. Do you have a scenario? I warn you, my interest in the case predates any scenarios involving Burke, so I will find those the least realistic by far.

      I am curious about say the statistics on familial murders, and similar murders in general, and whether they are committed by one person or a group of people, say husband and wife. Do we need two people to take out a little girl?

      Despite all the smoke, it seems JonBenet's case is as simple as: she was murdered; raped, bludgeoned, strangled. There was no intruder. Who is your perp? the kid, the wife, or the dad.

      Oh and the dad 'found' the body.

      The only way to confuse the case it seems, is, along with the inference that whoever wrote the note committed the crime, to say Patsy wrote the note.

      Though "statement analysis" and the like is deserving of ridicule, I always found the "group of individuals" rather than "group", along with the foreign faction and two other men watching over the daughters bit, to be pointing to a single person trying too hard to conjure up a group. In other words, I think "whoever wrote the note committed the crime", which I take as an axiom, itself points to a single perpetrator. The only one who the note addresses.

      For what it's worth, I do believe Patsy possibly suspected John at first, and then didn't. She certainly supported him in public. One has to wonder if she would have supported him that day though, given e. g. the splayed fingers, the staying in separate rooms (as I recall). If John is our perp, and Patsy suspected him at first but then didn't, perhaps because of handwriting analysis, then John would be a fool not to guilt her over it. That all strikes me as more likely than my OP, but none of that has the added element of fear as motivation for support. "Better to be feared than loved." That is the "crazy suggestion" flying in the face of some realistic scenario where a 9 year old, over wanting a particular piece of pineapple, dives from the top of the cabinet and crashes a flashlight into his sister's skull. He's already molested her. He then wakes up his parents, who spring into action by strangling her to make sure she's dead, hiding her, and writing a fake ransom note and then calling the police to give the handwriting analysts a real test.

      Delete
    3. The only way to confuse the case Mr. Punisher, is to confuse it by adding multiple perpetrators.

      Delete
    4. "I always found the "group of individuals" rather than "group", along with the foreign faction and two other men watching over the daughters bit, to be pointing to a single person trying too hard to conjure up a group. In other words, I think "whoever wrote the note committed the crime", which I take as an axiom, itself points to a single perpetrator. The only one who the note addresses."

      Bingo!

      "That is the "crazy suggestion" flying in the face of some realistic scenario where a 9 year old, over wanting a particular piece of pineapple, dives from the top of the cabinet and crashes a flashlight into his sister's skull. He's already molested her. He then wakes up his parents, who spring into action by strangling her to make sure she's dead, hiding her, and writing a fake ransom note and then calling the police to give the handwriting analysts a real test."

      *Applause*
      This scenario is so ludicrous, it's not even worthy of further comment.

      Delete
    5. "The only way to confuse the case Mr. Punisher, is to confuse it by adding multiple perpetrators."
      Um..right. So why do you think John and Patsy covered for Burke, rather than John did it alone, given such an apparent violation of Ockham's Razor?

      Delete
  20. If this were blog true and PR knew that JR was molesting JBR and then killed her, PR would not sleep next to him for the next ten years. She would be worried that she or her son may be next, as anyone would. Which is why the few JDI come up with these crazy, illogical farces about an amnesiac, brainwashed PR, who cant remember what anyone in her family's handwriting looks like or what shoes she bought her son etc etc etc, yet you get these hogwash retorts about "logical inferencing".
    It does no good to pull 2 inferences out of 100 and claiming that you are logically inferencing them if you can not logically inference the other 98, or even come close.

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

      Delete
    2. "Well said".

      Wait....what? You're kidding, right? None of that word salad made ANY sense whatsoever, Zed!

      "It does no good to pull 2 inferences out of 100 and claiming that you are logically inferencing them if you can not logically inference the other 98, or even come close" is an argument you deem to be well articulated?!

      I'm actually speechless.....a rare occurrence indeed.
      All I can say is, you two are in good company.

      Delete
    3. Unlike you Ms D, I don't check every post grammatically.

      Yes, the words were jumbled a bit, but he/she still got their point across. And it was a very decent point at that.

      Patsy was NOT scared for her life. She was NOT hypnotised or brainwashed by John. She did NOT suddenly develop short term memory loss overnight. Need I go on.

      Old Anonymous up there struggled with the wording but the message I thoroughly agreed with.

      Delete
    4. Another straw man, Zed.
      No JDI here has ever claimed Patsy was "hypnotized or brainwashed by John".

      It's not a matter of simple grammatical errors -
      something we're obviously all guilty of from time to time - his/her posts don't make any sense, on any level, ever.

      Delete
  21. Gaslit and manipulated repitively into lying, lying regarding details about her daughter's murder = nothing short of brainwashing.

    If someone was going to hide a body, the very LAST place they would put it would be on the floor of any room out in the open, unless they wanted it to be found. I hate to point out the oh so obvious but there are much better hiding spots in every house than that.

    Change your story however you need it to fit. JR was moving dead bodies around with LE in the house because at that point he would not have been better off just leaving the murder scene as it was, however it was ?
    Give one good reason why he would not just leave the body where it was and stay as far away from it as possible. It makes no sense whatsoever for him to take the body, which you are claiming was hidden elsewhere and move it out into the open. Why take that risk ? You wouldnt. The body was meant to be found. LE was so incompetent that they could not dind it so JR went and found it for them. They surely could not leave it in their livingroom. The body being in the basement is the obvious excuse for the Ramsey's not finding the body themselves.

    Ms. D you are better off going and watching the movie clueless about 30 times, it would probably help improve your logic skills.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In 2016 it was widely reported (CNN, NBC, CBS) that evidence in the Ramsey murder was to be retested in a new state-of-the-art lab. I wonder what the status is. How long it takes, if it's been submitted, etc.
    Kat-Irvine, CA

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Ms. D. And my logic skills are pretty sound, so don't bother to insult me, too. That post was certainly a word salad. First, I want to understand why there are some who so vehemently deny that John could have molested his daughter and refuse to believe that he could be a master manipulator. Look at the U.S. gymastics scandal as just one example of master manipulation, with many victims and an apparent cast of people in authority who knew it and did nothing, either out of fear, denial, or selfish reasons. I think Patsy was as capable as any other human of going into denial and/or simply acting out of fear of how John would ruin her life and Burke's life if she dared questioned his behavior and actions. I think she did initially wonder about John but then convinced herself (with lots of help from John) that he could not have molested JBR. This is my opinion as someone who is a wife and mother, just putting myself in place and thinking about what I would do if I found myself in her situation. John was an adulterer, a liar, a cold fish, a user (much of his initial business success was due to Patsy's father stepping in to help him), had a fetish about pageant attire on women, had opportunity, and just his overall MO (forgetting keys and breaking into house, really? After one time having do that, my husband would give a key to a neighbor. Oh, wait - the neighbors did have a key!) All that aside, I do buy Doc's theory. Every time I try to play devil's advocate and convince myself that Patsy was involved, I can't make it work. She had no strange behaviors prior to JBR's death, other than normal emotions about her ordeal with cancer and turning 40. She seems like she was an amazingly strong woman who had a zest for life and love for her kids. She had a crappy marriage, yes. But she was trying to stay alive for her kids and knew that it would be up to John to raise them. Under those circumstances, I think it would be very hard to convince myself that my husband could and did molest my child. LE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good post LE.

      It's not that I refuse to believe that John could have molested his daugter. It's the totality of everything what occurred that night and the manner it occurred in which leads me to suspect both parents playing a part.

      I can't imagine John choosing a flashlight as his weapon and choosing to whack his daughter over the head...because surely you would suspect blood splatter, and a lot of it.

      If it was John alone, I think he would have planned this much better. He would not have performed the act on the night he did and in the manner he did. He would not have used a notepad from his own home. I don't believe he was trying to frame his wife, that is preposterous. We do not kmow that he had a fetish with pageantry...that is a wild speculation.

      No, this tragedy occurred "off the cuff" that night. Something unexpected occurred and I find it hard to imagine both parents not being involved. There is so much circumstantial evidence against Patsy being at least "in the know" it's not funny. Trying to explain a reason for each one these is just a task I find too difficult to comprehend.

