Sorry folks. I've been neglecting this blog for some time. But not without reason. I feel that I've said all there is for me to say about the Ramsey case. And despite some very gratifying positive feedback from so many of you, I'm discouraged. Our efforts at clearing a path toward a solution have been futile. The CBS lawsuit offered some hope that new information could be forthcoming. But now that this case has been "settled," with all details suppressed, that hope has been dashed. Burke has, in effect, been thrown under the bus by his father, who could not even bring himself to demand an apology for the blatant libeling of his son. Without such an apology, the lawsuit that was supposedly intended to vindicate him has done the opposite. Now, as far as the general public is concerned, the CBS special must have been on track after all, leaving poor Burke dangling in the wind. All that's left is the money, which, as now seems clear, was the whole point from the start.
I'll leave you with some thoughts by CC, who's been prodding me lately via email to continue fighting the good fight, regardless of how discouraged I've become. She's stubbornly reluctant to give up, and I respect her for that. She's offered some very sensible reasons why Patsy and John could not have been in it together and, of course, I agree:
(a) Had they been acting in concert, the 911 call would not have happened until after the "kidnappers" deadline;
(b) Had they been working in tandem, the staging in the basement would have been complete, perhaps the body removed; and
(c) Had they colluded their stories would have been in complete sync, from the putting-to-bed scenario to the prior summer's breaking and entering by John; and
(d) If their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911? Why commit first degree murder, thereby risking the death penalty themselves?
Excellent points, worthy of further analysis and discussion. Thanks, CC.
Question about further discussion. Does this mean CC is the moderator and will choose topics?
ReplyDeleteNot sure how you got that idea. I'm the moderator and will remain so. But guest posts by CC or anyone else with some fresh ideas are always welcome.
DeleteAM SANDRA FROM CANADA, THANKS TO DR ONIHA WHO HELP ME BRING MY HUSBAND BACK, MY HUSBAND LEFT ME WITH THREE KIDS, FOR ANOTHER YOUNG GIRL, FOR OVER TWO YEARS, I TRIED ALL I COULD TO SETTLED OUR DIFFRENCES, BUT IT YIELDED NO RESULT, I WAS THE ONE TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN ALONE, UNTIL ONE DAY, I CAME IN CONTACT WITH SOME ARTICLES ONLINE, CONTAINING HOW DR ONIHA HAS HELP SO MANY LOVERS AND FAMILY REUNION AND REUNIT AGAIN, AND I DECIDED TO CONTACT HIM, AND HE CAST HIS SPELL ON MY HUSBAND, WITHIN FIVE DAYS, MY HUSBAND RAN BACK HOME, AND WAS BEGGING ME AND THE KIDS FOR FORGIVENESS, IN CASE YOU ARE PASSING THROUGH SIMILAR PROBLEMS, AND YOU WANTS TO CONTACT DR ONIHA, YOU CAN REACH HIM VIA HIS CONTACT NUMBER, ON CALL OR WHATSAP +2347089275769 OR EMAIL DRONIHASPELL@YAHOO.COM
DeleteThank you Doc for keeping this site going as long as you have. We're all sort of guests here and you've been gracious to have allowed dissenting opinions. I share your frustrations over this case but you have to know that it cannot be solved in a courtroom, through the media, by city officials or science. One has to carefully examine the family dynamic of the Ramsey family, and what was at stake had they done the right thing and called in their emergency after they looked at her lifeless battered strangled body.
ReplyDeleteAh, another BDI diehard. Perhaps you can explain, as all the others have not been able, the following:
DeleteWhy both Hunter and Beckner both stated, publicly and unequivocally, that Burke had no involvement in his sister's death, and
Why the GJ handed down indictments against both JR and PR for accessory to FIRST DEGREE MURDER, a crime with which Burke could not be charged under Colorado law.
First off I'm not an attorney which should be very obvious by now. I don't even pretend to understand the law for each state and I don't know how or why the grand jury in the JBR case reached their verdict. But some observations, and questions I have are the following - and if anyone else who is a BDI diehard on this forum would like to take CC's challenge,
ReplyDeleteplease do.
1) What was the "unlawful, reckless and felonious situation" JR and PR put JB in which posed a threat of injury to her health or life that resulted in her death?
2) Why, after convening a GJ in a long, prolonged deliberation process did Hunter decide nah, I'm not taking their recommendation?
3) Why would PR willingly participate in an accessory to the crime of murder of her own daughter her husband committed? (and vice versa).
4) How could Hunter and Beckner clear Burke without hearing all of the evidence and listening in on all of the testimony the Grand Jury heard?
Last, the elements for 1st degree murder include a. willfulness; b. deliberation; c. premeditation. If that is what they determined was evident during their proceedings, wouldn't it then be up to the DA to decide under Colorado law if it could be applied and not the Grand Jury?
Also Doc, you mentioned the Ramsey's risking the death penalty - Colorado will never use the death penalty. Michael Rourke in Weld County used it as a tool to get Watts to plead guilty to all counts and avoid a trial, but he even said that it would never be carried out with the current Governor in office, and likely wouldn't have with the Gov. at the time JB was murdered.
It's obvious but we have many self-styled legal pundits here, so no shame.
Delete(1) One doesn't know, but it could have been as simple as failure to engage the alarm system. Parents have a legal obligation to protect.
(2) As I've said many times before, Hunter was a wimp who'd never tried a murder case . . . and it was the Magic Kingdom, the Republic of Boulder. IMO he should have signed the indictments and taken it to trial.
(3) She didn't.
(4l They heard all the GH evidence.
A child of 9 cannot be charged as an adult. His "crime", had there been one, would have been described in juvenile charging terms. A DA works hand-in-glove with a GJ, and presents a charging "memo", if you will.
The death penalty is a potent threat, even in states which do not apply it, as the reduced sentence therefrom is life without the possibility of parole.
One additional thought. The Colorado statutes in the Infancy Defense state that although it’s understood that an infant can commit a crime, he can’t be held criminally responsible. By that definition many have decided that the True Bills point to BR. However, in every statute concerning child abuse, the seriousness of the charges always include that the offender was in a position of trust. Surely, one can’t overlook the applicability of that in reading the True Bills. BR was not in a position of trust regarding JonBenét’s welfare.
DeleteAnd you're wrong, btw, about executions in Colorado, Anonymous.
DeleteGary Lee Davis was executed in Colorado in 1997, under then-governor Romer . . . the same gent who was governor a few months previously, when JBR was murdered.
Ah, CC, this blog would not be the same without you. You(and Doc, this goes without saying of course) are one of the reasons that kept me coming back! I have been absent because of my move etc, and I also think that unfortunately this case will never be solved (i.e John will never be charged, judged and emprisoned for the rest of his life) He is living his best life with his third wife who has gifted him with a shop revolving around planes and stuff, and that makes me really angry when I think about it too much (dirty bastard!!) I will remain a JDI for ever because there is no other credible answer as far as I'm concerned. Lots of love to you and to anyone who believes Jonbenet deserved real justice. She really really did not get an ounce of it, and this will always make me sad. A un de ces jours!
DeleteSam
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you, Sam. Guadeloupe is beautiful, and I hope you are happy. They say this hurricane season is going to be particularly nasty - please learn all you can about hurricane preparedness, and take it seriously.
DeleteAs always, if you want to communicate privately, press on my initials to get my email address. Je t'aime aussi.
For the rest, as you say...one of these days.
Reading over each individual CBI Serology Report and samples taken from family members and friends (Glenn Stine, Jay Elowsky, Fleet White, Joe Barnhill Sr. and Jr. among others) from Jan. 1997 - April 1997 posted on Jonbenet Encyclopedia, items tested were paper, towel, vest, latex glove, bowl, carpet, robe, cord, broken paint brush, black and white tights, blanket, and "sheet (black velvet blanket)". Trace evidence was found to be semen on only two items: a robe; and the black velvet blanket. Does anyone know what black velvet blanket is being referred to (not the duvet cover found in the suitcase?)- and also where the robe was found and if it was John's. Of course the presence of semen on items collected from the home don't spell "murderer".
ReplyDeleteRe:the robe. Just read about that this past week, I believe it was on reddit. It was said to be John's, and was in his den/study, 3rd floor, irrc. Sorry, no info on that black velvet blanket. I can only recall the throw blanket and a sweatshirt they covered the body with upstairs after John carried her upstairs.
DeleteCorrection - it was mentioned on a WS thread, "questions you'd like answers to", page 163, reply by cottonstar. She's pretty savvy on her knowledge of the case, imo.
DeleteIn each individual CBI Serology Report where the black velvet blanket is described for testing it's also accompanied by the word sheet - (black velvet blanket) in parentheses. I don't know if it's distinct from the "duvet cover" in the suitcase which has also been referred to as a blanket. And it shouldn't be - the word blanket should only refer to THE white blanket covering JonBent in the wine cellar room.
DeleteThe only black blanket (or sheet) I see is actually a comforter (or a man might call it a blanket) on John Andrew's bed. To add to the mystery Patsy said she was doing some packing for the trip on John Andrew's bed - yet if you look at pictures of John Andrew's bed it does not look as if anyone was in there packing at all.
I believe very little packing was done that night, if any. I think the murder happened while Patsy and John were in other parts of the house and the two children had not gone to bed, were up, and it all went down not that long after they returned from the Stine's. And, that the sexual play, rape, intrusion, interference (whatever your word) preceded everything else, and that all that followed followed due to a fear of discovery of that one action.
Yes, you "believe". I'm willing to bet your BDI belief is based on your response to the CBS program of 2016 and a distasteful reaction to Burke's (admittedly misguided) appearance on Dr Phil that same year.
