OK, time for a new post, making room for a new round of comments. If anyone DOES have any news regarding the CBS lawsuit please post it. I can't imagine what's taking so much time, but maybe CC can offer some insights into the process.
Doc, the most recent information I read was a Q & A with Lin Wood, Westword Oct. 26,2018.
Re current status of law suit (LW) "The parties are in the final stages of document production and are also actively taking depositions. Discovery will likely be complete by mid-2019. I expect CBS will thereafter follow standard defense strategy by filing a motion for summary judgment. I am confident that such a motion will be unsuccessful and the case will move to a jury trial in late 2019 or early 2020."
Wood also speaks to the subpoena of Alex Hunter..." the 2016 documentary was rank speculation unsupported by any credible evidence and CBS knows it. CBS is in search of a defense it will never find".
It is not unusual for multi-million dollar lawsuits against multiple corporate and individual defendants to drag on because of discovery, ongoing motions, and hearings on procedural matters.
Your last paragraph is dead right, K, and for once I'm in agreement with Lin Wood.
Cynic that I am, I still maintain CBS did it as a ratings grab during the Fall 2016 Ratings Sweeps - a calculated risk to obtain multimillions in an advertising dollars - which paid off. Their legal department apparently frowned on the move, prompting them to go to an outside production company, Critical Content...now also a defendant in Burke's lawsuit.
Thanks for the Lin Wood Q&A from Westword; good sleuthing, K, as ever.
The problem with the CBS investigative special is they got it wrong. It was flawed. Would Burke be suing if they had gotten it right? That would be extremely risky for him, and his father.
Different theme,but something to ponder for the BDI's of which I am one, if it were an accident, why the need to cover it up.
Q: "You have testified that you slept soundly through the entire night of December 25th and 26th, never hearing a thing, and never going downstairs after going to bed, correct?"
Answer: "Yes."
"You also claim with complete and absolute certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your son had nothing whatsoever to do with your daughter's injury or death correct?"
Answer: "Yes."
Q: "The evidence in this case, including your own testimony about the locked doors and windows leading into the house, and your own assertion that it was you who broke the train room window in the basement, shows no physical evidence to indicate that an intruder entered or exited the house that night, correct?"
A: "Not sure I agree with that."
Q: "I'm asking for a yes or no answer based on the evidence, including your own testimony."
Ramsey attorney: "Objection, calls for a legal conclusion by the witness. The evidence is what it is and Mr. Ramsey isn't the fact finder in this case."
Judge: "Sustained."
Q: "Isn't it a fact that your son's fingerprints were on at least one of the two dishes left out overnight, containing partially eaten pineapple and partially drunk tea in a glass, and neither you nor Patsy knows how those items got there, correct."
A: "Not sure." (transcript of earlier testimony read back by the clerk) "Ok yes."
Q: "Given your testimony here and the evidence in this case, isn't it fair to say that if you are correct that your son did not commit the assault that night, and you were never awake, that the only other person who could have committed the assault on JonBenet was her mother?"
Objection
Sustained
Q: "Do you believe Burke wrote the ransom note."
A: "Obviously not."
Q: "With no evidence of an intruder and your being asleep all night, do you know with certainty that Patsy did not write the note?"
A: (over objection, allowed by judge): "She did not write that note."
Q: Isn't it true that handwriting experts did not completely rule out Patsy as the writer of the note."
Answer: "Yes."
Q: "Could they therefore be wrong that Patsy could have written the note."
A: "I believe so, yes."
Q: "Those same experts ruled you out as the writer of the note, correct."
A: "Yes."
Q: "So if they could have been wrong about Patsy then isn't it fair to say they could have been wrong about you as well?"
A: (over objection): "I did not write that note."
Q: "I didn't ask if you wrote the note. I asked whether it is possible that those same experts whom you believe were wrong about Patsy could also have been wrong to rule you out as the writer of the note."
A: "Anything is possible."
Q: "You have a long history of suing people who have accused Patsy of hurting JonBenet, and you are suing my client for showing by reasonable evidence that it is possible that your son committed the act. Is it fair to say, given your adamant certainty about your son in this case, that you know for a fact, from personal knowledge known only by you, who committed the horrible crime against your daughter that night and attempted to stage a phony kidnapping by writing the ransom note?"
Well, thanks for this piece of fiction, it was really good, objections and all! Very cathartic, I wish JR would be grilled this way, I used to fantasize about doing it myself!!!
Good to see you too, dear CC! The wedding almost swallowed me but in a nice, hectic and beautiful way! Now I am busy emptying my whole house cause we're moving to Guadeloupe in a few weeks… so hectic it is again!
Ramsey(s) has/have the burden of proof in the case.
John professes to have been sound asleep during the events that transpired. In the act of avoiding culpability he has neutered himself as a rebuttal witness.
The only other witness to refute the physical evidence is the guy whose fingerprints are on a glass next to a bowl of pineapple that wasn't there when the night began, and his parents have left him out to dry.
The evidence of non-entry at the train room's basement window is irrefutable. The spider web still dangles in the breeze.
The grand jury believed an insider committed the crime.
Take the stand, John. You have to earn it this time.
And you're wrong, by the way, about the burden of proof being on plaintiffs in this instance.
The Ramseys are alleging defamation per se, meaning the defamation is obvious on its face. When the Michigan trial judge denied defendants motion to dismiss this past January, he acknowledged that fact. The burden is then on the defendants to prove that they did not malign Burke, which they cannot do.
It’s been a few years since I’ve looked at the MI defamation laws, but it seems as though the primary decision is whether BR is considered a private individual or a limited public figure – limited in that his notoriety pertains only to this case. Since he gave two interviews - to Paula Woodward and to Dr. Phil - before the CBS program, he may be legitimately a limited public figure. IDK. If so, then his lawyers must prove either malice or reckless regard by CBS. James Sammataro, an attorney and specialist in defamation law for Disney, gave an interview on this case. I’ve no idea if he is correct in his viewpoint, but some might find it interesting.
CBS, et al. would surely have incorporated your perfectly valid argument about a public/limited public figure and malice/reckless disregard into their supporting briefs for their Motion to Dismiss . . . which was denied.
I know nothing whatever about Michigan laws, but in my state, that would be all she wrote on that front.
Plaintiff's Attorney filed in Michigan due its lack of Anti-Slapp laws. CBS should seek, and will most likely obtain, a change of venue to a state (Colorado would be appropriate) that recognizes Slapp lawsuits for what they are: cases where oftentimes the plaintiff's goal is not necessarily to actually win the lawsuit, but to drag their critics to court and bury them under a pile of attorney’s fees and embarrassment until they cry “uncle!” and agree to be quiet.
Indeed the Ramsey attorneys have a track record of success in this area, having put the muzzle on a plethora of other Ramsey friends and authorities present with the Ramsey's, or with them in the house, at various stretches in the twenty-four hours leading up to John's discovery of the corpse and hauling it upstairs from the basement.
Federal Anti-Slapp laws are gaining momentum. First Amendment issues are involved. This case may about to become more interesting than ever.
Can you clarify? The Rs’ attorney stated in his initial brief that BR was a private figure. You believe the lawyers for CBS would have indicated in their motion to dismiss that BR was a Limited Public Figure. Since the judge dismissed the motion, does this mean that the judge has endorsed that BR was a private figure as the Rs’ attorney claimed? Or was he simply disallowing the motion to dismiss?
I've not seen Judge Groner's 9 page ruling denying defendants' Motion to Dismiss, so I've no idea if he addressed that issue, but deny it he did, in toto.
There are no grounds for a change of venue, and this is not a frivolous lawsuit - the kid was accused of murdering his sister on national television, absent any evidence. SLAPP does not apply.
Hi all, some online chatter this week - juror13 and cotton star have done an entry on the pink Barbie nightgown. Also those familiar with the Jonbenet forum on websleuths they have announced the arrest of Super Dave for sexual crimes with a minor. Those links are over on topix.
Well talk about a surprise, topix forums were active today and are no longer when I checked at 5:30pm. The forums are gone and the site is directing people to go to patch.com.
Since it is the anniversary week of JonBenet's murder I have looked at some of the articles and the accompanying photos.
I think Burke was correct in that he got a bike that year.
In the photo of JonBenet standing near two bikes, the one in the foreground that appears to be teal, is a boy's model due to the frame. Unless she asked for that model, or her parents chose to pick her one with two bars from the seat to the bars, verses a single bar made for girls.
In the midst of a very pleasant Christmas Day spent with family, my thoughts kept returning to JonBenet. You see, I can't forget this case, and I ask myself why not. After all, I hear horrific stories on the news almost daily of abused and murdered children, and while hearing these stories causes me pain, I'm able to let them go. Perhaps I can't let go of the case of Jonbenet because her murderer has not been identified publicly nor apprehended. Perhaps it's because she was killed in her own home during Christmas -- a time when children are typically happiest. Perhaps it's because she was so young, innocent, and angelic-looking. Whatever the reason, I just can't stop thinking about her death, and I frequently pray that the truth of this case will come out soon and the murderer, if she or he is still alive, will be arrested. But why do I feel this will never happen? Law enforcement screw-ups? Big money and influential people? Blood is thicker than water? Blackmail? Seems to me it's not likely a stranger came into the Ramsey house that night and brutalized and killed that precious child and no one heard a thing. But, hey, anything's possible. Right?
Im just here to give you some well-deserved love/flattery. Your blog is excellent, it is absolutely fascinating to see the discussions here. CC, Sam, Miss D, Inq and so on, I see you too! Youre all great and possess some impressive mental faculties, reading through the debates I am learning so much, and Ive been starved for good debates for years. Also, I probably missed someone who has contributed; sorry for this in advance.
Thank you for putting logic at the forefront. The gods knows I needed it, after some years of being into true crime. It was very frustrating to read others theories; at some point feeling "is it just me or has the whole world gone crazy?". This blog has remedied it and I can just leave it be, unbothered, now. Thank you so much for it.
Also, thank you for all your work with the Jonbenet case. Her murder has always been one of those I avoided, since its unsettling. I also always wondered why the father was completely out of the question as perpetrator; for personal reasons, I know that its not at all uncommon for parents to hurt their children. Ive read a lot on father-daughter incest and as soon as I read about her bedwetting, the recurring infections and the paint brush handle (which I believe was used to distort and obscure evidence of previous abuse), I started researching WHY he was ruled out. This is how I found this blog, eventually, about a year or two ago.
Ive experienced first-hand that people are very prone to blame the mother. To me, as soon as I read about the visits to drs, I ruled her out in regards to sexual abuse. No parent sexually abusing their child in any way would take their kid to the dr, or I mean, it is very uncommon anyway. I truly do not know who killed Jonbenet, I wish I did. My guess is her father though, and until there is evidence proving otherwise, what I will always believe. All the signs are there, and the entire world looking away is both a disgrace and an injustice towards not only JBR, but all kids abused and murdered by a parent.
We have a household where one child wet the bed and had constant vaginal infections, at six years old. The other child smeared feces at age nine. These signs, on their own, is not very much, but combine it and you see two kids reacting to something. It is arrested development, in psychological terms, its what 3, 4 year olds do to control their environment. It is a known defensive tactic of children being sexually abused, as pee and poop would not only gross out the perp, but also cause a commotion (needing sheets and clothes changed, perhaps even a shower).
I think Patsy knew, somewhere in the back of her mind, all along, but did not want to admit it. The setup with the ransom note was to confuse and scare her. I am certain she held great gratitude towards John, as he was 15 years older and the rich party of the two. All those drugs afterwards fogged up her mind even more. At some point, I think she must have realized but saw no way of admitting after 1. the world accused her, 2. she fell ill, 3. she saw right after the murder how resourceful John was with public opinion and DA connections. She would have absolutely no way of winning against him; if she admitted to knowing anything more about JBR she would be crucified by the press and deemed a liar.
It might sound cheesy, but this is one of few places where I feel the goal is truth. Almost every other place is filled with people looking to be right. I hope one day, we learn the truth, and I wish I am wrong. I wish she had a genuinely loving father during her short six years, who treated her with respect and care.
Thank you so much for your hard work, time and dedication. Lets hope 2019 brings some closure.
Thank you, CC. I will most likely continue to mainly read, but am considering to at some point write up my own thoughts and post somewhere, somehow. Theyre scattered unless I put in an effort to focus it, and would require at least a few proper sources. We will see!
The Clerk for Judge Groner said the order declares that the claims against those producing the documentary "are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees. Case is closed."
". . . Everybody knows this is nowhere", Neil Young, 1969
Bleak, I know, but so it seems to me at the moment, as we appear to be foreclosed from gleaning any useful information from the lawsuit settlements.
Settlement agreements prohibit the parties and their legal teams from making statements, else they risk voiding the agreements and incurring contempt of court citations.
I had hoped for leaks from the legal teams long since, but that hasn't happened. I had hoped some eager beaver journalist would scour the court dockets and court files in Michigan for, if nothing else, subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, notices of deposition, motions and the like, but that hasn't happened either, which leads me to suspect that perhaps the court proceedings are, have been, and will remain closed.
Does it prohibit those people who had been served subpoenas from any discussion on this?
I wonder due to the numerous subpoenas per the Daily Camera that said many were served
"including onetime Ramsey private investigator Ellis Armistead, former Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy, Boulder's High Peaks Elementary School — which both Ramsey children attended at the time of JonBenet's death — as well as Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician."
(I don't see this as CBS losing face or being in the wrong from the settlement and dismissal decision)
Diamond Lil, there was a defamation attorney who at one time worked for Disney who provided some thoughts about the case to Craig Silverman. He believed, and I'm sure it's simply his opinion as an attorney, that it would have been a huge climb for Lin Wood, based on the high standard of defamation for a Limited Public Figure, which BR is by virtue of the interviews he's given. If interested it was still available as of a few weeks ago at: https://craigsilverman.podbean.com/e/the-craig-silverman-show-jan-7-2017-hr-2/ Starts at 16:41
The "other folks" are as free to speak now as they've ever been.
It does not matter that CBS "admit they were in the wrong". The fact is that they settled a case they could have won had they had the truth on their side.
There's a chance that everything CBS documented WAS the truth....the problem is they can't prove it. Just like no one can prove it was Patsy or it was John. That's the reason why this case is still unsolved and why people are still talking about it 20+ years later. So CBS and Burke/John reaching a settlement was always going to happen.
The only thing that can be proven (in my eyes) is that it was NOT an intruder. It is also logical to assume that Burke did not write the ransom note. Which means that either Patsy, John (or both) were involved in some way. With this lawsuit now settled, I think the only chance of any of us knowing exactly what happened, is a deathbed confession from John (when that time comes). But fat chance of that happening.
Hey ya Zed. I hope to have a good 2019, as my plans are to just not bother with the blog after this. The snark and hostility to "you people" like us that don't agree with everything is not worth any more time.
But you are a good egg and I think you'll have a smashing new year!
If you haven't checked out the jonbenet reddit forum you might enjoy the input and explanations of "awillis" and "cottonstarr" among others.
Also the Daily Mail article on the lawsuit settlements/dismissals has over 1000 comments with a good percentage agreeing with CBS. And most are comments from non-USA people. :)
(and I will leave you with the tune from that great Aussie group Little River Band - The Nightowls)
"...He'll get the girl 'cause he looks so fine He's gonna win her every time He knows he will, he's out there still He's a night owl..."
Again? Still? Both Hunter and Beckner publicly exonerated Burke twenty-some years ago, and now CBS, et al. have taken a fall - yet you people persist. You've usurped Cleopatra, and are now the new Queens of Denial.
Were not JR and PR both exaonerated by Lacy ? I guess that makes in an intruder CC ? Apparently exonarations mean absolutely nothing in this case. CC, I thought you were smarter than to speak out of both sides of your mouth ?
I must admit, I haven't been following this blog very carefully for a while, as I've been preoccupied with other projects. Thanks to some prodding by CC, however, I just now took a look and lo and behold, after so many months of patiently waiting, it turns out that the CBS case has been settled. Hoo Hah! Thanks to the sleuths posting here that knowledge has finally reached my myopic eyes, which missed the media coverage entirely. I have a feeling we'll be learning some more about the details presently, especially if Charley Brennan is still on the case.
I have to admit I'm disappointed, but the secrecy in itself tells us something interesting. I felt sure Lin Wood was going to insist on a public apology from CBS, and felt equally confident that CBS would strongly resist anything like that. The fact that no apology was forthcoming tells us that, as many have always suspected, Wood is in it exclusively for the money and has no real interest in protecting the reputation of either Burke or John. A settlement without an apology does nothing to protect Burke's reputation, but does put lots and lots of cash into Wood's pocket. Though we may never know how much exactly. It's possible no money was involved and both sides just decided to free themselves from this huge legal morass and back off.
From our point of view, this is a real disappointment because we were all hoping to learn more about the case as the lawsuit progressed. Instead all the details will apparently be sealed.
In the immortal words of Phillip Roth: Goodbye Columbus!
David J Hughes, who is an author/expert on the JonBenet Ramsey case and wrote An Angel Betrayed about it, has been arrested for aggravated sexual assault of a child, possession of child porn and promoting a recording of child porn.
Though Doc cleared up so much about the case, I still could not understand why Patsy or John had friends come over, or why John allowed it. One could imagine it had something to do with Patsy being scared of John, and it had the effect of contaminating the crime scene, but I'm not sure either of those are the reason.
At the moment, I think I would borrow two of Doc's points to clear that up:
1) John was going to use friends to take Patsy and Burke away to "deal with the kidnappers"; he wasn't going to just put them on the curb and tell them to get a hotel. Though, I'm not sure how either one works if they were being 'monitored'.
2) The cops mistook "tomorrow" to mean that morning.
Did John allow - or even suggest, friends to come over, hoping that the cops would eventually leave to let him deal with the kidnappers by tomorrow, and send Patsy and Burke away with friends?
I'm sorry you feel that way, Lil. I did not intend my remarks to be "snarky" or "hostile", but rather succinct.
Truth is, literally, an absolute legal defense to defamation, yet CBS has chosen to settle. Beckner and Hunter both stated publicly and unequivocally that Burke was not involved.
I don't know how to sugarcoat that for you, nor do I know how BDIers can continue in their obdurate belief in the face of those facts.
Is there even a remote chance that anything new in the case could come to light? This is so frustrating that it is 2019 and we don't have a clear answer.
Also, Doc, was just curious if you ever had any interest in the Adnan Syed case? Another really interesting truecrime story that I can't seem to get enough of.
Burke being sent away with friends on that fateful day is always something that has boggled my mind. If the Ramsey's weren't involved, than that means an intruder came in and murdered JBR. Within hours of the police arriving and no clues to the identity of the killers, John and Patsy thought "hey, let's let our only living child go off with friends." It makes no sense, because how would you know if you could trust anybody, including your close friends. After listening to the 911 call over and over, I believe you can hear Burke's voice in the background at the very end. What he said isn't nearly as important to me as John and Patsy lying about Burke being asleep. Why lie about such an insignificant deal? What does Burke being awake during that time have anything to do with anything? I believe Burke was sent away with friends because the police wouldn't be there to question him. Burke is and always will be the key to the whole case and whether or not he one day talks, we will never know. I am a firm believer that BR accidentally killed his sister and John assisted in the cover up. But, no matter what anybody believed, Burke Ramsey knows a whole lot more than he has ever said. He breaks his silence after all those years conveniently when CBS is about to air a special naming him the killer......thats convenient timing. #pineapple
I used to think it was an accident J. Not anymore. I think he hit her over the head to keep her from screaming when he was sexually experimenting, or interfering, whatever you want to call it in a 9 year old, one month shy of 10 boy, who was neglected, disturbed, and conversely jealous of his sister. CBS got part of it right, but dropped the ball in other respects. So I no longer think it was an "accident" otherwise why the coverup. It could simply have been reported as such.
per Denverchannel.com: Statement released by Boulder Police Dept. today.
