I must say I'm impressed. After all these years and all our many frustrations there is still enough interest in the Ramsey case to prompt the current torrent of comments. That's fine with me -- but don't expect me to chime in very often, as I believe I've already said just about everything I have to say on this topic.
Incidentally, I've been receiving reports that some, or all, of you are no longer able to comment. Maybe this new thread will solve the problem. If not, please keep me posted via email and I'll see what I can do.
Good morning!
ReplyDeleteAnd yep, I wasn't able to post on the last thread. and not sure why so hope this one goes through.
Regarding the posts about not being able to charge BR for murder one, I totally understand that and get your point.
However, that's not what the R's were concerned about. Had it been an accidental death caused by rough play, they would have called the police and stated as much. It would've been a terrible tragedy but it would have been acceptable.
Something else was going on in that house between those children and the R's didn't want that being known. So, they both staged a " kidnapping rather than have BR's name dragged through the mud for the rest of his life.
Why do I think this?
1. Dictionary opened up to the word "incest".
2. Multiple doctor visits for vaginal infections of a young female child.
3. Smearing feces and bed wetting.
4. Sealed medical reports and school records.
5. Parents not having the only possible eye witness questioned. (BR)
6. Allowing him to leave their sight after daughter kidnapped without police escort.
7. Uncooperative with police investigation
8. Hiring lawyers and making deals before allowing family members/friends from being questioned
9. Stating "we never meant for this to happen".
I could go on and on but that's for starters.
EG
(1), (2), (6), (7), (8) and (9) apply equally well to JDI; (3) occurred in 1993 when Patsy was hospitalized for Stage IV cancer in Baltimore;(4) both Dr Beuf and Burke's third grade teacher testified before the GJ; (5) Burke was in fact questioned - and he too testified before that selfsame GJ, as did Doug Stine.
DeleteNow please address my points from Doc's intro to the previous thread, explain to me why Becker and Hunter both exonerated Burke, and tell me why the child was not charged in juvenile court.
Right on EG. And, who knows "why" Becker and Hunter tried to obstruct the investigation in the first place. Except to say money talks and b.s. walks. Why was Hunter doing all his "investigating" and leaking with the National Enquirer instead of interrogating the Ramsey's immediately after the murder. We don't know "why" Burke was exonerated. Hunter never said. Whatever case could have been made, for any of the Ramsey's, was lost in the first 24 hours. Precious evidence was stomped through, hidden, and covered up by virtue of not sealing off the house as a crime scene and removing it's occupants and their friends. Then the Ramsey's were allowed, by D.A. Hunter, to hide behind their lawyers for four months. The Ramsey's hired a P.R. consulting firm and went on the network junket to pitch their case instead of talking to the police. Ask why D.A. Hunter allowed that.
DeleteC'mon, E. Step up. Deal in logic and facts for a change instead of a television-inspired conspiracy. I know, I know, just like all the other BDIers, yours was a long-held conviction that preceded that show - astonishing then, how you and the rest magically appeared in September of 2016.
ReplyDeleteWould that just one of you would have the balls to respond to my remarks or answer my questions. . . but CBS didn't give you a script for that, did they?
My take is that most BDI's probably believe Patsy wrote the note. It never made sense to me that she would include manuscript style A's in a note written with disguise in mind... a style that would be recognized by friends, family, Dr's offices, teachers,etc. The caps on the A's look deliberately added, to my eyes.
ReplyDeleteK
What we believe is that John dictated parts of the note and Patsy did the writing. Just the fact that John had to mention to the police that he took a melatonin and was asleep by 10:45 points to guilt by offering an excuse that he was out and asleep. Same thing Adam Shacknai said - that he took an ambien. If he was involved, Patsy was involved. And if both of them were involved or another word for it is "accessories" who were they accessories to? Each other? Would Patsy help John cover up sexual abuse and murder? Difficult. She might. Would John lie for Patsy? Probably. But the more likely scenario is both parents covered up for Burke (or see EG's comments above, which I wholeheartedly agree with).
DeleteWhy write the note in Patsy's notepad? Why not John's? Did neither John nor Patsy think to tear the start-up page out of the pad? Instead, it was there, and might as well have been a bookmark. And did neither one think that the manuscript "a's" might point to Patsy? Finally, what was the point of this long, long sample of Patsy's handwriting, if John was dictating this note?
DeleteIf John was covering for Burke(or Patsy for that matter), he must have changed his mind when he told his adult children he found the body at 11:00, which was passed on to the BPD(like he knew it would).
I think it more likely, John was covering for John.
K
That's right K. Why use the one visible pad and pen in the house. If it were John and John alone, wouldn't he have had the intelligence to bring the note in from some pad that couldn't be traced to his own house, using a pen that didn't come from the place Patsy left her own pen? Some premeditated murder. Poor scheduling too - the night before they were planning on leaving for a second Christmas. Not much time to get it all right. This tells me no one planned this - "we never meant for this to happen."
DeleteDoc thinks the note was traced from a word processor, and that would explain the manuscript a. The Brian Wells case, the 'pizza bomber', has all the suspects known, and has handwritten notes with manuscript a sometimes messed up as well. The handwriting is so perfect it has to be traced from a typewritten document, and which suspect did it was never ascertained.
DeleteAnd premeditation doesn't mean the same thing as planning days in advance. It means you intended to kill.
CC, I will agree with you on at least one thing: John and Patsy were obviously not working together when the 911 call was made. That emphatically rules out Burke. Patsy, on the other hand, is a different story altogether.
ReplyDeleteI hope you are doing well.
Hercule
You're not going to believe this, Herc, but I emailed Doc yesterday asking if he'd heard from you privately because I'm concerned about your health and you've been way too silent for way too long.
DeleteHow are you? Is all well? Did you quit smoking? Where ya' been?
Ah, that explains why my ears were burning. Overall, I am well. Thank you for asking. I did quit smoking for a few months, but I am ashamed to say I have not completely broken the habit. I am not the chain smoker that I once was, so maybe I earned back a few good years.
ReplyDeleteI still travel, but not nearly as much. Consulting here and there mixed in with a few speaking engagements. Keeps the blood flowing.
How about you?
Hercule
Comme ci, comme ca. Some days are better than others and the nights are still too long.
DeleteI'm glad to see you here. Stick around and joust with some of these obdurate BDIers, why don't you?
I might take you up on that offer. To be honest, it had been a year or more since I have thought about this case. When I was in the Philippines recently, I could not help but think about John Ramsey.
DeleteHercule
How does anyone know that JR and PR were not arguing that morning about what to do with JBR's remains ? We dont nor can any logic or evidence prove otherwise. The only way this can be done is if logic is not being used.
ReplyDeleteIf they were going to remove her body they should have done so much earlier, closer to the attack, and under the cover of darkness. Instead most of the time was used writing a long winded note, discussing what to do and how to stage her body, what time to make the call, and how they were going to "act" once the police entered the house. I think Patsy would have wanted a proper burial, as stated in the note, and to be able to stage that as well - with her crown, turning her from just a little girl back into a beauty queen. In their book and "reward" for finding out who did it they posted yet another picture which turned her back into the little girl she was, and tried to portray the beauty pageant stuff as just an occasional thing. If they did discuss it which of the two parents do you think would have voted to keep her in the house?
ReplyDeleteNot one of you has adequately replied to my question: Why did Beckner and Hunter both, publicly and unreservedly, exonerate Burke?
ReplyDeleteSurely if he'd been a vicious nine year old who'd sexually abused his sister for weeks or months, then struck her on the head, presumably in a fit of pique over a piece of pineapple, waited 45-90 minutes and then strangled her with a mock garrote, they would have brought charges in juvenile court to keep this monster off the streets, would they not?
And while you're about it, explain to me how a nine year old managed to do all those things without leaving a single fingerprint, hair, fiber or scrap of DNA at the crime scene.
ReplyDeleteQuite the little criminal mastermind you folks have cooked up.