DeleteInteresting that in all the years Doc has maintained this site we had only one BDI proponent prior to 2016, a guy called "M", despite Kolar's book. A sad testament to the power of television over otherwise rational minds.
Interesting too that not one of you - not Lil or EG or Zed or J or our most recent Anonymous, above, can answer my questions set forth in Doc's introductory post, nor those I asked a few comments later.
You all simply choose to "believe".
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNot so. For decades I believed it had to be Patsy. I didn't watch the CBS Special - I cancelled my television subscription years ago. I read. And read and read. I had to watch Burke's Dr. Phil interview when youtube uploaded it but at the time the rumor floating around was that he was going to come out of hiding and talk to the police. That proved to be untrue.
DeleteI would think that anyone here who thinks Burke did it came to that conclusion after studying and discussing the case with others - maybe one in here was convinced by the CBS Special - in my view they got it wrong.
". . . maybe one"? I suggest you go back and start reading the posts on this blog beginning in September 2016, when Zed and Lil and EG and the rest made their advent here, and read all their responses to those two television programs.
DeleteAlso no couple can be in complete sync. They had no idea what would ultimately be asked of them. In addition, four months of saying nothing - including the day they separated themselves in the house - allowed them to get their stories as straight as they possibly could. And, since JonBenet was sexually interfered with how would arranging her body at the foot of the spiral staircase have explained that, or the ligature marks around her neck. Your questions are framed reflecting your own beliefs and designed to ask participants to prove what didn't happen didn't happen.
DeleteOf course my questions reflect my own beliefs, but your argument that "what didn't happen didn't happen" is fatuous, as clearly some or all of it did happen - unless you also suppose Burke wrote the RN and instructed his parents in the 911 call and the coverup.
DeleteIt's question (d) above - "if their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911?"
Delete1) Isn't that what they did? - only the arranging was to stage a kidnapping for ransom (since the body was out of sight) and if once found, it would look like a gruesome murder at the hands of some mysterious foreign faction (from the note) who likes to garrote and abuse small children who's daddy is a fatcat. Then call 911.
2) An arrangement at the foot of the stairs - then calling 911 wouldn't have gone very far, since the stairs wouldn't have accounted for the sexual assault, a single blow to the head, and strangulation.
3) And less obvious - were they really covering for Burke? Solely? Or also themselves. Nevermind Burke wouldn't be locked up, imagine the stigma and the blow to their prestige, status, wealth, reputation, friendships, job. In essence everything they were and had taken years to accomplish.
whose, not who's (who is).
DeleteWondering what readers think about a detailed analysis I found online of the ransom note using structural analysis of the note. I found a website dated a couple of years ago that uses "Syntactic NGrams--they don't look at the actual words of the note, but its particular use of parts of speech, which can be compared and contrasted to other writing by specific individuals. The conclusion is that Patsy was the likely note writer. Very interesting analysis --you can find it by googling Jonbenet ransom note plus NGrams. Thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteActually google 'Jonbenet ransom note ngrams' (leave out the plus)
ReplyDeleteFollow up: I see DocG discussed this analysis in a blog post on 9/6/16, so readers can also check that out.
ReplyDeleteAbout that sheet blanket... ;)
ReplyDeleteI just chose not to follow the syllabus put forth by DocG per CC's May 2019 entry. I figured all of that had been discussed since the beginning of the blog.
I didn't have any luck with the search function here on Gary Oliva, as he keeps coming back in media coverage, most recently in 2018 and 2019. At least BPD was aware of him then and now.
Heat index was 101 at 2pm today, so thought I'd check in on any new posts while I'm cooling off, too hot to plant my new flowers I bought today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wanted to say was after reading the serology reports the sheet blanket (black velvet) was the first I had heard of that particular piece of evidence. Could be the duvet cover found in the suitcase Lil since we don't know what color it was. How peculiar though to stuff a duvet cover in a suitcase with a porn version of Dr. Seuss (much less scooting it under a window when a chair was available).
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear where the item was found, but if memory serves, the blanket/bed cover from the suitcase was tested.
DeleteJust a quick search I found this which mentions exhibit #23 (black velvet blanket)
https://amp-reddit-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/8e19m6/cbi_results_for_jan_9_1997_page_4_also_contains/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
I think initially some info just wasn't out for general knowledge. Only later was the info about things like touch DNA from Burke and Patsy, but not John, or an unknown, were found on the pink Barbie nightgown, for example.
Not sure when the reports were first available, according to this site, the entry posted was from 2018, and the site owner obtained the info from jameson's site.
ReplyDeletehttps://jonbenetramseymurder.discussion.community/post/cbi-dna-testing-3-completed-january-30-1997-from-ollie-grays-files-9823552?pid=1305156244
Thanks for looking it up Lil. I have to assume item #23 is the duvet cover or blanket from the suitcase - since we already know it tested positive for semen - John Andrew's. Too bad they couldn't decide what was a blanket, a sheet, or a duvet cover. Black velvet blanket makes more sense - matching the black comforter on John Andrew's bed.
ReplyDeleteSome discussion from that last link, members mention several black bedding items - one gold and black blanket, as well as a black sheet.
DeleteIn the CBI reports it shows they tested even smaller things that I wasn't aware of.
-A toothpick, a sunflower seed, swabs from steering wheel, arm rest fabric - all submitted in 2008. And some man born in 1980 was also listed under 'suspect' tested.
why so late - 2008? I noticed in 1997 they tested "black and white tights" - was she wearing tights under her black velveteen leggings? Or were they thrown on the floor with the rest of her clothing? Unbelievable what a junk pile that house was - certainly too much for one housekeeper to keep up with.
ReplyDeleteThose late testings may have been from people not originally interviewed or on LE's radar, until brought to their attention. Recall that many people reported they thought their boyfriend/ex-husband was 'the perp', then whatever investigators working on behalf of the family may have turned in.
DeleteI believe several items of JonBenet's were tested, not just the clothing she was reported to have worn on her last day.
I agree that the house isn't how I'd think it would be left for a family planning on being out of town. But perhaps that was typical and the family relied on the housekeeper to do all the tidying and clean up. I don't recall reading that the family was embarrassed by how they kept/left the home.
There is zero commitment to solve this crime. Either from former Boulder officials, recently past, or present. No one cares about little JonBenet. In 1997 Alex Hunter's office or Hunter specifically preferred to leak information to a tabloid rather than investigate the crime. From the Boulder News archive 9/4/97 "DA nixed search of office, hangar, sources say." I have to think it was something more than cowardice.
ReplyDeleteIn Ramsey vs. CBS Corp. Hunter sought to avoid a defamation case subpoena in an article written by Charlie Brennan 10/23/18 who states that Hunter says "to comply with a subpoena would compromise an open investigation and potential prosecution of the person or persons responsible for JonBenet's death." It would also interfere with his annual trip to Hawaii.
The Boulder police department also fought to quash subpoenas stating that "Boulder Police Dept. has two detectives assigned and continues to work diligently to solve the crime." Does anyone believe they are working diligently to solve the crime?
We have had four district attorneys from Boulder who just don't want to touch this case despite election promises to get to the bottom of any and all crimes involving children. In addition we were promised DNA results from the new CBI lab. Michael Dougherty's email address is available online if anyone would care to press the issue as to why results of new DNA testing were suppressed. He just held a town hall question and answer session this month, but it's not likely the JonBenet case was brought up. Leaving the case open is a political move, designed to impede a real investigation into her murder. Might it not be better to close the case, declare it cold, and start over?
In 1997 the BPD strongly recommended charging "the Ramseys" with the murder of their child, but their evidentiary standard, like that of a grand jury, is only probable cause. DAs must meet the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, and clearly no Boulder DA, past or present, feels that threshold has been met.
DeleteLet a jury decide that.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand:
DeleteThere are legal, ethical and professional standards that must be met before a prosecutor can "let a jury decide" anything.
And while Hunter may have nixed searches of JR's office and airplane hangar, the BPD had already searched his office twice (Lawrence Schiller) and the Jeffco hangar at least once (Steve Thomas), including interviews of personnel at both locations.
DeleteCC , It does seem that there is more to this than Hunter needing to have legal,ethical and professional standards to prosecute the case. He knew full well if there was enough evidence to prosecute the case before he held that grand jury . What was the point of having the hoax of a grand jury if he was going against their findings ? Ge backed out of just about everyonterview or questions about the JBR case after he nixed the Grand Jury.
DeleteSecondly, whether or not you feel PR was involved or not there was more than enough evidence against her at that time for an indictment. I have seen many people prosecuted on far less than this many many times. As a matter of fact I have seen a great many cases where being caught in 1 lie has resulted in indictment and furthermore conviction.
There are two possible ways for a prosecutor to press charges. The first is to file an "information", then take the matter to a preliminary hearing. If judge rules that there is enough evidence, sufficient "cause" to proceed, he then sets the case for trial. The second is to put all the evidence and witness testimony before a GJ, present them with a menu of possible charges and let them hand down indictments, which the DA then (usually) signs. The defendant(s) are then charged and the matter proceeds to trial. Hunter chose the latter course but the GJ did not indict for murder, so apparently they disagreed with you about "enough evidence".
DeleteWith regard to your second paragraph, I'm very sceptical. Please cite me some of these "many cases where being caught in 1 lie has resulted in indictment and furthermore conviction" for murder, as in my experience that's pretty simplistic and lacks the necessary foundation. It just doesn't work that way.
Doc's book is only available in digital form, correct? Somebody in that police department has to be open to reading it...