"The Boulder Police Department is aware of Mr. Oliva and has investigated his potential involvement in this case including several previous confessions. The department routinely receives information on this investigation. Information provided to the police department is reviewed along with the many tips and theories we receive. There are no new updates in this investigation and the department will not comment further."
Glad you posted it ML, as I hadn't seen the reports yet. Yea, I think he is just a very disturbed individual that has been investigated before. Thanks for the info:).
Isn't it peculiar how even people who believe in the (absurd) intruder theory, tend to believe it was "the intruder"? That is, they see this crime as done by one person. But if an intruder did it, presumably the note is genuine, and the note is about at least 3 people. A "group of individuals", "foreign faction", with two who don't like John watching over his daughter.
Yes, the ransom note alludes to a "group of individuals," but where is the evidence that the crime was committed by more than one person? Well, okay. There was more than one person's DNA found on JonBenet's clothing, right? Touch DNA, a composite, not easily identifiable, could have come from people who came in contact with the clothing and not the child.
Common sense says go back to the beginning, that the provocation for this crime began there. But where is the beginning? Is it Christmas morning when the family opened gifts? Or is it further back in the family's past? John and Patsy's first meeting? Their wedding? Burke's birth? JonBenet's birth? Patsy's cancer? And what if "the beginning" occurred outside the family? Perhaps it was when a stranger spotted Jonbenet and became obsessed with her. But with the "stranger" scenario the ransom note seems redundant in that it wouldn't benefit the criminal and might provide clues as to her or his identity.
I like Doc's theory; it's very logical. But for some reason I can't imagine John Ramsey sexually molesting and killing his daughter. I do know, however, that such things occasionally happen in the homes of educated and affluent people. And John didn't show much emotion after JonBenet's death. Perhaps because he was trying to stay strong for Patsy and Burke?
Doc's theory is logical, I agree. In addition, John did and said many things that raised "red flags" in my mind.
1) He stated he went to the basement to find out how someone got in the house. He found a broken window which he said was open with a suitcase under it. Why wouldn't an innocent man with a missing six year old immediately report it to the officer upstairs?
2) John went on CNN right after burying his little girl, and stated he just needed to "know why", so they could go on with their lives. What the ...?? That's not normal.
3) When John Mark Karr was arrested, after corresponding with Michael Tracy for months and describing in detail what he "had done" to JB, John stated he "started to feel sorry for the guy" because of way he'd been treated by the media. What father says that about a child molestor who described vivid fantasies about his daughter?
We've all known a lot of fathers in our lives. Would they do those things?
CBS settling out of court doesn't change my mind in the least. I still believe that BDI and JR and PR covered it up and wrote that RN together, with JR dictating and PR writing it and adding her own words here and there.
It's the reason for their strange behavior afterwards and their memory lapses. One big cover-up.
CC , I do not need to do any honework I am well aware that JR's and PR's exonerations were rebuffed (as if they were ever valid to begin with) but I am humored by your logic or lack there of, as usual. As smart as you claim to be, you try and use the settlement of Burke's lawsuit as some kind of proof of Burke's innocence, as if it means a damn thing as to if he is guilty or not. It surely and clearly does not. I am not BDI but the flawed logic you use and then the arrogance to be snarky and rude when using such backwards logic and twisting of interpretation makes me giggle. Someone of your claimed intelligence surely can not be that mentally retarded. Going by your logic and train of thought then there is no way JR could have written the RN note because he was exonarated of writing it, by experts Obviously JR cant be guilty, what are you stupid ? ;) LOL
Here's how CBS should have played this game, had they been able:
Link up as much circumstantial evidence as possible, like testimony from Savage and the other babysitter, the housekeeper, his third grade teacher, Fleet White Jr, Doug Stine, Hunter, Beckner - hell, maybe a grand juror or two, properly concealed - all saying Burke set fires, tortured animals, viewed porn, acted out sexually or otherwise behaved alarmingly. Set it all out in a trial, toss in some psychobabble. Because even when they lost, they'd have an exclusive new docudrama for TV, thus more than recouping their monetary losses and garnering massive ratings.
None of that was proven, as we know, you are 100% correct !
Your statement above is nothing more than more manipulation and more sleight of hand , it just doesnt work on me. Clearly BR had some serious issues going on at this time, whether he was guilty or not . You claim to be soo smart and them immediately go and try to pretend that you do not understand and are going to disprove that BR had no behavioral issues.. Its humorous and you are doing nothing more than insulting your own intelligence.
Please list for me Burke's "serious behavioral issues" in 1996, and the witnesses who could attest thereto . . . and please do not include the shit-smearing in 1993 while his mother was hospitalized a continent away for Stage IV cancer, or the alleged candy box on JBR's floor (never tested).
And let's throw in the forensic guys who can somehow timestamp the fingerprints on the infamous bowl of pineapple, the DNA expert who no doubt has access to the "new' DNA testing (which can determine, ethnicity), and the trace evidence team who found not one hair or fiber from Burke on or near JBR.
The forensic guys do not need to timestamp anything for the logic in my brain to work correctly. You are acting like I need to come up with evidence in this case to prosecute it ? All we have here is logic , no one here will be prosecuting CC, FYI ! Going by your above standards of evidence than you have absolutely not a single thing on JR other than logic....and pretty twisted , manipulated and backwards logic at that.
CC, there is not enough evidence to prosecute anyone in this case, does that make them all innocent ? Obviously not, so WTF is your point ? It is possible this case has been solved and sealed already.
Did CBS just make up falsities and lie, no they didnt. Many like Kolar (who was on the case and knows much more about it than you) believe BR to be guilty and you have not an iota more evidence or logic proving JR to be guilty than others do BR. In fact those fingerprints on that bowl is more evidence than you have on JR PERIOD. Your twisting and manipulating of the facts and evidence in this case are off the charts but you get a few ppl to buy into it. PR tells lies so that means JR is guilty, BR's fingerprints are irrelevant and his prints mean JR did it. JR is cleared for handwriting so LE screwed up. BR is clearly awake and in the room during the 911 so you cant hear it. PR fails a lie detector so that means she is innocent and it is voodoo sciencs...Do.you see how off the wall your logic is amd how you purposely manipulate and twist or no ? You being of alien like intelligence can see it now right ? You sure can bend and manipulate evidence pointing one way into evidence pointing the other way and into a nice logical end story. Now where is your evidence ? Oh yeah you have none , zero ? NADA FUCKING THING other than GUESSWORK AMD MAYBES, guesswork which was investigated by LE Ad Nauseam. You shouldnt come across so arrogant and confident when you are GUESSING! LOGICALLY GUESSING THAT IS.
You should be directing your comments to me as well, as CC and I are mostly on the same page regarding this case. You have a right to your opinion, but no right to accuse either of us, including the many others who have expressed similar views on this blog, of either guesswork or arrogance. The case against John is clear, and the facts have been presented on this blog many times over. Anyone can fixate on this or that detail to make just about anyone look guilty -- or innocent. But when one considers the case as a whole, taking all the evidence and facts into account, then, as I and many others see it, all roads point to John, acting alone.
As for Patsy's "lies," once you settle on someone as a guilty party then it's easy to take anything they say and any action they might perform as a sign of guilt. I have no idea why Patsy looked through her fingers at officer French. Nor do I have any idea as to why he found that suspicious. And if Patsy "lied" about certain matters, I fail to see what she had to gain from those "lies." Whereas it's very easy to see what John had to gain by fabricating that story about breaking the window months earlier.
Also: mind your manners or I'll have to delete your comments from now on.
Pineapple in victims stomach, Fingerprints on bowl of pineapple belong to PR and BR. What would Sherlock Holmes say ? He would say that it is irrelevant, of course and that JR did it ! Keep digging Watson! The evidence surely points that way cant you see it ! ������ I am not BDI in any way either. I am just someone who thinks your logic is so far out there and then on top of your manipulation of logic, you are arrogant about nothing other complete guesswork out of thin air , that it is beyond irritating.
For those who think Patsy had no knowledge or involvement, please explain the following: 1- Why did Patsy peer through her fingers at Officer French when he came up from the basement? 2- Why did Patsy say the paper of the ransom note look familiar even though a copy was being passed around on the 26th? 3- How could she not remember why she called Dr B on the 17th 3x? If she called his office 3x it must have been something urgent. 4- Why so many lies? Sure some of it can be she honestly couldn't remember but way too much ramnesia.
Above poster- there is no Ramnesia only manilpulation of fact here to meet an agenda. Some of the things she lied about such as BR's boots disappeared out of the house AND she had no recollection of buying them either, even though itnwas traxed back to her being the one whp purchased them. One needs to go no further than to watch PR and JR depositions on YouTube where she basically claims the 5th repititively (I cant recall, I dont know) over and over. After wathing both depos it becomes very clear whose ass Lin Wood is covering and whose interview is purposely muddied and it surely is not John Ramseys.
Patsy Ramsey Depo - https://youtu.be/7YROdRPPP48 John Ramsey Depo- https://youtu.be/JCDD3JJttHU Just on lies alone PR should have been charged and was very close to being charged. Had the Ramseys had lesser attorneys than they did PR WOULD HAVE been charged.
PR was not charged because there was no case to be made against her. As should be clear, Hunter was desperate to pin this crime on "the Ramseys" but as an experienced prosecutor realized very clearly that he had no case.
Sure, all opinions are welcome unless you disagree with them. Then they, and those who offer them, are fair game for your personal ridicule. But it seems agreeing with Doc gives you carte blanche to act this way. You should probably consider why other posters respond to you in such a manner. Might it have something to do with your own behavior?
The puke who did this crime had to be someone who knew JBR and her family very well.. He also was a person who could be away on Christmas Eve and Christmas day without anyone caring. The ramson note shows a close knowledge of the family
I was once PDI (and ignorant) and I don't see the problem with any of Patsy's supposed lies to JDI. It is very easy to see them all having to do with suspecting John - and that is hardly a problem for JDI!
Say she was looking through her fingers because she feared French would come up with the body. That could just as well mean she secretly suspected what John did rather than she did it.
And of course they were a "united front" and she had John's lawyers and all that. She could have easily felt she owed him some favors.
I’m not sure why folks do not see who ruled the roost in the house. Yes, Patsy received an allowance to run the household, but JR controlled the purse strings. He executed their income tax forms. And, after Patsy’s death, he was still operating the sham JonBenét Foundation, a fraud upon the public. He wanted to move to Boulder, so they moved. He wanted a house in the older more established neighborhood, and that’s where they bought. He was the one who secured the lawyers. He was the one who “found the body”.
Also, I’ve never heard one good reason which explains that if BR struck his sister why 911 was not called. Let their beloved daughter perish without an examination of the head blow and a doctor’s prognosis, just to protect BR? Knowing JR’s narcissism, it doesn’t wash.
I know doc’s theory hinges on JR writing the RN, and, although I am willing to guess it possible, I will add this - even if Patsy did write the RN, it seems as though it could have been under the duress of realizing her daughter was deceased and either her son or husband had ended JonBenét’s life. The choice that night: Join JR after the fact or have everything fall apart in one dreadful night. With the amount of drugs she was consuming after the death, it’s easy to see why the investigators never got an opportunity early in the case to speak to her. Then her husband has 4 months to work on her story to assist him. How much she knew, I don’t know. But the only one with the supreme moxie and aggression to pull this off was JR.
Once again, I must insist. It's really quite simple: if Patsy were involved in an attempt to stage a phony kidnapping, she would not have called 911 when she did. End of story.
True as a simple 'surface' fact. Except that one must also admit the GJ heard and knows more than any Internet posters, and they developed a True Bill for an Accessory after the Fact charge against Patsy.
Words of one of the Grand Jurors - "We didn't know who did what. We thought they did something they could have prevented, or they could have gotten her help and they didn't."
I write as I speak. I'm a lawyer, a trial lawyer and a former prosecutor - we're known for blunt speech, not for sugarcoating anything for anyone, but nor do I ridicule, demean or namecall.
I tried to give Lil probate advice, helped her find unclaimed funds for her family a few years ago. Zed, EG, J and I disagree, yet I don't demean their opinions or them personally.
Anony-P, my above detractor, was badly shamed by me for citing false information about the Routier case, and so has an axe to grind. Likewise Lou/Castor/Inq with regard to the Ramsey case. But in neither instance did I resort to the personal - I simply stated facts in refutation.
So no, I do not believe it has "something to do with [my] behavior".
On what do you base your claim that lawyers, trial lawyers or prosecutors are "known for blunt speech"? I know several people who fit into those categories; none are particularly known for blunt speech. And I think it's great that you helped Lil out. Just not sure what it has to do with my point. "I gave someone free advice, therefore I can't be considered rude"? And yes, when you tell other posters to "do a little homework" or call them "Queens of Denial", I think most find that rude and personally insulting.
The dialogue here would probably be more productive and enjoyable without such comments. But continue as you please.
Oh for god's sake. "Queen of Denial" is a trope, a meme . . . and a song:
Oh Queen of Denial Buyin' all his alibis Queen of Denial Floatin' down a river of lies
Pam Tillis, 1992
As Doc has said, this ain't a tea party. This is a serious discussion of an unsolved murder. I have, and will continue, to call out any who post misinformation, and urge them to do the work.
And if you think for a minute I will not defend my position in the language of my mien, then I can only assume you know some truly second-rate trial lawyers.
At this point I must urge both of you to tone things down, concentrate on the case at hand, and suppress the urge to make personal remarks and/or argue over personal issues. If I see this devolving into yet another flame war I'll have to start deleting posts.
Your assumption is absolutely correct, CC. In fact, their case loads are so light, they have seemingly countless hours to spend posting comments on blogs. Truly second-rate, indeed.
The only one who posted falsities in the Routier case was you C.C. You posted more than once that there were Wet Towels used and there were in fact none. The facts were posted as well. Somehow when you post falsities they are not falsities however, as it is very clear that you are nothing more than a narcissist with a sharp tongue.
Doc G, Your comment of "If Patsy Lied "states it all." You fail to admit that she lied bc your objectiveness in this case is so far gone that a videotape of this murder coming out and it not being JR would be rebuked by you. Your logic is twisted, slanted and manipulated to point towards JR and the silly question of what would PR have to gain is an Insult to your own intelligence. Its clear as day in any case that if someone is being looked at or a suspect in a case amd they can point their finger im the other direction and at someone else it takes the heat off of them, bkane shifting. So whether PR is guilty of not it is pretty clear that is exactly what she did many many times , whether for her or someone else.
CC, I do not have to prove that BR had emotional issues. I use common sense. Feces smeared in 93 and feces smeared in 96. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what is common sense... or I guess maybe you do to people of your superior intelligence LOL. BR was also seeing a counselor and those medical records were sealed and hidden. Common sense would be effective in this scenario here again. You can throw in reports from friends of family as well.
I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to see that he still has some type of behavioral and/or emotional disorder to this day, most likely the same one that he had back then but you even trying to portray that BR had no problems is humorous. There is a very good chance that he was and obviously still is on the lower spectrum of autism. The pineapple as well and his prints on that bowl are surely not meaningless, are they some.kind of proof he killed his sister ? Of course not. Those fingerprints however, are far more evidence of BR being awake and with his sister than any evidence you have of JR being awake or being involved in this case at all. So the logical inferences being drawn off that pineapple bowl make more sense than any evidence or inferences you have put forth about JR. As far as PR making that call it proves nothing, her behaviors were so far off of what a mothers would be in that scenario that it reeks of BS. She knew her daughter's body was downstairs and thus the argument between her and JR that morning. She wanted to try and save her daughter still, its called denial and she did not want to leave or dispose of her daughter's body, thus the argument with JR. Feel free to prove me wrong. If JR did write that note you again can try and illogically explain how PR does not know of her husbands handwriting and spelling glich after being married or that long, among many other things that end up completely illogical and senseless in yor scenario. Am I saying BR is guilty, no I am not but anyone claiming BR was a completely normal child and a computer geek just shows how distorted their thinking and logic are. I am having a good time with the distorted logic and denial that the uber intelligent use, or lack there of .....
CC there is a probably a whole slew of people smearing feces right ? It was in style in 96 LOL. Possibly an intruder broke in and knew BR smeared feces in 93 so he planted the feces there in hopes to frame BR ? Or the housekeepers who cleaned up after JBR for years and changed her sheets reported her bedwetting but never said a word about her feces smearing for some odd reason ? I am using your logic here ...maybe this maybe that
Perhaps an adult in that house needed to look up the definition of incest as well ? And PR slept next to a cold blooded pedophile and murderer of her daughter for the rest of her life with no worries about herself or her son in the next room being the next to be murdered.... COMICAL
Anyone who is going to kill their daughter "to shut her up" over sexual assaults is surely NOT going to chance leaving people alive if they have a chance of fingering said person for murder. Kill for sexual assault but leave alive possible witnesses to murder. Hmmmm ..������
This has probably been asked before, but did the cops ever check with local contractors to see if the window had been repaired? It seems like that would be a potential smoking gun.
Both Patsy and John claimed they could not recall whether or not it had been repaired. The housekeeper reported that she knew nothing about any broken window.
If the BPD checked with glaziers or contractors or even Marv Pugh, who did handyman work for the Rs, that fact has not made it into general public knowledge, Anonymous.
Forcing speculative conclusions into definitive conclusions is an obvious mistake, which is exactly what you have done here on this site. All facts have to be taken into account, cherry picking one, especially in a case with all of the inconsistent and contradictive evidence will not solve this case. All evidence, as a whole, must be considered and taken at face value, which has not been done here. You all have a nice day
I have one question for everyone here. I have not seen anything about PR lying about and being verified by a McGuckin's worker as purchaser of the duct tape, the same type of duct tape used in the murder and the same price of duct type that is on the receipt along with the price and type of rope used in the garotte. This seems way too coincidental to be a coincidence, does it not ?
Are you suggesting that Patsy bought these items with the sole purpose of committing murder? If that's not the case, then the only other conclusion to draw is that she purchased the items for a completely innocent reason. As we know, Patsy's art supplies were also used in the murder/staging, so if she was trying to point the finger at an intruder, she failed miserably by choosing to use items that could be traced directly back to her...even being stupid enough to leave her paint tote right in the middle of the crime scene. So either it is nothing more than a coincidence (keep in mind that it was probably Patsy who bought all of the household goods) or Patsy premeditated the strangulation of her daughter, along with the subsequent staging, days or weeks in advance (I'm not sure of the purchase date). If you believe it is the latter, you have to ask yourself what her motive could possibly have been, because the proposed PDI theories regarding an accident, jealous rage, or a bedwetting incident no longer apply once you start considering premeditation.
I was just wondering what the opinions were here, I am from the Websleuths site and had a discussion about this previously with varied replies. I do agree that this would obviously point to premeditation. It could be just a coincidence, I find it intriguing that PR denied using these for her art and buying these things in her interview. I am sure she had no idea these items could be traced, if not by luck and only by price of item they never would have been traced. If coincidental then why would she possibly lie ? Thank you for your reply.
It's important to remember that the McGuckin's receipt was discovered by Steve Thomas, already an avowed proponent of PDI prior to that discovery. Remember too that it was a male, purporting to be John, who called the hardware store and made inquiries about the receipt after its existence became known.
McGuckin's has (or had, during my years in Boulder) a store on Pearl Street, two blocks from John's Access Graphics office in the Pearl Street Mall. Are we sure it was not John who purchased the tape and cord, using the Rs joint credit card? Or do we just assume it was Patsy because it was her name signed on the receipt?
Why is that important to remember? Should we simply dismiss and discard anything Steve Thomas did or said as disingenuous because he was "an avowed proponent of PDI"? That seems to be your implication.