Yet you have cooked up a criminal mastermind in John Ramsey. He was the man who wasn't there (loved that Doc!). No prints of Ramsey's anywhere where it counts, around her body, the note, the chord, in her blood on her leg, on the window glass - no where. Yet he committed the crime. Not even on the flashlight which was used as a decoy imo.
ReplyDeleteThe monster was kept off the streets because he came from a fine family and his parents did an excellent job of taking any and all attention away from him and even onto themselves if necessary. As far as they were concerned this was a family matter and would be dealt with as such. That was their mentality. As far as they were concerned they were already living in an us (their wealthy privileged family) and them (everyone else) world. And the rest of the world - police, D.A., investigators, the media, doubting friends, could be dealt with.
JBR's body and the flashlight, including the batteries, were wiped, and gloves account for John's absence of fingerprints and DNA - all things beyond the ken of a nine year old in 1996.
DeleteYou put too much emphasis on the power of the Ramsey wealth in Boulder, a rich little town of denim and Birkenstocks, which disdains flashy display.
And it's still cord, not "chord", Inq/Castor/Lou.
That only proves the parents covered up, wiped down anything he would have touched associated with the body. He was sent to bed after he confessed what he had done, of course he didn't stage anything.
ReplyDeleteSo let me get this straight, Dink: Two otherwise normal, law-abiding parents, when faced with the brutal murder and mutilation of their daughter merely "sent him to bed" and then the next morning blithely shipped him off to the Whites', absent parental supervision, to interact with Fleet Jr and Daphne? Sent him back to High Peaks ten days later to interact with a roomful of children? And thereafter lived with and slept in the same house with the murderous little monster without a thought for their own safety?
DeleteJohn Ramsey's networth May 1 1996 was reported as 6.4 million. That would be a lot of denim and Birkenstocks by most people's estimation.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you google "People's Republic of Boulder" or "The Magic Kingdom of Boulder" or "25 Square Miles Surrounded by Reality" ...or live there, as I did for six years, and where I still have friends who thought the Ramseys flamboyant and distasteful.
DeleteWhere those friends when it came time to elect a district attorney that would hold the flamboyant and distasteful Ramsey's accountable for child neglect and accessories to a crime.
DeleteAlex Hunter may have been the right DA for hippy dippy Boulder for many years ...right up until he ran into the Jonbenet Ramsey media firestorm.
DeleteMy friends and I, all in law school, all legal hardliners, did not vote for him in 1974, when he won by a mere 650 votes. Beyond that, I never inquired.
But how 'bout instead of a very Trumpian distraction you answer my queries at 12:58, or in fact anything else of substance?
DeleteAs I recall the school was instructed to disallow any student to query Burke, or anyone else. Too late though. He had already been joking around with one of his friends - Doug? about how they thought his sister met her demise. Once the Ramsey's skipped town and got back to Atlanta Burke was whisked away to therapy for two years. Odd they didn't consider conjoint family therapy. Could it be because Burke was the one with the problems? His parents were prescribed anti-depressants. What was Burke prescribed? In any case not likely he will be a repeat offender. His crime was situational although I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with him.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to need to cite your sources for all of the above, Inqy Dink, each and every one, as your statements are, as always, highly suspect.
DeleteLet's go back to your statement or rather theory, that Hunter exonerated Burke. According to the JonBenet Encyclopedia DA Alex Hunter is among those who privately considered Burke played a role in the death of his sister. Hunter declared publicly in 1999 that Burke wasn't a suspect in his sister's death. But later events suggested that statement wasn't as definitive as it seemed. In 2000 Hunter refused a request by Lin Wood to sign a statement declaring under oath that "all questions related to Burke's possible involvement in the death of his sister were resolved to the satisfaction of investigators." He also refused to declare that Burke "has never been viewed by investigators as a subject." Nor would he say Burke was not been a suspect and is not a suspect. Burke was never officially cleared. JonBenet Encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteIt’s always useful to review the actual affidavit Hunter signed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?4778-Alex-Hunter-Affidavit-Regarding-Burke-Ramsey&p=61209#post61209
-T
As I thought - that's not an exoneration. He's only saying he hasn't been involved in any plea deals in Burke's behalf. It stands: Hunter never officially cleared Burke Ramsey.
DeleteAccording to the Denver Post, "authorities" stated the day after the GJ proceedings in May of 1999 that Burke was a witness and not a suspect.
DeleteSince the only "authorities" in the room were Michael Kane and Alex Hunter, and since Kane has never spoken publicly about the case, well . . . Hunter exonerated him.
I've mentioned Burke's psychiatrist here before, who as of two years ago was still practicing in Atlanta. He specializes in juvenile and adolescent behavioral problems. You'll have to do your own research on him, I've already provided it before. His bio is on linked in or was two years ago. Burke of course saw him 20 years ago. The Boulder Daily Camera 1/26/97 published an article that Boulder officials counseled staff and students at Burke's school going through Boulder Valley District Supervisor Lydia Swize that Burke was to be left alone and that questions would have to be fielded through her. That's it. You're welcome to disprove if you wish.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCC's question is irrelevant even if BR were cleared. PR and JR were cleared so I guess that makes them innocent....
ReplyDeleteAs far as JR and PR arguing the morning of JBR's death, it could be JR wanted to get rid of her body and PR did not thus resulting in a hasty call to police by PR and last minute staging by JR. PR almost asked for an ambulance and then switched it to police. The tone, loudness and change in her voice when she says police verifies that she was, at the least going to say something else else even if you claim to not to hear her the AMmmmm....
The goofs on this site claiming to not hear anything out of the ordinary is humorous to me. Just like excusing all of PR's lies as "not lies", the pineapple, all of the fiber evidence and anything else that does not follow the agenda for which they try and force which goes gainst logic and evidence. Did BR not come out after 20 years and say he was up out of bed later that night ? Surely he did.
That alone puts him on the list of suspects for anyone who is a halfway decent armchair detective.
When a child is 9 and in counseling it means he has issues, of course that doesnt smack someone like CC right im the face as being logical that BR had issues... it must be all of that legal training that makes the oh so obvious not so obvious.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCC , I would like you to give me one shred of documented evidence just like you always ask for that JR was a pedophile or molested JBR. Something other than you just coming up with nothing more than a complete shot in the dark ir pulling it of your rearend. Oh yeah this avenue was fully investigated and you have not an iota of anything even close to evidence. Nothing other than a complete guess on your end bc usuaply this and usually that. There were however reports by friends of the Ramsey family that BR had to be pulled off of JBR on more than one occasion and I will gladly find you that podcast right after you give me one shred of evidence that JR was molesting JBR.
ReplyDeleteI have never referred to John as a pedophile, nor do I believe he was one. I do believe that JBR was chronically molested, that her father was the likeliest perpetrator, and that it led to her murder.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Denver Post, Burke was declared by "authorities" on the day after his GJ appearance in May of 1999 to be a witness and not a suspect.
I have no legal evidence to support my opinion that JDI, nor do you to support yours that BDI, nor has any Boulder County DA, else charges would have been brought long since.
I never claimed that I have any solid suspect to support my beliefs about this case. Of which I do not consider myself JDI, PDI or BDI. I am in the category of I would like to figure it out, there is conflicting evidence all over the place of which you seem to deny all of it. You validate yourself as if you have something "concrete" and that you have this case solved , of which you most likely do not.
ReplyDeleteYour breakdown in many aspects of this case are not very logical at all is my only point. I can agree tbat your hypothesis makes sense IF YOU ONLY FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WANT AND CHERRY PICK WHILE IGNORING ALMOST ALL OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. You can illogically shrug of PR's role in this case but it is clear to most that she was purposely throwing LE off and telling plenty of lies from day 1.
Question for you regarding that basement window. You have claimed all along that JR gaslit PR. Now BR came out and said that window was broken prior just like JR said. Gaslighting one pwrson is one thing but now 2 ?...when you get to 2 ppl it would seem to me to be more of a group cover up or possibly it was actually true that the window was broken previously. Would you not agree with this ? Even if PR were gaslit which I find impossible to begin with as usually gaslighting works on something someone previously said or possibly did, not on something of physical damage to the house that person lives in and no way for such a period of extended time as this. So when you throw that gaslighting out of equation then you now have PR lying from day 1 about that window and then your whole hypothesis goes right down the drain. Do we agree on this point ?