      At the end of the day, I 100% agree John was involved. He should have went to court and he should pay the price for whatever actions he performed that night. I just think there was so much "grey" area on what those actions were.

      Delete
    2. "If someone was going to hide a body, the very LAST place they would put it would be on the floor of any room out in the open, unless they wanted it to be found."

      There's only one person John had to hide the body from - Patsy - had his plan run accordingly, and the phony ransom note told Patsy, in no uncertain terms, that JonBenet had been TAKEN from the house, so she had no reason to be searching remote rooms in the basement, or anywhere else for that matter.

      "I hate to point out the oh so obvious but there are much better hiding spots in every house than that."

      Indeed, such as the floor safe or the trunk of John's car, or wedged behind a washing machine, which is a theory that has been floated.....though I don't put much stock into the latter.

      "Change your story however you need it to fit. JR was moving dead bodies around with LE in the house because at that point he would not have been better off just leaving the murder scene as it was, however it was ?"

      He COULDN'T leave the crime scene as it was!
      It had "daddy did it" written all over it, and IF the body was in the trunk of his car, how do you think he would have explained that away to LE, Anon? Really....give it your best shot: HOW?

      "Give one good reason why he would not just leave the body where it was and stay as far away from it as possible."

      Because the sniffer dogs were on their way and John knew his goose was cooked. He had two options: leave the body as it was and be faced with 100% certainty of being arrested for his daughter's murder, or take a calculated risk and maybe get away with it - which is precisely what happened. Once he knew the body was going to be found that day, HE had to be sure to be the one who "found" it, in order to have a valid excuse for contaminating the crap out of the crime scene, and disturbing the body.

      "Ms. D you are better off going and watching the movie clueless about 30 times, it would probably help improve your logic skills."

      Oh shut up.....seriously. DON'T go down the "dumb blonde" route, because it will not end well for you in terms of my intellect vs your own, and you'll be the one looking foolish, I guarantee it. There are not many things I take offence to more than someone resorting to such a worn out cliche (I assume that's what you are implying, re your "Clueless" comment which centres around a vapid, superficial, stereotypical, blonde teenage girl - none of which remotely describes myself. In none of my comments, whether you happen to agree with the logic behind them or not, have I presented myself in such a manner, and you damn well know it. It's just another cheap shot in order to weaken my credibility, but, like your argument - or lack thereof - it fails miserably).
      I believe this is a straightforward case of a father molesting his daughter then silencing her in order not to be caught. It is a very COMMON motive for murder (do some research into cases like this one where a young, sexually abused, female victim is found dead in her home, and look at who the culprit is 8/10 times), so there is nothing wrong with my logic, it is yours that is askew, and YOU who are trying to push square pegs into round holes in order to make YOUR asinine theory work.

      Do better.....your "logic" is seriously flawed, and your petty jibes aimed at my cognitive abilities are juvenile and demonstrably false.

      Delete
    3. "I can't imagine John choosing a flashlight as his weapon and choosing to whack his daughter over the head...because surely you would suspect blood splatter, and a lot of it."

      And yet, why this wouldn't have actually presented a problem for John has been explained to you how many times now, Zed?

      "No, this tragedy occurred "off the cuff" that night. Something unexpected occurred and I find it hard to imagine both parents not being involved."

      It might well have been "off the cuff"...premeditation is not a prerequisite for JDI, Zed. In fact, most JDIs I speak to seem to believe it wasn't planned. He may have been getting in one last tryst with JB before their trip to Michigan, where his access to her would have been limited, whereby she screamed.....so, in a panic, he hit her on the noggin with the flashlight he had used to creep into her bedroom with. The rest followed as a desperate John realized he was screwed, and tried to save his own ass. Not too difficult to understand, is it? Desperate times all for desperate measures...

      "At the end of the day, I 100% agree John was involved. He should have went to court and he should pay the price for whatever actions he performed that night. I just think there was so much "grey" area on what those actions were."

      Alas, this is true.


      Delete
    4. It is too simplistic to say Patsy was involved and not be able to know what motivated her. It’s an incomplete picture.

      Sometimes people look at Patsy’s interviews, particularly the ones with Haney who was asking difficult questions, and see this intelligent strong woman who could take on anybody. But this is a partial glimpse of who she was. Through her husband’s efforts she had been given full-on aggressive treatment at Bethesda for Stage 3-4 ovarian cancer. In response to her treatments, she told folks she was “cured” by God. As folks who’ve had cancer know, she was simply in remission. I’m sure she was told about remission by the doctors. Nonetheless, she chose to proclaim she was “cured.” Denial or choosing to create an image of specialness, selected by god for this extraordinary cure?

      Women who are trained from a young age to be beauty pageant contestants become skilled at creation of an image for others’ consumption. The danger for some is believing the image they’ve created and internally losing contact with themselves. Ironically, one of the judges who passed on Patsy at the Miss America contest claimed that she was simply too ‘robotic’, not real.

      Patsy was living in a fantasy world, at breakneck speed at that. Her fantasy world included her divine ”cure” from cancer, the continuation of her husband’s path on the corporate ladder, and her daughter’s preparation for the Miss America title. As JR attested, after her cancer treatments Patsy was taking on every role of corporate wife and dedicated mom. The possibility of a molested daughter does not have any place in Patsy’s fantasy world. She, as ‘The Mother,’ is responsible for not seeing that her daughter’s health and life were in danger. That idea was entirely too risky within her fantasy world.

      Personally I don’t believe JR told her the truth or his motivations. Members of incestual familes don’t simply lie to the outside world; they also lie to one another. Denial is also very very common. So her behavior could have been based on believing everything her husband told her. When she finally heard from Haney that the experts saw JB’s injuries as prior events, it was too late. And why would she trust their word anyway when they had targeted her as the killer?

      I believe she was told some fiction by her husband. Filling in with the background of her life experience: Didn’t JR save her life, didn’t BR need her as a mother, wouldn’t some other truth, if she even knew it, have also destroyed her own and JR’s family lives as well? Patsy was habituated to relying on JR, securing their lawyers, keeping the money flowing for their lifestyle and her treatments. She would continue to rely on JR and support him. And yes lay down beside him at night. She did not have the full picture of what happened.

      Really, who knows what JR told Patsy about that night? If you read JR’s book TOSOS, you will witness the true salesman, the true Drama Queen of the family. That was JR. Whatever he said to Patsy, I don’t believe it was the truth. CR

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

      Delete
    6. CR, very, very well said, especially your last paragraph.
      So good to see some common sense from someone who not only understands why Patsy may have felt compelled to choose the path of denial, but who also appreciates the importance of good syntax and grammar. We need more posts like yours.

      Delete
    7. You can replace the keyboard of your laptop, D, if you or someone you know has some basic screwdriver skills. I did. A replacement isn't expensive and the process is fairly straightforward -- you can see it demonstrated on youtube. Just make sure you have the right screwdrivers for the job and know what you are doing with them.

      Delete
    8. Thanks, Doc, I am viewing the youtube videos as we speak! My son-in-law says he'll be able to do it, and he has all the necessary tools. :)

      Delete
  24. DocG has left a new comment on your post "The Gate":

    Many thanks to LE, CR, and of course Ms. D and CC. One thing you left out, CR, is the fact that Patsy was heavily medicated and out of it for some time after the discovery of her beloved daughter's lifeless body. Very shortly after that day, John and his legal team hired two handwriting "experts," who promptly ruled him out as writer of the note. (They also found it unlikely that Patsy wrote it, but could not rule her out.) None of the investigators, to my knowledge, ever questioned that ruling -- so why would she? As she was coming out of her fog, she would have learned about the decision to rule him out and that certainly would have allayed any lingering suspicions she might have had. All suspicion then focused on HER as writer of the note, which made her particularly vulnerable and in need of John's support. Since she knew she didn't write that note and had learned that John could not have written it, it's not difficult to see how she would not have suspected him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's important: this is not the gaslighting of a woman under normal circumstances, in some sort of vacuum. This is a heavily medicated woman, who finds out that LE have exonerated her husband, and relies on the strength, money, and support of that husband when she herself comes increasingly under suspicion. That leads me to ask: was that suspicion of Patsy an unexpected bonus for John, or something he manufactured knowingly to aid his own cause? Her pad. Her paintbrush...