And since John was criminally savvy enough to sign his wife's name on the receipt in order to shield himself from the transaction, are we to believe there was no ATM on Pearl Street(during your years in Boulder, of course) which would've given him cash and made his purchase virtually untraceable?
The leaps of logic you make are astounding. This is why it's so hard for people here to take you seriously.
Do you have anything to contribute or just jealous criticism of cc who most people take seriously. P could have got money from atm too if she was up to no-good.
Well actually, I've contributed plenty over the last 3 years, but your idea that my criticism stems from jealousy is absolutely laughable. Jealous of WHAT, exactly? Jealous of the fact that I'm not someone who purports to be a hot-shot lawyer but apparently has nothing better to do than spend my time trying to dominate the comment section on a third-rate blog? Seriously?
1)I happen to like this blog and enjoy some of the discussion, but at the same time I don't pretend that I'm somehow changing the world by participating, using remarks like "this ain't no tea party". But that's ultimately what it is, a tea party, and there's nothing wrong with that, but why go out of one's way to piss in other people's tea? 'Oh, because I'm a lawyer; this is how we talk. Unless they're second-rate, of course'... 2) I don't claim to be "such a big contributor", nor do I see how signing my remarks would be a reflection of the quality of my comments. And if you think so, it's odd that you didn't sign your own remarks to me until after you raised the point.
CC, I know that I read it was PR's signature and that a McGuckins worker had identified PR and said that PR asked her where the duct tape was. Not sure if this is true or not, I would have to resource that. Reading, hearing and watching about this case for 20 years it is admittedly very difficult to keep track of the wheres, whats, facts and fictions.
The call to McGuffins asking about that recipe was not JR but was a man posing as JR , his name was something Rapp I believe. He was something of a lifelong imposter for hire whose house or place of employment was raided by Boulder PD because he did this. I will post sources for these as it has been a very very long time since I read about them. The crux of my facts I bekieve to be correct so please excuse any minor details which admittedly may be slightly off due to how long it has been.
That Post article does not allege Rapp made the call, but that he mined and sold Ramsey information to tabloids.
It's my recollection that McGuckin's could not access the receipt without a laborious hand search, had JR call back, by which time BPD had placed a trap and trace on their phones. IIRC, the second call from JR could only be traced as far as a call anonymizer in Denver.
After reading and brainstorming, I believe LE found out about the purchases at McGuckins thanks to Mr Rapp. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/01/us/law-confronts-a-peddler-of-private-data.html
To believe JonBenet's death was premeditated murder and John did it is to believe that he is a special kind of cold-blooded monster. Have you closely inspected the autopsy pictures of JonBenet? Her poor lifeless body looks like she was tortured, and beaten, and burned with something -- perhaps a cigar. The head injury probably occurred when she was thrown across the room, or slammed against a wall or the floor. And I don't care what anyone says, there are fingernail scratches on her throat and on the side of her face. I know about such scratches, for I've had another person's nails leave indentations in my face. IMHO, her death has all the markings of death by extreme child abuse -- which is usually done by a parent or caretaker. But I wouldn't completely rule out a psycho intruder -- and some do leave written messages at crime scenes. One thing's for sure, a scrawny nine year old child did not do all that! It's scary to think the killer might still be alive and out there somewhere.
There is no evidence to suggest that JBR was tortured and beaten, or burned...as far as I know, we don't definitively know what caused the mark on her cheek, which I assume is what you're referring to.
"The head injury probably occurred when she was thrown across the room, or slammed against a wall or the floor."
The autopsy report states that the head wound was caused by blunt force trauma, meaning her skull was struck with a heavy object. It wasn't the result of her skull coming into contact with a hard surface.
"And I don't care what anyone says, there are fingernail scratches on her throat and on the side of her face. I know about such scratches, for I've had another person's nails leave indentations in my face".
So we are to just ignore the findings of the examining pathologist (who concluded the marks were not abrasions, but petechial haemorrhages) in favour of your own knowledge based on nothing more than a personal experience? Yeah, science...who needs it, right?! You *should* care about what the coroner had to say, because he is the one who examined the body of the victim, and he is qualified to make the distinction between defensive wounds that have broken the skin and blood vessels that have burst under the skin. Someone merely viewing a photo of the victim cannot so easily make that distinction, especially when that person has no qualifications in the field. I trust the coroner's findings...I have no reason not to, and he believes that JB was struck on the head, subsequently fell into unconciousness, and was then asphyxiated some time in the 90 or so minutes that followed the head blow.
One of the biggest mistakes when considering perpetrators happens all the time. Before Chris Watts was charged with the deaths of his wife and children, neighbors who had known the family and were on Watts’ side were horrified when he was charged. They never ever suspected. That is only one case among many of a person able to keep a shadow life deeply secret. Given that JR was able to keep his 2 year affair with a secretary hidden from his first wife, it does show a level of deceptive adaptability. One can’t go by appearances on religious shows as a standard of who a person is. Just sayin’.
"Experts" occasionally make wrong diagnoses. And I am merely stating my own gut-feelings about the JonBenet Ramsey case. Seems like someone went into a rage (could have been drug or alcohol fueled) and abused the child and death or near death was the result. The rest (including the garrotting) was staging to make the death seem like a pedophile killed the child. Now I don't pretend to know who the abuser/murderer was, but my guess is a family member or someone who knew the family very well.
Experts sometimes get it wrong, true, but the examiner would have had to have flunked med school if he couldn't even differentiate between broken blood vessels under the skin and surface wounds caused by claw marks from the victim's fingernails...not least because, if JB clawed at her neck, he would have found skin belonging to her underneath her nails.
If the Ramseys were staging the scene to appear as though a pedophile was responsible for the murder, consider the following oddities, which would indicate otherwise:
Why did they redress Jonbenet instead of leaving her half naked, suggesting a sexual assault? Why did they stage a kidnapping complete with a ransom note full of very specific instructions if they wanted LE to believe it was a sexually motivated murder? Why would a "garrote"-like device, especially one made from Patsy's very own art supplies lying in a tray not too far from where the victim's body lay, indicate a pedophile intruder?
As far as the staging is concerned, you see the cord loosely tying JB's hands together? That's an obvious, half-assed attempt at staging, as is the duct tape on her already silent mouth...the cord embedding itself deeply into her throat isn't half-assed, however - it's vicious and deliberate - it doesn't resemble the other weak attempts at staging. The strangulation isn't staging, it's the method of murder.
I agree - nothing about the cord around her neck and loosely tied hands was staging. Putting clean underwear on her was an attempt to cover up the sexual interference, the note was staging - divert the focus out of the house, look for a phantom kidnapper, break a window to stage an intruder, leave the flashlight in the kitchen in plain sight to suggest it was the weapon, wipe it clean of prints just in case it's collected as evidence. Invite all of your friends over to divert attention and contaminate and serve as eye witnesses that the parents are devastated and don't have a clue what happened. Remove Burke from the house as soon as possible. Both parents working together were successful.
People think wealthy parents can't possibly be guilty of being neglectful parents. But this is exactly the case here. John put all of his attention into his primary baby, his business. Patsy made projects out of her children. Both children had bed wetting problems. After Patsy focused her attention on JonBenet Burke seemed to get better. Jonbenet got worse. 30 doctor visits in a year is abnormal. I think some of her injuries were caused by Burke - the bent finger, and of course the golf club incident. I believe both parents knew Burke was having problems but they again, neglected to address it. If anyone wants to solve this case they can start with the Grand Jury indictments and take it from there. John Ramsey is perpetrating a scam with his endless lawsuits. He knows who killed his daughter and Burke knows it too.
I was referring not to the markings which resemble fingernail indentations on JonBenet's throat and neck, but to a couple of marks which I saw on one side of her face. I believe the facial indentations which look like nail marks could have been made by the perpetrator of the crime when he/she grasped JonBenet's face in his/her hands, perhaps as he/she was angrily yelling at her. In this scenario there would be none of the perp's skin beneath JonBenet's nails. Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, as I was not there when this crime occurred. But I keep praying the truth will come out in this case and JonBenet will receive justice. It is infuriating that the person who took her precious life has gone free and unpunished for 20+ years.
I suspect Burke burned her by electrifying his train tracks, which were spread out around his Christmas tree in his room and part of the toy with bridges, garages,etc., John was helping him construct in his room - although John likes us to believe it was all done somewhere else, like maybe the livingroom. A few days before Christmas Burke was boasting he had gotten a poke from a deer fence, bragging about it. This could have given him an idea of how to turn one of his toys - the train track - into a toy that could give someone else a poke. I sincerely doubt the train track was used to prod her to see if she was dead. I think it was used while she was still alive. Same goes for the round slightly larger abrasion on her cheek and of course the bruising on the shoulder. Now he could have had help - there may have been another boy at the house, but that's difficult to prove. But EG always has good observations in particular that the Stines were not called on the morning of the 26th even though they lived the closest, and the fact that the Ramsey's moved in with them when they had plenty of other options such as a fully furnished condo at John's disposal near town.
It was Patsy who initially said John and Burke were assembling a toy in the living room when she went up to bed Christmas night. John said so as well in his first interview with LE.
IIRC, Burke got a small shock from a deer fence on Christmas Day, at the Whites'.
The ME chatacterized the marks on JBR as "abrasions", surface injuries. Burns penetrates the epidermis, and are unmistakably different, and would have been described as burns, the skin excised and the depth of the burns described in the autopsy report.
There is no evidence that Doug Stine was in the house Christmas night. Surely the BPD would have noticed if the second bed in Burke's room had been slept in, and questioned that fact.
The Stines were employed by CU, and not in the same social strata as the Ramseys. The basis of their acquaintance was the friendship between Burke and Doug. There is no evidence the couples were close prior to Mrs Stine taking up Patsy as a cause until the Rs alienation from the Whites and Fernies, after Fleet White's meltdown at the funeral and Barbara Fernie's suspicions of Patsy's statements about the pry marks on the back door.
The condo on Pearl Street, where Don Paugh lived when in Boulder, was owned by Access Graphics, which distanced itself from John subsequent to the murder.
The Rs stayed with the Whites the night of the 26th, then the Fernies prior to the funeral. Upon their return to Boulder, they stayed with "Pasta Jay" Elowsky for weeks. The Stines came in a distant, and desperate, fourth - more evidence they were not close friends.
As I said, I have no proof Doug Stine was there. But if he was there, he likely bike pedaled home, in a panic, and didn't stay overnight.
JonBenet would have been as excited as Burke Christmas day night, and wanted to stay up. I believe she woke up when they got to the house and given John and Patsy's mostly neglectful behavior around their children, Patsy probably stayed up to get things ready for the early trip the next day, and if she told JonBenet to get in bed she wouldn't know if she got up or did go to bed.
I've always believed part of Doc's theory. John's suspicious behavior around the broken window and suitcase, his many trips around the house where he was unaccounted for, calling friends over immediately to contaminate the crime scene - which was really the whole house, waiting for a call they knew wouldn't come, being separated from each other and showing no affection, Patsy in full make-up and wearing the same clothes, no fingerprints on the ransom note, etc. But all of that is consistent to me of knowing what happened and covering it up because it was too late to do anything for her. Might as well protect their reputations, John's job, and what it would mean for them that they had a son who killed their daughter. They finally got him some help thought - two years of therapy with an Atlanta psychologist who specializes in child and adolescent behavior problems. His name is in the transcripts, he's still practicing.
Fyi - for radio listeners. Tonight's Coast to Coast with George Noory has Peter Hyatt on, and they did a discussion on the JonBenet case. I don't know what else they were going to cover, as I was driving and needed to get back home. Peter has a pleasant speaking voice.
It seems to me each non-John theory has a weird bit taken for granted that says they on some level know they're wrong
1) Intruder theory. Taking the note at face value, it says there are at least three intruders, a whole 'small foreign faction'. Yet, even people who believe the note is real and people broke in sense that this crime was done by one person.
2) Patsy theory. Even Patsy did its seem to accept the note was left on the staircase. But if Patsy did it, it could have been anywhere, since she was I guess leaving the note for herself.
Not to mention calling 911 with the body in the house, using her own paintbrush, not changing clothes.
3) Burke did it, but a parent strangles her anyway.
Hello everyone, hope all is well with you and yours!! It's been awhile.
I agree Anonymous about DS possibly being there and taking one of the bikes to get home. The R's never could remember how many bikes they had and who got what bike and when, which was always puzzling to me. What parent doesn't know when they purchased a bike and how many bikes they had??!
He could've also left via that broken window, using the suitcase to hoist himself up.
And of course, the Stine's were the very last people they saw that night and the closest in proximity and yet were never called to their house that morning which was also odd.
I think both parents covered it up and co-authored the RN. I don't think either parent strangled her or sexually abused her.
CC - They were close enough to the Stine's to drop off a Christmas gift to them that night. I don't know about you, but I don't drop Christmas gifts off to people I am not close to. And let's say they weren't that close prior to the murder, they certainly got closer afterwards. You might even say they were "as thick as thieves".
I agree EG. The last trip on their list of gift giving and John can't remember how long they were there and who went in and who stayed in the car? Then we have cell phones that are new and not operational. No way to check if a call wasn't made later that night. There were 3 baseball bats strewn outside as well (it's been a while - 2 or 3)one of them belonging to Patsy. There were bicycle tracks leading away from the house. Then a conspiracy of silence which actually started the night of the Ramsey party. Why did that party break up so early after the 911 hangup and the police officer arrived at the door. A migrating ransom note - from the floor in the hallway seen by a friend through the windows - to the stairs, but no fingerprints.
I just read your comment again EG. I missed it before - but that's very possible that DS left via the broken window, maybe broke it himself to get out. Patsy seemed to think there was a broken window once upon a time and that she and Linda cleaned up the glass. John seems perplexed as to how it came to be broken, and offers an odd story about being locked out and dropping down into the window in his underwear. Burke corroborates his father's being locked out, but didn't actually see him break the window and go in that way. Then you have a neighbor who heard the sound of metal on concrete - the metal baseball bat being thrown outside on concrete - or perhaps used as some kind of leverage to get out? All of these years later I don't think the Ramsey's did Burke any favors. But I see why they covered it up - mostly for themselves. It would have looked very bad for them in the community, with Lockheed Martin, Access Graphics, their friends, to have headlines read "Minor child from wealthy family murders sister." And I think when they sent Burke to his room - possibly with a couple of benadryl, he might not have fully realized what he had done. "What did you find?" "What note?", etc. As for DS, he's alive and well, working in Atlanta and can be found on LinkedIn.
A brand new two hour TV Documentary on the JBR case. It's called Hunting JonBenet's Killer: The Untold Story. The next showing is on Sunday, April 14th at 12:30 PM (EST) on the Arts and Entertainment Network. Elizabeth Vargas is the lead journalist and spends a great deal of time throwing softball interview questions at John Ramsey. The whole documentary has an intruder slant, focussing on a guy named Todd Fuss.
Thanks for the tip, Anonymous. In the trailer for the show, which I found on the internet, Vargas states that the Rs were exonerated by DA Mary Lacy. Students of the case know her "exoneration" in 2008 was based on flawed DNA analysis which, coupled with your remarks, does not give me much hope for the program, but I'll watch, of course. Look forward to your reactions tomorrow.
Doc does not have cable, so could not access this A&E "documentary", and asked me to post a precis, so here's my take:
The show's premise is that the Ramseys were cleared by Mary Lacy in 2008. The producers hired a retired FBI ASA, Robert Clark, as their on-camera talent, presumably to give them an air of inestigative credibility. They allege that an "individual's DNA was found in three places on JBR, including uunder her fingernails. They allege that fibers from the clothes she was wearing that night were found in the suitcase. They allege that the dirt in the window well was obviously disturbed, "proving" that to be the point of ingress/egress of an intruder. They allege that the marks on JBR's back and face were "clearly" from a stungun
They propounded four intruder theories:
1) Todd Fuss, whom, after a labyrinthine 45 minutes involving a kinapping-for-hire plot, a cult and aliens, was excluded by DNA.
2) Michael Helgoth, because he committed suicide the day after Hunter's press conference saying the investigation was narrowing (no DNA).
3) Some random dude who was proved not to be in Colorado.
4) The Schonlau brothers, based on a prior child's death in Thornton, CO, and because one brother had a pedophilia conviction. DNA results "inconclusive".
John Ramsey found all four theories "huge" and "compelling". He says he never read the autopsy report, but states that the head blow came after the strangulation.
Never mentioned: the sexual assault the night of the murder and the Grand Jury's True Bills accusing Patsy and John of being accessories after the fact.
I found it all pretty lame, a sham, and yet another attempt to simultaneously clear John and Patsy and make a buck.
Anonymous - and any other viewers - please chime in.
In addition, John alluded to a mysterious couple whom he claimed to have seen twice on Christmas Eve, at church and later at dinner at Pasta Jay's, and then another time in front of 15th Street. News to me. Had anyone else seen/heard this before?
It's been awhile since I visited this blog. This case is just so cold now, and Doc has covered everything about it, many times over. And I am convinced that Doc's theory is correct. But the A & E special caught my eye and I watched it. It was a joke.
First of all, it was completely one-side as to intruder vs. inside job. There was no mention as to the possibility of someone in the family being responsible other than a quick reference to the DNA and how it cleared Patsy, John and Burke. After that was said, they immediately adhered to the theory that an intruder broke into the basement window. Then they offered 4 possible suspects. After each suspect was examined, Elizabeth Vargas would ask John what he thought. What did she THINK he would say?? Of course he would say it was "huge" or "compelling." Did she think he would say, "Well, I don't know ... that guy doesn't seem like the type to murder my daughter" !!! Furthermore, I am very skeptical that he actually saw any of those suspects before, but of course he said he had.
CC, I found it very interesting that John states the head blow came after strangulation. Why would he even speculate on that? Personally, I think the opposite occurred.
This show seemed very amateurish, shallow, and limited in scope. At times it was almost cheesy. That retired FBI agent reminded me of an actor playing the part in a crime drama. And the investigator that filled him in on the case was the same investigator hired by the Ramseys.
I had to look at the credits when this show was over, wondering if John Ramsey had possibly had a hand in producing it. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some hand in it.
I also wonder whether he had a hand in having A&E replay from 2016, The Killing of JonBenet: A Father Speaks, the very next night. Two pro-intruder theories with John-apologist angles presented back-to-back? It reeks of staged serendipity by the Master himself if you ask me. Or maybe it was part of the CBS/Ramsey settlement?
John has a chapter in their book DOI in which he talks about the intruder. He even includes the idea of someone perhaps making a 'snuff film'. An intruder who strangles a 6 year old and then proceeds to strike her viciously on the head somehow must fit his concept of total depravity. It's his methodology to contrast the intruder with his own "fake" religiosity and goodness. No one in their family could be that evil is the concept behind it.
Of course I had to watch that new show on JB and it started off kinda interesting but it was total bullshit, they chased down a few pretty out there 'leads'. Total waste of 2 hours.
What a coincidence that the "Untold Story" would be aired so soon after the CBS et. al settlement, which maybe wasn't a settlement? John is still perpetrating a hoax. And you left something out CC. John put forward a "one last last" picture of JonBenet. Why wait all these years to release it? And note the hair tie - which is evident in the picture of her partially covered dead body under the tree. Did she ever go to bed that night - or was she playing with someone, up late, as her neglectful parents were elsewhere.
I didn't watch the special but saw the media coverage. IMO that last picture is from the Whites taking the pics at their home, then later turned them over to LE and the Whites have never shared their copies. But likely the Ramseys attorneys or friends in the DA's office gave the Whites pics to the Ramseys. The hair tie, or additional hair ties are discussed on reddit, since the new photo was aired.
I see your comment now Lil - thanks. I didn't watch it either, but looking at the last picture it's clear she wore the tie in death. What did reddit say about it?