Were you a student of this blog you would know that I hold no truck with Doc's "gaslighting" theory and have always believed the window was broken prior to the night of the murder.
DeleteIf JR was molesting his 6 year old daughter then that makes him a pedophile in my book, situational or not.
ReplyDeleteAs far as evidence goes there is much more on BR than there is on JR. We have a child who as far as I can tell had issues, was in counseling, whose prints were on the bowl that was most likely the murdered persons last meal and who 20 years later admitted to be up and out of bed sneaking around later that night. Now you think he would have come forward long before this to say as much. I think all of this would put anyone in any case with similar evidence in the suspect pool, do you diagree on this point ?
ReplyDeleteYou neglect to mention that BR also said, in that same interview, that his father was also up, and carrying a flashlight.
DeleteWith respect to Burke's "issues", you're going to have to lay 'em out here, chapter and verse. And please do not include the shit-smearing from 1993 when his mother was hospitalized a continent away for Stage IV cancer, nor the poop in JBR's room the morning after, which was never tested, as JBR was often incontinent.
CC, my apologies, I have read most of the posts here just this past week but I did not see that you disagreed with the gaslighting. Please direct me to your theory on the window or let me know your opinion. I see no way without the gaslighting that this hypothesis is a possibility.
ReplyDeleteI use BR being in counseling as my basis for him having issues. The shit smearing is just more evidence as is his current behavior on TV that there is still an issue and most likely always has been..whether he is on the spectrum or whatever it is there is definitely something going on and most likely the same thing that was back in 96 and probably his whole life. I will surely concede that does not make BR guilty or a murderer but you must concede that BR has something going on medically as well and guilty or not.
ReplyDeleteI do not so concede. The only counseling of which I'm aware took place after his sister's murder, which strikes me as merely parentaly prudent.
DeleteIf you know of prior counseling, or any documented evidence of psychopathy, please post your sources.
Unfortunately there is no documented history of Burke having been treated for any sort of psychopathy prior to 1996 - in fact even if it were suspected he had a form of autism we would not be privy to his medical records - until he too becomes deceased. What we do have is the golf club incident, we do have the feces smearing on JonBenet's box of candy we have the housekeeper going on record to say she found a grapefruit-sized ball of feces in John Benet's bed, and then other medical issues JonBenet had such as a broken finger which we don't know came from Burke or not. Even if it had would Patsy have told Dr. Beuf? She claims to not even remember why she frantically called his office after office hours. Most of all we have a family dynamic that suggests neglectful parenting. One was always gone, the other no doubt preoccupied with fear that her cancer would return, and turning her child into a project - which suggests attention was given but only when the child was being prepped for a pageant competition. The son was left alone and neglected, emotionally starved but materially rewarded.
DeletePatsy volunteered as a room mother in Burke's classroom. She directed an over-the-top science fair at his school. There is no proof whatsoever that he was "neglected, emotionally starved". If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.
DeleteThe golf club incident was described as an accident by the only adult present. The finger was attributed to a fall in the supermarket. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.
Jonbenet had both poop and pee problems, and the pile in her bed was likely hers. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.
Savage, Wilcox, Hoffman-Pugh, the parents of Burke's playmates, the playmates themselves, and Burke's teachers reported no aberrant behavior of any kind. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it.
And you will never see Burke's medical records, Dink, even after his death.
JBR, according to housekeepers never had once been reported as smearing her feces. There was only a bedwetting issue. BR smeared feces before and just because it was not reported that he did it more than that one time surely does not mean he did not do it more than that. Besides that if someone has a history of doing something and another person has none than common logic says the person with the history of doing it previously is and will most likely to do it again. Are you debating that the feces was not most likely Burke Ramsey's ?
ReplyDeleteA single occurrence does not connote a "history". Again, if you have evidence of other such behavior post it.
DeleteThere's ample evidence that JBR had poop problems. Check Schiller or Thomas or acandyrose.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/family-friend-says-burke-ramsey-had-outbursts/news-story/e039ffc7fc90925cecc4e31b9af33090
ReplyDeleteI could not access your web reference. "Outbursts"? "A family friend"? This is your evidence of prior counseling or psychopathy?
ReplyDeleteI said it was never reported that JBR smeared feces. The housekeepers who cleaned up after her daily never reported it once. If I am not mistaken , it was reported that she had softball size fecal matter in her bed once. If there are 3 suspects in a murder case and only one has been convicted of murder before than the odds on favorite to be guilty would be the previously convicted murderer. Same thing here, the most likely candidate to smear shit would be BR. If I am not mistaken BR was in counseling prior to JBR being murdered. I will see if I can dig that up for you as well. You are telling me that you honestly do not think there is something wrong with BR even today or are you jut sticking with your narrative ?
ReplyDeleteI think Burke is shy, reserved, reclusive, socially inept, and possibly suffers from a smiling disorder, the name of which I no longer recall. The worst he was guilty of, as a kid and now, is being a nerd.
DeleteYeah, "dig that up" for me.
I have nothing on BR being diagnosed with pschopathy nor did I claim that. I may be wrong but I do not think you can even be diagnosed with pyschopathy at that age.
ReplyDeleteI posted the link about outbursts as I ran into it searching for BR being in counseling prior to JBR's murder and found it as useful knowledge. You dont find it coincidental that JBR was hit by a golf club previously by BR and that the skull fracture from the night of her death could very well have been from a golf club as well ?
ReplyDeleteI do not. My brother hit me, accidentally, with a golf club while practicing his swing in our backyard. Kids have accidents.
Deletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/burke-ramsey-initial-interview-contradicts-dr-phils-but-smiles-in-both-when-discussing-mothers-anguish/amp/
ReplyDeleteA shy, reclusive, socially inept young man with a smiling disorder. A nerd, nothing more.
DeleteI await real references to prior counseling and, if you prefer, sociopathy.
Why does his story change so much is the point here.
Delete"A smiling disorder"? That's a new one for the books.
DeleteI ran into this while looking as well. I did not post it bc of the smiling but posted it bc of the contradictory story told by BR. His story changes just the same as JR's and PR's changes
ReplyDeleteAll 3 are liars.
BR hitting JBR was not an accident though PR reported it as such to the Dr.
I see. And you know it was not an accident? How?
DeleteBecause it was reported that BR had an outburst and hit her purposely. It was also reported that BR had outbursts at the time and had serious jealousy issues with JBR. Is it possible that someone lied and said it was on purpose ? Sure but when I look at the motive I have none so I personally believe it to be true.
DeleteBR was allowed to have friends spend the night yet JBR was not. Why do.you think this was this was so ?
You're wrong, yet again. Daphne White and Jonbenet had frequent sleepovers.
DeleteI appreciate newbies with an interest, I really do, but you need to do the reading and the research before yammering on here. Read Schiller, Thomas, acandyrose top to bottom. Read this blog. If you want credibility here, research your opinions PRIOR to posting them.
If Burke was in therapy receiving counseling for his alleged frequent, violent outbursts, doesn't it seem highly unlikely his parents would let him have regular sleepovers with other children, Sherlock?
DeleteYour conclusion that HIS behaviour was the reason his sister couldn't have sleepovers is some ass-backwards logic right there.
MRs D , I read that BR Ramsey often had sleepovers and JBR was never allowed to have any in more than one book...Kolar and Thomas. It was reported by friends of family that BR hit JBR on purpose. It isnt logic it is reported fact so possibly you need to go restudy. Start with Thomas and Kolars books then get back with me .....
DeleteAnd tell me, please, who reported these "outbursts", and who witnessed one in Michigan when JBR was hit by the golf club. Don't be shy: Name names, dates, describe these never before documented "outbursts".