ReplyDeleteO/T - Oxygen channel will air on June 1 the story of Rebecca Zahau "Death at the Mansion". (I think her case may have been discussed here)
ReplyDeleteHi Lil - it was discussed here. But any new info will be interesting.
ReplyDeleteThanks CC - frustrating all the same (that Lacy spent so much money chasing down John Mark Carr, Hunter was such a coward, the DNA results are suppressed, etc.).
I have studied another case for a long time that is very interesting, it has many similarities to the Routier case. That is the case of Jeffrey MacDonald. I am curious if anyone here has studied it at all and what their thoughts and opinions were on it.
ReplyDeleteIf you're the Anonymous who posted at 1:31 this morning, raising this new subject is a very Trumpian attempt to distract from your errors.
ReplyDeleteIf not, we studied the MacDonald case, contemporaneously, in law school as a textbook example of how NOT to investigate and how NOT to prosecute.
I'll spare you the legalese. All one need do is read "Fatal Justice" by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost, and/or "A Wilderness of Error" by Errol Morris - or even just the synopses thereof - to understand this travesty of justice.
And you will of course deny you're the Anonymous from 1:31. Spare me. A word to the wise: If you believe in what you post, claim an identity. It need not be your real initials with pic, as mine is - choose your dog's name, anything - but own your words.
DeleteCC, are you referring to the Jeffrey MacDonald case? If so, may I have your take on it? It is one of only a handful of cases that has ever fascinated me sufficiently to spend copious amounts of time I shouldn't waste reading and learning about.
DeleteSide note: I'm a long-time reader of this blog but have never commented. I appreciate all the astute analysis of the Ramsey case and have pointed many people to it when they posit the BDI/PDI/Intruder theories.
Thanks.
-CAS
I think Helena Stoeckley (the "woman in the floppy hat") and her druggie pals did it. A strand from a cheap blond wig was found at the scene, as was candle wax, neither of which could be sourced to the MacDonald home. Witnesses saw a woman in a floppy hat in the vicinity that night, and Stoeckley confessed at one point, though she later recanted. The books I referenced above on 5/31 set forth in detail the piss poor job of evidence collection, scene contamination, and eventual prosecution that resulted in Dr MacDonald's wrongful conviction.
DeleteWelcome, CAS. Hope to hear from you again now that you've got your feet wet.
With due respect, you may have no interest in the book Final Vision by Joe McGinness, but it was conclusive for me. It was written long after your classes in law school.
DeleteMcDonald is exactly where he should be. Freddy Kasab, Colette's stepfather, was at one time a strong supporter of McDonald. In following the case far more diligently than any of us, he realized that Jeffrey McDonald was a smooth, unbridled con.
Not to divert the thread away from JR, whom I consider also to be a smooth con, but if anyone's interested in an article from Vanity Fair which gives some details of what Kasab discovered, it can be found here: https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/07/macdonald199807
Btw, it was only this past December that the judge for the 4th circuit court ruled the lower court decision was correct and his appeal for a new trial was denied. After decades of appeals, maybe it marks the end for McDonald. But who knows.
Thank you, CC, for both the welcome and your thoughts on MacDonald. Admittedly, I've never taken the floppy hat woman theory very seriously, and always thought the right man was held responsible. Perhaps I'll go down this rabbit hole again and check out the reads you've referenced. I don't have your legal expertise, but I thoroughly enjoy delving into a true whodunnit.
DeleteCAS
As do we all, CAS. We're all amateur sleuths here, none more equal than another, but thanks for your earlier kind words. I believe the law should be accessible to everyone, and as understandable as possible - if I have a goal here, that's it in a nutshell.
DeleteI'm glad that's what you are here for CC. I always enjoy being educated about the law. At one time I thought I would enroll in law school. But after sitting in on one class I saw that it takes a special kind of brain and thinking that I didn't possess. I felt much more at home in Psychology studies - and there is most definitely a place for that in true crime.
DeleteI also enjoy many others here, present, and past.
You misunderstand. I am here because I believe John Bennet Ramsey killed his daughter. If I can help others understand the legalities, of this and other cases, that appeals to me enormously.
DeleteSorry, but as Hercule can attest, I don't hold much truck with psychology's presence in criminal matters. It has it's place, but it's speculative rather than scientific, despite Ressler and Douglas and "Silence of the Lambs".
So you are really here to persuade. That's unfortunate, as there are many viewpoints here that make (or made) for an interesting site. People who came from all sorts of educational backgrounds such that we didn't just have one point of view. For me this case has gone completely cold and stale. There is no way to make it interesting either when the blog administrator has left it, and one person is arguing it. This case cannot be solved with science, so good luck with that.
Delete. . . and arguing it well, as you've so far been unable to rebut any of my points.
DeleteIs Darli Routier guilty? I'm on the fence about this case. However, I feel she deserves a new trial. There's definitely reasonable doubt -- the bloody sock and fingerprint, etc. Plus, she just doesn't strike me as someone capable of cutting her own throat. (Who is?) And aside from the physical pain such an act would incur, this very vain woman would not want the ugly scarring.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of a bizarre case, the one I had a hard time deciding was the David Camm case.
DeleteI leaned towards not guilty.
But I now have my own 'hot case' found out today that someone forged my deceased parents name on a deed and sold the house we have in probate in April. We've kept up the taxes and have been waiting for the probate judge to give permission to sell personal property and real properties. I knew about grand theft auto, never knew grand theft house could happen. Surreal. The house is out of state from where my brother and I live.
This is, presumably, the same house you said two years ago was going to be "taken by the government"? And you're still thrashing around in probate? Why? You don't need a court order to sell estate property, merely Letters of Administration.
DeleteThe scenario you describe is almost literally impossible. You really need some good legal advice. Contact me privately by email and I'll help you find a
decent probate or criminal fraud attorney, as the case may be.
Thanks. Sent you an email. There are some crooked people in Missouri.
DeleteThere are crooked people everywhere, Lil, even in the land of Bear Bryant. I answered your email. Let me know if I can help.
DeleteAgain - they WERE acting in tandem. The note was likely written by both of them. John dictating, Patsy writing. John attempting to make the note sound business-like, adding in movie quotes, and Patsy attempting to disguise her own handwriting (see Darnay Hoffman questioning both of them and how miserably they both fail). The note was designed to misdirect and mislead law enforcement. It was designed to take the investigation out of the house and away from where she died. And buy time. Both of them knew the call would never come in - that's why neither of them reacted when the call didn't come in. They had all night long to go over their story - when they arrived home, who put her to bed, who went to bed first, and the misdirection therein, what time she would "find" the note, and when she was to call 911. Your questions b-d make assumptions b that they ever had an intention to remove the body; c that under even ordinary circumstances couples are in perfect sync, much less under extraordinary circumstances such as covering up a murder; and question d makes no sense whatsoever - arranging her body at the foot of the spiral staircase wouldn't account for her sexual interference and the blood in her underpants, the unusual head wound, or the strangulation marks from a cord, rope, scarf, but as it turns out, cord, tied around her neck and wound around a broken paint brush handle. They used what they saw, and added a touch or two of their own - putting a blanket over her body and duct tape with Patsy's jacket fibers clinging to the sticky side. Adding death penalty to the question makes the question even more convoluted and makes another assumption - that they were thinking that far ahead.
ReplyDeleteFeeble, and largely inaccurate, but points for trying.
DeleteAnd as for Beckner and Hunter, and their public statements exoneraating Burke?
But my mistake - this case is cold and stale, this site no longer interests you.
I wouldn't put faith in anything Hunter said or says. Or Lacy, or any officials. Beckner, he's said some contradicting things.
ReplyDeleteI just can't see a guy missing from his bed, who would wait until his wife was asleep, slip quietly out of bed, take his daughter downstairs, hit her over the head, disappear into the basement, sexually assault her with his finger or some implement, rummage around in her drawer and find a pair of panties to change her into, meanwhile no one hears a thing - not Burke, not Patsy, he carries on down in the basement making a crude child-like garrote, chokes her, Patsy and Burke still asleep, he writes a note, a long note (or removes it from a secret hiding place since he wrote it in the hangar, puts the pad and pen back where it was), arranges it so Patsy will see it, Patsy and Burke still sleeping, then hops in the shower or slips back into bed, and Patsy never noticed him gone from the bed. She never heard a thing. She never rolled over once and noticed he wasn't there.
Then for four months she's still in a mental fog as to what could have happened to her daughter. She's been so amazingly gaslit that for years she can't figure out it was her husband. She even supports him in his run for a political seat. She's supposedly a very smart lady with a degree from a university but she just can't figure out it was her husband all along.
Yes, I just don't buy it.
You've built a "straw man" scenario in order to knock it down. It reminds me of JR constructing a straw man argument to make it seem as foolish as possible -
Delete"The American public has been led to believe that we went to bed that night after a wonderful Christmas, brutally beat JonBenét, sexually molested her, strangled her, went to sleep, got up the next morning, wrote a three-page ransom note, called the police, sat around the house for four hours, [and] then I went downstairs and discovered her body and was able to act distraught,” John Ramsey said. “Help me understand that."
It's not that I haven't considered some variation of a BR theory. It's simply that I have a hard time buying that BR even fooled his own psychiatrist who was willing to testify on his behalf in one of the R lawsuits.
If anyone wants to watch the Darnay Hoffman video questioning the Ramsey's about the note the absolute arrogance of this couple is really astounding. Patsy appears to go along with it but barely tolerates it, as she sees that her letters are almost identical to the letters in the note. John makes a pretense of at least scanning the note with his wise old eyes then dismisses it, no, Patsy writes in a feminine hand, she couldn't have written the note.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you there, Anon. I don't buy it either.