      Delete
    2. That's correct MHN. Her pad, her pen, her paintbrush, her fibers from her jacket on the sticky side of the duct tape, possibly her handwriting (no one else came close), blanket from a drier where only she would know it was covering the body, she "finds" the note. If it quacks like a duck....

      Delete
    3. Lou, why do you believe Patsy would use her own pad, pen and paintbrush, if she is trying to stage an intruder? Who says the pad and pens were exclusively hers just because they are normally kept in the kitchen? Why would only she be able to find the blanket in dryer? My hubs sure has heck knows how to open a dryer. He know where to find our "office supplies" as well. How does it help solve this case to say someone's handwriting was the "closest," when in fact the handwriting was an attempt by someone to disguise. You should check out Doc's handwriting blog entries. I was persuaded that the handwriting appears "closer" to John's handwriting, if by closest we believe the author did a lousy job of disguising their own handwriting. LE

      Delete
    4. LE - exactly, there is no need to add anything to that.

      It's the constant regurgitation and parroting of discredited nonsense that persuaded me I was wasting my time coming here a while back - it just goes around and around in circles... No-one who has read Doc's work could come away thinking that Patsy's hand is any closer a match to the RN than John's is. And I have yet to come across anyone pointing out an actual mistake in Doc's work in that regard. I regret coming back, it's a frustrating merry-go-round. The assumption that the killer was actively looking for that particular blanket (zero evidence) or that if s/he were, then 'only' Patsy could've known where it was (zero evidence). Monumentally frustrating trying to reason with people who operate on untested partisan assumptions 24/7.

      Delete
    5. MHN - ditto. I have stayed away (or just read the posts without commenting) because I wanted off of the merry go round. Besides, CC and Ms. D are much more informed than me. I'm especially tired of posters who presume that only Patsy's fibers were found. For goodness sake, there was a fiber from JR's shirt in JBR's panties. I know this holds no real weight because they all lived in that house and came in contact with each other, but why bring up fibers without mentioning the shirt fiber found in a suspicious location? LE

      Delete
    6. One comment about the medication furnished to Patsy and BR after the crime. Thanks for bringing that up, Doc.

      Thomas commented that it was 48 hours after the 26th when Patsy’s sister raided the home ‘ostensibly’ for funeral clothes. Funeral clothes were apparently the least of what she grabbed that day. She took passports, dolls, bills, credit cards, JR’s Daytimer, etc. etc., and made an attempt to retrieve JR’s golf clubs in the basement. She was prevented from going downstairs by LE. Thomas believed that many of the personal effects removed had a correlation to the crime. The question has to be raised, who but the person involved in the homicide would know and specify the items which should be removed? Patsy could have asked for some of her jewelry, but she was way too medicated to build that list. CR

      Delete
    7. As HKN brought up a while back we do not have a fiber evidence report. However we know Patsy's red and black fibers from her jacket were found on the sticky side of the duct tape leaked to us by the media. At the onset it was believed that the black fiber in JB's crotch may have come from John's dark bathrobe, or a towel. JB was in the habit of calling for someone to wipe her as she regressed in her toilet training. She could have been wiped at any time that evening - at the White's, at home.

      Delete
    8. No, Lou. The fibre found in JB's crotch matched the shirt John wore to the Whites the night she was murdered. It was a very distinctive, Israeli made fibre, unlike the more common red fibres found on the duct tape which were "microscopically SIMILAR" to Patsy's jacket fibres. I would expect to find Patsy's clothing fibres all over JonBenet, especially on the duct tape, since it is adhesive, therefore more likely to pick up fibres and hairs that were already on JB's clothing. John, by his own admission, never assisted JB with her toileting, so his shirt fibres making their way into her crotch would be a little more difficult - though not impossible, of course. Which is why, as Doc has said repeatedly, the fibre evidence is useless. But, as MHN and LE said above, everyone is so quick to bring up Patsy's jacket fibres, all the while conveniently ignoring the fact that it was DADDY's shirt fibres which were found in the CROTCH of a victim who had been SEXUALLY ASSAULTED! So, if we're going to take fibre evidence into account, keep that in mind.

      Delete
  25. Oh come one. Seriously? First fragile Patsy was gaslit, then she was lied to, then she had chemo brain, now she's in denial medicated heavily with valium - which was later in the day when Dr. Feelgood arrived. This woman chose to present herself on national television from the jump, she chose to lose her memory regarding frantic calls to Dr. Beuf, she chose to lie about cleaning up window glass with her housekeeper, she tried to confuse her interrogator regarding trips to buy oversized panties, just who they were intended for and where they ended up among many other little details that may have mattered. She thought she got JB ready for bed with only a dim light from the bathroom shining, even though her bedroom lamp was clearly on when LE arrived. If she was in such a fog she would not have been allowed to give depositions, if she was in such a fog it might explain why she couldn't pass a lie detector test but multiple times? It's protocol before taking a test to declare whether you are doped up or not. That's right, she ultimately did pass, when given the questions by the second polygrapher hired by her attorneys. Whatever. I suspect her wailing and dry-eyed hang wringing was primarily over losing her child, and to a son she knew had problems, for which she foolishly staged an elaborate coverup which really didn't fool anyone. What we don't know is the extent to which John participated, or when he knew.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "It's not that I refuse to believe that John could have molested his daugter. It's the totality of everything what occurred that night and the manner it occurred in which leads me to suspect both parents playing a part.

    I can't imagine John choosing a flashlight as his weapon and choosing to whack his daughter over the head...because surely you would suspect blood splatter, and a lot of it.

    If it was John alone, I think he would have planned this much better. He would not have performed the act on the night he did and in the manner he did. He would not have used a notepad from his own home. I don't believe he was trying to frame his wife, that is preposterous. We do not kmow that he had a fetish with pageantry...that is a wild speculation.

    No, this tragedy occurred "off the cuff" that night. Something unexpected occurred and I find it hard to imagine both parents not being involved. There is so much circumstantial evidence against Patsy being at least "in the know" it's not funny. Trying to explain a reason for each one these is just a task I find too difficult to comprehend.

    At the end of the day, I 100% agree John was involved. He should have went to court and he should pay the price for whatever actions he performed that night. I just think there was so much "grey" area on what those actions were."

    I totally agree Zed, this is exactly why I have trouble with JDI.

    It all boils down to whether or not Patsy knew and there are just too many lies/can't recalls from her especially BEFORE the body was found and before she was medicated when she was watching officer French with splayed fingers, there is no rational explanation for that for me.

    FY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. List all of Patsy's "lies/can't recalls" that came BEFORE 1 p.m on the 26th Dec.

      Peering through splayed fingers (if that is indeed what she was doing) whilst cops are crawling through your home doesn't seem so irrational to me. If that's enough to convince you of Patsy's guilt, then surely John's damning actions and words on the 26th must ring alarm bells!

      Delete
    2. Is her peering through splayed fingers, perhaps half or fully expecting French to come up with the body, inconsistent with John doing it and her initially suspecting him? Might that explain why e. g. they stayed in separate rooms, and she called 911?

      Delete
    3. Mrs D I agree with you that John's actions ring alarm bells.

      FY

      Delete
    4. Ms D, of course John's actions ring alarm bells. I never said the didn't.

      If it was John and John alone, it definitely wasn't premeditated. That is just too hard of a sale to make and flys in the face of all the evidence.

      I could be persuaded that it was only John if he lashed out at his daughter that night when everyone was in bed (something that was not planned).

      But for me it's just not as believable as both parents being involved. The Patsy "inconsistencies/lies/traits" and the fact that JB had pineapple in her stomach and the pineapple not being cleaned up (which is still one of the key pieces of evidence to me), lead to more individuals being involved.

      Ms D - let me ask you this. Let's say that for all intensive purposes JB was dead after the headblow. I know she wasn't, but for arguments sake, let's say she was. What is so hard to grasp around the RDI or BSI theory? Please enlighten me as I'm really struggling to understand what is so difficult to understand. List dot points and I will address each one.

      Hope you had a good Oz Day.