ReplyDeleteSherlock, you aren't going to convince people who have already made up their minds JDI or PDI or an intruder did it. I appreciate that you haven't made up your mind - that keeps you open. It took me many years to believe anything to the contrary that Patsy did it, and then I took so many left turns I lost focus. Anything was possible. Then I went back to the drawing board, put more thought into it, read. I always could see that Patsy was lying and if Patsy was lying, so was John. Who would they lie for? Each other? If John did it would Patsy keep excusing a husband who murdered her favorite child? She really went to bat for him when he campaigned for political office. How could she continue to support a man who abused and murdered her child? So I went back to what I really suspected all along. That they were invested in protecting someone else (and themselves). And Burke was the only family member that was in that house on that particular evening.
ReplyDeleteActually, Dink, your detours were more frequent than your name changes. You showed up here in September of 2016, along with the rest of the TV-influenced BDIers.
DeleteInappropriate smiling is, in fact, a thing, and there are at least three disorders: Look it up, do some research on your own for a change.
Anonymous. I am in complete agreement that PR had a role and it was quite obvious that she was a terrible liar from day 1 as she was absolutely horrible at it and blundered many many things, which almost got her charged and probably should have. Without question she knew what happened that morning.
DeleteYou are so predicable. You were totally wrong about Hunter - I did the research, I found it, T substantiated it, and there you go. When called out you usually resort to name calling, and loyalty isn't your strong-suit so look out everyone else. Why don't you provide me with a link to the "thing" inappropriate smiling is caused by, how long it lasts, what kind if disorder it is, etc. and why you think Burke has the "thing."
ReplyDeleteActually never mind. It's a symptom of autism - also schizophrenia but autism is more like what Burke had or has. Anger outbursts is another symptom of autism.
ReplyDeleteFor the third time, the Denver Post published an article in May of 1999, after the GJ concluded its proceedings, saying that "authorities" stated Burke was "a witness, not a suspect". Since Kane and Hunter were the only two "authorities" in the GJ room, and since Mike Kane has never spoken publicly about the case, it's not difficult to determine who made that remark.
DeleteThere are three inappropriate smiling disorders. You've chosen the one that suits you. Even if Burke was autistic, what of it? Doesn't make him a sexual abuser or a murderer.
I owe you nothing, certainly not loyalty. You've been dishonest for the entire three years you've been here: About your various identities, your various theories, and your constant posting of misinformation, Inq/Castor/Lou/Anonymous.
At the end of the day, anyone's suspicions regarding Burke are all irrelevant anyway. We know for a fact he didn't kill JonBenet because the true bills tell us so. The GJ believe that John and Patsy "rendered assistance to a person...knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.” Burke was too young to have committed first degree murder in the eyes of the law, thus we can say with absolute certainty, the GJ are not referring to Burke as the person the Ramseys rendered assistance to. This has been pointed out a thousand times before, but no BDI ever even attempts to respond, because there is just no adequate response, is there? There it is in black and white - the Grand Jury know Burke wasn't involved, as does Mark Beckner who says he'll prosecute given the chance...he can't ever prosecute Burke, who was a minor at the time, can he? Thus, Burke cannot be JB's killer.
ReplyDeleteYou call yourself "Sherlock"...well then, you of all people should know, this is elementary, my dear.
I'd like to amend my earlier post.
DeleteIt wasn't Beckner who said he'd prosecute, it was Stan Garnett, of course...duhhh. That's what happens when you post comments at 5.30 in the a.m after no sleep.
"Asked if he thought he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” "
What do you make of that, Sherlock? BPD has maintained one of the Ramseys killed Jonbenet, so Garnett can only be referring to Burke, John, or Patsy. As PR is dead and BR was too young, JR is the ONLY Ramsey who can be charged.
When are you going to answer my question, Sherlock? I've asked it twice now (I, along with Doc and CC, have actually asked it probably a couple of dozen times over the past three years, but not one BDI has ever attempted to address it)..I see you've been on several times since I asked it as you've responded to other posts. I can only assume you're intentionally avoiding it because only one conclusion can be drawn from it - a conclusion you don't agree with?
DeleteWell, you're certainly committed to dodging the more difficult questions, aren't you, Sherlock?
DeleteFor a third time...what do you make of Garnett's statement?
I was wrong; apparently Mike Kane made at least one public statement:
ReplyDeleteBurke Ramsey Officially Cleared
On several occasions, Boulder law enforcement officials have indicated Burke Ramsey was not a suspect or had been cleared in the case. This is the strongest evidence that Burke is not a plausible suspect in this case.
1996 Patterson Conclusion. According to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News, BPD Detective Fred Patterson, after interviewing Burke one-on-one on 12.26.96, "concluded that Burke had no knowledge of what had happened to JonBenet" (paragraph #499).1998 Beckner Statement. According to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News, in early 1998, former Boulder PD Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke was not involved in the killing of JonBenét, was not a suspect in JonBenét’s murder, and was not being looked at as a suspect (paragraph #87).1999 and 2000 Alex Hunter Statements. According to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News:In May of 1999, former Boulder DA Alex Hunter issued a press statement that publicly and officially stated that Burke was not a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister. It said, in part: "[A]lmost a year ago [Boulder] Police Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke was not a suspect and that we are not looking at him as a possible suspect. To this day Burke Ramsey is not a suspect" (paragraph #89).In a sworn affidavit dated October 12, 2000, former Boulder DA Alex Hunter reaffirmed under oath that Burke had never been a suspect in the investigation into his sister’s murder. A copy of said affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The affidavit stated, in part: From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to suspect (paragraph #96).1999 Kane Statement. Michael Kane was the special prosecutor who oversaw the grand jury investigation into JBR's death. According to Lin Wood's motion in Burke Ramsey's 2016 defamation case against CBS News,,"On or about December 12, 1999, Kane publicly acknowledged in a statement to, and published by, the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Sunday Patriot News that there was no evidence developed in the investigation that supported an accusation that Burke killed JonBenét:"One of the more horrendous mistakes by the media, Kane said, was the story by a supermarket tabloid, The Star, that branded Burke as the killer. Earlier this month, the Ramseys filed a $25 million libel suit against the paper. Kane recalled that when the story first came out last May, it troubled the prosecution. And when the story began getting picked up by other newspapers, they knew they had to do something.“Alex Hunter and I decided there was no basis for that speculation and no evidence to support it, and we issued a press release to put it to rest,” Kane said, “I think it’s horrible that a 12-year-old kid would have a finger pointed at him with no evidence to support it and have to see his picture on the cover of tabloids every time he’s in a supermarket saying that he killed his sister” [emphasis added] (paragraph
The above was copied straight from the JBR Encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteC'mon Dink, EG, Zedley, Lil, Sherlock - answer my original question: Why did all these LE folks exonerate Burke, publicly and unequivocally?
You all, usually chatty, appear flummoxed, so let me give you a hand:
DeleteBurke was exonerated because THEY KNEW HE DIDN'T DO IT.
Mrs D I never stated that BR could not have sleepovers for his violent outbursts but thank you for putting words into my mouth. If I believe anything it is that JBR could not have sleepovers for another reason other than his violent outbursts. Your assumptions are wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou're rather conspicuously ignoring my post from this morning, Why might that be?
DeletePlease post your sources for these alleged "violent outbursts".
And it's Ms D, not Mrs or MRs D.
Ms D , on your incorrect assumption, my personal belief is that JBR was not allowed to have sleepovers due to Burke Ramsey experimenting sexually with his sister and surely they could not have Burke doing the same thing to JBR's friends. That is my hypothesis on why no other girls of JBR's age were let spend the night.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCC ,Sorry I am not ignoring anything, I just do not sit on this blog all day waiting for responses etc.
ReplyDeleteMs D , Your claim that JR nor PR could not be charged with the cbarges that they were bc BR was a minor and could not be charged with 1st degree murder are 100% entirely false. Just because BR can not be charged surely does not mean JR and PR can not be charged as they were. If BR did commit this murder and JR and PR helped cover it up then the charges would look exactly as they do now.
If you still can not read the link I put up regards to BR's outbursts , which is not a secret to begin with then I will attempt to repost it another way.