ReplyDeleteAnd I've watched that Hoffman video and agree with you there too.
I think JR dictated, PR wrote it and added her own lines here and there.
EG
Patsy embellished adding words here and there like "hence" and attache with the accent, don't try and grow a brain, etc. just like she decorated her house, with puffy valences and bows, floral furniture and striped wall paper - OVERdone, overblown, a carryover from the gaudy '80's.
DeleteI don't think "attache" has an accent. I think it's the y above it. The only thing feminine about the note is the manuscript "a". However, if John traced it from a word processor, that too would explain the manuscript a, without having to make beheading and law enforcement countermeasures and tactics and Clint Eastwood and Speed into something feminine.
DeleteYes EG, that is what I think happened. Zed believed John dictated and Patsy wrote and I disagreed at the time so for that Zed, I apologize! Also I don't mean to be rude to Doc. Or dismissive of his theory, or to CC for supporting it. This case was probably simple to solve right after it happened but became complex due to a perfect storm of ineptitude, political infighting, media reporting, all of which played into the misdirection the Ramsey's orchestrated from Day One.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's rude or dismissive. Doc has generously allowed for other opinions on his blog which makes it so interesting. I've also learned a lot about the law from CC who is also generous with her time and knowledge sharing her expertise and has even made me waver now and then, but not for long ;).
Yes, the R's controlled the investigation every step of the way and were allowed to do so.
EG
Thank you EG. The city officials and town of Boulder seemed paralyzed by a murder in the family of one of their finest citizens. One who had brought revenue to Boulder. To have taken them on, would have required balls. Something Hunter did not possess. Steve Thomas did however. But we all know what happened to him, similar to what happened to Kolar when Lacy asked him to take another look. What these district attorneys are waiting for is an intruder theory that will hold up - then they will go full speed ahead.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are dead bang wrong. The Ramseys were not among Boulder's "finest citizens" - in fact, no one knew them (PMPT and personal knowledge from some prominent friends). Boulder already had plenty of revenue - from CU, NOAA, NCAR, IBM and others. AG employed what, fifty, a hundred people, if that?
DeleteThomas burned out from an excess of zeal and self-righteousness. Kolar never worked the JBR case, and was not even employed in Boulder when she died. He reviewed records, long after the fact, and quit to write and publish a book based on a cockamamie theory which no one had ever heard of, but was sufficiently salacious to get the attention of CBS ... and you.
What "these district attorneys are waiting for", properly, is some real evidence.
300 employees, $1 billion in sales.
DeleteTrue, there was $1 billion in sales. But AG had historically suffered from poor profit margins. GE had been studying the AG books for a year and their decision to remove JR from his position was based on his background within AG, not, as many assume, on JB's death.
ReplyDelete-T
A, C, and D are all good points. As far as B, I get the sense the staging was "complete", at least as far as the window was concerned. I don't buy that John was going to slide down through that window, ever. Another scenario Doc mentioned in one post, which seems much more plausible to me as for why he cleaned up the glass and decided to "unstage", is because of a comment the cops made. Indeed, given Doc's scenario, which I think is the correct one, the window was more for Patsy than it was for police. But then most likely there was no need to "unstage" as if Patsy would be inspecting the window sill. Say the police mentioned the lack of foot prints in the snow, which would probably not enter his mind given he and Patsy were inside, and he decided to pick up the glass. That just seems a lot more palatable to me than unstaging because he didn't finish.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if Doc is at all bored with this case, would be interested in his opinions on the Zahau case or the Faith Hedgepeth case. Both have the issues of messages/'handwriting experts' and the need for a good sleuth.
ReplyDeleteThis may be of interest, discussion of disclosure of the CORA docs to the Ramsey case
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/by5j9r/petition_for_usamarkandy_to_share_the_case/
Thanks Lil. To summarize specifically the testing on the pink Barbie nightgown for DNA analysis referred to as "Bode Sample 2S07-101-07A-D" - exterior and interior of bottom front, exterior left shoulder region front and back, exterior right shoulder region front and back, exterior and interior of the bottom and back of nightgown showed a mixture of JonBenet's DNA and one male contributor. Individuals associated with sample John B. Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey, and Melina Ramsey were excluded as possible contributors to the mixture profile obtained from 2S07-101-07A - D; but individuals associated with Burke Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey could not be excluded as possible contributors ( Bode Sample 4/18/08 Pink Barbie Nightgown).
ReplyDeleteWhich tells you what, exactly?
DeleteShe didn't wear the Barbie nightgown Christmas Eve, nor was she wearing it Christmas night.
DNA, hair, fingerprints and fibers are meaningless in a shared home.
Bring me some from the mock garotte, the broken paintbrush or her underwear and we'll talk about real evidence.
Bring me a real district attorney, one that will examine what evidence they do have, evidence they spent half a million dollars to collect, including false leads, plus the grand jury indictments, and new DNA testing results - that either include or exclude - fire the two part time detectives, and start fresh. Or close the case, and allow the public to obtain the information they do have.
DeleteAs I've patiently tried to explain to you, it just doesn't work that way.
DeleteDoughtery is a former NYC prosecutor, and a tough guy. If the evidence was there, he'd bring it.
This case is not closed. You nor I nor any member of the public is entitled to the most recent DNA results.
Cold casesa are just that, and the budget in any jurisdiction is finite, and does not put one case above another.
But let's talk some more about your non-new, non-DNA, non- BDI evidence, shall we?
DeleteAs long as this case is kept open, it's really closed isn't it. DA's can come out to the public and declare a war on crime, and seek election by making promises and allude to new evidence testing then not release it. We'll have a slew of preposterous television shows and pretend we're interested in justice for JonBenet but really we just want to pull up a ringside seat, grab a bag of popcorn and become a part of the absurdity. Because we love a good mystery. I'm sure Garnett and Doughtery are fine men, but let's stop pretending this case is going anywhere and stop pretending that we are just waiting for new evidence. Ramsey's 4, Justice 0.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIn 2018 Garnett said he did not think it the case would ever go to trial.
Deletehttps://www.dailycamera.com/2018/01/11/boulder-da-stan-garnett-loved-elk-case-thinks-charges-will-never-be-filed-involving-jonbenet-ramsey/
Yes, and it won't. Because the time to have done that is long passed. My suggestion was, however, that they officially close the case. Then anyone who wants to - Charlie Brennan for example, journalists, (real journalists) can obtain all documents that were procured over the long course of this case and the public can decide who did what when. It's apparent there are no surviving relatives of JonBenet who give a S. what happened to her - either because they already know, or think it a family matter that is best just left alone.
DeleteAs I've patiently tried to explain to you, the law just doesn't work the way you insist it should, due to a pesky thing called due process - a pesky thing for which you would be very grateful, were you ever accused of a crime.
DeleteCops and prosecutors do not just arbitrarily close a case absent a conviction; for example, the Simpson/Goldman case remains open.
The best chance for resolution in our case was missed when Hunter failed to sign the GJ indictments. Had he done so, thereby separating "the Ramseys" into two individuals, each facing separate charges, and then presented Patsy with the evidence of prior sexual abuse of her daughter, she may have turned on John.
As it is, we're up the proverbial creek, like it or not.
I appreciate your calm CC. And yes, had Hunter signed the GJ indictments we may have made some headway. I think you also mentioned long ago that Burke's testimony should be unsealed but I'm not sure you suggested that. If you did it was a few years ago. Dr. Beuf has died now too so we'll never know the nature of Patsy's frantic calls to his office as his second patient is still very much alive.
DeleteShortly after the True Bills were announced I was told by a Boulder legal pundit, that the case will never reach the court room. And Statute 6E will prevent any grand jury information from ever being released.
DeleteBut it doesn’t mean we in the ‘internet peanut gallery’ cannot read behavioral indices.
-The more JR shows himself to be a martyr, as he did on Dr. Oz, the more people who think the Rs were involved, will look at BR. JR is the long suffering one.
-And BR, OTOH, did not express much emotion about what the family had been through, nor say much about the loss of his sister in his Dr. P appearance.
Who does one feel sorry for? For the long suffering one protecting his son, of course. Sadly, folks still cannot see who is pulling the strings in this case.
I’m with Doc on what JR has done to his son.
I suggested nothing of the sort, Bloggo, as I believe GJ proceedings should remain sealed. IMO the Boulder judge who released the four pages containing the true bills erred.
DeleteAnd yes, Anon, John has always controlled this narrative. Six hours after his daughter's murder he had his business attorney, Mike Bynum, at his side at the Fernies'. The next day he hired Haddon Morgan & Foreman, the most powerful criminal defense firm in Colorado. The day after that he got separate counsel for his wife, sending a clear signal that they may have a conflict of interest.
And does anyone think Burke, a shy, reclusive, socially inept young man would ever, of his own volition, have appeared on Dr Phil?
No, that appearance on Dr. Phil was cooked up by John and LW.
DeleteIIRC, the Rs hired an attorney for Burke in January '98, Jim Jenkins. Jenkins had also represented the older children earlier in '97 when John learned the BPD wanted to speak to them.
When Burke was videotaped with the social worker he neither appeared shy, or socially inept. He offered a cold callous response to what happened to his sister, he expressed on other occasions he was "moving on", he was a cocky, spoiled, privileged, child who liked to brag about his presents and his two Swiss army knives, one of which according to him, could make knots.
DeleteAlso, name calling won't help you make your case, or be persuasive.