      Delete
    5. Zed, the very fact the pineapple WASN'T cleared away tells me it played no part in the lead up to the murder, and was probably prepared hours earlier, by Burke, before the Ramseys went to the Whites for dinner, and JB innocently snatched a piece when she spied the bowl there in the evening. I sincerely don't think the pineapple evidence is as important as you do, all it tells us is she may have been awake at some point after coming home, which is consistent with any theory, not just BDI. Or, if there were indeed also fragments of cherries and grapes in her stomach, the bowl of pineapple is no more than a steaming pile of red herring, and the contents of her stomach were what she consumed at the Whites.

      I had a lovely Australia Day, thank you, but it was uncomfortably hot with 100% humidity. We usually have very dry, hot summers (and steadily growing hotter! We've had many 40+ degree days - that's 104+ for the Yanks here - and another one is forecast for tomorrow), but we've had lots of tropical moisture coming down from the north these past two months that just won't budge.....stop sending it our way, Zed! :P

      Delete
    6. "Ms D - let me ask you this. Let's say that for all intensive purposes JB was dead after the headblow. I know she wasn't, but for arguments sake, let's say she was. What is so hard to grasp around the RDI or BSI theory? Please enlighten me as I'm really struggling to understand what is so difficult to understand. List dot points and I will address each one."

      Well, the problem is, the two scenarios are SO different (dead vs alive), and whether or not she was dead at the time she was strangled changes everything.....and we know she WASN'T.

      O.K, point by point, as requested, Zed:
      Scenario One: If the head blow killed her, we have to wonder how Patsy and John would have known this, as there were no outward signs of head trauma. Thus, if they found her dead, unaware of what happened, they would have certainly called 911, because they would not have known why she was dead, or that Burke had been involved.
      Scenario Two: Had Burke told them he struck her on the head, then the logical thing to do - if protecting their son was the goal, which is the common consensus amongst BDIs, obviously - would be to call paramedics and say she fell from the balcony, tumbled down the stairs, or something similar, because why would they choose to stage a crime scene that is sure to involve a criminal (and forensic) investigation if they're desperately trying to hide something? And, of course, adding the vaginal trauma is only going to draw attention to the two males in the home - not away from it. So, why would they do it? How does staging this kind of crime help anyone at all? A murder by a pedophile intruder who can't actually decide on his motive (kidnapping? Sexual assault? Brutal murder by strangulation....or head blow?) doesn't work on any level. At any rate, we know she died of asphyxia, so I'm not sure of the point of this exercise. Of course I might entertain other possibilities if she died from the head blow, but she didn't, so anything I might have entertained if that were the case is pointless, don't you agree?

      So, if Burke is guilty of the head blow only, we have no choice but to accept his parents knowingly, and willfully, choked their daughter to death. Which begs the question: Why...who did it help? It sure as heck didn't help JonBenet, who was sacrificed solely to save her brother.....and to save him from what, exactly? He couldn't be prosecuted, so the only other reason would be that they wanted to spare him the stigma (which is what many BDIs tend to believe). So we have to accept that John and Patsy believed the cost of ending their daughter's life was somehow worth the paltry reward of simply sparing their son some scrutiny. Ask yourself.....would YOU sacrifice the life of one of your children just to save the other's reputation? If you wouldn't, there's no reason to believe John or Patsy would have if faced with such a dilemma either. It's a virtually unheard of motive....unlike silencing a victim of sexual abuse, which is an all too common motive.

      Delete
    7. CONT.
      So, we've got:
      *No evidence of an intruder, which narrows down our suspect list.
      *A clear motive, sexual in nature, which narrows down our suspect list even further.
      *Evidence of "two crimes in one" (two alleged motives, two apparent methods of murder), indicating something must have gone horribly wrong for the perp midway through the original execution of his plan, and he was left with no choice but to abort midway, and resort to an unexpected plan b, though the elements of plan a. still unfortunately remained (ie: the pesky ransom note), which means he's now stuck with a kidnapping ruse, when all signs point towards this NOT being a kidnapping (victim's body in house. Signs of sexual abuse).
      *At NO point are there any references to a sexual motive in the RN, which should raise some huge red flags for BDI/RDI and PDI, because if John and Patsy together (or Patsy alone) planned for this to look like a pedophile attack gone wrong - which was quite clearly the case if we're going with a PDI/BDI/RDI scenario that doesn't involve an ACTUAL sexual attack - THIS inclusion in the ransom note would be the single, most important detail, surely?! So, I would argue that the only logical inference to be made here is that, at the time the note was written, the writer believed the sexual abuse was never going to be discovered, because no body was ever going to be available for an autopsy.....which, was of course the entire motivation behind the murder/fake kidnapping to begin with: no body, no evidence, and John's home free.

      Phew.....that was a mouthful, wasn't it?!

      Delete
    8. Good thinkin' FY. Now one step further. Who would John and Patsy go to all that trouble for? Each other? Would Patsy coverup the murder of her daughter by her husband? Would John coverup the murder of his daughter by his wife? Who would they write a note for? There is but one suspect left in that house.

      Delete
    9. Good grief, Lou....you obviously didn't read a damn word of either of my posts.
      As MHN said....around and around and around. It's exhausting...

      "Who would John and Patsy go to all that trouble for? Each other? Would Patsy coverup the murder of her daughter by her husband? Would John coverup the murder of his daughter by his wife? Who would they write a note for? There is but one suspect left in that house."

      There IS no "John and Patsy"!
      Patsy WOULDN'T cover for her husband!
      John WOULDN'T cover for his wife!
      And, if you'd read any of what I wrote above, or any of Doc's book, you'd see why NEITHER of them would murder one child in order to save the other!

      So, yes, there is but one suspect left in that house, and if you'd been paying attention, you'd know why that person cannot be Burke.

      Delete
  27. If I were Patsy or any mother of a murdered child found in my home I would have been at the police station trying to help the police find my child's killer even if I thought it could lead to finding out my husband was involved.

    Yes Patsy knew the police were focusing on her mostly but if I knew I had nothing to hide I would be at the police station helping LE find my daughters killer and less concerned with going on TV interviews, but that's just me.

    When Elizabeth Smart went missing her parents didn't hide behind attorneys but cooperated with LE.

    I will give Patsy one thing- calling her friends over after calling 911 does NOT mean she was involved (even the Smarts called relatives to the house after they found Elizabeth missing).
    However, the splayed fingers and all the lies/amnesia after the murder is another matter.

    FY

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janis, the coroner found evidence that he referred to as digital penetration. He did not include a clause that said "or possibly aggressive wiping." Linda Arndt was at the autopsy and was shocked at what she saw. I think most grown women have a good idea of how deep and harsh wiping would have to be to produce that much damage to a little girl's tissues. LE

      Delete
    2. Good to see you, Lady E.

      Delete
    3. Is there a link that someone can share which talks about Linda Arndt being shocked at what she saw in the autopsy. I wouldnt mind reading this.

      Thanks.

      Delete
    4. Also Jean Harmer and Tom Trujillo, all present at autopsy.

      Delete
    5. You need to quit deleting your posts, Janis. Seriously diminishes anything you might have to contribute. Be here or not, your choice, but don't waffle.

      Delete
    6. Yes, it's very odd! Every time I've seen a post by Janis over the past few months, I think every, single, one of them has been deleted!

      What's the deal, Janis?

      Delete
  29. Ok, this is going to be a post which maybe surprises a few JDIers on this blog.

    Firstly, I assume I am one of the younger posters on here and I probably don't fit the bill for someone you expect to see on a blog like this. I am a mad sports lover...I love football, boxing, tennis, basketball and more. But I also love a mystery and I am a sucker for a good whodunnit. It was probably playing Cluedo with my parents at a young age that got me into it.

    Anyway, there's some extremely smart people on here, including CC, Doc, Ms D and more. As you may or may not know, Doc and I have agreed on other cases (such as Amanda Knox and Steven Avery), but our opinion has somewhat differed on this case. Saying that, I also think there is a lot of consistencies in our theories too. I agree John did A LOT that night and am in 100% agreement for a lot of your theory. The obvious difference is I think Patsy and Burke were probably involved in some manner as well.