IIRC, that additional ties or bands were added later, after she got home, but when the parents said she was asleep and only mentioned putting long john's on her. That Patsy was questioned about how her hair was fixed and the ties. I think the discussion falls under a thread to the release of the new photo, prior to the tv airing.
Changing subject, anyone following the murders of Liberty German (14) and Abigail Williams (13) in Delphi, Indiana in early 2017?
The initial suspect sketch appeared to be a man around 50 years old. Yesterday they released a new sketch (based on a new witness??) and the suspect now looks 20 years old...very confusing.
I think LE either know who did it (and are chasing more information) or they have absolutely nothing. I am hoping it's the first one above and there will be an arrest within the next month. Given they have the murderer on video and his voice, I am surprised this case hasnt been cracked yet.
Hi Zed, yes, familiar with the case when it first happened. Yes, big difference from the sketch to the video image. Hopefully someone can recognize his gait, jacket, habit of having hands in pockets,etc. The girl was smart to use her phone to capture what she did.
CBS is owned by the CBS Corporation. A & E is owned by the Hearst Corporation and Disney Television. As there is no overlapping corporate interest, I fail to see how the recent programs could be part of the settlement, nor do I understand how a settlement is not a settlement. Even had they settled for $1, it's still a resolution of legal differences, ergo a settlement.
Patsy stated many times that JBR was asleep when they arrived home, and was put to bed in the shirt she wore to the Whites' and a pair of longjohns. Why bother to remove a hair tie?
I don't see the significance of John producing a "last last" picture. He was bound to produce some photo or other to provide pathos.
Yes, she could have gone to bed in her hair tie - well obviously she did, it's visible in the death picture. But weren't we all told her hair was pulled back in two ponytails and the sketch given leaves out a printed hair tie? Also why would John release a last picture (Jonbenet in white shirt of some sort and a black vest looking surprised and tired with absolutely no Christmas decorations in the background) now, 23 years later. Where was it taken? Their house was literally littered with Christmas bric a brac. Was it taken at the White's? Why no pictures of Burke? They originally said the pictures taken on Christmas morning (2 of JB, one of Burke) was the last picture.
Did Patsy put JonBenet to bed? She seems to have a lot of confusion around this issue - the lights were out she says (since they can't explain why her bedlight would be on the next morning)did she just feel around in the dark for something to put on her? Oh no wait, there was a faint light coming from the bathroom she thinks. But can't account for the oversized panties. John can see in the dark too I guess. Or maybe she didn't go to bed at all. But was redressed.
Then there's the fact that Burke was allowed to play up late. Allowed - in that both parents were otherwise engaged. Is it more likely she would want to see what Burke was up to or was she zonked out in the car and remained asleep from the car - especially since Burke originally said she walked in from the car on her own steam.
John has changed his story too from reading a bedtime story and red turtle neck attire to no, she was asleep and thought Patsy got her ready for bed (in the dark of course) by leaving a white sweater on and feeling around for longjohns and can't account for oversized panties. If one is lying, both are lying. It's one thing to present a united front for the police, it's quite another for one individual to lie to a spouse - who was there - in the house.
Was there an actual settlement - involving money? When Michael Jackson settled they added "for an undisclosed amount of money." Is that the language that was used with Burke Ramsey vs. CBS and Werner Spitz? I'm asking, I don't know.
As far as I know, Judge Groner's Order has not been released to the public. All we have is a quote from his clerk, saying the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. It is not incumbent upon a judge to use any particular language in an Order.
I think it probable that there was a hefty sum involved; Lin Wood didn't get rich settling JR's lawsuits just for "good and valuable consideration", and there was no reason whatever for the Rs to walk away empty-handed when they had a clear cut case of defamation per se.
We've been hashing over the rest of your remarks here for many years - perhaps you could go back through Doc's archives if you're interested in these discussions.
Thank you for the legal answer. And I agree, Lin Wood wouldn't state that they were pleased with the outcome had there not been some settlement amount given that was agreeable. Rolling Stone also says John's lawsuit was dismissed. With a payout, or not?
To my mind and in the era of hoaxes in general, John Ramsey's hoax on the American public is his lawsuits. And of course the hoax that he doesn't know who murdered his daughter. Not an accident, but murder. I think I'll stick around here if you don't mind, off and on, a little while longer.
Anon, I replied upthread about the photos. I don't know how the search function here will do on the lamps, but that is also a current discussion on reddit (*I am not registered there, but they have plenty of topics)
I couldn't believe they put up a photograph of the basement window... wide open... obviously suggesting to the audience that John found it that way. Dr Oz should have done his homework and asked John what he did when he saw the window like that. Or, better yet, called him out on the fact that he originally told investigators that the window was open less than an inch.
Same old Ramsey narrative, other than John saying Burke once constructed some kind of barricade outside his bedroom door. He didn't say at what age, but it was sometime after JB's death. I'd never heard that before. But, then again, I have trouble believing anything John says.
Interesting that a guy who, 2-3 years ago said he'd done his last interview has suddenly done two in the last month.
Interesting too that he's now throwing out new information, like Burke's barricade, and the mysterious couple he claims now to have seen twice on Christmas Eve and later in front of his house.
Lou Smit's family has a Go Fund Me account with proceeds to search for DNA matches to JonBenet's killer. They appeared along with John on the show. I imagine that John felt he had no choice but to support their efforts.
According to their website, they have raised over $30,000 in 15 days. Their goal is $100,000.
I think Lou Smit truly believed an intruder killed JB so I don't fault his family, but if John is guilty(or knows who is), his association with these efforts is beyond sickening.
Oh my, the go find me has been done before. Compare the DNA to what exactly? Items the family kept? How could they have access to what is in possession of LE?
The Smit Go Fund Me fund just shows the extent people will go to be right - when they feel they have been maligned in some way. And in the interest of transparency, new DNA testing was already done what, two years ago - 2016 - using the new CBI facility, completed, and then filed away.
Perhaps the Smits' intent is to fund familial DNA testing by the BPD and CBI on various sites like Ancestry.com. This has proved very successful in a number of cold cases in the last two years, though I question its efficacy in our case where, as I recall, the DNA was found to be a mixture of three individuals.
John seems to like the limelight. Lin Wood has gone on to represent Nicolas Sandman in a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post - $250M and CNN for $275M. Lin Wood has said he hopes there will be no more Ramsey lawsuits against "this fine family". One has to wonder though does John Ramsey hope the same? It's possible if his company Access Graphics had fulfilled on John's dream for it - going global, becoming a multi-billion dollar company - that he would have been wealthy beyond belief but with his lawsuit payouts I don't think he has to fly little Cessna planes for a living anymore unless he wants to. There is something other than money that's driving John or as K says "it is beyond sickening."
He craves the spotlight as a 'professional victim.' The best thing he could do for the world is just stay away from the media, but he can't help himself. Disgusting and, as they say, what a waste of protoplasm.
Here's an interesting cold case involving paper, handwriting, etc. that got solved.
34 years ago, police used an Alabama phone number to solve infamous murder of 2 girls - al.com https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/34-years-ago-police-used-an-alabama-phone-number-to-solve-infamous-murder-of-2-girls.html
The (Lindbergh kidnapping) March 1,1932.(Charles Angustus Lindbergh Jr) Read the Ransom note . Read the article. a few similarities to the JBR ransom note . Baby found. autopsy Cracked skull , mother found the note.suitcase under window, Google. Read the story interesting ...
Sorry, but this is a facile view of a tragedy that occurred 62 years prior to JBR's murder. In fact there are no parallels, other than that a child was killed and the single page RN in Lindbergh makes reference to a specific sum of money (more than $1M in today's dollars), and a caution against calling LE - standard fare for RNs.
In Lindbergh the child was in fact removed from the home, unlike Ramsey. In Lindbergh a ransom wad paid, unlike Ramsey. In Lindbergh a perp was arrested, tried and convicted, unlike Ramsey.
The Lindbergh baby was indeed kidnapped and subsequently found, two months later and just a few miles from the family home, unlike Ramsey.
In Lindbergh, the child was killed by a blow to the head, unlike Ramsey wherein the child died of ligature strangulation after a blow to the head.
In Lindbergh the child was found to be missing by his nursemaid, a RN on the windowsill. The articles I read on Google make no mention of Anne Morrow Lindbergh having discovered the RN, or even having read it. What's your source?
The articles I read on Google make no mention of a suitcase beneath a window - which in any case is immaterial, as the Lindberghs were in the process of moving in, the pertinent window was on the second floor, and access was via a ladder. What's your source?
Given John was a pilot, to where Burke had airplanes all over his room, I think it's pretty likely where John got the idea for a ransom note. I've certainly never heard a better reason.
Haven't you? How about classic misdirection, inherent in every line of the three page Ramsey RN?
Far likelier than John's having taken his inspiration from a sixty year old kidnapping case merely because he had a pilot's license and Lindbergh was a famous pilot.
Search "Ransom Note" on Doc's archives for a number of good analyses and discussions.
LE once wrote a post here which has resonated with me for a long time. I, too, believe what happened has the flavor of premeditation. I think JR realized he’d gotten himself into something he’d been extremely worried about for a while. The December trips speak to a mindset of creating so much activity that, if he worked up the courage to end his daughter’s life, he’d have all kinds of pre-planned activities to boast about. These activities would serve to prove he was up to his ears in being a good family man during the holidays.
The two most obvious activities were the Charlevoix trip, serving to keep the older kids away from the Boulder home and to have a plane ready, and the Big Red Boat trip. There’ve been some intuitive sleuths here who have already discussed the Charlevoix trip. (One item missed is that JR told Kane he would probably just have had a neighbor pick them up at the airport. Sounds like he hadn’t made arrangements though.) But I think not a lot is known about the Big Red Boat vacation. BTW, both the Charlevoix trip and the Big Red Boat trip were all planned by JR, not Patsy. Also, on another forum I discovered that Patsy made no mention of the Big Red Boat trip in her late -after Dec. 17 - Christmas letter. Who knows why..
The family Big Red Boat trip is fuzzily related by JR in the ’98 interview. When asked about it, JR’s attorney spoke up and claimed that he had a copy of the reservation for this trip. I did note the attorney did not say he had copies of the air tickets or the voucher for boarding which are furnished to those passengers who have fully paid for the trip. (I checked. My only experience with a package deal is once having booked a Club Med vacation. A deposit is made which guaranteed the reservation; payment is due xx days before trip.) The questions for me arose regarding the trip because it appears to me that John has almost a nervous tic reaction to explaining the plans he made for this trip:
12 MIKE KANE: Who made those arrangements? 13 JOHN RAMSEY: Patsy made the reservations? 14 MIKE KANE: Was it through the travel agent? 15 JOHN RAMSEY: The travel agent. Actually 16 I think I remember calling Walt Disney directly. I 17 think I might have gotten the number out of a 18 magazine or something. Because I think I remember 19 joining the Disney or somebody like that directly. 20 Because we had the option of going to Disney World 21 for a day or two, and we no, because Patsy didn't 22 want to. I Remember.
Here’s what I got out of that exchange: -John made the reservation by calling Walt Disney directly. -He had to join Disney or somebody like that directly. (?) -Patsy did not want the option of going to Disney World.
Then in the same interview is this: 20 They we were going to stay there (Charlevoix) for I think it 21 was till Friday. I forget what day the 26th was. 22 (INAUDIBLE) but we were going to stay for a couple 23 days and come back to Boulder around Friday. Then 24 I think the next morning on Saturday, we were 25 going to leave for this Big Red Boat trip with 0089 1 just JonBenet, Burke and Patsy and me. And that 2 was a package deal. We had tickets on TWA and that 3 was all kind of pretty pre-laid out for us.
John acknowledges later that they were going to stay two nights in Charlevoix, return to Boulder, get on a flight to Orlando to be on the Big Red Boat on Sunday. (Likely passengers would be loaded on the boat on Sunday, late afternoon, for the 3 or 4 day cruise.) To be continued in next post.
Here is where I am baffled on this "Disney" Big Red Boat trip. The Big Red Boat was owned by Premier Cruise Line. They had a contract with Disney which ended in late 1993. Thereafter, Premier negotiated a contract with Warner Brothers to feature the Looney Tunes characters on the ship. Instead of being tucked in by Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny would tuck the kids in bed. Premier did package the Big Red Boat cruise after the contract with Disney fell apart, so that passengers could spend another 3 or 4 days at either Universal Studios or Disney World, but they could no longer market themselves as Disney’s Big Red Boat.
Is this just another case of John’s memory failing him, thinking he called Walt Disney directly for this cruise, when Disney was no longer connected to the Big Red Boat? (Disney essentially torpedoed their agreement with Premier, planning on building their own Disney Cruise Line. It began to sail in ’98) I did consider that perhaps the ad was a package for a Disney World stay, and an offering of a cruise on the Big Red Boat. But, if they weren’t adopting the land portion of a package, why would JR say he had to “join the Disney or somebody like that directly”?
Essentially his information on the Big Red Boat trip is erroneous. Disney would not be a booking agent for the BRB if they were no longer involved with Premier Cruise Line, and a client didn’t want a hotel package at the Disney World. Why does he seem, to me anyway, as though he is searching around for an answer to an easy question? Did he phone a travel agent? Maybe. But if so he didn’t want authorities to question the agent; so came up with a response of contacting Disney directly. I think it possible he did pay a deposit for this trip, but never intended to take it. It was part of the “Show”, of being immersed in his family activities.
Am I all wet in thinking the Big Red Boat trip was a sham?
An interesting theory T, but I don't think we can put too much stock into what John said then, or says now. He considered himself above the law in 1996 when she was murdered and his concern at the time was to baffle, confuse, misdirect - outwit outplay, etc, etc. Over time he has gotten away with his part in it with the assistance of his trusted attorney, Lin Wood. Of course he needs to be ever-wary just in case someone new might want to take another look at the case but he has afforded the right as he sees it, to sit back, comment every so often about what he thought may have happened to his daughter, and still hold on to some of that early entitlement or elitism he had before. His role then was to cover up and it remains so today. I believe he considered what happened a family matter not subject to public or criminal scrutiny so if now he gets a few details mixed up so what. It's not so much that the Big Red Boat trip may have been a sham, but that their happy little family was a sham.
The appearance on the A&E documentary with Vargas and on the Dr. Oz program shows he is running out of steam to promote this charade. Since BR went onto Dr. Phil’s, he’s aware the public is not convinced by BR that the family had no role. Still amazes me that there is no remorse or shame in what he “programmed” his son to say on Dr. Phil. But he’s kidding himself if he thinks that he won’t be leaving his kids and grand-kids with an overpowering stench of these lies and the horror of what was done to JonBenét. -T
If what he and Patsy did, 12/26/96, was come up with a plan to absolve BR of any responsibility, they left him with a legacy of swirling suspicion and doubt. Isn't it odd that the older siblings have neither weighed in or offered their two cents worth, nor been interviewed by Dr. Phil (as many flavor of the month socially current victims of crime go to tell their story) in all these years - or rushed to the aid of their defamed brother, beleaguered father or pageant-preoccupied deceased step-mother (that one I can believe). What was done to JonBenet was a horror and no one seems interested any more in finding out just exactly what happened, when, how, or why such an elaborate coverup was believed imperative.
On the Elizabeth Vargas A&E documentary John Ramsey presented what he said was the very last photo taken of JonBenet. Earlier had not he and Patsy said that the Christmas morning photos were the last ones taken of her? It seems strange that John would wait 20+ years to show that picture publicly (perhaps he did show it to LE). Who took that alleged "last" picture, where, and exactly when? In the picture her eyes seem unusually large; she looks startled -- or scared.
Doc, the most recent information I read was a Q & A with Lin Wood, Westword Oct. 26,2018.
ReplyDeleteRe current status of law suit (LW) "The parties are in the final stages of document production and are also actively taking depositions. Discovery will likely be complete by mid-2019. I expect CBS will thereafter follow standard defense strategy by filing a motion for summary judgment. I am confident that such a motion will be unsuccessful and the case will move to a jury trial in late 2019 or early 2020."
Wood also speaks to the subpoena of Alex Hunter..." the 2016 documentary was rank speculation unsupported by any credible evidence and CBS knows it. CBS is in search of a defense it will never find".
K
It is not unusual for multi-million dollar lawsuits against multiple corporate and individual defendants to drag on because of discovery, ongoing motions, and hearings on procedural matters.
ReplyDeleteYour last paragraph is dead right, K, and for once I'm in agreement with Lin Wood.
Thanks for the info CC. I had also been wondering why this was taking so long.
ReplyDeleteI still question why CBS aired this show with the little information they had. I don't recall seeing anything that swayed me in the BDI direction.
K
Cynic that I am, I still maintain CBS did it as a ratings grab during the Fall 2016 Ratings Sweeps - a calculated risk to obtain multimillions in an advertising dollars - which paid off. Their legal department apparently frowned on the move, prompting them to go to an outside production company, Critical Content...now also a defendant in Burke's lawsuit.
DeleteThanks for the Lin Wood Q&A from Westword; good sleuthing, K, as ever.
The problem with the CBS investigative special is they got it wrong. It was flawed. Would Burke be suing if they had gotten it right? That would be extremely risky for him, and his father.
ReplyDeleteDifferent theme,but something to ponder for the BDI's of which I am one, if it were an accident, why the need to cover it up.
CBS attorney to John Ramsey:
ReplyDeleteQ: "You have testified that you slept soundly through the entire night of December 25th and 26th, never hearing a thing, and never going downstairs after going to bed, correct?"
Answer: "Yes."
"You also claim with complete and absolute certainty, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your son had nothing whatsoever to do with your daughter's injury or death correct?"
Answer: "Yes."
Q: "The evidence in this case, including your own testimony about the locked doors and windows leading into the house, and your own assertion that it was you who broke the train room window in the basement, shows no physical evidence to indicate that an intruder entered or exited the house that night, correct?"
A: "Not sure I agree with that."
Q: "I'm asking for a yes or no answer based on the evidence, including your own testimony."
Ramsey attorney: "Objection, calls for a legal conclusion by the witness. The evidence is what it is and Mr. Ramsey isn't the fact finder in this case."
Judge: "Sustained."
Q: "Isn't it a fact that your son's fingerprints were on at least one of the two dishes left out overnight, containing partially eaten pineapple and partially drunk tea in a glass, and neither you nor Patsy knows how those items got there, correct."
A: "Not sure." (transcript of earlier testimony read back by the clerk) "Ok yes."
Q: "Given your testimony here and the evidence in this case, isn't it fair to say that if you are correct that your son did not commit the assault that night, and you were never awake, that the only other person who could have committed the assault on JonBenet was her mother?"
Objection
Sustained
Q: "Do you believe Burke wrote the ransom note."
A: "Obviously not."
Q: "With no evidence of an intruder and your being asleep all night, do you know with certainty that Patsy did not write the note?"
A: (over objection, allowed by judge): "She did not write that note."
Q: Isn't it true that handwriting experts did not completely rule out Patsy as the writer of the note."
Answer: "Yes."
Q: "Could they therefore be wrong that Patsy could have written the note."
A: "I believe so, yes."
Q: "Those same experts ruled you out as the writer of the note, correct."
A: "Yes."
Q: "So if they could have been wrong about Patsy then isn't it fair to say they could have been wrong about you as well?"
A: (over objection): "I did not write that note."
Q: "I didn't ask if you wrote the note. I asked whether it is possible that those same experts whom you believe were wrong about Patsy could also have been wrong to rule you out as the writer of the note."
A: "Anything is possible."
Q: "You have a long history of suing people who have accused Patsy of hurting JonBenet, and you are suing my client for showing by reasonable evidence that it is possible that your son committed the act. Is it fair to say, given your adamant certainty about your son in this case, that you know for a fact, from personal knowledge known only by you, who committed the horrible crime against your daughter that night and attempted to stage a phony kidnapping by writing the ransom note?"
Black Sheep
Is this the partial transcript of a recent deposition? If so, please post a link to your source.