I posted notbing untrue or not known, Judith Philips came right out and said she was told by PR that one of the golf club incidents was not an accident. You already know this though if you are educated on this case. Much of what is known on this case is from written books and
it is stated in 2 books, Thomas' and Kolar's that JBR was never allowed to have any friends sleepover at her house while BR was all the time. Please feel free to source me your claim because that is the exact opposite of what 2 detectives on the case wrote in their books.
I have repititively told you that it does not matter who was exonerated in this case, whether it be BR, JR or PR, mistakes were obviously made. I would not consider it out of the realm that BR was possibly overlooked in the beginning, one of the main detectives on this case and after the timeline of all of the points you are trying to make found BR to be a guilty party. I am sure he has evidence that we do not and knows much more about this case than you or I . I will go back and reread Kolars take on the true bill as it has been many years since I read it.
Kolar was not employed by the BPD in 1996. He had no involvement with the GJ in 1998.
DeleteHe read reports for the discredited Mary Lacy, and advanced a highly dubious theory about child sexuality, which he self-published in an e-book.
CBS, when looking for an angle on the then 20 year old murder, turned that into the television "special" you all bought into so wholeheartedly.
I did not "buy into anything wholeheartedly". I do however find that there are several possibilities in this case and until any of them can be discounted by fact, evidence or logic I will stay that way. The only thing I havr discounted so far is IDI. As I stated Kolar was the lead investivator after the fact, which means he had access to and saw all of the information to everything that occured prior. You portraying that a lead investigator on this case has no clue what he is talking about and knows nothing about it is what is a very dubious statement.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCC, I have a question for you now in regards to BR and JR being up with that flashlight. From day 1 JR lied and said he took melatonin and slept all night until recently when BR admitted to being up and that his father was up as well. You believe this is the truth correct ? This would mean that PR had to have known this then as well OR did BR lie to PR and/or not tell her this ? If this is the case then that would make BR a liar and he would have known now all along that it was his father who was up with JBR and that he molested and murdered her. Or BR was the culprit and both covered it up. I have seen all of BR's interviews from back then and did he lie back then because it seems more than odd that this did not come out back then.
Regardless, It appears to me that there are only 3 possibilities here....
Try this ...https://www.google.com/amp/s/drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/burke-ramsey-initial-interview-contradicts-dr-phils-but-smiles-in-both-when-discussing-mothers-anguish/amp/
ReplyDeleteMy, lots of posts. I've forgotten more than I can remember on this case. But it seems DocG started the blog after Kolar's book came out according to the main page here.
DeleteSherlock - about 'outbursts', I seem to recall two that the media covered, reported by classmates. An incident during music class, where a brass instrument was thrown, and another time at a theme park or amusement park. If not media, then in books.
Reddit does have a front page of handy links on the JBR case
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/wiki/index
Since I deal with disagreements IRL I don't want to do that online either, just trying to keep things simpler - and this case is far from that in regards to opinions.
(The current thing I'm on the fence about is fragrance. Something new for my husband to wear in the humidity. I bought Aramis Tobacco Reserve and my, this is manly, but thinking it may not be for the office or the heat. We might not even have the same opinion on that, ha.)
Dr. Glass's analysis is insightful. For me as well, Burke shows many signs of deception in these interviews. I've always suspected that he knew a lot more about what happened that night than he's ever let on. Moreover, I don't think it much of a stretch to suspect that JonBenet's death was not an unwelcome event for him, and indeed he shows few signs of grief in the wake of her murder. Burke was, in fact, my own leading suspect at first, since sibling rivalry can be a powerful motive and no other explanation seemed to make much sense at the time.
DeleteAs soon as I read the contents of the note, however, it became clear that Burke could not have written it, and I saw no reason for his parents to have gone to such great lengths and take such a huge risk as to stage a kidnapping to cover an incident that could so easily have been reported as an accident.
Kolar made an excellent case against any possible intruder theory, but imo went way off track in his conviction that Burke was the killer, with his parents covering for him. To give credit where credit is due, Kolar was very logically guided by his conviction that there could have been no intruder, meaning both Patsy and John must have been involved and working together to hide the truth; and finally, by the very reasonable assumption that, while neither Patsy nor John would cover for one another if either of them had murdered their beloved daughter, they would be willing to cover for their son.
By this logic, the only possible killer could be Burke -- motivated by sibling rivalry, and possibly other motives associated with what Kolar suspected had been an incestuous relationship with his sister.
Where Kolar went wrong, as I see it, was 1. his assumption that Patsy and John must have been in it together, thus collaborating to write the phony ransom note; and 2. that neither of them could possibly have murdered JonBenet, as they were both such good Christians. So complete was his conviction in this respect that he never even contemplates the possibility that John could be a murderer.
Once we consider the possibility that John and Patsy were NOT in it together, then Kolar's logical train breaks down. And once we realize that Patsy would not have called 911 when she did if she had either written the ransom note or knew anything about it, then it becomes clear that "the Ramseys" could not have been in it together, which makes John and John alone the only possible suspect, with the strong possibility that Burke knows something about what really happened that he's been manipulated or intimidated into not revealing.
I could go on, but all the relevant details have already been covered in this blog and in my book.
DocG , I think you have done a wonferful job on your book and blog. I also feel there is a possibility that you are correct. I do believe it to be small and where it comes apart is PR's role and the above conclusion I have made about JR and BR being up that night. If JR was the sole murderer than you have to put BR having known all along that it was his father and you also would have to have BR hiding it from his mother all along. You also have to have BR being able to pull off lying to police and counselors at that very young age and all along. If you believe that he knows all of this about his father and has never said a word then one would habe to ask why and what reasoning he would have to be hiding these horrible things about his father. While I agree that I do nit think BR was very upset that JBR was murdered and possibly even happy about it , I also believe that people grow into adults and at that point knowing your father is that kind of disgusting creature I think you would not want to hide it any longer.
ReplyDelete"If JR was the sole murderer than you have to put BR having known all along that it was his father and you also would have to have BR hiding it from his mother all along."
DeleteI don't "have" to do anything of the sort. My theory is based on facts and logic, not assumptions. When we consider the facts and the logic connecting those facts, then, as I've demonstrated over and over, the only remaining suspect is John. As for the rest, in the absence of facts we can only speculate. And sure, I think there's good reason to assume Burke knows something he hasn't revealed. He may well have heard something that night, maybe a conversation between his father and his sister, who knows? And yes, I think it possible that John manipulated Burke into remaining silent about what he heard, just as he manipulated Patsy into testifying that the 911 call was his idea. In neither case is it necessary to assume that either Burke or Patsy knew what really happened. John could have argued simply that certain information could make him look suspicious while at the same time denying any connection to the crime. As I see it, John is, and was, a master manipulator. Over and over "the Ramseys" argued that the police were "out to get them," so why reinforce their suspicions with "misleading" information?
"You also have to have BR being able to pull off lying to police and counselors at that very young age and all along."
Well, if he's the one who killed JonBenet, as you seem to suspect, he would also have pulled off lying, so your argument works both ways.
"Well, if he's the one who killed JonBenet, as you seem to suspect, he would also have pulled off lying, so your argument works both ways."
DeleteExactly, Doc. Earlier I typed a long winded response (as I usually do) saying the same, but accidentally deleted it. Sherlock can't seem to decide whether Burke is some kind of savant when it comes to the art of deception, or a typical, nine year old kid who would never be able to fool police and psychologists who are pretty adept at spotting deception.
"If JR was the sole murderer than you have to put BR having known all along that it was his father and you also would have to have BR hiding it from his mother all along. You also have to have BR being able to pull off lying to police and counselors at that very young age and all along."
So what you're saying is, it's highly unlikely that John is the killer because it's too much of a stretch to believe that Burke could manage to deceive everyone, even the cops, right?
But then you say this:
"I think that we can both agree BR has a large degree of deception in this and I think the actual level of deception that BR was and is able to pull off, especially at the early age he was able to do it, is very shocking and hard to except but once you comw to that point it makes BR as the murderer seem much more possible."
Which is it, Sherlock? Is Burke a mastermind of deception (as he'd have to be according to BDI), or is he just a young kid who'd never be able to pull the wool over the eyes of professionals trained to detect deceit?