    But I decided to have a think today about the JDI theory and how CC, Doc, Ms D and others are so convinced on what happened that night. I thought if people of this intelligence are so set on something, maybe there is something I am missing (or maybe not, just putting this out there).

    If John did do this all on his lonesome, then I think something had to have triggered it to occur. Although I find the notion of premeditation very hard to succumb to, I guess it is possible that Patsy's call to the doctors on the 17th (which was a Tuesday) could have been that trigger. Patsy may have chat to the doctor about why her daughter's condition was not improving and demanded for a more thorough analysis. If that chat took place, there is a very good chance the doctor told Patsy that he would perform a more thorough checkup after Xmas and when they got back from Atlanta (after all, it's a very busy time of the year).

    I am not sure if John worked that week, but it is highly possible that Patsy didn't mention this to John until the weekend which would have been the 21st. Or even the 17th is possible. Either way, if John HAD been molesting her, then it wasn't long until his goose was cooked. He couldn't plan anything in Atlanta and by the time they got back it would be too late.

    ReplyDelete
  30. CONTINUED

    I have really struggled with John doing something on the night he did. The timing just never sat with me. But looking at it from a different angle, maybe that was the perfect time. He knew they would be out all day and that gave the intruder theory some backing as an intruder could have broken in when they were out. It was also a night where he knew Patsy would not wake up as she needed her sleep before an early flight the next day.

    I don't think John was trying to frame Patsy...I really can never believe that. But it is highly possible that John used the paper/pen from the house because there just wasn't time to go out materials...plus he could have very well planned to dispose of all this material during a fake "ransom swap" and LE would have never saw it.

    And whilst Patsy being dressed in the same clothes is one of the items on her guilty list (among many others in my mind), I guess you could say if she really was up that night being involved with the murder, she would have most definitely changed clothes. The fact that John was having a shower in the morning does lead to him hiding potential evidence from his body (which I always agreed with).

    I have struggled with the 911 call as I think there is a few things in this call that stand out as being very, very odd. But I guess at the end of the day, there is nothing on the call which makes Patsy 100% guilty. I do find it strange that Patsy didn't do everything in her power to help LE, but again, she could have been under heavy influence from John's legal team.

    So it is possible that John whacked his daughter over the head that night after asking to come downstairs and show her something. It is possible that he did so knowing that the blow would not result in blood (still not 100% sure on that one). It is possible that he broke the window that night to setup an intruder scene and left his daughter in the cellar with the aim of disposing her the next day after his family left the house to go stay with relatives/friends. It is possible that Patsy could have foiled his plans by unexpectedly not reading the entire note and ringing 911 without his consent. It is possible that after this occurred he started freaking out and decided to add the staged rope around his daughter's wrists and possible use a paint brush on her to conceal previous molestation. Once the house was filled with LE and friends, he eventually took Fleet to the window scene and made sure he told Fleet that he had broken this last summer. He then found his daughter because he knew exactly where she was and the rest is history.

    If the above is true, would Patsy ever suspect her husband. I don't know. Maybe it was just a step too far for her to believe or maybe she didn't want to believe. Or maybe she truly believed an intruder.

    I'm not saying I have changed sides (far from it), but I do understand where you are coming from and I guess I'm man enough to admit that JDI is a solid theory. I do think you write off RDI too easily and I think there is very valid arguments for the parents doing what they did after.

    Going back to my first paragraph, as I said I am a sucker for a good whodunnit. And it does bother me that none of us may ever know exactly what occurred that night.

    Anyway, much respect from Australia. I always enjoy debating with you all...even if CC and Ms D think I get personal at times which has never been my intention.

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

      Delete
    2. That's some epiphany, Zed!
      WELL DONE, can we get a round of applause for Zed over here?!
      Of course, it could all just be a result of Zed being "on the sauce"....how many have you had, Z? Hehehe...good to see you at least entertaining other possibilities, because, believe it or not, I've spent many a sleepless night entertaining BDI. I've tried to make PDI fit also. But, precisely due to the reasons I listed above, I always end up back where I started from: John did it, and he did it alone.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for all that, Zedley. Always been oddly fond of you, respect EG, and love J-man enormously, though we differ.

      Doc makes room for all.

      Delete
  31. Replies
    1. Nice to put a face to the name, Z.
      It's funny...you look almost exactly how I imagined you'd look!

      Delete
  32. Well said Zed. I'm in the same boat as you. I also see the intellect ofor the same people you mentioned here and often wonder if I'm missing something too. I find it difficult to believe that John could have carried everything out alone that entire night unless the RN was pre-written, but I would then question why he would use the pad and pen and other items from the house. I am however intrigued by the misspelled words in the RN that John also misspelled, and that his "f" is written above the writing line as in the RN, but then some of the language sounds to me of both a man and woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't sell yourself short, evie. You had a good insight about the suitcase on the last thread. I complimented you and was roundly lambasted for it, but makes no never mind. You go, girl.

      Delete
    2. Well I do try lol. Thanks CC

      Delete
  33. Zed, I understand your need to go over to the dark side, it's easier to succumb to the beating than stick to your stand. And I'm willing to concede John was involved during the night's festivities for two reasons: The content of the note; and the coldness with which neither couple comforted the other the next day - they both knew. Much like the McCann's, who didn't comfort each other either. Burke was the disturbed individual in that household, and the events of Christmas played a very big role in setting the stage. But let's look again at the 911 call.

    Calling 911 to report a kidnapping BOUGHT TIME. That is the reason for writing a note alluding to a kidnapping and the first words out of Patsy's mouth to the operator "we have a kidnapping." Of that they wanted to be clear. If a murderer is trying to postpone the discovery of a recent crime scene and delay the search for cooling human remains the cops must be called, but at the last possible moment. Looking for a kidnapped kid delays forensics. Calling over the friends, all but the Stines, contaminated the scene.

    Also there is a mismatch in behavior between the breathless urgency with which Patsy made the 911 call, and the hangup 75 seconds into the call. She seemed pretty anxious to keep it pretty short, in fact she had already distanced herself from the victim.

    The more time lapses between the crime and the discovery of the crime the more emboldened the suspect becomes, and the more the defense attorneys can use later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 911 call at the crack of dawn did not buy time - quite the opposite.

      Had the Rs been in it together they would have called Mike Archuleta to cancel their flight, then waited 'til 10:00, the cutoff time for a call from the "kidnappers". This would have provided time to finish the staging and coordinate their stories.



      Delete
    2. How would they have explained why they waited that long to call.

      Delete
    3. It was, allegedly, a kidnapping, remember? They'd say their first instinct was to pay the insignificant sum demanded and get their daughter back whole and healthy rather than risk her beheading. When they didn't hear from the putative kidnappers by their deadline, they'd call LE, hand over the RN and the $118K they'd assembled, and beg for help.

      Delete
    4. If the Rs were acting in concert, no way Patsy makes that call at that time.

      Delete
    5. But meanwhile she's lying in the basement, decomposing and stinking up the place. Smart businessman John didn't think to look in his wine cellar? That is what the police would want to know.

      Delete
    6. Why make anything other than a cursory search for points of ingress and egress if YOU BELIEVE IT WAS A KIDNAPPING, as John ostensibly did?

      Delete
    7. "How would they have explained why they waited that long to call."

      Ummm....how's this for an explanation: "Because the ransom note told us if we alerted anyone, our daughter would be beheaded"?! Why do you think the author of the note included those dire warnings? To prevent the reader from alerting the authorities - PRECISELY in order to BUY TIME! The main function of the ransom note was to buy John time - it was the phone call that sounded the death knell to his plan, as it started the clock ticking, thereby ruining any plans he had of removing the body and destroying the evidence. You've got it all backwards.