DeleteFiction. Hypothetical cross CC.
ReplyDeleteBS
Well, thanks for this piece of fiction, it was really good, objections and all! Very cathartic, I wish JR would be grilled this way, I used to fantasize about doing it myself!!!
ReplyDeleteSam
Good to see you, Sam. I was beginning to think the whole bride/marriage thing swallowed you whole.
DeleteGood to see you too, dear CC! The wedding almost swallowed me but in a nice, hectic and beautiful way! Now I am busy emptying my whole house cause we're moving to Guadeloupe in a few weeks… so hectic it is again!
DeleteBonne Annee, and bonne chance in your new life...and welcome to the Caribbean.
DeleteMerci CC! Bonne année to you too, do you live in the Caribbean yourself? Ill stay in touch anyways, I love this site for ever and I'm the loyal type!
DeleteRamsey(s) has/have the burden of proof in the case.
ReplyDeleteJohn professes to have been sound asleep during the events that transpired. In the act of avoiding culpability he has neutered himself as a rebuttal witness.
The only other witness to refute the physical evidence is the guy whose fingerprints are on a glass next to a bowl of pineapple that wasn't there when the night began, and his parents have left him out to dry.
The evidence of non-entry at the train room's basement window is irrefutable. The spider web still dangles in the breeze.
The grand jury believed an insider committed the crime.
Take the stand, John. You have to earn it this time.
Black Sheep
Never gonna' happen; this case will settle. But hey, fantasize all you please.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're wrong, by the way, about the burden of proof being on plaintiffs in this instance.
ReplyDeleteThe Ramseys are alleging defamation per se, meaning the defamation is obvious on its face. When the Michigan trial judge denied defendants motion to dismiss this past January, he acknowledged that fact. The burden is then on the defendants to prove that they did not malign Burke, which they cannot do.
It’s been a few years since I’ve looked at the MI defamation laws, but it seems as though the primary decision is whether BR is considered a private individual or a limited public figure – limited in that his notoriety pertains only to this case. Since he gave two interviews - to Paula Woodward and to Dr. Phil - before the CBS program, he may be legitimately a limited public figure. IDK. If so, then his lawyers must prove either malice or reckless regard by CBS.
ReplyDeleteJames Sammataro, an attorney and specialist in defamation law for Disney, gave an interview on this case. I’ve no idea if he is correct in his viewpoint, but some might find it interesting.
https://craigsilverman.podbean.com/e/the-craig-silverman-show-jan-7-2017-hr-2/
CBS, et al. would surely have incorporated your perfectly valid argument about a public/limited public figure and malice/reckless disregard into their supporting briefs for their Motion to Dismiss . . . which was denied.
DeleteI know nothing whatever about Michigan laws, but in my state, that would be all she wrote on that front.
Plaintiff's Attorney filed in Michigan due its lack of Anti-Slapp laws. CBS should seek, and will most likely obtain, a change of venue to a state (Colorado would be appropriate) that recognizes Slapp lawsuits for what they are: cases where oftentimes the plaintiff's goal is not necessarily to actually win the lawsuit, but to drag their critics to court and bury them under a pile of attorney’s fees and embarrassment until they cry “uncle!” and agree to be quiet.
DeleteIndeed the Ramsey attorneys have a track record of success in this area, having put the muzzle on a plethora of other Ramsey friends and authorities present with the Ramsey's, or with them in the house, at various stretches in the twenty-four hours leading up to John's discovery of the corpse and hauling it upstairs from the basement.
Federal Anti-Slapp laws are gaining momentum. First Amendment issues are involved. This case may about to become more interesting than ever.
On another note...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6504943/Making-Murderer-lawyer-file-bombshell-documents-prove-Averys-innocence.html
Minnesota Linda
Can you clarify? The Rs’ attorney stated in his initial brief that BR was a private figure. You believe the lawyers for CBS would have indicated in their motion to dismiss that BR was a Limited Public Figure. Since the judge dismissed the motion, does this mean that the judge has endorsed that BR was a private figure as the Rs’ attorney claimed? Or was he simply disallowing the motion to dismiss?
ReplyDeleteI've not seen Judge Groner's 9 page ruling denying defendants' Motion to Dismiss, so I've no idea if he addressed that issue, but deny it he did, in toto.
ReplyDeleteExpect a defendants motion for a change of venue.
DeleteThere are no grounds for a change of venue, and this is not a frivolous lawsuit - the kid was accused of murdering his sister on national television, absent any evidence. SLAPP does not apply.
ReplyDeleteHi all, some online chatter this week - juror13 and cotton star have done an entry on the pink Barbie nightgown.
ReplyDeleteAlso those familiar with the Jonbenet forum on websleuths they have announced the arrest of Super Dave for sexual crimes with a minor. Those links are over on topix.
Well talk about a surprise, topix forums were active today and are no longer when I checked at 5:30pm. The forums are gone and the site is directing people to go to patch.com.
ReplyDeleteSending out my thoughts for Jonbenet on this anniversary of the night her life was taken, so brutally, such injustice.
ReplyDeleteNews article written December 24, 2018
ReplyDeleteIDENTIFYING JAMESON
"Hickory’s peculiar connection to the JonBenét Ramsey murder investigation"
Lengthy piece on the case and the woman who inserted herself in the investigation and the family.
Link to story
ReplyDeletehttps://www.hickoryrecord.com/life_entertainment/hickory-s-peculiar-connection-to-the-jonben-t-ramsey-murder/article_a89b2b1a-0540-11e9-9ef8-dff6a0534206.html
Since it is the anniversary week of JonBenet's murder I have looked at some of the articles and the accompanying photos.
ReplyDeleteI think Burke was correct in that he got a bike that year.
In the photo of JonBenet standing near two bikes, the one in the foreground that appears to be teal, is a boy's model due to the frame.
Unless she asked for that model, or her parents chose to pick her one with two bars from the seat to the bars, verses a single bar made for girls.
Oh well, boys longjohns and a boys bike.
Can someone tell me where Burke made the statement about 'pretending' to be asleep? Was it on Dr. Phil or in one of the police reports.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
In the midst of a very pleasant Christmas Day spent with family, my thoughts kept returning to JonBenet. You see, I can't forget this case, and I ask myself why not. After all, I hear horrific stories on the news almost daily of abused and murdered children, and while hearing these stories causes me pain, I'm able to let them go. Perhaps I can't let go of the case of Jonbenet because her murderer has not been identified publicly nor apprehended. Perhaps it's because she was killed in her own home during Christmas -- a time when children are typically happiest. Perhaps it's because she was so young, innocent, and angelic-looking. Whatever the reason, I just can't stop thinking about her death, and I frequently pray that the truth of this case will come out soon and the murderer, if she or he is still alive, will be arrested. But why do I feel this will never happen? Law enforcement screw-ups? Big money and influential people? Blood is thicker than water? Blackmail? Seems to me it's not likely a stranger came into the Ramsey house that night and brutalized and killed that precious child and no one heard a thing. But, hey, anything's possible. Right?
ReplyDeleteHi there, DocG!
ReplyDeleteIm just here to give you some well-deserved love/flattery. Your blog is excellent, it is absolutely fascinating to see the discussions here. CC, Sam, Miss D, Inq and so on, I see you too! Youre all great and possess some impressive mental faculties, reading through the debates I am learning so much, and Ive been starved for good debates for years. Also, I probably missed someone who has contributed; sorry for this in advance.
Thank you for putting logic at the forefront. The gods knows I needed it, after some years of being into true crime. It was very frustrating to read others theories; at some point feeling "is it just me or has the whole world gone crazy?". This blog has remedied it and I can just leave it be, unbothered, now. Thank you so much for it.
Also, thank you for all your work with the Jonbenet case. Her murder has always been one of those I avoided, since its unsettling. I also always wondered why the father was completely out of the question as perpetrator; for personal reasons, I know that its not at all uncommon for parents to hurt their children. Ive read a lot on father-daughter incest and as soon as I read about her bedwetting, the recurring infections and the paint brush handle (which I believe was used to distort and obscure evidence of previous abuse), I started researching WHY he was ruled out. This is how I found this blog, eventually, about a year or two ago.
Ive experienced first-hand that people are very prone to blame the mother. To me, as soon as I read about the visits to drs, I ruled her out in regards to sexual abuse. No parent sexually abusing their child in any way would take their kid to the dr, or I mean, it is very uncommon anyway. I truly do not know who killed Jonbenet, I wish I did. My guess is her father though, and until there is evidence proving otherwise, what I will always believe. All the signs are there, and the entire world looking away is both a disgrace and an injustice towards not only JBR, but all kids abused and murdered by a parent.
We have a household where one child wet the bed and had constant vaginal infections, at six years old. The other child smeared feces at age nine. These signs, on their own, is not very much, but combine it and you see two kids reacting to something. It is arrested development, in psychological terms, its what 3, 4 year olds do to control their environment. It is a known defensive tactic of children being sexually abused, as pee and poop would not only gross out the perp, but also cause a commotion (needing sheets and clothes changed, perhaps even a shower).
I think Patsy knew, somewhere in the back of her mind, all along, but did not want to admit it. The setup with the ransom note was to confuse and scare her. I am certain she held great gratitude towards John, as he was 15 years older and the rich party of the two. All those drugs afterwards fogged up her mind even more. At some point, I think she must have realized but saw no way of admitting after 1. the world accused her, 2. she fell ill, 3. she saw right after the murder how resourceful John was with public opinion and DA connections. She would have absolutely no way of winning against him; if she admitted to knowing anything more about JBR she would be crucified by the press and deemed a liar.
It might sound cheesy, but this is one of few places where I feel the goal is truth. Almost every other place is filled with people looking to be right. I hope one day, we learn the truth, and I wish I am wrong. I wish she had a genuinely loving father during her short six years, who treated her with respect and care.
Thank you so much for your hard work, time and dedication. Lets hope 2019 brings some closure.
Forgive me if I'm preempting Doc, but Ka and I have corresponded privately, and I'd like to be the first to welcome her to the discussion.
DeleteShe's a Swede, and joins our international community here, which includes evej, a Brit; Zed and MsD, the Aussie contingent; and Sam, who is French.
Speaks well for Doc, does it not?
Thank you, CC. I will most likely continue to mainly read, but am considering to at some point write up my own thoughts and post somewhere, somehow. Theyre scattered unless I put in an effort to focus it, and would require at least a few proper sources. We will see!
DeleteThe lawsuits are terminated.
ReplyDeleteNo one is talking - not even Lin Wood.
The Clerk for Judge Groner said the order declares that the claims against those producing the documentary "are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees. Case is closed."
CC, thoughts?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt means they've settled, the terms of the settlement are sealed, and the issues may not be raised again, ever.
ReplyDeleteJust saw this mentioned on reddit
ReplyDeleteAn NPR article said
"...Burke Ramsey...
settled a defamation lawsuit against CBS Corp. and several others on Friday, his lawyer told NPR."
Interesting. Off to read the other news outlets on this.
John's lawsuit is terminated as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailycamera.com/ci_32365820/jonbenet-ramseys-brother-cbs-settle-750m-defamation-suit
Hmmm.
". . . Everybody knows this is nowhere", Neil Young, 1969
ReplyDeleteBleak, I know, but so it seems to me at the moment, as we appear to be foreclosed from gleaning any useful information from the lawsuit settlements.
Settlement agreements prohibit the parties and their legal teams from making statements, else they risk voiding the agreements and incurring contempt of court citations.
I had hoped for leaks from the legal teams long since, but that hasn't happened. I had hoped some eager beaver journalist would scour the court dockets and court files in Michigan for, if nothing else, subpoenas, subpoenas duces tecum, notices of deposition, motions and the like, but that hasn't happened either, which leads me to suspect that perhaps the court proceedings are, have been, and will remain closed.
Anyone have other, better news?
Does it prohibit those people who had been served subpoenas from any discussion on this?
ReplyDeleteI wonder due to the numerous subpoenas per the Daily Camera that said many were served
"including onetime Ramsey private investigator Ellis Armistead, former Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy, Boulder's High Peaks Elementary School — which both Ramsey children attended at the time of JonBenet's death — as well as Dr. Francesco Beuf, JonBenet's pediatrician."
(I don't see this as CBS losing face or being in the wrong from the settlement and dismissal decision)
Diamond Lil, there was a defamation attorney who at one time worked for Disney who provided some thoughts about the case to Craig Silverman. He believed, and I'm sure it's simply his opinion as an attorney, that it would have been a huge climb for Lin Wood, based on the high standard of defamation for a Limited Public Figure, which BR is by virtue of the interviews he's given. If interested it was still available as of a few weeks ago at:
Deletehttps://craigsilverman.podbean.com/e/the-craig-silverman-show-jan-7-2017-hr-2/ Starts at 16:41
Dr. Beuf died in 2017.
ReplyDeleteTruth is an absolute defense to defamation. If CBS had it, they would have stood by it and taken it to trial. They did not. Give it up, Lil.
ReplyDeleteI asked about the other folks that the defense had subpoenaed.
DeleteCBS has not admitted publicly they were in the wrong.
John's case was dismissed as well, so that's his "truth" too.
No need for a pissy reply to this. Geez.
The "other folks" are as free to speak now as they've ever been.
DeleteIt does not matter that CBS "admit they were in the wrong". The fact is that they settled a case they could have won had they had the truth on their side.
I thought he had passed away. Perhaps the author meant medical records.
ReplyDeleteThere's a chance that everything CBS documented WAS the truth....the problem is they can't prove it. Just like no one can prove it was Patsy or it was John. That's the reason why this case is still unsolved and why people are still talking about it 20+ years later. So CBS and Burke/John reaching a settlement was always going to happen.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that can be proven (in my eyes) is that it was NOT an intruder. It is also logical to assume that Burke did not write the ransom note. Which means that either Patsy, John (or both) were involved in some way. With this lawsuit now settled, I think the only chance of any of us knowing exactly what happened, is a deathbed confession from John (when that time comes). But fat chance of that happening.
PS. I hope everyone has a great 2019!!!
Hey ya Zed. I hope to have a good 2019, as my plans are to just not bother with the blog after this. The snark and hostility to "you people" like us that don't agree with everything is not worth any more time.
DeleteBut you are a good egg and I think you'll have a smashing new year!
If you haven't checked out the jonbenet reddit forum you might enjoy the input and explanations of "awillis" and "cottonstarr" among others.
Also the Daily Mail article on the lawsuit settlements/dismissals has over 1000 comments with a good percentage agreeing with CBS. And most are comments from non-USA people. :)
(and I will leave you with the tune from that great Aussie group Little River Band - The Nightowls)
"...He'll get the girl 'cause he looks so fine
He's gonna win her every time
He knows he will, he's out there still
He's a night owl..."
{And for later tonight Roll Tide Roll!!!}
Again? Still? Both Hunter and Beckner publicly exonerated Burke twenty-some years ago, and now CBS, et al. have taken a fall - yet you people persist. You've usurped Cleopatra, and are now the new Queens of Denial.
ReplyDeleteWere not JR and PR both exaonerated by Lacy ? I guess that makes in an intruder CC ?
DeleteApparently exonarations mean absolutely nothing in this case. CC, I thought you were smarter than to speak out of both sides of your mouth ?
And so I am. Mary Lacy's "exoneratitions", based on faulty DNA, have been thoroughly repuudiated. Do a little homework.
DeleteI must admit, I haven't been following this blog very carefully for a while, as I've been preoccupied with other projects. Thanks to some prodding by CC, however, I just now took a look and lo and behold, after so many months of patiently waiting, it turns out that the CBS case has been settled. Hoo Hah! Thanks to the sleuths posting here that knowledge has finally reached my myopic eyes, which missed the media coverage entirely. I have a feeling we'll be learning some more about the details presently, especially if Charley Brennan is still on the case.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit I'm disappointed, but the secrecy in itself tells us something interesting. I felt sure Lin Wood was going to insist on a public apology from CBS, and felt equally confident that CBS would strongly resist anything like that. The fact that no apology was forthcoming tells us that, as many have always suspected, Wood is in it exclusively for the money and has no real interest in protecting the reputation of either Burke or John. A settlement without an apology does nothing to protect Burke's reputation, but does put lots and lots of cash into Wood's pocket. Though we may never know how much exactly. It's possible no money was involved and both sides just decided to free themselves from this huge legal morass and back off.
From our point of view, this is a real disappointment because we were all hoping to learn more about the case as the lawsuit progressed. Instead all the details will apparently be sealed.
In the immortal words of Phillip Roth: Goodbye Columbus!
David J Hughes, who is an author/expert on the JonBenet Ramsey case and wrote An Angel Betrayed about it, has been arrested for aggravated sexual assault of a child, possession of child porn and promoting a recording of child porn.
ReplyDeleteOh wow! I read his book, it's really bad. So there we have it...
DeleteSam
Though Doc cleared up so much about the case, I still could not understand why Patsy or John had friends come over, or why John allowed it. One could imagine it had something to do with Patsy being scared of John, and it had the effect of contaminating the crime scene, but I'm not sure either of those are the reason.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, I think I would borrow two of Doc's points to clear that up:
1) John was going to use friends to take Patsy and Burke away to "deal with the kidnappers"; he wasn't going to just put them on the curb and tell them to get a hotel. Though, I'm not sure how either one works if they were being 'monitored'.
2) The cops mistook "tomorrow" to mean that morning.
Did John allow - or even suggest, friends to come over, hoping that the cops would eventually leave to let him deal with the kidnappers by tomorrow, and send Patsy and Burke away with friends?
I'm sorry you feel that way, Lil. I did not intend my remarks to be "snarky" or "hostile", but rather succinct.
ReplyDeleteTruth is, literally, an absolute legal defense to defamation, yet CBS has chosen to settle. Beckner and Hunter both stated publicly and unequivocally that Burke was not involved.
I don't know how to sugarcoat that for you, nor do I know how BDIers can continue in their obdurate belief in the face of those facts.
Is there even a remote chance that anything new in the case could come to light? This is so frustrating that it is 2019 and we don't have a clear answer.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Doc, was just curious if you ever had any interest in the Adnan Syed case? Another really interesting truecrime story that I can't seem to get enough of.
ReplyDeleteBurke being sent away with friends on that fateful day is always something that has boggled my mind. If the Ramsey's weren't involved, than that means an intruder came in and murdered JBR. Within hours of the police arriving and no clues to the identity of the killers, John and Patsy thought "hey, let's let our only living child go off with friends." It makes no sense, because how would you know if you could trust anybody, including your close friends.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to the 911 call over and over, I believe you can hear Burke's voice in the background at the very end. What he said isn't nearly as important to me as John and Patsy lying about Burke being asleep. Why lie about such an insignificant deal? What does Burke being awake during that time have anything to do with anything? I believe Burke was sent away with friends because the police wouldn't be there to question him. Burke is and always will be the key to the whole case and whether or not he one day talks, we will never know. I am a firm believer that BR accidentally killed his sister and John assisted in the cover up. But, no matter what anybody believed, Burke Ramsey knows a whole lot more than he has ever said. He breaks his silence after all those years conveniently when CBS is about to air a special naming him the killer......thats convenient timing. #pineapple
-J
I used to think it was an accident J. Not anymore. I think he hit her over the head to keep her from screaming when he was sexually experimenting, or interfering, whatever you want to call it in a 9 year old, one month shy of 10 boy, who was neglected, disturbed, and conversely jealous of his sister. CBS got part of it right, but dropped the ball in other respects. So I no longer think it was an "accident" otherwise why the coverup. It could simply have been reported as such.
DeleteI can definitely see that as well. I think he definitely experimented on her and my guess is that one or both of the parents were aware of this.
Delete-J
I totally agree! Too many lies/amnesia from Patsy and I don't think she would cover for John so that leave Burke.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6555009/Pedophile-Gary-Oliva-confesses-killing-JonBen-t-Ramsey-accident.html
ReplyDeleteMinnesota Linda
Big whoop. So did John Mark Kerr.