Jeffrey MacDonald was wrongfully convicted???!!! Wow. Just WOW. NO one with a modicum of critical-thinking skills who has given that case even a cursory examination would believe that. Some of you CCychophants may wish to reconsider your hero worship.
ReplyDeleteWWOHW
I notice that any time one of you cowardly Anonymii cannot adequately rebut me you try to change the subject. Let's get back to Bloggo Anonymous and her non-DNA, non-new, non BDI evidence, shall we?
DeleteAnd spare me the hero worship shit, as anyone here who has known me these past seven years knows I don't go in for, or even marginally encourage that. Make an attempt to stick to the case.
DeleteI'm not exactly anonymous; I left my signature. Maybe I'll even post a fake photo and initials, too. I'm not trying to rebut you as I don't disagree with you on the Ramsey case. I don't care to go back to "Bloggo Anonymous"; I'm not trying to defend his/her position.
DeleteI didn't claim that you "go in for" or encourage it, but it's clear from the tone of their posts that some here feel the need to offer some level of deference to you. I'm not sure why, but they do.
And I am sticking to the case. The case in which you felt strongly enough to offer your misguided opinion. My position is clear: Despite the mistakes made during the investigation, Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty as charged. OBVIOUSLY guilty.
WWOHW
Actually, I did not "offer my misguided opinion", CAS asked for it. Yours differs from mine, and so? That's hardly a novelty around here. Let's move on.
DeleteThat's simply not true. An anonymous poster asked generally for opinions on the MacDonald case and you offered yours. It wasn't in response to CAS. Yes, my opinion differs from yours, and SO, I'd like you to explain your position.
DeleteI don't care to move on, thank you. Again, I'd just like you to explain your position. And please don't feel as though you need to spare us mere laypersons the legalese. I'll try hard to follow you.
WWOHW
"CC, are you referring to the Jeffrey MacDonald case? If so, may I have your take on it?" - CAS, 6/2 @ 10:01 AM
DeleteI said all I have to say about it in my above posts.
Again, that's simply not true. You're either being dishonest and trying to mislead or you're terribly confused.
Delete"I'll spare you the legalese. All one need do is read "Fatal Justice" by Jerry Allen Potter and Fred Bost, and/or "A Wilderness of Error" by Errol Morris - or even just the synopses thereof - to understand this travesty of justice." - CC 05/31 @ 2:07 PM.
That's what you said. And for those counting, it was posted almost 2 full days prior to CAS asking for your opinion.
And why is that all you have to say? You've offered nothing, really. You've directed other readers to a couple of books that support your position. I or anyone else could just as easily point them to sources which have effectively critiqued those books. Do you not care to share any of your own thoughts on the matter? If you believe in what you post, surely you must.
WWOHW
Someone mentioned here, and rightfully so, that John just can't stay out of the media - despite his statements to the contrary. What I would call his antics - including his many lawsuits,is a hoax. But did he kill his daughter - I don't believe so, but you have to consider the rage he must have felt that night toward two people - his son, and his wife. His wife was supposed to take care of the child rearing and the household matters. If she suspected Burke was doing things to JonBenet, sexual interference, the golf club hit to the face, her broken finger, etc., she didn't handle her duties responsibly did she. Instead she took her daughter to the doctor multiple times, without ever disclosing to him who she may have thought caused her reasons for being there.
ReplyDeleteOn the night of 12/25 John was confronted with having now lost two daughters - one to a tragic accident - the other to something his own son had done. He had to calm a hysterical Patsy, and figure out what to do about it. Calling the police on his son was not an option.
Because of his son he lost his second daughter, because of his son he lost his company, because of his son he lost everything he had tried to build in Boulder and because of his wife's inability to handle the matters at home and instead focused on the pageants in an attempt to leave her a legacy after being diagnosed with cancer and shutting Burke out of the equation, she is responsible for what took place 12/15. John is pushing Burke into the limelight with a Dr. Phil interview and lawsuits because Burke has to pay for what he did - not just to his sister, but to John.
How does a Dr Phil interview, given 20 years after the fact, and a lawsuit for defamation - which likely netted him millions - punish Burke?
DeleteThe Dr. Phil interview netted Burke quite a bit of moolah too. It's not the first time John (and Patsy) have gone after the tabloids (or media) that called Burke the killer. This last one, however, thrust Burke into the spotlight, something he didn't look too happy about being in, he also was instructed to go on Dr. Phil as a per-emptive strike all to give the appearance that Burke was and is just a poor innocent little boy. Even Doc fell for it. And John likely will keep this up as long as he continues to breathe air. And, John gets to make back the millions he feels he was cheated out of long ago.
DeleteAccording to a brief internet search, Dr Phil does not pay "quite a bit of moolah" to his guests; most come away with a token gift. If you have evidence to the contrary, plesse post it.
DeleteBurke's appearance was indeed a preemptive strike, but one done in anticipation of the CBS special accusing him. It did nothing to portray him as a "poor innocent little boy"; to the contrary, his lack of interpersonal skills left a very poor impression.
He was thrown under the bus by his father and Lin Wood, and neither Doc nor I nor anyone with a modicum of intelligence "fell for it".
12/25
ReplyDelete"The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them."
ReplyDeleteThis sentence has always bothered me. On the surface, it simply says 'follow the rules or else.' But why is the language softened here?
To me, this sentence is a tell. We have two men who aren't just men, but gentlemen (an unnecessary detail). They're watching over your daughter so they're the key to getting her back. They don't particularly like you. Really? Do they possibly hate wealthy people or is there a particular reason why they might not like you? Is there a reason the recipient of the RN needs to know this? And finally, 'I advise you not to provoke them.' The RN laid out the rules and the consequences. Is a provocation defined as not following the rules or are there other ways to provoke these two men?
So what if this was written for Patsy? She'd know the two men and it was a warning to her to not say anything.
Now you're suggesting that Burke conspired with two men that Patsy knew?
DeleteThere were two people watching over JonBenet, and covering it up and accessories to a crime. Two people were up all night staging. Two people wrote the note. One was a gentle man, the other a gentle woman.
DeleteAnd this "gentle man" and "gentle woman", madly staging a failed kidnapping in the middle of the night to deflect attention to a group of intruders, a "foreign faction", shrewdly decided to refer to themselves as "two men"?
DeleteHey, I didn't write the note, they did.
DeleteIn fact, they did not. See (a) (b) and (c) in Doc's intro to this thread, which neither you nor any other BDIer has been able to refute.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnyone watching the South Carolina murder trial on court tv? The husband said his wife committed suicide with a garden hose on a chain link fence post.
ReplyDeleteHi all, I hope everyone is well.
ReplyDeleteI have not been following this blog for a while but it's great to see it ticking along.
Like Doc, I too am frustrated. It's disappointing that none of us will ever know what truly happened. The only chance is a deathbed confession from John or Burke...and fat chance of that happening.
I initially assumed it was both parents and even thought Burke could have been involved (and I thought this much, much earlier than 2016 CC). I will admit the JDIers such as Doc, CC and Ms D made plenty of good arguments and put forward some very compelling points. I admitted last year they could very well be correct...but as per above, we will never know.
At the end of the day I don't think anything can be ruled out (except for an intruder). There is so many different scenarios and possibilities that may have played out. None of the points in this blogs post remotely convince me that Patsy could not have been involved.
We can all make valid points and counter others with constructive arguments...but when it comes down to it...WE ARE ALL GUESSING!!! (and yes, I mean all).
If I had to choose a theory, I would say all three Ramsey's were somehow involved. Am I correct? Only 1 or 2 people in this world know.
Zedley! Great to see you, mate, glad I was up at this hideous hour for last-minute trial prep when my "Notify" popped, and there you were. Hope you're still happily luxuriating in your antipodeal splendor and that all is well.
DeleteAlso Zed you are completely on track. If you know, feel, intuit, have considered everything most especially the note,(and as EG says the parent's behavior after the fact) that Patsy was involved, then you have to know that John was brought into it as well. And if both parents staged the crime scene (not necessarily where she was killed, but made to look like where she was found was where she was killed) then you next must ask yourself why? Why not call the police right away? Would one parent "protect" the other - Hercule might say yes. Steve Thomas would say yes. Or is it more likely that two parents came together that night to protect someone else - and themselves too. I've already stated from what. Scrutiny, their own parenting skills, among other things. Once you rule in Patsy, that is the beginning of knowing it was the most innermost of inner circles, that gathered the wagons, and attempted to make sure everyone else went in other directions and away from that house and the people in it. And if you have spent years reading everything you can about this case, studying it, and thinking for yourself then it's not a "guess" - it's a hypothesis, and an informed hypothesis, and it is yours and ours, so stand by it. And by the way, there a many "Burke did its" in here so you aren't standing alone.
DeleteHey CC! Good to hear from you.
ReplyDeleteI will happily admit I had to google the definition of "antipodeal". Us Aussies don't use such complex words.
:)
Wiseass. XOXO
DeleteLet's chat, Bloggo (or do you prefer BlogSpot, or BS Anonymous?). Regardless, you've been here these last few months, long enough to know how I dislike the posting of wrongful information in furtherance of a particular POV.
ReplyDeleteYou do it, over and over, to-wit, most recently, your comments about executions in Colorado, Dr Phil's method of payment, and your many legal missteps.
I freely forgive the latter, as you are clearly ignorant of the law, but I do not forgive misinformation.
Do the work. Do better.
"It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth." Milan Kundera - Or what Zed said.
ReplyDeleteCC, I don't think Anon will engage with you, being fixated so deeply on BDI. However, I've two cents to add.