      I think you should read Doc's first few blogs from 2012. You're asking questions that have been answered many, many times. It gets tiring repeating the same information......we did our homework before commenting here, don't you think you should too? :)

      Delete
  34. Lou, regarding the mcann's, I agree they appeared distant from each other and Gerry was described as cold. In the uk the vast majority of people seem to believe in their guilt due to the fact they left the children in the apartment alone while they ate in the grounds of the complex each evening. The dogs provided good evidence against them and the group are inconsistent in the times of checking the children yet the timeline is the thing that makes me question their guilt, I don't think there was enough to decide what to do and dispose her body. I read Kates book and also goncalo Amarals. I don't trust him. He falsified evidence in another case, accused the mcanns of opening the window/ shutters themselves, by saying in his book almost at that start that the shutters could not be opened from outside when it has been proven that they could. There was clearly a problem from the start with language barrier and translation. I have seen first hand the way the Portuguese police operate, when a good friend of ours, whose son had his throat slit from behind while supporting the England football game over there was treated. He almost died and the police did nothing except round up anyone on the streets days later. Never found the perp and treated appalling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cadaver dogs hit on the little garden area at the foot of the stairs, her cuddle toy, and the rental car. Also behind the couch and the closet inside the apartment. Clearly she was moved before being disposed of - hidden, then moved.

      Had a cadaver dog been called to the Ramsey home, and John had had time to remove the body, the dog would have hit on the basement floor, the wine cellar room, a trail leading to the car and the trunk of John's car. Delaying a call to 911 any longer could have cooked their goose.

      Delete
    2. Are you actually EG, "Lou"?

      You don't appear to read my posts - neither does EG.
      You don't answer my questions - neither does EG.
      EG had a fixation with cadaver dogs.
      EG spoke of the McCaan case several times (along with the cadaver dogs involved, of course).
      You ask a lot of the same questions as EG.
      EG, if memory serves, likes Lou Reed, which would explain the moniker.....was it EG who quoted the lyrics to a Lou Reed song? I'll have to scroll back a bit and check that one out.



      Delete
    3. "Delaying a call to 911 any longer could have cooked their goose."

      Yeah, having only the cadaver dog evidence and nothing else really cooked the McCann's goose, hence they sit in prison. Or not.

      Delete
    4. Delaying the call would have saved them.
      Making the call is what "cooked their goose".

      Delete
  35. I'm not completely convinced on the cadaver dogs. Not that I believe they are wrong, but that the alerts weren't necessarily related to madeleine. There are some different full videos that show moving of items after the dogs didn't alert such as cuddle cat and pink blanket and encouraging them to be directed to areas other than where they were heading.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There are other parallels to the Ramsey's though you have to admit. Wealthy, rather neglectful parents, who put their wants and needs over that of their children, who weren't cooperative with police, and distanced themselves from the victim with a false narrative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy, by all accounts, was not the least neglectful; rather, she was an involved, doting mother.

      It was John who, at Mike Bynum's behest on the evening of the 26th, hired HM&F and Pat Burke on the 27th. No decent criminal defense attorney permits his client to meet with LE. Patsy had nothing to do with it.

      Any interpretation of Patsy's behavior is entirely subjective. I don't see "distancing" or a "false narrative", merely hysteria followed by grief, confusion and a siege mentality.

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

      Delete
  37. Zed..

    I understand how you're feeling, as I have struggled myself in trying to get to the point where the JDI's are. So certain, so sure that he did it. However, I can't get there as there are too many lingering questions, too many inconsistencies.

    And I agree with Lou that neither Ramsey would cover for each other, but they would cover for BR or JAR. Now, JAR(from what I've read) had an airtight alibi. A neighbor, Joe Barnhill, claimed to have seen JAR walking towards the Ramsey house that day. He later recanted, which is suspicious. I guess he was mistaken or seeing things, just like the woman who heard the scream and the man who heard a scraping sound of metal against concrete. Or the safety light that was always on, but that night was off on the south side of the house, or the person who saw what looked like someone creeping around with a flashlight in a darkened kitchen area.

    All of these witnesses heard and saw all of those things, but the R's saw and heard nothing.

    The fact that the ransom note was pristine. Not a wrinkle, not a bead of sweat, not a tear, not a fingerprint. Zilch! Probability of that? Unlikely, I'd say.

    It's easy to think JDI, if you believe he was sexually abusing JBR for some time and was about to be found out. And you'd also have to believe that PR slept through all the events of that night, which I'd find hard to believe.

    EG




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve Thomas had no problem believing John slept through the events of that night!
      So why not Patsy? It was a big house, and they slept on the third floor in a converted attic, which was several floors above the basement.

      Delete
    2. Patsy said she stepped over the RN, then turned around to read it on the stairs. John, fresh out of the shower and presumably oil-free, put it on the floor at the foot of the spiral staircase to read it, and John Fernie saw it there through the patio door, AFTER Rick French had already arrived. Patsy read the signature over John's shoulder while on the phone to 911. So far no fingerprints. French or some other BPD officer wearing gloves put it in a plastic evidence bag and took it downtown, where it was examined by Agent Ron Walker and others. Still no fingerprints. From there it goes to the CBI, where Chet Ubowski leaves a palm print. What's the mystery?

      BPD did an experiment wherein someone in the basement screamed. Officers in the third floor bedroom did not hear the scream, though officers outside the house did. Where's the mystery?

      John Andrew was, incontrovertibly, in Atlanta. Joe Barnhill also said he saw Burke riding his bike across the Ramsey lawn on Christmas Day, leaving the tracks some have used to help manufacture a case against Doug Stine. Where's the mystery?

      Delete
  38. If John had been molesting his daughter, do you think she would have known what was happening?

    JBR always told their gardener how much she loved her dad and couldn't wait for him to come back home from work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed, as a female and also as a mother: I think most 6 year old girls don’t have a clue about sex or inappropriate touching. Young victims of incest are groomed, soothed, bribed, flattered, or otherwise cajoled into staying quiet about the “special” time an adult male spends with them. JR did not anticipate the vaginal infections and toileting problems that would develop. JBR was becoming an outgoing, talkative girl. She was in school, where at some point she would hear talks about what to do about inappropriate touching by a male. Yes, before you ask, my daughter was taught what to do if touched by a male in Brownie scouts in 2nd grade. JR’s gig was up. patsy was pressuring the doctor to get to the bottom of JBR’s issues.

      I do think this was premeditated. I believe JR had been worried for some time about what he had gotten himself into. He dwelt on all that he would lose if he got caught: his older children would never speak to him again, he would lose his job, his status, his wife, his fancy lifestyle, his little son would come to hate him, and he would go to jail. It’s not hard for a narcissist to go down the path of self-preservation, and they will do whatever it takes to protect themselves and their ego. I think John concocted his final plan after Patsy called the doctor. He picked Christmas for a variety of reasons that have already beeen discussed on this forum. He was arrogant enough to think he could pulll it off. He is still arrogant to this day.

      I don’t think he planned to need a garrote either but he is a resourceful ex-military guy. Patsy and and Burke were just pawns in his game of pretend: Deep down the dude knew he was no genius businessman, he was just a lucky guy who’s father in law came to the rescue for and who made some bucks selling in a niche market that would not last thru the emerging tech bubble that was soon to come. Poor John Ramsey p, it was all about him. Still is.... look at what he is putting Burke thru now! LE

      Delete
    2. Very well said, LE. Though we have no way of knowing for sure that John was the abuser, your analysis rings true and makes a whole lot of sense. And when we recall that JBR was penetrated during the assault that led to her death, it's not difficult to conclude that the same person who had been abusing her in the past was the one who abused her on the night of her death. And since John was one of only three people in the house that night . . .

      Delete
  39. And if John delivered the head blow, why did he wait at least 45min before applying the garotte?

    That, to me at least, leads to me believing this was not premeditated. Because it sounds like he made the garotte whilst she was unconscious. If it was premeditated, then surely this would have already been made up. And once the head blow had been delivered, surely he would want to "finish the job" asap?

    Premeditation seems to be a better fit with JDI, especially after Patsy's calls to JB's daughter on the 17th. That seems like a logical trigger to me. But the 45min gap still has me scratching my head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JBR's hair was entwined in the knot, so it was clearly done while she was face down, unconscious from the head blow.

      I don't believe it was 45 minutes, Zed. There was minimal bleeding into the brain, some palpable bruising and swelling. The trauma doc and forensic pathologist I spoke with years ago both said that takes much less time in a child (soft skull), as does livor and rigor mortis (less body fat and muscle mass).