Deleteper Denverchannel.com: Statement released by Boulder Police Dept. today.
ReplyDelete"The Boulder Police Department is aware of Mr. Oliva and has investigated his potential involvement in this case including several previous confessions. The department routinely receives information on this investigation. Information provided to the police department is reviewed along with the many tips and theories we receive. There are no new updates in this investigation and the department will not comment further."
Their statement sounds pretty clear to me.
K
I wasn't giving the "confession" any merit. Just thought I'd post it FYI.
ReplyDeleteMinnesota Linda
Glad you posted it ML, as I hadn't seen the reports yet. Yea, I think he is just a very disturbed individual that has been investigated before. Thanks for the info:).
ReplyDeleteK
No problem!
DeleteMinnesota Linda
Haha good to hear from you J.
ReplyDelete#pineapple
Isn't it peculiar how even people who believe in the (absurd) intruder theory, tend to believe it was "the intruder"? That is, they see this crime as done by one person. But if an intruder did it, presumably the note is genuine, and the note is about at least 3 people. A "group of individuals", "foreign faction", with two who don't like John watching over his daughter.
ReplyDeleteYes, the ransom note alludes to a "group of individuals," but where is the evidence that the crime was committed by more than one person? Well, okay. There was more than one person's DNA found on JonBenet's clothing, right? Touch DNA, a composite, not easily identifiable, could have come from people who came in contact with the clothing and not the child.
ReplyDeleteCommon sense says go back to the beginning, that the provocation for this crime began there. But where is the beginning? Is it Christmas morning when the family opened gifts? Or is it further back in the family's past? John and Patsy's first meeting? Their wedding? Burke's birth? JonBenet's birth? Patsy's cancer? And what if "the beginning" occurred outside the family? Perhaps it was when a stranger spotted Jonbenet and became obsessed with her. But with the "stranger" scenario the ransom note seems redundant in that it wouldn't benefit the criminal and might provide clues as to her or his identity.
I like Doc's theory; it's very logical. But for some reason I can't imagine John Ramsey sexually molesting and killing his daughter. I do know, however, that such things occasionally happen in the homes of educated and affluent people. And John didn't show much emotion after JonBenet's death. Perhaps because he was trying to stay strong for Patsy and Burke?
Doc's theory is logical, I agree. In addition, John did and said many things that raised "red flags" in my mind.
ReplyDelete1) He stated he went to the basement to find out how someone got in the house. He found a broken window which he said was open with a suitcase under it. Why wouldn't an innocent man with a missing six year old immediately report it to the officer upstairs?
2) John went on CNN right after burying his little girl, and stated he just needed to "know why", so they could go on with their lives. What the ...?? That's not normal.
3) When John Mark Karr was arrested, after corresponding with Michael Tracy for months and describing in detail what he "had done" to JB, John stated he "started to feel sorry for the guy" because of way he'd been treated by the media. What father says that about a child molestor who described vivid fantasies about his daughter?
We've all known a lot of fathers in our lives. Would they do those things?
Just my opinion.
K
Happy "2019" everybody!
ReplyDeleteCBS settling out of court doesn't change my mind in the least. I still believe that BDI and JR and PR covered it up and wrote that RN together, with JR dictating and PR writing it and adding her own words here and there.
It's the reason for their strange behavior afterwards and their memory lapses. One big cover-up.
EG
CC , I do not need to do any honework I am well aware that JR's and PR's exonerations were rebuffed (as if they were ever valid to begin with) but I am humored by your logic or lack there of, as usual. As smart as you claim to be, you try and use the settlement of Burke's lawsuit as some kind of proof of Burke's innocence, as if it means a damn thing as to if he is guilty or not. It surely and clearly does not. I am not BDI but the flawed logic you use and then the arrogance to be snarky and rude when using such backwards logic and twisting of interpretation makes me giggle. Someone of your claimed intelligence surely can not be that mentally retarded. Going by your logic and train of thought then there is no way JR could have written the RN note because he was exonarated of writing it, by experts
ReplyDeleteObviously JR cant be guilty, what are you stupid ? ;) LOL
Where's your bloody sock, double space question mark?
DeleteHere's how CBS should have played this game, had they been able:
ReplyDeleteLink up as much circumstantial evidence as possible, like testimony from Savage and the other babysitter, the housekeeper, his third grade teacher, Fleet White Jr, Doug Stine, Hunter, Beckner - hell, maybe a grand juror or two, properly concealed - all saying Burke set fires, tortured animals, viewed porn, acted out sexually or otherwise behaved alarmingly. Set it all out in a trial, toss in some psychobabble. Because even when they lost, they'd have an exclusive new docudrama for TV, thus more than recouping their monetary losses and garnering massive ratings.
Except they couldn't, because none of it exists.
None of that was proven, as we
Deleteknow, you are 100% correct !
Your statement above is nothing more than more manipulation and more sleight of hand , it just doesnt work on me.
Clearly BR had some serious issues going on at this time, whether he was guilty or not . You claim to be soo smart and them immediately go and try to pretend that you do not understand and are going to disprove that BR had no behavioral issues.. Its humorous and you are doing nothing more than insulting your own intelligence.
Please list for me Burke's "serious behavioral issues" in 1996, and the witnesses who could attest thereto . . . and please do not include the shit-smearing in 1993 while his mother was hospitalized a continent away for Stage IV cancer, or the alleged candy box on JBR's floor (never tested).
DeleteAnd let's throw in the forensic guys who can somehow timestamp the fingerprints on the infamous bowl of pineapple, the DNA expert who no doubt has access to the "new' DNA testing (which can determine, ethnicity), and the trace evidence team who found not one hair or fiber from Burke on or near JBR.
ReplyDeleteThe forensic guys do not need to timestamp anything for the logic in my brain to work correctly. You are acting like I need to come up with evidence in this case to prosecute it ? All we have here is logic , no one here will be prosecuting CC, FYI ! Going by your above standards of evidence than you have absolutely not a single thing on JR other than logic....and pretty twisted , manipulated and backwards logic at that.
DeleteCC, there is not enough evidence to prosecute anyone in this case, does that make them all innocent ? Obviously not, so WTF is your
ReplyDeletepoint ? It is possible this case has been solved and sealed already.
Did CBS just make up falsities and lie, no they didnt. Many like Kolar (who was on the case and knows much more about it than you) believe BR to be guilty and you have not an iota more evidence or logic proving JR to be guilty than others do BR. In fact those fingerprints on that bowl is more evidence than you have on JR PERIOD. Your twisting and manipulating of the facts and evidence in this case are off the charts but you get a few ppl to buy into it. PR tells lies so that means JR is guilty, BR's fingerprints are irrelevant and his prints mean JR did it. JR is cleared for handwriting so LE screwed up. BR is clearly awake and in the room during the 911 so you cant hear it. PR fails a lie detector so that means she is innocent and it is voodoo sciencs...Do.you see how off the wall your logic is amd how you purposely manipulate and twist or
no ? You being of alien like intelligence can see it now right ?
You sure can bend and manipulate evidence pointing one way into evidence pointing the other way and into a nice logical end story. Now where is your evidence ? Oh yeah you have none , zero ? NADA FUCKING THING other than GUESSWORK AMD MAYBES, guesswork which was investigated by LE Ad Nauseam. You shouldnt come across so arrogant and confident when you are GUESSING! LOGICALLY GUESSING THAT IS.
You should be directing your comments to me as well, as CC and I are mostly on the same page regarding this case. You have a right to your opinion, but no right to accuse either of us, including the many others who have expressed similar views on this blog, of either guesswork or arrogance. The case against John is clear, and the facts have been presented on this blog many times over. Anyone can fixate on this or that detail to make just about anyone look guilty -- or innocent. But when one considers the case as a whole, taking all the evidence and facts into account, then, as I and many others see it, all roads point to John, acting alone.
DeleteAs for Patsy's "lies," once you settle on someone as a guilty party then it's easy to take anything they say and any action they might perform as a sign of guilt. I have no idea why Patsy looked through her fingers at officer French. Nor do I have any idea as to why he found that suspicious. And if Patsy "lied" about certain matters, I fail to see what she had to gain from those "lies." Whereas it's very easy to see what John had to gain by fabricating that story about breaking the window months earlier.
Also: mind your manners or I'll have to delete your comments from now on.
Pineapple in victims stomach, Fingerprints on bowl of pineapple belong to PR and BR. What would Sherlock Holmes say ? He would say that it is irrelevant, of course and that JR did it ! Keep digging
ReplyDeleteWatson! The evidence surely points that way cant you see it ! ������ I am not BDI in any way either. I am just someone who thinks your logic is so far out there and then on top of your manipulation of logic, you are arrogant about nothing other complete guesswork out of thin air , that it is beyond irritating.
For those who think Patsy had no knowledge or involvement, please explain the following:
ReplyDelete1- Why did Patsy peer through her fingers at Officer French when he came up from the basement?
2- Why did Patsy say the paper of the ransom note look familiar even though a copy was being passed around on the 26th?
3- How could she not remember why she called Dr B on the 17th 3x? If she called his office 3x it must have been something urgent.
4- Why so many lies? Sure some of it can be she honestly couldn't remember but way too much ramnesia.
Above poster- there is no Ramnesia only manilpulation of fact here to meet an agenda. Some of the things she lied about such as BR's boots disappeared out of the house AND she had no recollection of buying them either, even though itnwas traxed back to her being the one whp purchased them. One needs to go no further than to watch PR and JR depositions on YouTube where she basically claims the 5th repititively (I cant recall, I dont know) over and over. After wathing both depos it becomes very clear whose ass Lin Wood is covering and whose interview is purposely muddied and it surely is not John Ramseys.
ReplyDeletePatsy Ramsey Depo -
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/7YROdRPPP48
John Ramsey Depo-
https://youtu.be/JCDD3JJttHU
Just on lies alone PR should have been charged and was very close to being charged. Had the Ramseys had lesser attorneys than they did PR WOULD HAVE been charged.
PR was not charged because there was no case to be made against her. As should be clear, Hunter was desperate to pin this crime on "the Ramseys" but as an experienced prosecutor realized very clearly that he had no case.
DeleteAll opinions are welcome here, even mine. You should feel free to state your case, but quit with the personal remarks, OK?
ReplyDeleteI think your CBS argument is pretty brilliant, of course that is what they would have done if they could have and I am not even jdi.
DeleteSure, all opinions are welcome unless you disagree with them. Then they, and those who offer them, are fair game for your personal ridicule. But it seems agreeing with Doc gives you carte blanche to act this way. You should probably consider why other posters respond to you in such a manner. Might it have something to do with your own behavior?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe puke who did this crime had to be someone who knew JBR and her family very well.. He also was a person who could be away on Christmas Eve and Christmas day without anyone caring. The ramson note shows a close knowledge of the family
ReplyDeleteI was once PDI (and ignorant) and I don't see the problem with any of Patsy's supposed lies to JDI. It is very easy to see them all having to do with suspecting John - and that is hardly a problem for JDI!
ReplyDeleteSay she was looking through her fingers because she feared French would come up with the body. That could just as well mean she secretly suspected what John did rather than she did it.
And of course they were a "united front" and she had John's lawyers and all that. She could have easily felt she owed him some favors.
I agree.
DeleteI’m not sure why folks do not see who ruled the roost in the house. Yes, Patsy received an allowance to run the household, but JR controlled the purse strings. He executed their income tax forms. And, after Patsy’s death, he was still operating the sham JonBenét Foundation, a fraud upon the public. He wanted to move to Boulder, so they moved. He wanted a house in the older more established neighborhood, and that’s where they bought. He was the one who secured the lawyers. He was the one who “found the body”.
Also, I’ve never heard one good reason which explains that if BR struck his sister why 911 was not called. Let their beloved daughter perish without an examination of the head blow and a doctor’s prognosis, just to protect BR? Knowing JR’s narcissism, it doesn’t wash.
I know doc’s theory hinges on JR writing the RN, and, although I am willing to guess it possible, I will add this - even if Patsy did write the RN, it seems as though it could have been under the duress of realizing her daughter was deceased and either her son or husband had ended JonBenét’s life. The choice that night: Join JR after the fact or have everything fall apart in one dreadful night. With the amount of drugs she was consuming after the death, it’s easy to see why the investigators never got an opportunity early in the case to speak to her. Then her husband has 4 months to work on her story to assist him. How much she knew, I don’t know. But the only one with the supreme moxie and aggression to pull this off was JR.
Once again, I must insist. It's really quite simple: if Patsy were involved in an attempt to stage a phony kidnapping, she would not have called 911 when she did. End of story.
DeleteTrue as a simple 'surface' fact.
DeleteExcept that one must also admit the GJ heard and knows more than any Internet posters, and they developed a True Bill for an Accessory after the Fact charge against Patsy.
Against John too, don't forget.
DeleteWords of one of the Grand Jurors - "We didn't know who did what. We thought they did something they could have prevented, or they could have gotten her help and they didn't."
DeleteIn reply to Anonymous on 1/21:
ReplyDeleteI write as I speak. I'm a lawyer, a trial lawyer and a former prosecutor - we're known for blunt speech, not for sugarcoating anything for anyone, but nor do I ridicule, demean or namecall.
I tried to give Lil probate advice, helped her find unclaimed funds for her family a few years ago. Zed, EG, J and I disagree, yet I don't demean their opinions or them personally.
Anony-P, my above detractor, was badly shamed by me for citing false information about the Routier case, and so has an axe to grind. Likewise Lou/Castor/Inq with regard to the Ramsey case. But in neither instance did I resort to the personal - I simply stated facts in refutation.
So no, I do not believe it has "something to do with [my] behavior".
On what do you base your claim that lawyers, trial lawyers or prosecutors are "known for blunt speech"? I know several people who fit into those categories; none are particularly known for blunt speech.
DeleteAnd I think it's great that you helped Lil out. Just not sure what it has to do with my point. "I gave someone free advice, therefore I can't be considered rude"? And yes, when you tell other posters to "do a little homework" or call them "Queens of Denial", I think most find that rude and personally insulting.
The dialogue here would probably be more productive and enjoyable without such comments. But continue as you please.
Oh for god's sake. "Queen of Denial" is a trope, a meme . . . and a song:
DeleteOh Queen of Denial
Buyin' all his alibis
Queen of Denial
Floatin' down a river of lies
Pam Tillis, 1992
As Doc has said, this ain't a tea party. This is a serious discussion of an unsolved murder. I have, and will continue, to call out any who post misinformation, and urge them to do the work.
And if you think for a minute I will not defend my position in the language of my mien, then I can only assume you know some truly second-rate trial lawyers.
At this point I must urge both of you to tone things down, concentrate on the case at hand, and suppress the urge to make personal remarks and/or argue over personal issues. If I see this devolving into yet another flame war I'll have to start deleting posts.
DeleteYour assumption is absolutely correct, CC. In fact, their case loads are so light, they have seemingly countless hours to spend posting comments on blogs. Truly second-rate, indeed.
DeleteThe only one who posted falsities in the Routier case was you C.C. You posted more than once that there were Wet Towels used and there were in fact none. The facts were posted as well. Somehow when you post falsities they are not falsities however, as it is very clear that you are nothing more than a narcissist with a sharp tongue.
ReplyDeleteDarin confirmed the wet towels, and there are crime scene photos of them in the hallway.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDoc G, Your comment of "If Patsy Lied "states it all." You fail to admit that she lied bc your objectiveness in this case is so far gone that a videotape of this murder coming out and it not being JR would be rebuked by you. Your logic is twisted, slanted and manipulated to point towards JR and the silly question of what would PR have to gain is an Insult to your own intelligence. Its clear as day in any case that if someone is being looked at or a suspect in a case amd they can point their finger im the other direction and at someone else it takes the heat off of them, bkane shifting. So whether PR is guilty of not it is pretty clear that is exactly what she did many many times , whether for her or someone else.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for your answer to my question of 1/19 at 4:11, Anony-P.
DeleteCC, I do not have to prove that BR had emotional issues. I use common sense. Feces smeared in 93 and feces smeared in 96. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what is common sense... or I guess maybe you do to people of your superior intelligence LOL. BR was also seeing a counselor and those medical records were sealed and hidden. Common sense would be effective in this scenario here again. You can throw in reports from friends of family as well.
ReplyDeleteI dont think it takes a rocket scientist to see that he still has some type of behavioral and/or emotional disorder to this day, most likely the same one that he had back then but you even trying to portray that BR had no problems is humorous. There is a very good chance that he was and obviously still is on the lower spectrum of autism. The pineapple as well and his prints on that bowl are surely not meaningless, are they some.kind of proof he killed his sister ? Of course not. Those fingerprints however, are far more evidence of BR being awake and with his sister than any evidence you have of JR being awake or being involved in this case at all. So the logical inferences being drawn off that pineapple bowl make more sense than any evidence or inferences you have put forth about JR.
As far as PR making that call it proves nothing, her behaviors were so far off of what a mothers would be in that scenario that it reeks of BS. She knew her daughter's body was downstairs and thus the argument between her and JR that morning. She wanted to try and save her daughter still, its called denial and she did not want to leave or dispose of her daughter's body, thus the argument with JR.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
If JR did write that note you again can try and illogically explain how PR does not know of her husbands handwriting and spelling glich after being married or that long, among many other things that end up completely illogical and senseless in yor scenario.
Am I saying BR is guilty, no I am not but anyone claiming BR was a completely normal child and a computer geek just shows how distorted their thinking and logic are.
I am having a good time with the distorted logic and denial that the uber intelligent use, or lack there of .....
CC there is a probably a whole slew of people smearing feces right ? It was in style in 96 LOL. Possibly an intruder broke in and knew BR smeared feces in 93 so he planted the feces there in hopes to frame BR ? Or the housekeepers who cleaned up after JBR for years and changed her sheets reported her bedwetting but never said a word about her feces smearing for some odd reason ?
ReplyDeleteI am using your logic here ...maybe this maybe that
Perhaps an adult in that house needed to look up the definition of incest as well ?
ReplyDeleteAnd PR slept next to a cold blooded pedophile and murderer of her daughter for the rest of her life with no worries about herself or her son in the next room being the next
to be murdered....
COMICAL
Anyone who is going to kill their daughter "to shut her up" over sexual assaults is surely NOT going to chance leaving people alive if they have a chance of fingering said person for murder. Kill for sexual assault but leave alive possible witnesses to murder. Hmmmm
ReplyDelete..������
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis has probably been asked before, but did the cops ever check with local contractors to see if the window had been repaired? It seems like that would be a potential smoking gun.
ReplyDeleteBoth Patsy and John claimed they could not recall whether or not it had been repaired. The housekeeper reported that she knew nothing about any broken window.
DeleteIf the BPD checked with glaziers or contractors or even Marv Pugh, who did handyman work for the Rs, that fact has not made it into general public knowledge, Anonymous.
DeleteForcing speculative conclusions into definitive conclusions is an obvious mistake, which is exactly what you have done here on this site. All facts have to be taken into account, cherry picking one, especially in a case with all of the inconsistent and contradictive evidence will not solve this case. All evidence, as a whole, must be considered and taken at face value, which has not been done here. You all have a nice day
ReplyDeleteProfessor Plum
I have one question for everyone here. I have not seen anything about PR lying about and being verified by a McGuckin's worker as purchaser of the duct tape, the same type of duct tape used in the murder and the same price of duct type that is on the receipt along with the price and type of rope used in the garotte. This seems way too coincidental to be a coincidence, does it not ?
ReplyDeleteP
Are you suggesting that Patsy bought these items with the sole purpose of committing murder? If that's not the case, then the only other conclusion to draw is that she purchased the items for a completely innocent reason.