ReplyDeleteImo, there are a few reasons JR remains under the BPD’s and my umbrella of suspicion. Since this likely began with a sexual assault, which was covered up and denied by them, since Kolar’s weakest argument is that BR had the SBP disorder, JR rises to the top of my list of suspects. Moreover, while sexual assault on the part of a child is now more common, I have yet to find this combination: a sexual assault of a sibling, followed by a head blow which almost cracked her head in two, and then an asphyxiation. Find another child under the age of 10 who has perpetrated this kind of atrocity on a sibling, and I will give BDI more consideration.
And finally, the perennial question remains if the CBS scenario is true. If BR’s only participation was a head blow, why would two parents not call for help if she was severely injured. The argument for BDI stipulates that it was too late, she was already asphyxiated. Which brings me back to the scernario of sibling rarity in the above paragraph.
-T
You've already answered your own question, T in your last paragraph. You have to ask yourself what precipitated the head blow. What was going on that she needed to be silenced with a blow to the head?
ReplyDeleteLast, CBS didn't get it right. These TV specials are sensationalist pieces of garbage. They succeeded in providing the public with a visually stimulating scenario of an angered Burke chasing his sister down with a heavy flashlight after she innocently "stole" a piece of pineapple from his bowl of floating fruit in a bowl of milk but does anyone really believe that's what set Burke off? And my apologies to those who do believe this because I do know how compelling these television shows can be. Especially when they star investigators and authorities who have credentials that lend their shows a fair amount of credibility. However once you crack the code to what the shows are really up to (ratings), you begin to start watching them through more discerning and skeptical eyes.
Sorry, I must have pushed the wrong reply button. My query was directed to CC. With due respect your reply is rather a non-sequitur to my post. T
ReplyDeleteYou're right, T. What's more, not only was this unique in the annals of child crime, there is nothing in Burke's prior behavior to suggest psychopathy - no fire-starting, no torture of animals, no sexual acting out, no violence, no aberrant behavior of any kind. And spare me the shit-smearing story from 1993, BS, when his mother was hospitalized a continent away for Stage IV cancer.
DeleteIf Burke had sexually assaulted and murdered his sister, does it follow that his parents would ship him off to the Whites', away from their control, six hours later? Or let him return to school ten days after that? Nine year olds are not noted for discretion.
More questions that BS and the BDS can not answer. You go girl!!!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCC , your take on the grand jury findings seem to differ from every other expert or anyones I have ever read. Your bias and tendency to follow a narrative have clouded your mind.
Delete“Was there enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey for a crime?” Robach asks the juror, who responds: “Based upon the evidence that was presented I believe that was correct.”
But asked if the case had gone to trial, did he believe that the Ramseys would be convicted, the juror answered “no”.
“Based on the evidence you were presented do you feel you know who killed JonBenet Ramsey?” Robach asks.
The juror responds: “I highly suspect, I do.”
What evidence could justify indicting the Ramseys and expose the "killer" yet not lead to a conviction? Evidence that pointed to someone who could not be charged; i.e. someone under the age of 10.
CBS is being sued for a special that appeared highly irresponsible and libelous, but that doesn't mean their premise was wrong, or that they are the only entity that reached that conclusion. The grand juror would not name the person he suspected and indicated it was not John or Patsy Ramsey by saying neither would be convicted of a crime. That does not leave a lot of options
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBeckner and Hunter, who both attended the GJ proceedings, clearly and unequivocally exonerated Burke.
ReplyDeleteSherlock? Surely you jest, BS.
Sherlock
ReplyDeleteThe juror who spoke to 20/20 in 2016 also said, "there is no way that I would have been able to say, "Beyond a reasonable doubt, this is the person... and if you are the district attorney, if you know that going in, it's a waste of taxpayers dollars to do it.
I interpret that as a lack of enough evidence against John or Patsy specifically for her murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than a reference to someone who couldn't be charged due to age.
K
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHunter and Beckner NEVER removed the "umbrella of suspicion" from John and Patsy. NEVER. Do the work, get it right for a change, BS.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCC JR and PR were exonerated as well. I guess that following your line of thinking an intruder did it, since they were all exonerated, there for they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteCC , Lacy exonerated them. JR was already taken off the radar back when his handwriting did not match. The exonaratipns dont mean a dam thing and you know it. You get it right and do better. Just because it doesnt follow the narrative that you want does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteLacy? That poor disgraced fool? You bring me Mary Lacy?
DeleteCC facts are facts. Tou want to use some stupid exonerations as proof then it works both ways
ReplyDeleteThe truth is this case very well may be locked and sealed
You pretending that this is impossible and ridiculous is pretty funny. The answers given by the juror above point more to BR then either PR or JR. It could surely go the other way as well but acting like that jurors comments point to JR or PR is laughable.
ReplyDeleteYup, facts are indeed facts. Handwriting analysis is bogus science, doesn't pass Daubert. Chief Beckner stated as recently as 2016 that he knew who did it, and given sufficient evidence, he'd bring the case...something he clearly could not do against Burke or Patsy.
ReplyDeleteSherlock,
ReplyDeleteDA Stan Garnett made a public statement essentially saying that Lacy's "exoneration" letter was meaningless, and the Rs had not been cleared.
-T
It's good to see you post, Zed--a fellow BDI'er! ;)
ReplyDeleteOf course, what you said is correct. None of us really know who committed the crime. It's amazing how we can all look at the same evidence, and come to different conclusions.
For me, there are so many unanswered questions, too many things that just don't jive. From multiple doctor visits and calls that were not forthcoming, to phone records never attained, school records that were sealed, blah blah blah. Why?
The behavior of the the R's after the murder--things they said to people (PR - "we never meant for this to happen"). Making deals with police before allowing JAR to be interviewed. If his alibi was so solid then Why?
Making deals before they were interviewed. Why? As parent's of a murdered child, I'd be living at the police station not avoiding it.
Allowing your remaining child to be removed to a friend's house without police escort when you didn't know who was responsible for the "kidnapping". I wouldn't have let him out of my sight for a second. In fact, he would've been the first one I questioned. Had he heard anything, seen anything. They didn't want the police questioning him. Period.
The Barnhills who lived across the street and were caring for JB's dog and who hid JB's bike in their basement for the R's. They never spoke to those people again. Why?
To me, this was a major cover up operation with too many unanswered questions. They wouldn't cover for each other, that's for sure.
EG
Answer my questions, E. Start at the top, with Doc's intro, scroll down to why Beckner and Hunter both exonerated Burke.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, E. Give it a try, as none of your confreres have done.
DeleteCan we start a thread on what could possibly put JR on trial?
ReplyDeleteLead off, Jon, plenty of room right here. State your evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence to me is in the totality of the facts. I've been following this blog for years now. Many on this blog, smarter than I have laid it out ad nauseam. JRDI. All other theories are weak at best and usually ludicrous with no basis in fact. Often, there are other theories that are overly misleading as if JR himself is behind them, just like the ransom note.
ReplyDeleteIt just doesn't seem that this is that hard of a case. Many cases lead to convictions with much less "evidence". So, what would need to precipitate a trial, even with a possibility of a failure to convict? Is it all about money?
I don't know. That's why I ask.
Circumstantial cases are great, provided the circumstances lead inexorably to a particular perp. These do not. As a follower "for years", you should have, by now, learned some basics of law.
ReplyDeletePretty inexorable when all the facts combined eliminate the possibility of anyone else and only point to JR. BTW, here's a case where at first, there were many circumstantial facts in a murder case but wasn't enough evidence to take the case to trial until a cold case detective discovered "one little lie", lies similar to JR's about the window for instance. https://abcnews.go.com/US/contact-lenses-blew-2005-murder-case-wide-open/story?id=61872691
ReplyDeleteThat's it? That's what ya' got, the window? The one his son said he saw him once break to gain entry?
DeleteDon't misunderstand. Of course John did it, but I'm a lawyer, a trial lawyer, and I need evidence. Were you accused of a crime, you'd no doubt appreciate the point.
DeleteHi CC. May I beg to respectfully disagree? After many years of disinterest I've recently become an avid follower of shows like 48 Hours, Dateline, 20/20, and time after time I see cases prosecuted exclusively on the basis of circumstantial evidence. And I sometimes find myself cringing and muttering "reasonable doubt" when a suspect is pronounced "guilty" on the basis of pretty shaky evidence. Apparently you don't always need a smoking gun if you have a prosecutor who can put things together in a convincing manner.
DeleteWhile I agree that John (or anyone else) could not be prosecuted today on the basis of any theory out there today, including my own, that doesn't mean further investigation into some little understood aspects of the case could lead to successful prosecution in future.
One good example is the "expert" decision to rule John out as writer of the note. So long as that one stands, John will remain free and clear. However, it need not stand. For years I've been hoping to find an investigative reporter willing to track down each and every one of those "experts," to challenge that decision. On what basis was it made? What principles of forensic science were invoked? Each of these "experts" should be confronted with the comparative displays I've put together, revealing the many similarities between John's writing and the ransom note. And then challenged to explain the reasoning behind the decision to rule him out.
As for John's story about breaking that window earlier, nothing imo would be easier than tearing that obviously phony story to shreds, bit by bit, piece by piece. And don't forget: the housekeeper knew nothing about any broken window -- and if the edges of the window glass were caked with dust and grime, consistent with an old break, there would have been no reason for the police to question both John and Patsy -- at length -- regarding whether or not that window had ever been repaired.
Another example would be the DNA evidence, which has already been questioned and, as should now be clear, cannot be used to support any intruder theory.