      Delete
    2. Just for additional info on the timing between head-blow and asphyxiation (between 45 minutes and up to 2 hours) I’ll mention Dr. Lucy Rorke-Adams, a pediatric neuropathologist. She was the Dr. the coroner used to examine the brain tissue and bleeding report. Rorke-Adams specified neurological changes in the brain, specifically the amount of necrosis discovered.

      She also testified to the GJ. BPD does accept Rorke-Adams viewpoint. However, as CC has mentioned, other doctors might disagree with her finding. Unfortunately her report was never tested in court.

      If one looks at this from a darker point of view, it may be that the head blow was intended to end her life. The clock was ticking. If the person who had struck her was becoming anxious that she might somehow survive, the final act of asphyxiation could have been to make sure she could not be revived if discovered still alive. That also includes the idea of premeditation.

      Delete
    3. I've read about Dr R-A and her findings on Topix and Websleuths. The consensus, and I believe it to be correct, is that she reviewed tissue samples and slides, and the thrust of her opinion was cellular necrosis rather than bleeding and edema, generally best observed in situ.

      Or am I hopelessly confused, Anon?

      Delete
    4. I'm pretty sure that most JDIs are of the consensus that the head blow was intended to kill JonBenet aren't they? The blow was vicious and delivered with tremendous force (from behind...Daddy didn't want to see her face as he delivered the blow). The ligature was twisted as tight as the killer could manage, cutting deeply into her flesh (Once more from behind....again, Daddy didn't want to see his daughter's face as he took her life from her). The sheer viciousness of both of these acts leave no doubt that the intention was solely to cause death - this was not a sex game gone wrong, child play turned bad, or staging just for effect - this was a means to an end. Her killer wanted her dead, at any cost. When the first method didn't work, he went with a second method - one that was sure to do the job. I believe, at that point, JB was nothing more than collateral damage in John's mind.

      Delete
  40. That's my understanding as well.

    Meyer did once ship a whole brain to a NM neuro-pathologist for another autopsy. It seems like in a case this big, he could have sent the whole brain to Dr R-A, but there's been no verification of that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poor guy. Had he known how big this case would be when he autopsied the child on the 27th, he may still wish he'd taken your advice. He's lucky he had the wit to call in Dr Sirontak to view the abuse.

      As it was, there were 1-2 murders a year in Boulder County, and the whole of LE, from Meyer to Eller to Hunter, were hopelessly outclassed - and out-maneuvered.

      Delete
  41. Those were insightful, intelligent, well-researched and altogether helpful contributions, Anon. Please consider giving yourself a moniker and sticking around...or are we already acquainted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, we need monikers so that we can decipher one "Anon" from the rest. Many "Anons" are "hit and run" posters, whose comments are not worth reading, and often inflammatory purely for the sake of ridiculing JDIs (to whom this blog is essentially set up for - and there are plenty of BDI/PDI/RDI discussion boards already available), so it would be beneficial to sign off with a name in order to let the readers here know you're not the same Anonymous (there are several) who aren't here for the same reasons we are.

      Delete
    2. Stand down, at least from me, D.

      Unlike Doc, I do not require a cheerleader or an echo, and insofar as I can recall, in your two years here you've contributed nothing else...not a single "insightful, intelligent, well-researched" ORIGINAL contribution of your own.

      I like you, respect your background and occasionally your opinions, but please...stand down from me.

      Delete
    3. Geez CC, that's a bit harsh.

      Delete
    4. Zed, many posts up you brought up some points that were also being discussed on a WS thread.

      I don't typically read there but the thread titled "the set up" (table setting) was an interesting read with old and new posts.

      Some here that aren't full JDI
      may care to read the thoughts there too. They bring up the 911 call, flashlight, Dr Phil and more.
      13 pages and a pretty quick read.

      https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?226231-The-quot-set-up-questions/page13

      (I'm not a member there, and this isn't meant to be a snark to anyone here or there)

      Delete
  42. "And insofar as I can recall, in your two years here you've contributed nothing else...not a single "insightful, intelligent, well-researched" ORIGINAL contribution of your own."

    Wow....OUCH.
    Wth, CC? You've sure changed your tune. That's not at all what you've been saying these past couple of years - you've stated quite the contrary many times, in fact.
    I have no doubt that I've contributed many an original thought here, and your words have hurt me beyond belief - I thought I had a friend in you on this blog, I really did.

    I really don't understand you. I was not, in any way, trying to be your "cheerleader", I have stated on many occasions my dislike of posters who don't use a moniker.

    What's gotten into you? Was it something I said?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, it's rather obvious that my time here is up. I've made a lot of enemies it seems.

      But before I depart, CC, let me ask you:

      Your comments commending me on being well versed in the case.....not true?
      Your comments regarding my sound reasoning abilities....not true?

      Over the past 18 months or so, your words to me were disingenuous. Very disheartening.

      For what it's worth, despite your radical change in tune, I take back nothing I have ever said in regards to having the utmost respect for your knowledge of the law, this case, and your very astute, rational comments, which I've always agreed with, simply because they made sense - it was never my intention to come off like your one person cheer squad. It's a damn shame you believe I've offered nothing original, insightful or intelligent to this blog, as I sincerely felt I was contributing in a meaningful way, and - if it matters at all - I certainly put a lot of time and thought into all of my comments, even if they missed the mark (which, obviously, they did).

      What a sad realization this is to come to.....now, especially, as I thought we might finally have made some headway with a couple of the posters here.

      Delete
    2. WTH is right, Ms D! I don't understand CC's sudden change in tune, either. I value your knowledge and insights greatly and I would miss them immensely if you were to leave. While I believe CC also contributes a tremendous amount of knowledge and insight to the case in her postings, it doesn't excuse the rude and without-merit comments she recently posted. Perhaps it's not you who should be leaving.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Minnesota Linda.
      Perplexing as hell, it really is a mystery to me.....
      I forgot to add you to my list of people whose insight I will sorely miss! Always enjoyed your comments. Take care, and thank you so much for the kind words, they really do mean a lot.

      Delete
  43. No need for a dramatic departure, D. Say and do what you please, but don't ask for validation from me - or anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not asking for yours, or anyone's, validation, CC.
      I am simply asking you why the sudden, dramatic, change in your opinion with regards to my level of intelligence, and I think it's a fair question, as you have done a complete, about face, and I'd rather not leave on a sour note, if possible.

      Delete
    2. Your smarts have never been in question.

      Again, no need to leave Doc's choir. I only ask that you stop singing in mine.

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

      Delete
    4. "Your smarts have never been in question."

      Oh really?
      "Insofar as I can recall, in your two years here you've contributed nothing else...not a SINGLE "insightful, INTELLIGENT, well-researched" ORIGINAL contribution of your own."

      I'd say you're definitely questioning my "smarts". Your comment was pretty unambiguous in that regard, CC. I am unoriginal, unintelligent, uninsightful and haven't done my research (though, regarding the last one, you have stated, on numerous occasions, the polar opposite, which is not only confusing, it's down right bizarre). As you stated it in no uncertain terms, you most certainly do doubt my reasoning abilities and level of intellect, whichever way you want to spin it.

      And, CC, I'm not "singing in your choir". Get over yourself. It's a public blog, and I happen to agree with the good majority of your comments....if you hadn't noticed, I respond to EVERYONE's posts, whether it be negatively or positively, not just yours.
      Good grief, you've got some tickets on yourself if you feel my purpose on this blog is to watch your every move and champion every one of your comments - which, by the way, haven't been so original in quite some time, either. After so many years since Doc first started this blog - whose have?! What do you expect - earth shattering insights? I doubt you're going to get many....my comments were as original as anyone else's here, for good or bad.

      It appears your goal is to alienate every, single, person here on this blog. I have witnessed several who respected you in the beginning ultimately suffer the same fate. I may have made some enemies here, but those whom I do respect - and you were high amongst them - I have no intention of intentionally alienating, especially after having championed them in the past.

      I have no clue what your problem is with me, or when it developed, but, as it is what it is.....good riddance to you. Damn shame I feel that way, couldn't see it coming.

      Obviously, there's not going to be any chance of leaving on a high note....so, well done, CC, I have no doubt you'll make some more enemies here yet with such a delightfully, mercurial, attitude!