DeleteAs we know, Patsy's art supplies were also used in the murder/staging, so if she was trying to point the finger at an intruder, she failed miserably by choosing to use items that could be traced directly back to her...even being stupid enough to leave her paint tote right in the middle of the crime scene.
So either it is nothing more than a coincidence (keep in mind that it was probably Patsy who bought all of the household goods) or Patsy premeditated the strangulation of her daughter, along with the subsequent staging, days or weeks in advance (I'm not sure of the purchase date). If you believe it is the latter, you have to ask yourself what her motive could possibly have been, because the proposed PDI theories regarding an accident, jealous rage, or a bedwetting incident no longer apply once you start considering premeditation.
I was just wondering what the opinions were here, I am from the Websleuths site and had a discussion about this previously with varied replies. I do agree that this would obviously point to premeditation. It could be just a coincidence, I find it intriguing that PR denied using these for her art and buying these things in her interview. I am sure she had no idea these items could be traced, if not by luck and only by price of item they never would have been traced.
ReplyDeleteIf coincidental then why would she possibly lie ?
Thank you for your reply.
Simon
It's important to remember that the McGuckin's receipt was discovered by Steve Thomas, already an avowed proponent of PDI prior to that discovery. Remember too that it was a male, purporting to be John, who called the hardware store and made inquiries about the receipt after its existence became known.
ReplyDeleteMcGuckin's has (or had, during my years in Boulder) a store on Pearl Street, two blocks from John's Access Graphics office in the Pearl Street Mall. Are we sure it was not John who purchased the tape and cord, using the Rs joint credit card? Or do we just assume it was Patsy because it was her name signed on the receipt?
And yes, Simon, I absolutely believe the murder was premeditated - by John.
DeleteWhy is that important to remember? Should we simply dismiss and discard anything Steve Thomas did or said as disingenuous because he was "an avowed proponent of PDI"? That seems to be your implication.
DeleteAnd since John was criminally savvy enough to sign his wife's name on the receipt in order to shield himself from the transaction, are we to believe there was no ATM on Pearl Street(during your years in Boulder, of course) which would've given him cash and made his purchase virtually untraceable?
The leaps of logic you make are astounding. This is why it's so hard for people here to take you seriously.
Do you have anything to contribute or just jealous criticism of cc who most people take seriously. P could have got money from atm too if she was up to no-good.
DeleteWell actually, I've contributed plenty over the last 3 years, but your idea that my criticism stems from jealousy is absolutely laughable. Jealous of WHAT, exactly? Jealous of the fact that I'm not someone who purports to be a hot-shot lawyer but apparently has nothing better to do than spend my time trying to dominate the comment section on a third-rate blog? Seriously?
DeleteWhich begs 2 questions, why are you wasting your time on a 'third rate blog' and if you are such a big contributor why dont you sign your remarks? PPM
Delete1)I happen to like this blog and enjoy some of the discussion, but at the same time I don't pretend that I'm somehow changing the world by participating, using remarks like "this ain't no tea party". But that's ultimately what it is, a tea party, and there's nothing wrong with that, but why go out of one's way to piss in other people's tea? 'Oh, because I'm a lawyer; this is how we talk. Unless they're second-rate, of course'...
Delete2) I don't claim to be "such a big contributor", nor do I see how signing my remarks would be a reflection of the quality of my comments. And if you think so, it's odd that you didn't sign your own remarks to me until after you raised the point.
CC, I know that I read it was PR's signature and that a McGuckins worker had identified PR and said that PR asked her where the duct tape was. Not sure if this is true or not, I would have to resource that.
ReplyDeleteReading, hearing and watching about this case for 20 years it is admittedly very difficult to keep track of the wheres, whats, facts and fictions.
The call to McGuffins asking about that recipe was not JR but was a man posing as JR , his name was something Rapp I believe. He was something of a lifelong imposter for hire whose house or place of employment was raided by Boulder PD because he did this. I will post sources for these as it has been a very very long time since I read about them. The crux of my facts I bekieve to be correct so please excuse any minor details which admittedly may be slightly off due to how long it has been.
Receipt not recipe.
ReplyDeleteSimon
Yes, please list your sources, especially those verifying Patsy's signature as hers and the McGuckin's employee who supposedly identified her.
Deletehttp://extras.denverpost.com/news/jon012100.htm
DeleteSimon
That Post article does not allege Rapp made the call, but that he mined and sold Ramsey information to tabloids.
DeleteIt's my recollection that McGuckin's could not access the receipt without a laborious hand search, had JR call back, by which time BPD had placed a trap and trace on their phones. IIRC, the second call from JR could only be traced as far as a call anonymizer in Denver.
After reading and brainstorming, I believe LE found out about the purchases at McGuckins thanks to Mr Rapp. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/01/us/law-confronts-a-peddler-of-private-data.html
ReplyDeleteIn other news, apparently this killer was able to find an "adequate size" suitcase to transport his victim:
ReplyDeletehttps://people.com/crime/missing-new-york-woman-body-found-stuffed-in-suitcase-on-side-of-road-connecticut/
To believe JonBenet's death was premeditated murder and John did it is to believe that he is a special kind of cold-blooded monster. Have you closely inspected the autopsy pictures of JonBenet? Her poor lifeless body looks like she was tortured, and beaten, and burned with something -- perhaps a cigar. The head injury probably occurred when she was thrown across the room, or slammed against a wall or the floor. And I don't care what anyone says, there are fingernail scratches on her throat and on the side of her face. I know about such scratches, for I've had another person's nails leave indentations in my face. IMHO, her death has all the markings of death by extreme child abuse -- which is usually done by a parent or caretaker. But I wouldn't completely rule out a psycho intruder -- and some do leave written messages at crime scenes. One thing's for sure, a scrawny nine year old child did not do all that! It's scary to think the killer might still be alive and out there somewhere.
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence to suggest that JBR was tortured and beaten, or burned...as far as I know, we don't definitively know what caused the mark on her cheek, which I assume is what you're referring to.
Delete"The head injury probably occurred when she was thrown across the room, or slammed against a wall or the floor."
The autopsy report states that the head wound was caused by blunt force trauma, meaning her skull was struck with a heavy object. It wasn't the result of her skull coming into contact with a hard surface.
"And I don't care what anyone says, there are fingernail scratches on her throat and on the side of her face. I know about such scratches, for I've had another person's nails leave indentations in my face".
So we are to just ignore the findings of the examining pathologist (who concluded the marks were not abrasions, but petechial haemorrhages) in favour of your own knowledge based on nothing more than a personal experience?
Yeah, science...who needs it, right?!
You *should* care about what the coroner had to say, because he is the one who examined the body of the victim, and he is qualified to make the distinction between defensive wounds that have broken the skin and blood vessels that have burst under the skin. Someone merely viewing a photo of the victim cannot so easily make that distinction, especially when that person has no qualifications in the field.
I trust the coroner's findings...I have no reason not to, and he believes that JB was struck on the head, subsequently fell into unconciousness, and was then asphyxiated some time in the 90 or so minutes that followed the head blow.
One of the biggest mistakes when considering perpetrators happens all the time. Before Chris Watts was charged with the deaths of his wife and children, neighbors who had known the family and were on Watts’ side were horrified when he was charged. They never ever suspected. That is only one case among many of a person able to keep a shadow life deeply secret. Given that JR was able to keep his 2 year affair with a secretary hidden from his first wife, it does show a level of deceptive adaptability. One can’t go by appearances on religious shows as a standard of who a person is. Just sayin’.
Delete"Experts" occasionally make wrong diagnoses. And I am merely stating my own gut-feelings about the JonBenet Ramsey case. Seems like someone went into a rage (could have been drug or alcohol fueled) and abused the child and death or near death was the result. The rest (including the garrotting) was staging to make the death seem like a pedophile killed the child. Now I don't pretend to know who the abuser/murderer was, but my guess is a family member or someone who knew the family very well.
ReplyDeleteExperts sometimes get it wrong, true, but the examiner would have had to have flunked med school if he couldn't even differentiate between broken blood vessels under the skin and surface wounds caused by claw marks from the victim's fingernails...not least because, if JB clawed at her neck, he would have found skin belonging to her underneath her nails.
DeleteIf the Ramseys were staging the scene to appear as though a pedophile was responsible for the murder, consider the following oddities, which would indicate otherwise:
Why did they redress Jonbenet instead of leaving her half naked, suggesting a sexual assault?
Why did they stage a kidnapping complete with a ransom note full of very specific instructions if they wanted LE to believe it was a sexually motivated murder?
Why would a "garrote"-like device, especially one made from Patsy's very own art supplies lying in a tray not too far from where the victim's body lay, indicate a pedophile intruder?
As far as the staging is concerned, you see the cord loosely tying JB's hands together? That's an obvious, half-assed attempt at staging, as is the duct tape on her already silent mouth...the cord embedding itself deeply into her throat isn't half-assed, however - it's vicious and deliberate - it doesn't resemble the other weak attempts at staging. The strangulation isn't staging, it's the method of murder.
I agree - nothing about the cord around her neck and loosely tied hands was staging. Putting clean underwear on her was an attempt to cover up the sexual interference, the note was staging - divert the focus out of the house, look for a phantom kidnapper, break a window to stage an intruder, leave the flashlight in the kitchen in plain sight to suggest it was the weapon, wipe it clean of prints just in case it's collected as evidence. Invite all of your friends over to divert attention and contaminate and serve as eye witnesses that the parents are devastated and don't have a clue what happened. Remove Burke from the house as soon as possible. Both parents working together were successful.
DeletePeople think wealthy parents can't possibly be guilty of being neglectful parents. But this is exactly the case here. John put all of his attention into his primary baby, his business. Patsy made projects out of her children. Both children had bed wetting problems. After Patsy focused her attention on JonBenet Burke seemed to get better. Jonbenet got worse. 30 doctor visits in a year is abnormal. I think some of her injuries were caused by Burke - the bent finger, and of course the golf club incident. I believe both parents knew Burke was having problems but they again, neglected to address it. If anyone wants to solve this case they can start with the Grand Jury indictments and take it from there. John Ramsey is perpetrating a scam with his endless lawsuits. He knows who killed his daughter and Burke knows it too.
ReplyDeleteI was referring not to the markings which resemble fingernail indentations on JonBenet's throat and neck, but to a couple of marks which I saw on one side of her face. I believe the facial indentations which look like nail marks could have been made by the perpetrator of the crime when he/she grasped JonBenet's face in his/her hands, perhaps as he/she was angrily yelling at her. In this scenario there would be none of the perp's skin beneath JonBenet's nails. Of course, this is just conjecture on my part, as I was not there when this crime occurred. But I keep praying the truth will come out in this case and JonBenet will receive justice. It is infuriating that the person who took her precious life has gone free and unpunished for 20+ years.
ReplyDeleteI suspect Burke burned her by electrifying his train tracks, which were spread out around his Christmas tree in his room and part of the toy with bridges, garages,etc., John was helping him construct in his room - although John likes us to believe it was all done somewhere else, like maybe the livingroom. A few days before Christmas Burke was boasting he had gotten a poke from a deer fence, bragging about it. This could have given him an idea of how to turn one of his toys - the train track - into a toy that could give someone else a poke. I sincerely doubt the train track was used to prod her to see if she was dead. I think it was used while she was still alive. Same goes for the round slightly larger abrasion on her cheek and of course the bruising on the shoulder. Now he could have had help - there may have been another boy at the house, but that's difficult to prove. But EG always has good observations in particular that the Stines were not called on the morning of the 26th even though they lived the closest, and the fact that the Ramsey's moved in with them when they had plenty of other options such as a fully furnished condo at John's disposal near town.
ReplyDeleteIt was Patsy who initially said John and Burke were assembling a toy in the living room when she went up to bed Christmas night. John said so as well in his first interview with LE.
DeleteIIRC, Burke got a small shock from a deer fence on Christmas Day, at the Whites'.
The ME chatacterized the marks on JBR as "abrasions", surface injuries. Burns penetrates the epidermis, and are unmistakably different, and would have been described as burns, the skin excised and the depth of the burns described in the autopsy report.
There is no evidence that Doug Stine was in the house Christmas night. Surely the BPD would have noticed if the second bed in Burke's room had been slept in, and questioned that fact.
The Stines were employed by CU, and not in the same social strata as the Ramseys. The basis of their acquaintance was the friendship between Burke and Doug. There is no evidence the couples were close prior to Mrs Stine taking up Patsy as a cause until the Rs alienation from the Whites and Fernies, after Fleet White's meltdown at the funeral and Barbara Fernie's suspicions of Patsy's statements about the pry marks on the back door.
The condo on Pearl Street, where Don Paugh lived when in Boulder, was owned by Access Graphics, which distanced itself from John subsequent to the murder.
The Rs stayed with the Whites the night of the 26th, then the Fernies prior to the funeral. Upon their return to Boulder, they stayed with "Pasta Jay" Elowsky for weeks. The Stines came in a distant, and desperate, fourth - more evidence they were not close friends.
DeleteAs I said, I have no proof Doug Stine was there. But if he was there, he likely bike pedaled home, in a panic, and didn't stay overnight.
DeleteJonBenet would have been as excited as Burke Christmas day night, and wanted to stay up. I believe she woke up when they got to the house and given John and Patsy's mostly neglectful behavior around their children, Patsy probably stayed up to get things ready for the early trip the next day, and if she told JonBenet to get in bed she wouldn't know if she got up or did go to bed.
I've always believed part of Doc's theory. John's suspicious behavior around the broken window and suitcase, his many trips around the house where he was unaccounted for, calling friends over immediately to contaminate the crime scene - which was really the whole house, waiting for a call they knew wouldn't come, being separated from each other and showing no affection, Patsy in full make-up and wearing the same clothes, no fingerprints on the ransom note, etc. But all of that is consistent to me of knowing what happened
and covering it up because it was too late to do anything for her. Might as well protect their reputations, John's job, and what it would mean for them that they had a son who killed their daughter. They finally got him some help thought - two years of therapy with an Atlanta psychologist who specializes in child and adolescent behavior problems. His name is in the transcripts, he's still practicing.
Fyi - for radio listeners. Tonight's Coast to Coast with George Noory has Peter Hyatt on, and they did a discussion on the JonBenet case. I don't know what else they were going to cover, as I was driving and needed to get back home. Peter has a pleasant speaking voice.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me each non-John theory has a weird bit taken for granted that says they on some level know they're wrong
ReplyDelete1) Intruder theory. Taking the note at face value, it says there are at least three intruders, a whole 'small foreign faction'. Yet, even people who believe the note is real and people broke in sense that this crime was done by one person.
2) Patsy theory. Even Patsy did its seem to accept the note was left on the staircase. But if Patsy did it, it could have been anywhere, since she was I guess leaving the note for herself.
Not to mention calling 911 with the body in the house, using her own paintbrush, not changing clothes.
3) Burke did it, but a parent strangles her anyway.
What do you think abou Gary Oliva's confession?
ReplyDeleteHello everyone, hope all is well with you and yours!! It's been awhile.
ReplyDeleteI agree Anonymous about DS possibly being there and taking one of the bikes to get home. The R's never could remember how many bikes they had and who got what bike and when, which was always puzzling to me. What parent doesn't know when they purchased a bike and how many bikes they had??!
He could've also left via that broken window, using the suitcase to hoist himself up.
And of course, the Stine's were the very last people they saw that night and the closest in proximity and yet were never called to their house that morning which was also odd.
I think both parents covered it up and co-authored the RN. I don't think either parent strangled her or sexually abused her.
CC - They were close enough to the Stine's to drop off a Christmas gift to them that night. I don't know about you, but I don't drop Christmas gifts off to people I am not close to. And let's say they weren't that close prior to the murder, they certainly got closer afterwards. You might even say they were "as thick as thieves".
EG
I agree EG. The last trip on their list of gift giving and John can't remember how long they were there and who went in and who stayed in the car? Then we have cell phones that are new and not operational. No way to check if a call wasn't made later that night. There were 3 baseball bats strewn outside as well (it's been a while - 2 or 3)one of them belonging to Patsy. There were bicycle tracks leading away from the house. Then a conspiracy of silence which actually started the night of the Ramsey party. Why did that party break up so early after the 911 hangup and the police officer arrived at the door. A migrating ransom note - from the floor in the hallway seen by a friend through the windows - to the stairs, but no fingerprints.
DeleteI just read your comment again EG. I missed it before - but that's very possible that DS left via the broken window, maybe broke it himself to get out. Patsy seemed to think there was a broken window once upon a time and that she and Linda cleaned up the glass. John seems perplexed as to how it came to be broken, and offers an odd story about being locked out and dropping down into the window in his underwear. Burke corroborates his father's being locked out, but didn't actually see him break the window and go in that way. Then you have a neighbor who heard the sound of metal on concrete - the metal baseball bat being thrown outside on concrete - or perhaps used as some kind of leverage to get out? All of these years later I don't think the Ramsey's did Burke any favors. But I see why they covered it up - mostly for themselves. It would have looked very bad for them in the community, with Lockheed Martin, Access Graphics, their friends, to have headlines read "Minor child from wealthy family murders sister." And I think when they sent Burke to his room - possibly with a couple of benadryl, he might not have fully realized what he had done. "What did you find?" "What note?", etc. As for DS, he's alive and well, working in Atlanta and can be found on LinkedIn.
DeleteSorry, Elise. You know I love you, but this isn't even marginally interesting anymore. Best to your son
ReplyDeleteA brand new two hour TV Documentary on the JBR case. It's called Hunting JonBenet's Killer: The Untold Story. The next showing is on Sunday, April 14th at 12:30 PM (EST) on the Arts and Entertainment Network. Elizabeth Vargas is the lead journalist and spends a great deal of time throwing softball interview questions at John Ramsey. The whole documentary has an intruder slant, focussing on a guy named Todd Fuss.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip, Anonymous. In the trailer for the show, which I found on the internet, Vargas states that the Rs were exonerated by DA Mary Lacy. Students of the case know her "exoneration" in 2008 was based on flawed DNA analysis which, coupled with your remarks, does not give me much hope for the program, but I'll watch, of course. Look forward to your reactions tomorrow.
DeleteDoc does not have cable, so could not access this A&E "documentary", and asked me to post a precis, so here's my take:
ReplyDeleteThe show's premise is that the Ramseys were cleared by Mary Lacy in 2008. The producers hired a retired FBI ASA, Robert Clark, as their on-camera talent, presumably to give them an air of inestigative credibility. They allege that an "individual's DNA was found in three places on JBR, including uunder her fingernails. They allege that fibers from the clothes she was wearing that night were found in the suitcase. They allege that the dirt in the window well was obviously disturbed, "proving" that to be the point of ingress/egress of an intruder. They allege that the marks on JBR's back and face were "clearly" from a stungun
They propounded four intruder theories:
1) Todd Fuss, whom, after a labyrinthine 45 minutes involving a kinapping-for-hire plot, a cult and aliens, was excluded by DNA.
2) Michael Helgoth, because he committed suicide the day after Hunter's press conference saying the investigation was narrowing (no DNA).
3) Some random dude who was proved not to be in Colorado.
4) The Schonlau brothers, based on a prior child's death in Thornton, CO, and because one brother had a pedophilia conviction. DNA results "inconclusive".
John Ramsey found all four theories "huge" and "compelling". He says he never read the autopsy report, but states that the head blow came after the strangulation.
Never mentioned: the sexual assault the night of the murder and the Grand Jury's True Bills accusing Patsy and John of being accessories after the fact.
I found it all pretty lame, a sham, and yet another attempt to simultaneously clear John and Patsy and make a buck.
Anonymous - and any other viewers - please chime in.
In addition, John alluded to a mysterious couple whom he claimed to have seen twice on Christmas Eve, at church and later at dinner at Pasta Jay's, and then another time in front of 15th Street. News to me. Had anyone else seen/heard this before?