It would take an aggressive prosecutor for sure, someone fearless enough to tackle such a challenging task. But as I see it, once certain hurdles are overcome, the truth of this very disturbing case should become painfully obvious.
You said it yourself, Doc: reasonable doubt.
DeleteThough I know you disagree with my conviction that John premeditated this crime, he somehow managed to create plenty of doubt by using Patsy's pad, pen and paintbrush, and imitating some of her characteristic letters, words and punctuation in the RN, did he not?
I'm willing to bet that those "true crime" shows that convicted on circumstantial evidence had but one viable suspect from the get-go, and that he was not a resident of a shared home, which hopelessly muddied the forensic evidence, as in our case.
Again, circumstantial cases are great, and eminently winnable, provided they lead to but one suspect.
And I still maintain John implicated Patsy deliberately, else he would have written the RN in all caps on construction paper or wrapping paper from the basement using a generic Bic pen, and used an equally generic No. 2 pencil for the mock garrote.
DeleteThis guy was no fool. If the intruder premise didn't fly, he created a fall back - the aptly named Patsy.
Interesting CC how we can agree on the identity of the guilty party, yet see the evidence in such a totally different light. But first let me clarify one important point of agreement: I do think it entirely possible that John premeditated this crime. And he might well have fabricated the note while at the airport on Xmas day. You may have forgotten what I've written about that possibility, but I have in fact taken it very seriously.
DeleteAs for the rest, no, I don't see John deliberately trying to implicate Patsy, not by using her pen, pad and paintbrush, nor attempting to imitate her hand.There is nothing in the note that remotely resembles Patsy's hand, as I've demonstrated over and over again on this blog and in my book. That's an illusion produced by a group of over-eager "experts" hired specifically to implicate her. John's goal was to use the note as a pretext for getting the body out of the house while pretending to be delivering the "ransom." He'd have had nothing to gain by making any part of his staging look like something Patsy had done.
A prosecutor following my analysis of the facts and logic of this case should have no trouble pointing the finger at John and John alone. Dragging Patsy into the equation never made any sense and is one of the primary reasons the case has remained such a mystery. Once we understand the real message of the ransom note, then Patsy's 911 call totally absolves her and we are free to focus on John.
CC: "And I still maintain John implicated Patsy deliberately, else he would have written the RN in all caps on construction paper or wrapping paper from the basement using a generic Bic pen, and used an equally generic No. 2 pencil for the mock garrote."
DeleteYou forget that, had John's plan been carried out as intended, there would have been no need to hand the note or any other evidence, such as the notepad or Patsy's paintbrush, over to the police, as it all could have been destroyed before the police were called. You are seeing the case through the wrong end of the telescope.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBut how to know all would go as intended? Sorry, but much better to have a backup plan. And if it implicated a wife who no longer wanted sex and who, to his mind, had already received a death sentence - well, c'est la guerre.
DeleteMuch as I like and respect you Doc, you'd never make it as a hardass prosecutor. Don't quit your day job.
CC: "Much as I like and respect you Doc, you'd never make it as a hardass prosecutor."
DeleteOK if I smoke a cigar?
Sure, provided you light mine first.
DeleteThere’s an old story told to Andrew Hodges by one of Access Graphics’ employees. That employee related that the person who had the biggest clientele was an older man (Jim) who ran the business from Boulder. The second owner from New Jersey (Eric) and JR managed to oust the “old bull” as the main decision maker, convincing folks that he wasn’t the man to run the business. Then JR somehow managed to shift the blame for this ouster on Eric who also became effectively sidelined. I wouldn’t put it past JR that he did have a Plan B.
Delete-T
Here, T, have a cigar.
DeleteIs the Jim you're referring to Marino, John's old friend from Michigan, the one who related stories about John's sexual shenanigans in Michigan? Wasn't he one of the "friends" from the past summarily fired by John?
Can't put anything past John, imo. Loyalty ain't in this narcissist's lexicon.
No, it's Jim Hudson. Interesting tidbit about Hudson. Lockheed brought Hudson back to run the Canadian and European markets for Access, removing JR from that role. This occurred in late spring of '96.
Delete-T
I always found it suspicious that John told his adult children and Melinda's fiancé that he found the body at 11:00. He knew they would be questioned by the police and would likely pass that information along, which Melinda's boyfriend did. This was a big deal to Steve Thomas, and further supported his PDI theory.
DeleteI believe that while JR outwardly supported Patsy and Burke, he planted these "seeds of doubt" deliberately many times over the years.
K
Great observations, K. I like the expression planting “seeds of doubt.” It’s my take as well. And the art of guiding someone to believe what you want them to believe is surely a talent JR possessed.
DeleteOne can’t quite rely on the interviewers’ questions to Patsy which resulted in vacuous answers - scattered videos on the guest bedroom floor, “cutesy” perhaps inappropriate photos of JonBenét in the basement. They were clearly trying and failing to bring “something” into focus.
However, LE did sometimes succeed in highlighting the calm, confident responses of JR who could describe nonsense as though it was completely rational. While sometimes it was like trying to keep a visual of a jellyfish subtly changing shape, a pattern did emerge, and a subsequent aftertaste of deceit.
DocG, thank you for describing the fine example of the window break-in. Similar rubbish was the chair in front of the train room story, which even Smit couldn’t buy.
But in addition to his explanations there are actions which might initially be viewed as innocuous. Yet later it leaves one wondering whether the action was taken in order to conceal something in his past. Why, e.g., did he try to visit his ex-lover, the “fatal attraction” woman, after the crime. He did know that the BPD wanted to speak to her. Possible witness tampering? What needed to be concealed?
Another example which isn’t particularly a red flag, but becomes puzzling when one takes a closer look, was a trip to Amsterdam. He made this trip in the fall of ’98, a few weeks before the Grand Jury began. His account is so simple to understand, until one examines timelines. He had not been working the European market since the late spring of ’96 when Lockheed asked one of the former owners of AG to take over the European markets. (Some will think John was trying to establish Jaleo North America, but his distribution agreement was for North America, not Europe.)
So why visit Amsterdam and say it was for the purpose of meeting business associates. For some reason it doesn’t pass the ‘aftertaste test.’ He did not have business associates in Amsterdam. He hadn’t been handling that market for 2 ½ years. Unless he had some business dealings which only he knew about.
Even JR’s explanation for why he selected Amsterdam for the center of European distribution rings contrived. Other countries had linguistic labor. Moreover, the countries who joined together in the European Union (established in ’93), could have easily worked with one another.
But one thing JR does omit in describing the business climate in The Netherlands is that the country was at the forefront of the digital age. Especially today The Netherlands is very well-known for its well-developed digital infrastructure. Unintentionally it has become a popular option for cyber criminals. LE calls some of these digital enterprises “Bulletproof hosts”, with powerful computer equipment. These are companies who are paid by criminal clientele for hosting the activities of phishing, spam and storing child pornography.
Finally, I’ve no proof whether JR was involved in something illicit. Sometimes his choices appear puzzling and the explanations seem incomplete. At other times there’s a calculating quality which goes far beyond protecting a young son’s reputation. He can go on Dr. Oz shows a dozen times, but for anyone who looks closely at his stories and actions, there will be an unmistakable impression of deceit. An aftertaste that he is hiding some deep dark secret behind a mask of normalcy.
T
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood deep background, T, as always.
DeleteI speculated here years ago that John's many trips to Amsterdam likely included visits to that city's famous red light district, where the women pose behind glass windows in various stages of undress, fancy dress and costumes - and we all know how much he liked women in dress-up:
He married a pageant queen, had an affair with a woman who he insisted wear ball gowns for him, had a pageant princess daughter whom he likely diddled, and his third wife designed pageant costumes.
Coincidence is highly suspect in my line of work.
Thanks for your input T, and CC for your continued contributions to this blog.
DeleteJohn "could describe nonsense as though it was completely rational" pretty much describes it. The chair blocking the door is a great example. I would add the "bicycle" stories told during the interviews. Not only did the changing stories not make sense, he didn't seem to care if the investigators knew that. Burke didn't get a bike, no Burke did get a bike, but no the bike was John's. Oh come on!
Definitely deceit.
K
You're no slouch yourself, K. Keep up the good work.
DeleteI appreciate the point and your input always. And you're right, I have learned a little bit about law from this blog. But, I'm a software engineer, so, logic drives my decisions, not rules. I guess I'm just wondering hypothetically, what might happen that would move it out of the stalemate that it seems to be in.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Jon, but a whole lotta' good prosecutors have looked at this case, and it just - regrettably - don't fly. Would that it were so.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteoff topic
ReplyDelete-Public Service Announcement-
If you get a big white envelope in the mail from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration survey don’t just throw it away or recycle without opening first.
I opened it and two dollars fell out! :)
If you get any kind of envelope from NOAA (based in Boulder, btw), why in god's name would you throw it out? Smart people, with wise things to say about global warming and climate change. If they choose to solicit your opinion, be flattered, two bucks notwithstanding.
DeleteHi CC, as the envelope could appear as junk mail. Nothing on the outside that informed me that it's a survey, let alone a cash gift enclosed.
ReplyDeleteAnd just addressed to 'Alabama Resident'.
I did a Ramsey and only glanced at the first paragraph, when I sorted thru the other pages in the envelope that's when the money fluttered out.
Usually anything with 'resident' I don't waste my time opening anymore, it goes straight to the recycling pile.
In fact, the cover letter only said "we have included a small gift as a way of saying thank you". Some organizations send address labels, notepads, etc.