Ms D , I posted some of the said lies that BR told. It could be lies or it could be a young child who doesnt remember correctly. It is for you to decode. While it seems like they would have to be lies to me especially since I am sure he has access to his old interviews and I am sure has been coached it is still very hard for me to wrap my brain around anyone at that age being that advanced at deception. If I had concrete answers I would surely.give them but that is not what I am claiming.
Delete"It is still very hard for me to wrap my brain around anyone at that age being that advanced at deception."
DeleteThat's because no one at that age COULD be so advanced in the art of deception that they could successfully pull the wool over the eyes of trained detectives and child psychologists. If Burke killed his sister, he would have spilled the beans to SOMEONE - a school friend, a teacher, a counselor, a relative, a girlfriend etc.
Ms D and anyone else -
DeleteIf BR is not that deceptive then you can check his old interviews compared to his new and come up with an answer as to why his story changes night and day. I personally can not attribute it to just time and forgetfulness due to the Ramseys high paid lawyers and due to the fact that he himself or anyone else could easily have coached him, it is not like he doesnt have access to all the information we do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that one of the major keys to this case is the recent info from BR that he and his father were up with that flashlight. It is at this point that there are only 3 possibilities available. I have not seen anything on BR's varying-changing stories from 96 to now. this may be a good header for your next topic on here. My personal belief that PR knew what happened as of that morning eliminates 1 for me. I think that we can both agree BR has a large degree of deception in this and I think the actual level of deception that BR was and is able to pull off, especially at the early age he was able to do it, is very shocking and hard to except but once you comw to that point it makes BR as the murderer seem much more possible.
ReplyDeleteJohn testified from the start that he helped Burke assemble a toy that night, before going to bed. Nothing new there. The only thing that's new is the flashlight -- which points to John, not Burke, since the flashlight is the most likely murder weapon.
DeleteAnd once again, let me repeat, if PR knew what happened and was in on the staging, then she would not have called 911 when she did, because her call totally disrupted the plan so clearly evident in the note. So, regardless of your "personal belief," the fact that Patsy called 911 tells us she could not have known what happened.
I am in agreeance that BR could not have written that note or built that garotte and used it nor could he have cleaned up JBR and left no evidence that he did so but after wrapping your brain around the fact that a child of this age could pull off knowing what happened that night and was able to deceive LE and everyone else, it sure does make you wonder doesnt it.
ReplyDeleteAlso notice that BR says it was JR who told PR to call the police.
ReplyDeleteYes, and Patsy also testified that it was JR who told her to make that call. However,
DeleteFrom the A&E documentary:
Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."
Patsy's version in this interview is totally different from the version presented in their book, where John is right next to her, on his hands and knees, tells her to call 911, and she picks up the phone in that same room and dials. So Burke's version, John's version and Patsy's version from the book are in direct contradiction with the version Patsy offers in the above interview.
So someone is lying. Looks to me like both Burke and Patsy had been pressured into testifying that the call was John's idea, because, if it turned out that he was opposed to making the call (as I feel sure he was), it might look suspicious.
DocG, I agree with you on some points but this is not one of them. You can only try and coerce, manipulate, gaslight someone so much before it would become obvious as to why you are doing so. A grieving mother who had her daughter recently murdered and should have a lifelong mission of searching for her daughter's killer would not need to wonder who murdered her daughter if you are asking her to do the following things
ReplyDelete1) Lie and say that you were in bed all night when you were not.
2) Manipulating her into lying about a broken window in the basement.
3) Having her say it was not herself but JR who said to call 911.
This is an educated woman who is supposedly pretty bright,if she has no clue than this would alert the slowest of minds as to who killed her daughter. It could not have been the lawyers who coerced her into this bc they would know after 1 of these lies who who was responsible and PR's lawyer would never let her be put into this kind of fire risking her to be charged.
From the evening of the 26th on, Patsy was drugged to the gills.
DeleteFrom the evening of the 26th on, when LE appeared at the Fernies', it was obvious they were viewing the Ramseys as potential suspects.
The following week, those grotesque, sexualized pageant photos of JBR began appearing in the national media - with the blame laid at her mother's door for exposing her to a predator.
John took advantage of Patsy's grief, druggy haze, fear and guilt to create a siege mentality - it's us or them, honey, we have to stick together.
No coercion, manipulation or gaslighting necessary.
Yes, CC, exactly. We must also remember that John had been "ruled out" very early on (while Patsy was still under the influence of heavy medication) as writer of the "ransom note," a finding questioned by NO ONE in either law enforcement or the media. Assuming Patsy was innocent, as I feel sure she was, then as far as she was concerned JonBenet must have been attacked by an intruder. A logical conclusion since neither she nor John could have written the note. As a result of the dubious (but unquestioned) finding by the handwriting "experts," Patsy would have had no reason to suspect John, making it especially easy for him to manipulate her. All he needed to say is precisely what CC suggested: it's us or them, honey, we have to stick together.
Delete"C'mon Dink, EG, Zedley, Lil, Sherlock - answer my original question: Why did all these LE folks exonerate Burke, publicly and unequivocally?"
ReplyDeleteHello CC,
Sorry haven't had the chance to get back here until now, and I still have to catch up on all the posts I've missed but here is my answer.
It wasn't that they didn't find him guilty, they couldn't find him guilty. First off, he was a minor and secondly, they had no evidence. The evidence they might have had was compromised. Which is the same reason why they didn't bring the indictments. Not enough evidence to present to a court.
The GJ got it right. The four pages released indicated the jury felt that both the Ramseys permitted 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” and rendered assistance to a person “knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.”
Who did the GJ think they assisted? They wouldn't have covered up for each other if one of them had murdered and sexually abused their child, would they? They wouldn't have assisted an intruder. Who is left that they assisted?
EG
It seems clear the GJ suspected that one of them was the murderer and the other covered for him/her. But since they were unable to decide which was which they indicted both for, in effect, aiding and abetting. The notion that they suspected Burke of being the killer but were unable to indict him because of his age strikes me as absurd. There've been many cases where underage children killed someone -- and their guilt has never been kept secret because they were too young to be held responsible. Not to mention the inconvenient fact that there was NO evidence whatsoever of Burke's involvement. The CBS team's recreation of the crime is a fairy tale based on little more than wild speculation from beginning to end.
DeleteKane and Hunter, both present in the grand jury room, both having seen and heard all the evidence, stated unequivocally that Burke had no involvement.
DeleteAnd they had alternatives, E. They could have charged him in juvenile court with the appropriate delinquency, or direct filed against him in criminal court - as they surely would have done had the evidence suggested a nine year old repeatedly sexually assaulted, struck his sister a fatal blow to the head, and, depending on which BDI theory to which you ascribe, then waited 45-90 minutes to strangle her with a mock garrote.
No public servant permits someone like this to walk around loose.
Doc,
ReplyDeleteI said as much--no evidence--which they felt the same was true for the R's. So, you're saying that the jury felt one of the R's murdered their daughter and the other one helped to cover it up? You have to ask yourself, why would a parent do that?
As far as BR goes, I don't know that he even knows what he did to this day. As far as PR covering for JR, or vice versa, I think that's absurd.
EG
Seems obvious that the GJ refused to buy into the intruder theory, leaving them with no choice but to assume it was one or both parents. And yes, parents do kill their children. Tragically enough, it happens.
DeleteDoc,
DeleteIf the GJ assumed it was one or both parents, why not charge them with murder and if JDI as you say and it was premeditated, then 1st degree murder?
Why would they go for accessories to murder? And, let's see, even if they thought one of them had done it, would they really believe the other one would cover it up? Who would do that?
I know parents kill their children, but would another parent cover it up for them? In essence that is what the GJ said in your opinion. I read it as the GJ said that one or both parents acted as accessory/ies to the murderer.
EG
I agree EG on those charges, I find them to be very clear that they were not charging JR or PR for JBR's murder but only wanted to charge them as accesories.