ReplyDeleteThanks, CC. Amazing that at this late date Lou Smit's seriously flawed theories are still being taken seriously. More "fake news" it would seem. lol
ReplyDeleteIt's been awhile since I visited this blog. This case is just so cold now, and Doc has covered everything about it, many times over. And I am convinced that Doc's theory is correct. But the A & E special caught my eye and I watched it. It was a joke.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it was completely one-side as to intruder vs. inside job. There was no mention as to the possibility of someone in the family being responsible other than a quick reference to the DNA and how it cleared Patsy, John and Burke. After that was said, they immediately adhered to the theory that an intruder broke into the basement window. Then they offered 4 possible suspects. After each suspect was examined, Elizabeth Vargas would ask John what he thought. What did she THINK he would say?? Of course he would say it was "huge" or "compelling." Did she think he would say, "Well, I don't know ... that guy doesn't seem like the type to murder my daughter" !!! Furthermore, I am very skeptical that he actually saw any of those suspects before, but of course he said he had.
CC, I found it very interesting that John states the head blow came after strangulation. Why would he even speculate on that? Personally, I think the opposite occurred.
This show seemed very amateurish, shallow, and limited in scope. At times it was almost cheesy. That retired FBI agent reminded me of an actor playing the part in a crime drama. And the investigator that filled him in on the case was the same investigator hired by the Ramseys.
I had to look at the credits when this show was over, wondering if John Ramsey had possibly had a hand in producing it. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some hand in it.
Doc, yes, this was "fake news" !!!
bb
I also wonder whether he had a hand in having A&E replay from 2016, The Killing of JonBenet: A Father Speaks, the very next night. Two pro-intruder theories with John-apologist angles presented back-to-back? It reeks of staged serendipity by the Master himself if you ask me. Or maybe it was part of the CBS/Ramsey settlement?
DeleteJohn has a chapter in their book DOI in which he talks about the intruder. He even includes the idea of someone perhaps making a 'snuff film'. An intruder who strangles a 6 year old and then proceeds to strike her viciously on the head somehow must fit his concept of total depravity. It's his methodology to contrast the intruder with his own "fake" religiosity and goodness. No one in their family could be that evil is the concept behind it.
DeleteOf course I had to watch that new show on JB and it started off kinda interesting but it was total bullshit, they chased down a few pretty out there 'leads'. Total waste of 2 hours.
ReplyDeleteWhat a coincidence that the "Untold Story" would be aired so soon after the CBS et. al settlement, which maybe wasn't a settlement? John is still perpetrating a hoax. And you left something out CC. John put forward a "one last last" picture of JonBenet. Why wait all these years to release it? And note the hair tie - which is evident in the picture of her partially covered dead body under the tree. Did she ever go to bed that night - or was she playing with someone, up late, as her neglectful parents were elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch the special but saw the media coverage. IMO that last picture is from the Whites taking the pics at their home, then later turned them over to LE and the Whites have never shared their copies. But likely the Ramseys attorneys or friends in the DA's office gave the Whites pics to the Ramseys. The hair tie, or additional hair ties are discussed on reddit, since the new photo was aired.
DeleteI see your comment now Lil - thanks. I didn't watch it either, but looking at the last picture it's clear she wore the tie in death. What did reddit say about it?
DeleteIIRC, that additional ties or bands were added later, after she got home, but when the parents said she was asleep and only mentioned putting long john's on her. That Patsy was questioned about how her hair was fixed and the ties. I think the discussion falls under a thread to the release of the new photo, prior to the tv airing.
DeleteChanging subject, anyone following the murders of Liberty German (14) and Abigail Williams (13) in Delphi, Indiana in early 2017?
ReplyDeleteThe initial suspect sketch appeared to be a man around 50 years old. Yesterday they released a new sketch (based on a new witness??) and the suspect now looks 20 years old...very confusing.
I think LE either know who did it (and are chasing more information) or they have absolutely nothing. I am hoping it's the first one above and there will be an arrest within the next month. Given they have the murderer on video and his voice, I am surprised this case hasnt been cracked yet.
Anyone else following this one?
Hi Zed, yes, familiar with the case when it first happened. Yes, big difference from the sketch to the video image. Hopefully someone can recognize his gait, jacket, habit of having hands in pockets,etc. The girl was smart to use her phone to capture what she did.
DeleteCBS is owned by the CBS Corporation.
ReplyDeleteA & E is owned by the Hearst Corporation and Disney Television. As there is no overlapping corporate interest, I fail to see how the recent programs could be part of the settlement, nor do I understand how a settlement is not a settlement. Even had they settled for $1, it's still a resolution of legal differences, ergo a settlement.
Patsy stated many times that JBR was asleep when they arrived home, and was put to bed in the shirt she wore to the Whites' and a pair of longjohns. Why bother to remove a hair tie?
I don't see the significance of John producing a "last last" picture. He was bound to produce some photo or other to provide pathos.
Yes, she could have gone to bed in her hair tie - well obviously she did, it's visible in the death picture. But weren't we all told her hair was pulled back in two ponytails and the sketch given leaves out a printed hair tie? Also why would John release a last picture (Jonbenet in white shirt of some sort and a black vest looking surprised and tired with absolutely no Christmas decorations in the background) now, 23 years later. Where was it taken? Their house was literally littered with Christmas bric a brac. Was it taken at the White's? Why no pictures of Burke? They originally said the pictures taken on Christmas morning (2 of JB, one of Burke) was the last picture.
ReplyDeleteDid Patsy put JonBenet to bed? She seems to have a lot of confusion around this issue - the lights were out she says (since they can't explain why her bedlight would be on the next morning)did she just feel around in the dark for something to put on her? Oh no wait, there was a faint light coming from the bathroom she thinks. But can't account for the oversized panties. John can see in the dark too I guess. Or maybe she didn't go to bed at all. But was redressed.
Then there's the fact that Burke was allowed to play up late. Allowed - in that both parents were otherwise engaged. Is it more likely she would want to see what Burke was up to or was she zonked out in the car and remained asleep from the car - especially since Burke originally said she walked in from the car on her own steam.
John has changed his story too from reading a bedtime story and red turtle neck attire to no, she was asleep and thought Patsy got her ready for bed (in the dark of course) by leaving a white sweater on and feeling around for longjohns and can't account for oversized panties. If one is lying, both are lying. It's one thing to present a united front for the police, it's quite another for one individual to lie to a spouse - who was there - in the house.
Was there an actual settlement - involving money? When Michael Jackson settled they added "for an undisclosed amount of money." Is that the language that was used with Burke Ramsey vs. CBS and Werner Spitz? I'm asking, I don't know.
As far as I know, Judge Groner's Order has not been released to the public. All we have is a quote from his clerk, saying the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. It is not incumbent upon a judge to use any particular language in an Order.
DeleteI think it probable that there was a hefty sum involved; Lin Wood didn't get rich settling JR's lawsuits just for "good and valuable consideration", and there was no reason whatever for the Rs to walk away empty-handed when they had a clear cut case of defamation per se.
We've been hashing over the rest of your remarks here for many years - perhaps you could go back through Doc's archives if you're interested in these discussions.
Thank you for the legal answer. And I agree, Lin Wood wouldn't state that they were pleased with the outcome had there not been some settlement amount given that was agreeable. Rolling Stone also says John's lawsuit was dismissed. With a payout, or not?
ReplyDeleteTo my mind and in the era of hoaxes in general, John Ramsey's hoax on the American public is his lawsuits. And of course the hoax that he doesn't know who murdered his daughter. Not an accident, but murder. I think I'll stick around here if you don't mind, off and on, a little while longer.
I do not speak for Doc, but for my part: Of course, all are welcome here.
DeleteAnon, I replied upthread about the photos.
DeleteI don't know how the search function here will do on the lamps, but that is also a current discussion on reddit (*I am not registered there, but they have plenty of topics)
Anyone see John Ramsey on the Dr.Oz show today?
ReplyDeleteI couldn't believe they put up a photograph of the basement window... wide open... obviously suggesting to the audience that John found it that way. Dr Oz should have done his homework and asked John what he did when he saw the window like that. Or, better yet, called him out on the fact that he originally told investigators that the window was open less than an inch.
Same old Ramsey narrative, other than John saying Burke once constructed some kind of barricade outside his bedroom door. He didn't say at what age, but it was sometime after JB's death. I'd never heard that before. But, then again, I have trouble believing anything John says.
K
Interesting that a guy who, 2-3 years ago said he'd done his last interview has suddenly done two in the last month.
DeleteInteresting too that he's now throwing out new information, like Burke's barricade, and the mysterious couple he claims now to have seen twice on Christmas Eve and later in front of his house.
Thanks, K.
Lou Smit's family has a Go Fund Me account with proceeds to search for DNA matches to JonBenet's killer. They appeared along with John on the show. I imagine that John felt he had no choice but to support their efforts.
DeleteAccording to their website, they have raised over $30,000 in 15 days. Their goal is $100,000.
I think Lou Smit truly believed an intruder killed JB so I don't fault his family, but if John is guilty(or knows who is), his association with these efforts is beyond sickening.
K
Oh my, the go find me has been done before.
DeleteCompare the DNA to what exactly? Items the family kept? How could they have access to what is in possession of LE?
Good questions DL. If they talked about details of the DNA testing on the show I missed it, or had lost interest by that point.
DeleteI think the GoFundMe is going to be a big waste of time and money from well-meaning people. I have to say this is one time I'd like to be wrong.
K
The Smit Go Fund Me fund just shows the extent people will go to be right - when they feel they have been maligned in some way. And in the interest of transparency, new DNA testing was already done what, two years ago - 2016 - using the new CBI facility, completed, and then filed away.
DeleteCompleted in 2018. Time flies and also stands still.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the Smits' intent is to fund familial DNA testing by the BPD and CBI on various sites like Ancestry.com. This has proved very successful in a number of cold cases in the last two years, though I question its efficacy in our case where, as I recall, the DNA was found to be a mixture of three individuals.
ReplyDeleteJohn seems to like the limelight. Lin Wood has gone on to represent Nicolas Sandman in a defamation lawsuit against the Washington Post - $250M and CNN for $275M. Lin Wood has said he hopes there will be no more Ramsey lawsuits against "this fine family". One has to wonder though does John Ramsey hope the same? It's possible if his company Access Graphics had fulfilled on John's dream for it - going global, becoming a multi-billion dollar company - that he would have been wealthy beyond belief but with his lawsuit payouts I don't think he has to fly little Cessna planes for a living anymore unless he wants to. There is something other than money that's driving John or as K says "it is beyond sickening."
ReplyDeleteHe craves the spotlight as a 'professional victim.' The best thing he could do for the world is just stay away from the media, but he can't help himself. Disgusting and, as they say, what a waste of protoplasm.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting cold case involving paper, handwriting, etc. that got solved.
ReplyDelete34 years ago, police used an Alabama phone number to solve infamous murder of 2 girls - al.com
https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/34-years-ago-police-used-an-alabama-phone-number-to-solve-infamous-murder-of-2-girls.html
The (Lindbergh kidnapping) March 1,1932.(Charles Angustus Lindbergh Jr) Read the Ransom note . Read the article. a few similarities to the JBR ransom note . Baby found. autopsy Cracked skull , mother found the note.suitcase under window, Google. Read the story interesting ...
ReplyDeleteSorry, but this is a facile view of a tragedy that occurred 62 years prior to JBR's murder. In fact there are no parallels, other than that a child was killed and the single page RN in Lindbergh makes reference to a specific sum of money (more than $1M in today's dollars), and a caution against calling LE - standard fare for RNs.
DeleteIn Lindbergh the child was in fact removed from the home, unlike Ramsey. In Lindbergh a ransom wad paid, unlike Ramsey. In Lindbergh a perp was arrested, tried and convicted, unlike Ramsey.
The Lindbergh baby was indeed kidnapped and subsequently found, two months later and just a few miles from the family home, unlike Ramsey.
In Lindbergh, the child was killed by a blow to the head, unlike Ramsey wherein the child died of ligature strangulation after a blow to the head.
In Lindbergh the child was found to be missing by his nursemaid, a RN on the windowsill. The articles I read on Google make no mention of Anne Morrow Lindbergh having discovered the RN, or even having read it. What's your source?
The articles I read on Google make no mention of a suitcase beneath a window - which in any case is immaterial, as the Lindberghs were in the process of moving in, the pertinent window was on the second floor, and access was via a ladder. What's your source?
Given John was a pilot, to where Burke had airplanes all over his room, I think it's pretty likely where John got the idea for a ransom note. I've certainly never heard a better reason.
DeleteHaven't you? How about classic misdirection, inherent in every line of the three page Ramsey RN?
DeleteFar likelier than John's having taken his inspiration from a sixty year old kidnapping case merely because he had a pilot's license and Lindbergh was a famous pilot.
Search "Ransom Note" on Doc's archives for a number of good analyses and discussions.
Your analysis is much more informative than Wikipedia, Thanks.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome, happy I could help.
DeleteLE once wrote a post here which has resonated with me for a long time. I, too, believe what happened has the flavor of premeditation. I think JR realized he’d gotten himself into something he’d been extremely worried about for a while. The December trips speak to a mindset of creating so much activity that, if he worked up the courage to end his daughter’s life, he’d have all kinds of pre-planned activities to boast about. These activities would serve to prove he was up to his ears in being a good family man during the holidays.
ReplyDeleteThe two most obvious activities were the Charlevoix trip, serving to keep the older kids away from the Boulder home and to have a plane ready, and the Big Red Boat trip. There’ve been some intuitive sleuths here who have already discussed the Charlevoix trip. (One item missed is that JR told Kane he would probably just have had a neighbor pick them up at the airport. Sounds like he hadn’t made arrangements though.) But I think not a lot is known about the Big Red Boat vacation. BTW, both the Charlevoix trip and the Big Red Boat trip were all planned by JR, not Patsy. Also, on another forum I discovered that Patsy made no mention of the Big Red Boat trip in her late -after Dec. 17 - Christmas letter. Who knows why..
The family Big Red Boat trip is fuzzily related by JR in the ’98 interview. When asked about it, JR’s attorney spoke up and claimed that he had a copy of the reservation for this trip. I did note the attorney did not say he had copies of the air tickets or the voucher for boarding which are furnished to those passengers who have fully paid for the trip. (I checked. My only experience with a package deal is once having booked a Club Med vacation. A deposit is made which guaranteed the reservation; payment is due xx days before trip.) The questions for me arose regarding the trip because it appears to me that John has almost a nervous tic reaction to explaining the plans he made for this trip:
12 MIKE KANE: Who made those arrangements?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Patsy made the reservations?
14 MIKE KANE: Was it through the travel agent?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: The travel agent. Actually
16 I think I remember calling Walt Disney directly. I
17 think I might have gotten the number out of a
18 magazine or something. Because I think I remember
19 joining the Disney or somebody like that directly.
20 Because we had the option of going to Disney World
21 for a day or two, and we no, because Patsy didn't
22 want to. I Remember.
Here’s what I got out of that exchange:
-John made the reservation by calling Walt Disney directly.
-He had to join Disney or somebody like that directly. (?)
-Patsy did not want the option of going to Disney World.
Then in the same interview is this:
20 They we were going to stay there (Charlevoix) for I think it
21 was till Friday. I forget what day the 26th was.
22 (INAUDIBLE) but we were going to stay for a couple
23 days and come back to Boulder around Friday. Then
24 I think the next morning on Saturday, we were
25 going to leave for this Big Red Boat trip with
0089
1 just JonBenet, Burke and Patsy and me. And that
2 was a package deal. We had tickets on TWA and that
3 was all kind of pretty pre-laid out for us.
John acknowledges later that they were going to stay two nights in Charlevoix, return to Boulder, get on a flight to Orlando to be on the Big Red Boat on Sunday.
(Likely passengers would be loaded on the boat on Sunday, late afternoon, for the 3 or 4 day cruise.) To be continued in next post.
Here is where I am baffled on this "Disney" Big Red Boat trip. The Big Red Boat was owned by Premier Cruise Line. They had a contract with Disney which ended in late 1993. Thereafter, Premier negotiated a contract with Warner Brothers to feature the Looney Tunes characters on the ship. Instead of being tucked in by Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny would tuck the kids in bed. Premier did package the Big Red Boat cruise after the contract with Disney fell apart, so that passengers could spend another 3 or 4 days at either Universal Studios or Disney World, but they could no longer market themselves as Disney’s Big Red Boat.
ReplyDeleteIs this just another case of John’s memory failing him, thinking he called Walt Disney directly for this cruise, when Disney was no longer connected to the Big Red Boat? (Disney essentially torpedoed their agreement with Premier, planning on building their own Disney Cruise Line. It began to sail in ’98) I did consider that perhaps the ad was a package for a Disney World stay, and an offering of a cruise on the Big Red Boat. But, if they weren’t adopting the land portion of a package, why would JR say he had to “join the Disney or somebody like that directly”?
Essentially his information on the Big Red Boat trip is erroneous. Disney would not be a booking agent for the BRB if they were no longer involved with Premier Cruise Line, and a client didn’t want a hotel package at the Disney World. Why does he seem, to me anyway, as though he is searching around for an answer to an easy question? Did he phone a travel agent? Maybe. But if so he didn’t want authorities to question the agent; so came up with a response of contacting Disney directly. I think it possible he did pay a deposit for this trip, but never intended to take it. It was part of the “Show”, of being immersed in his family activities.
Am I all wet in thinking the Big Red Boat trip was a sham?
-T
An interesting theory T, but I don't think we can put too much stock into what John said then, or says now. He considered himself above the law in 1996 when she was murdered and his concern at the time was to baffle, confuse, misdirect - outwit outplay, etc, etc. Over time he has gotten away with his part in it with the assistance of his trusted attorney, Lin Wood. Of course he needs to be ever-wary just in case someone new might want to take another look at the case but he has afforded the right as he sees it, to sit back, comment every so often about what he thought may have happened to his daughter, and still hold on to some of that early entitlement or elitism he had before. His role then was to cover up and it remains so today. I believe he considered what happened a family matter not subject to public or criminal scrutiny so if now he gets a few details mixed up so what. It's not so much that the Big Red Boat trip may have been a sham, but that their happy little family was a sham.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
DeleteThe appearance on the A&E documentary with Vargas and on the Dr. Oz program shows he is running out of steam to promote this charade. Since BR went onto Dr. Phil’s, he’s aware the public is not convinced by BR that the family had no role. Still amazes me that there is no remorse or shame in what he “programmed” his son to say on Dr. Phil. But he’s kidding himself if he thinks that he won’t be leaving his kids and grand-kids with an overpowering stench of these lies and the horror of what was done to JonBenét. -T
Hello Everybody!
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested, I came across Steve Thomas' letter of resignation. Not sure if this has been posted here before but if not, here it is:
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/07thomle.html
EG
If what he and Patsy did, 12/26/96, was come up with a plan to absolve BR of any responsibility, they left him with a legacy of swirling suspicion and doubt. Isn't it odd that the older siblings have neither weighed in or offered their two cents worth, nor been interviewed by Dr. Phil (as many flavor of the month socially current victims of crime go to tell their story) in all these years - or rushed to the aid of their defamed brother, beleaguered father or pageant-preoccupied deceased step-mother (that one I can believe). What was done to JonBenet was a horror and no one seems interested any more in finding out just exactly what happened, when, how, or why such an elaborate coverup was believed imperative.
ReplyDeleteOn the Elizabeth Vargas A&E documentary John Ramsey presented what he said was the very last photo taken of JonBenet. Earlier had not he and Patsy said that the Christmas morning photos were the last ones taken of her? It seems strange that John would wait 20+ years to show that picture publicly (perhaps he did show it to LE). Who took that alleged "last" picture, where, and exactly when? In the picture her eyes seem unusually large; she looks startled -- or scared.
ReplyDelete