But hey, I'll just add it to my $225 I made last month serving on a mock jury.
"(a) Had they been acting in concert, the 911 call would not have happened until after the "kidnappers" deadline;"
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. Most people would call the police if their child was kidnapped. It shows they're taking the kidnapp angle "seriously"
"(b) Had they been working in tandem, the staging in the basement would have been complete, perhaps the body removed; and"
You're assuming it's not complete. It may be just the way they wanted it to look. It's confusing and blame can't really be pinned on either one.
""(c) Had they colluded their stories would have been in complete sync, from the putting-to-bed scenario to the prior summer's breaking and entering by John; and"
Definitely not. Stories in perfect sync raise red flags. The story about JRs breakin is more or less in rough sync, as PR goes along with a story she'd know to be fake if she were innocent.
(d) If their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911? Why commit first degree murder, thereby risking the death penalty themselves?
Their aim wasn't to protect BR, that much we agree on. If BR did it they just tell police the kids were roughhousing and things got out of hand. Burke isn't going to prison at age 10. They couldn't place the body at the foot of the spiral stairs as the coroner may have been able to tell that the injuries weren't consistent with a fall.
Thanks, but I was hoping for answers grounded in logic, and . . . well, made sense. EG? Zedley? Lil? Batter up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust saw this posted on reddit. Jonbenet's former photographer arrested for accessing child porn.
ReplyDeletehttps://kval.com/news/local/police-childrens-photographer-accessed-child-porn-on-wireless-network-at-restaurant
Why LE takes a year or more on undercover surveillance has always bugged me. No matter the crime, I always think that just has allowed more victims/crimes, whether it's drugs, child abuse, trafficking, guns, animal abuse, et al.
As far back as January of 1997 Randy Simons had been suspected of participation in child porn in the kiddie pageant world, but JBR was never alone with him and there are no pornographic pictures of her, so I fail to see how this is germane.
DeleteFor the rest, I understand your frustration, Lil, but it's important to build a case that can meet the legal standards for prosecution and ultimate conviction, and that takes time.
Important to note, too, that in Simons' present Oregon case he is not accused of photographing and posting child porn, but viewing it, so no one was actively being victimized at his hand.
DeleteJust that he is part of the connection to Jonbenet during her pageant years. Also he was arrested way back then when he was naked walking down the street saying he didn't kill her. He was the photographer that took the majority of the photos the media printed with the 'glamorous or provocative' type poses. Hired by Patsy.
DeleteIt would be interesting to me if Lin Wood, John or Burke, BPD...have any opinions on this.
For those that didn't read the link -
ReplyDelete"Investigators want to hear from anyone "who has a child that has been left unattended or knows of a child that was left unattended with Randall Simons," police said."
The Ramsey Parents were Indicted by a Grand Jury in 1999 for Child Abuse Resulting in Death and Accessory to a Crime (RDI Only*)
ReplyDeleteu/mrwonderof
One of my favorite mysteries in the JonBenet Ramsey case is the meaning of the grand jury indictments. For over a year the grand jury heard evidence in the case, including evidence of an intruder (from Lou Smit) and an opinion of Ramsey innocence (from John Douglas). They nonetheless issued two indictments (that we know of) against the Ramsey parents. DA Alex Hunter privately declined to press charges but his remarks led the public to believe that the grand jury had not found probable cause to indict on any charges. The indictments were not revealed until the local newspaper sued for their release in 2013 and published copies of the four true bills, two for each parent:
Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death: On or between December 25, and December 26, 1996, in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey/Patricia Paugh Ramsey (edit: each parent indicted separately on same charges) did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen.
As to Count IV (a), Child Abuse Resulting in Death: A TRUE BILL
Count VII, Accessory to a Crime: On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey/Patricia Paugh Ramsey (edit: each parent indicted separately on same charges) did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted had committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.
As to Count VII, Accessory to a Crime: A TRUE BILL
This information is snipped from the excellent post of /u/awillis0513. The whole post is well worth your time.
What is up for speculation now is what do these charges mean.
First, there's the child abuse charge.
The most important line in that charge, in my opinion, is "unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously." Those words are indication that shows the jury believed the parties had criminal intent, or mens rea. Also, this means that if not for the actions of these parties, the crime would never have been able to occur.
This takes us to the second charge of accessory.
This count has the same line showing the belief of clear intent. Therefore, it would also eliminate the idea that the Ramseys assisted the killer by mere negligence.
It's also notable that this was an accessory charge and not an accomplice charge. An accessory charge indicates the party wasn't present during the commission of a crime while an accomplice would be. Therefore, the jury didn't believe that either Ramsey was actually in the room while JonBenet was being killed.
First of all, grand jurors do not write indictments themselves. They are presented with a list of possible charges by the prosecutor, in this case at least seven of them, from which they may choose any or none, based on the evidence.
DeleteSecond, an accessory may in fact be present during the commission of a crime.
Third, ALL possible charges in the seven or more set forth by Michael Kane would have contained the language setting forth criminal intent, else there is no crime.
And finally, yet again, Burke COULD NOT be charged with first degree murder - the language included in Count VII, thereby making what you imply a legal impossibility.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Sherlock, I'm going to include the reddit link for your entry
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/c9mbo3/the_ramsey_parents_were_indicted_by_a_grand_jury/
There are many great contributors and threads over there.
And riddle me this, Batman:
ReplyDeleteHad the GJ, Kane and Hunter, jointly or severally, believed Burke guilty of a serious crime, why was he not charged in juvenile court?
Hi CC, I was under the impression from posts here and elsewhere that no child under the age of 10 could be charged with any crime in the state of Colorado, juvenile court included. So children under the age of 10 can be charged in Colorado using the juvenile court?
DeleteYup, Lily mine, but not of first degree murder
DeleteOk, thanks hon
DeleteWhile not related to the case, I was upset last week when my local news reported that Denver officials plan to kill the Canadian geese there, saying they pose a health nuisance or something to the people. But to spin it to make it seem acceptable, their plan is to feed the killed (murdered, imo) geese to the poor. Not that the city was on my "places to visit" anyway.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete**Pet Safety Announcement** - for those in heat advisory areas, bring your pets indoors. Some states have laws against leaving a pet outdoors when temps are 90 and above. My area today is to have 105+ heat index. It's already at 102. Check with the elderly as well. Report animal negligence.
ReplyDeleteI've received a report that some are no longer able to post comments here. Is that still the case? If so, please email me and I'll see what I can do.
ReplyDeleteYes, if Burke couldn't be charged with a serious crime why not just call it in. Why go to the trouble of writing a note, breaking a window, moving a suitcase, and hiding her body in the wine cellar room. Just call it in. Normally. No hysterical 911 call about a kidnapping. Just tell it like it is. Our son was playing roughly with our daughter and he killed her. I think anyone with half a brain can figure out why they didn't just play it that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd to add a bit, it couldn't have been passed off as an accident. Not with the cord around her neck and the stick at the end of it. Nor could the sexual assault be explained, as simply a mean spirited rough house game. It has nothing to do with charges that couldn't be brought against Burke, and everything to do with charges that could be brought against one or both of the Ramsey's. So it had to be made to look like a fifth party came into the house, which would buy time and take the investigation temporarily away from the house and it's occupants. It's intended purpose was to cause confusion and misdirection. And that was the purpose of the note. Then they called friends over to contaminate the crime scene. Since Burke knew what happened he had to be removed. You have all seen his cocky attitude with the social worker. He couldn't be trusted to not say something off the wall, like how his Swiss army knife makes knots, or that he's moving on, or that he just remembers JonBenet falling off her bike on Christmas Day (and not trying to help her learn to ride her bike) showing little feeling the way he has continued to show. So he has kept himself hidden until CBS outed him, and he had to go on Dr. Phil as damage control.
ReplyDeleteThe Brian Wells case, the fellow with the bomb strapped to his neck who committed a bank robbery given a litany of instructions. They think those notes were traced from a typed document, and the handwriting is so perfect they must have been. I note they seem to have trouble with manuscript a, or just the fact that they use manuscript a, bolstering Doc's case that this is what's going on with the Ramsey case.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether Patsy was being framed. It's a very interesting idea CC, and I wouldn't rule it out, but I would bet a very small amount otherwise. He didn't mind Patsy taking the brunt of accusations after murder; then again he would state unequivocally she didn't write the note, which was probably unwise (How do you know?) when he could have hedged. "Well I wasn't there but I don't think so" instead of "I know my wife, she didn't do that." I get that could all be to get her to trust him, etc. Not saying it wasn't done cynically, but saying it does seem to support he wasn't framing her. Definitely true to point out that he used e. g. the paintbrush, and her journal, when he could've used something else. While Doc is right he could have gotten rid of them, the same applies to anything, so I am not sure that's what supports the notion of not framing Patsy as some back-up plan if he can't frame an intruder. I would offer instead that the ransom note had to be long - the war and peace of ransom notes, so he may have wanted lined paper. Also, while a number 2 pencil or hammer handle or whatever would work for the mock garotte, he may have felt he had to stay in the basement/etc, and had only the paintbrush handy as something that would not trace to him.
And as an aside, it seems significant some of the sexual assault came after he broke the paintbrush, as parts from it were inside her, so it was after he touched it. Why then, I wonder? Does it show he got off on strangling her, as Wecht suggests (though I don't think strangling came first like he says)? I think it might. I suppose another possibility is just covering up the molesting had not occurred to him yet, but it seems weird if we can infer it was only then and not earlier. I suppose the intricacy of the knots may also suggest he got off on it. Wouldn't you be in a hurry if you didn't?