ReplyDeleteIf the Grand Jury thought one Ramsey killed JBR and the other one covered up but did not know who did what , then it wpuld make sense for the Grand Jury charge both with 1ST DEGREE MURDER and let the truth and chips fall as they may in open court. You are trying to say that those charges are bc they didnt know which Ramsey did what so they picked the charge of "child abuse resulting in death" for both Ramseys and the other charge to be "unreasonably placed in a situation etc". Those seem like very odd charges to pick when you think one has committed murder and the other one has helped cover it up....Very odd indeed
First degree murder, in Colorado in 1996, was a death-punishable crime. Clearly the GJ did not agree by the necessary 3/4 majority that they found sufficient evidence for that charge . . . or Murder 2 or Manslaughter. What they could agree on, apparently, were Counts IV and VII.
DeleteIt is not unusual for a GJ to charge all possible perps in an incident hoping one will turn against another - like the 'bangers in a car during a drive-by.
Interesting that you're ignoring Doc's and my posts from this morning regarding your diatribe against Patsy's supposedly inevitable involvement, by your lights.
ReplyDeleteSherlock,
ReplyDeleteYep, I would think if the GJ thought one of them committed murder, but weren't sure which one, they'd both be charged. The truth might have come out had they done that. However, the R's did a great job in obstructing the investigation and compromising the evidence which made it difficult, if not impossible, to solve.
CC,
Not enough evidence for any of them to be indicted and brought to trial. In this case, those public servants let them all walk free and went so far as to publicly exonerate them.
And of course BR knew more than he let on. He would have been the very first person I would have gone to, kept him by my side, and asked him if he had seen or heard anything during the night. Instead, he was left up in his room until later on, then rushed out the door with a neighbor who you later threw under the bus. Okayyyyy...that makes sense, says NO ONE. ;)
EG
You know better than this, E.
DeleteJohn and Patsy were always under the "umbrella of suspicion", exonerated by no one except the thoroughly discredited Mary Lacy, based on her own faulty DNA analysis.
Burke, on the other hand, was completely exonerated by all those having access to the evidence. See my post at 7/20.
Remember Hunter's hardball message: "The list of suspects narrows. Soon there will be no one on the list but you." –Alex Hunter, Boulder District Attorney, Feb. 13, 1997.
DeleteImo, he wouldn't be threatening Burke in such a manner. He believed an adult was responsible.
-T
Still, they were publicly exonerated by a Colorado DA, so does that mean they didn't do it?
ReplyDeleteBR was never under suspicion--does that mean he didn't do it?
OJ was found not guilty- does that mean he didn't do it?
You know better than that, CC! ;)
EG
Don't try to obfuscate this case's facts with a cheap reference to another, E. It's beneath you.
DeleteLacy was wrong, as Garnett clearly stated and facts clearly show.
Like it or not, the pertinent investigators and prosecutors exonerated Burke - out loud, in public. . . a thing they never did for Patsy or John.
EG, this guy is a complete clown. Obviously he does not know any better but his take on the evidence regardless of who is guilty is comical and he best stay in the safe confides of this blog least he be laughed out of any other one.
DeleteI am not ignoring any posts ? You are clearly tunnel visioned and biased in this case, which is your right, I am not here to argue or change your opinion, I only popped on this site to see if I could learn anything new.
ReplyDeleteI will concede that it is possible you and Doc may be correct on your opinion of JDI being guilty in this case. It is possible. Personally, I like to keep an open mind with this case.
Where you are undoubtably wrong is on your bias perception of the evidence. Even if JR is indeed the culprit, much of the evidence you are 100% bias to.
Clearly BR had/has issues, regardless of guilt, the pineapple does matter, PR and BR both told many lies and show major signs of deception, PR wearing the same clothes as the night before is surely not some evidence of innocence and quite contrary and you are most likely wrong about the Grand Jury findings. That being said does not make JR innocent either. There may be much more to this case and it may go much deeper than we will ever know and on my points it is you who.must concede.
I do not so concede, and I'll wager I've presented to many more grand juries than you'll ever dream.
DeleteYou raise nothing new, bring nothing interesting - to me - but I'm happy to have you here keeping the site alive and keeping Doc engaged. There's always the chance of a newcomer with real information, or a real interest in the truth.
But it ain't you.
CC if you had presented to so many grand juries as you claim then you would surely be able to read some sinple charges and understand them. They did not know who did what so rather than charge them for first degree murder they charged both with child abuse and assisting, oh yeah I forgot that they charged them with jaywalking too bc they didnt know who did what LOL...clearly they were charging PR and JR ...I cant help but laugh at this, CC you are a clown.
DeleteAnd you are a fool. There was insufficient evidence for any charge of murder against anyone, in the GJ's opinion.
DeleteI was an A.S.A. for Janet Reno in Miami-Dade County right out of law school, and prosecuted upwards of 100 homicides during the Cocaine Wars, 80% of which were presented to a grand jury.
You?
Also CC, after spending much time reading here lately Jeffery MacDonald is not innocent as per you calling him so due to Fatal Vision LOL..a TV MOVIE. and most likely neither is Darlie Routier. I was being courteous and generous in your grandiose self but TBH you sure do not seem anywhere near your self proclaimed intelligence. Doc's theory I have some respect for, you flying off his coat tail I surely do not. Possibly you have gone senile ?
ReplyDeleteProbably not yet, but nice try, Sheetrock.
DeleteAsk Doc who contributed the motive to his case, who first pointed out that PR would not have called 911 prior to 10 had she been involved, who pointed out that Pastor Rol was boiling water with a mysterious teabag in a glass, and myriad other things.
DeleteWe're a team, Sheetrock. Not an organized, acknowledged one, but a team nevertheless.
You saying there was insufficient evidence for a charge of murder is more comedian like humor. Had the grand jury thought that one of the 2 Ramseys were responsible for JBR's murder but did not know which one did what then obviously you are contradicting what you are already saying. Either the grand jury thought one did it and the other covered it up or they didnt. The case that was up in front of the Grand Jury was for a murdered 6 year old , you know that right ? Also in case you did not the know Grand Jury does not much evidence, if any AT ALL to put it to trial. They do not need any more evidence than a dead body and suspect/suspects they feel responsible.
ReplyDeleteYet you are claiming the grand jury had evidence that one Ramsey or the other was abusive and that one ASSISTED (that would mean that one assisted the other one in MURDER FYI) but decided to pass on the whole murder part of things and charge with trespass and some other off the wall charges....or you are just incorrect to begin with. I will go with the latter ;)
I'm sorry, but your sentence structure, punctuation, grammar and spelling are even more convoluted than usual. In some semblance of English, please?
DeleteSeamstress Pam Griffin in the news now. This in regards to the previous news link I posted about JonBenet's former photographer's arrest.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7254363/Pageant-seamstress-fears-JonBenets-photographer-arrested-kiddie-porn-killer.html#article-7254363
Probably of no interest to those that are JDI, but others might be, just due to it being cuurent news that does have a connection to the case.
Simons is one of a long list of people whose lives have been shattered by accusations stemming from the Ramsey case. As with Burke, there are people who've become convinced that their favorite suspect is the one who dunnitm and when you read what they have to say, you can manage to convince yourself that yes, THIS has to be the one. Only it makes no sense to conclude JonBenet was murdered by 20 or 30 different people. Just goes to show how easily those with little understanding of the case can jump to conclusions.
DeleteSherlock, your comments are getting increasingly abusive. If this continues I'll have to delete your posts.
ReplyDeleteNot on my account, Doc. I think s/he's amusing, and so far there've been no death threats, so all good with me.
DeleteThe ageist thing cuts close to home for us both, though, does it not?
CC---I've done no such thing. I merely stated that just because conclusions/verdicts/decisions are reached, it doesn't make them true. In most instances, or at least I'd like to believe, juries/judges/prosecutors, etc. DO get it right, however sometimes they don't as you well know.
ReplyDeleteAnd btw, another similarity in the OJ/JBR case--Neither party looked for the murderer of their spouse/child for any length of time, if at all. As a parent, would you ever stop looking?
IMO you can't go solely by the evidence in this case, as it was compromised, as well as, contradictions in expert testimony and opinion.