      Sorry to leave on such a sour note, Doc. Enjoyed my time here immensely. While it might appear to some like a "dramatic departure", it isn't, I simply feel my time here has come to it's logical conclusion, and has been heading that way for some time. I won't be back (I can almost hear the collective sighs of relief amongst many of you, LOL). Glad to see you might slowly be coming around, Zed! Hopefully, J will follow suit. Keep researching the case, Lou. Much respect to MHN, The Punisher FU, evej, diamondlil, and HKH. Cheers, and play nicely.

      Delete
    5. You leaving is just WRONG, Ms D. It's like letting the playground bully get his/her way. Please don't go.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    6. She won't, MinnLin, nor do I want her to do so.

      If the "playground bully" in this instance is the smartest, most case-educated guy in the room, I accept that moniker.

      I only ask that she stop stepping on otherwise intelligent conversations.

      Delete
    7. Normally, the playground bully and the classroom intellect had totally different personalities. Rare to find both rolled into one.
      Minnesota Linda

      Delete
    8. Clearly you've never met an accomplished trial attorney.

      Delete
    9. No, I haven't... thankfully!
      Minnesota Linda

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. Once again, things are getting too personal. I won't let this blog descend into a flame war. I'm not sure what's gotten into you, CC, but your attack on Ms. D was not warranted. In any case, what's been said has been said so let's let that be the end of it, OK?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get that you need a cheerleader and a perpetual echo, Doc. I do not, and simply asked her to refrain from stepping on my remarks.

      You're much diminished without me, bubba.

      Delete
    2. I didn't start this blog to attract cheerleaders, CC, but to encourage discussion of this case from ALL points of view -- and while your posts have been, for the most part, supportive, intelligent and welcome, the personal insults you've been slinging around lately are not. I you wish to leave at this point, good riddance.

      Delete
    3. Respect to you too, Ms D, thank you. If it's any consolation I don't actually think this is about you. There seems to have developed a rift between Doc and CC, or at least that's my reading of CC's 'singing in Doc's choir' line. Maybe it started with the blanket/dryer discussion. In any case, I'm so surprised by the ugly tone and the toxic arrogance in these comments I initially wondered who had hacked CC's account.

      "You're much diminished without me, bubba"?! Wow.... I'm really, really surprised. That's the kind of attitude that comes back to start consuming you once you've driven everyone else away with it. That's a real shame. This is one of those incidents that reaffirms my resolve to get the hell off internet forums generally. And it also makes me rethink my gripe with the levels of censorship Doc sometimes employs - I see now, Doc, how important it is not to let the lid of this personal-abuse-box open even slightly.

      And yet this has still happened...

      Oh CC, what a shame.

      Delete
    4. Well, this was certainly a sad and surprising exchange to read.

      I'd hate to see you go, Ms. D. I enjoy your comments, and many times when responding to others, you've said exactly what I was thinking. I understand that your feelings are hurt. Mine would be hurt too.

      CC--you know I have the utmost respect for you. The legal knowledge you bring to this blog, and your ability to break it down and explain it in laymen's terms, is invaluable. I too though, am perplexed by your recent change of heart. You've never been afraid to say what's on your mind, but something's changed. I'm, honestly, worried about you.

      Delete
    5. I also thought someone had hacked CC,s account. Sounds so harsh :(

      Delete
  46. Can we start a new blog Doc? Maybe something which requires a username (I never add a moniker to my posts because it doesn't prove anything) and maybe something on a more broader topic? The JonBenet murder could have its own thread. Not sure if that costs money, but maybe ask for donations?

    And please find out CC's IP address and ban her from the new site. She only causes destruction wherever she goes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think it's time for a good tune, let's step back to the '70's with Three Dog Night -
    "tell me, how does your light shine in the halls of Shambala" or how about "Ride captain ride upon your mystery ship"...

    I do have a question that may have been addressed a long time ago, thinking of the laws, with the victim dead, then her mother, then the family doctor (Beuf) can any of the medical records or maybe personal journals of his ever be released to LE or prosecution?

    (In Beuf's obit irrc he too was a pilot)

    ReplyDelete
  48. It may be harsh, but it's true. I long ago stopped reading Ms D's posts because of that very reason. I dubbed her the "me too" girl, because she agreed with and hung onto every word CC ever uttered here. CC eventually tired of it, and I can't say I blame her.

    Just my two cents worth.

    And Doc, am glad you reiterated that you welcome "ALL" points of view here on this forum and might prompt some old posters to return to the blog with their keen insight and varied perspectives.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  49. EG - I think that's a little unfair to be honest. At the end of the day this is a 20 year old case with no significant breaks. It makes it very difficult for NEW and ORIGINAL thoughts. ALL of us have been on a merry-go-round.

    Doc removed my post above and rightly so as I did serve CC a few harsh words. However, I truly hope CC is in good health...that comment to Ms D was nearly bipolar like and as HKH said above, that's a bit worrying.

    Whilst CC and I have had our fair share of 'to-and-fro', at the end of the day it was performed at a level that we were both comfortable with. I certainly wouldn't call CC and myself friends, but I think there is a level of respect there.

    On the other hand, I thought CC and Ms D definitely had a level of friendship. So I was very shocked to read CC's dig at Ms D.

    CC - I truly hope you are ok health wise and can find it in yourself to apologise to Ms D. Not because you feel like you have to, but because you want to.

    Other than that, there really isn't much more to debate on this blog anymore. Yes, I was starting to sway (or at least discuss) into JDI "territory", but to be honest, with Ms D no longer here it kind of feels a bit pointless.

    This will be my last post for quite some time. If Ms D returns I may pop back in and say hello.

    Cheers everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I just feel sad all around. I don't post often, partly because I've always felt that many on here are able to express their point of view much better than I can, but I always read everyone's comments. Zed, no matter what theory you embrace, I thank you for being open to taking another look at this case. Every theory has something that doesn't seem to fit, so it's hard to know for sure.

    Ms D..I appreciate all the time and effort you have taken to contribute to this blog. And, so often I have agreed with you!

    CC-you always took the time to answer my legal questions and I've learned from you. Thank you.

    One thing I always believed was that we all share a passion for justice for JonBenet Ramsey. Wish we could all go out and have a few drinks!

    K

    ReplyDelete
  51. Zed...

    "EG - I think that's a little unfair to be honest. At the end of the day this is a 20 year old case with no significant breaks. It makes it very difficult for NEW and ORIGINAL thoughts. ALL of us have been on a merry-go-round."

    Yes, Zed, this is true about being difficult for new and original thoughts. However, MsD was the first to attack anyone who did ask a question that had been asked, or made a comment that had already been discussed. She had little patience for anyone with a differing opinion and her "ad nauseum" comment was repeated AD NAUSEUM. Now, all of a sudden she is defending that stance, having been called out for the very same thing she criticized in others.

    Sorry, if you think my comment was unfair, but its true and I stand by it. I have the utmost respect for CC as well, and we've had our share of barbed exchanges, but in this instance, she is 100% spot on.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  52. I take it flare ups happen frequently here as well as other places? I do like Lou Reed, but I'm not EG - am I EG? We simply share a point of view. A few comments on the "coverup" phase of the crime. I thought initially John was literally and figuratively kept in the dark, until he read the note and sensed that all was not as Patsy portrayed, but his attitude by the time French arrived suggests otherwise.

    He was cool - a counter composure to her frantic antics - but a little too cool. Both of them were unconcerned the call didn't come in. And neither of them comforted each other. Patsy didn't run to John begging him to "do something" or a "what are we going to do?" And in order for the two of them to be "on the same page" she would have had to have briefed him extensively just before she made the call, or immediately after, in the 7 min. it took for French to get there. All that and a shower too? He knew. They both knew, who had done what, when, how, and where.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hello Lou,

    Please allow me to formally introduce myself. I am EG, and am definitely not you. I completely ignore Ms.D's ramblings, including that one where she said we were one and the same. But I do like Lou Reed, and freely admit to that. ;))

    And I do agree with you, Lou. They both knew exactly what happened. Their behavior was suspect from the start and continued to become moreso as the investigation went on. Of course, how they reacted and/or responded, as bizarre as it was, doesn't get anyone convicted. But it sure as hell leaves many of us baffled and scratching our heads.

    EG

    ReplyDelete