And btw, that TV special on BR had no influence whatsoever on forming my opinion, no matter how many times you say it did.;)
Here are the things that bother me about this case:
1. Joe Barnhill claiming he saw JAR walking towards the R home on Christmas Day and then retracted his statement.
2. JAR's suitcase and its contents - blanket with semen and children's book. Was that semen ever tested for age, if possible to do that?
3. JAR stating the murderer should be forgiven
4. BR not being questioned by PR or JR
5. No fingerprints found on the note, yet moved from the steps to the floor in pristine condition.
6. Multiple vaginal infections - young female child
7.Interviews with BR at 9, 11 and 30 where his responses and demeanor are suspect and questionable.
And lastly, why is it that whenever we start discussing this case, arguments, derogatory comments and name calling erupt? Can we just once, behave as adults and respond to each other in a respectful manner? Pretty please. ;)
EG
We've been discussing this case here for 7 years, E, long before you and the other BDIers showed up in September of 2016 - coincidentally, of course.
DeleteJohn Andrew was in Atlanta when JBR was killed. Your point?
Wait a sec, did you post as anon back in 2012, as just glancing at the early entries by Doc, I didn't recognize many of the commenters from that time.
DeleteBut here's one post from Doc, as he did have entries for Burke.
"DocG November 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM
You know, my first theory was that Burke could have done it all, including the ransom note, which would have been intended mostly to put his parents off the scent. That would explain the 911 call, because both parents would at that time have been clueless as to Burke's involvement and taken the note at face value."
https://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/burke.html?showComment=1461520714835&m=0#c5038325366121209706
What difference does it make if someone has been posting on the blog since the beginning or since last week?
Some people aware of the case aren't members of websleuths or jameson's forum, etc. Topix shut down, leaving Facebook groups or reddit.
If you and Doc don't want people with opposing opinions to post here, that's fine.
Post away, all opinions are welcome here.
DeleteI lurked and learned for a couple years before posting, at first anonymously.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy point to EG and the other BDIers is not their longevity here, but their legitimacy. You get your facts from a CBS "special" on TV in 2016, well yeah, you and your opinions are suspect.
DeleteCC - I'm glad you know exactly when I started posting here, because I sure don't. I don't even know how I happened to stumble upon Doc's blog. I know I found it interesting and decided to stay. What I enjoyed most was the way Doc allowed for other opinions even if they differed from his own. Still do.
ReplyDeleteMy point is things like that bother me and I ask myself why would someone say something, then take it back. I know all about where JAR claims to have been. The tickets stubs, grainy ATM footage and eye witnesses.
I know semen was found and tested and was JAR's. How old was it?
Anyone else care to weigh in on what nags at them about this case?
Inq, if you are around like CC thinks you are, sign off on your posts. I always enjoyed your insight as well.
EG
You can check Doc's archives for your arrival date.
DeleteTeenagers jerk off, usually in bed. Again, your point?
You "enjoyed" Inq's insights, did you? Lay 'em out for me.
What you enjoy, E, is support for your tenuous position that Burke killed his sister.
DeleteSupport? I don't see too many people thinking BDI on here. We are a handful, if that.
DeleteYou, on the other hand, are well supported. :)
EG
Inq tended to delve a bit deeper in her posts, did lots of analyzing which I enjoyed, specifically when finding something I hadn't thought about. I'd have to go back into the different threads to give examples, which I'm not going to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I don't need a cheering section or the need to have everyone agree with my opinion. I love to debate, ask questions, pick minds, to get to the truth, to tear into a topic and leave no stone unturned, discuss it to death, until I am completely satisfied with the answer.
Yes, I am a PITA but you'd want me on your team when trying a case. :)
EG
Inq did no such thing. What she did was lie and clutter the premises with misinformation.
DeleteNotwithstanding, I'd be happy to have you on my jury - but not in our present case.
Madame Prosecutor, I beg to differ. Inq had her own flair and take on things. I only wish that if she were here, she wouldn't hide.
DeleteAnd I know all about men and masturbation. You didn't answer the question.
EG
I've never seen any explanation for why the pineapple is relevant to the sham of a theory that is Burke-did-it, or why it's a poorer explanation that John lured her out of the room with a Christmas surprise of pineapple, then told her there was another surprise downstairs. Burke's fingerprints don't have a date and time.
ReplyDeleteThe team of CBS "experts" took that one bit of "evidence" and ran with it. The traces of pineapple supposedly found in JonBenet's stomach may or may not have some bearing on the case, but the ONLY connection with Burke is his prints on the bowl, along with those of his mother. Since both Burke and Patsy lived in the house and would have had occasion to touch that bowl at some time prior to the assault, those prints mean nothing. If a stranger's prints had been found that would be meaningful evidence, but Burke's and Patsy's prints mean nothing. Yet this became the basis for the elaborately spun tale that convinced these "experts" that Burke was the only one who could have committed this crime. What a travesty. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
DeleteYeah, it's always referenced as if it somehow points to Burke when it does nothing. The Burke theory is very obviously what happens when John is ruled out and trying to prove Patsy did it becomes exhausting. Worst of all, there are like a hundred comments per JonBenet thread on say youtube with people saying "I always suspected the brother", when literally nobody did before Kolar's book in 2012, so they are obviously lying hoping to appear intelligent. Unfortunately, with this case and many others, people just want to be a part of something, and say the same stuff back to each other, rather than get to the truth.
DeleteJust for the record, I've never used the pineapple in any of my posts as evidence that BDI. I happen to agree with you that the pineapple has no bearing on what happened, other than JBR ate some of it prior to her death. That it was barely eaten indicates to me that they were interrupted and may have decided to sneak downstairs to peek at presents, rather than finishing the snack. After that, it's anyone's guess, but I happen to think something happened down there between the two of them that PR and JR do not want anyone to know, hence the cover up.
ReplyDeleteEG
It's been talked about for years, the pineapple shows the adults appeared to have lied that Jonbenet was asleep, thus no snacks after returning from the Whites party.
ReplyDeleteThis was known before the CBS show. Also known was the Swiss Army knife found in the storage room, the Barbie nightgown with DNA of only Patsy and Burke (no unknown) and blood spots of JonBenet...it's all in the reports. Maybe none of that is considered "legitimate" by some.
pez
I've made it clear from the start that "the evidence" is not going to solve this case. For every piece of evidence, such as the pineapple traces, the fingerprints, the lack of fingerprints, the Hi-tek footprint, even the DNA, there are all sorts of explanations that can be made to fit all sorts of theories. It was only when I decided to concentrate on the known, undisputed facts and the logic connecting these facts, that the fog of mystery began to clear, revealing a clear path through this maze.
ReplyDeleteEG,
ReplyDeleteYou posted you were bothered by JAR stating the murderer should be forgiven. I am, as well.
Forgiveness, as we all know, takes time...and sometimes never comes at all for family members of victims of horrible crimes.
I think his statement comes from a belief that she was killed by a family member. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again. He was told by John that he found JB at 11:00. So, JAR might logically conclude that JB's killer must have been Burke or Patsy.
Why would John deliberately say something that would point away from an intruder? I think John straddled the fence.
Always maintain an intruder killed JB, but just in case the investigators or the public don't believe it...have some statements on record that point away from himself.
By the way, John continued to refer to finding JB in the morning over the years...at least twice that I'm aware of.
K
I agree with you 100%, K.
DeleteIn case they did not accept the idea of an intruder, there was the possibility a few well-placed comments might lead investigators to consider Patsy or Burke. I even wonder about that photo he took before he took the one of the kids on Christmas. It allegedly showed Patsy’s pad on the glass table before it was moved.
JR was and is a weak man. In the past his desperation was to rescue his own life. Now, perhaps he realizes the case will never go to court, but he wishes to save his reputation. If he knows about DocG’s site, I suspect it’s rather a thorn in his side.
-T
I've wondered about that photo as well, T. The narrative surrounding that photo is very confusing to me, but what are the odds?
DeleteK
Oh, and do I believe Patsy or Burke killed JonBenet? No.
ReplyDeleteK
K,
ReplyDeleteSo you think he told JAR that he found her two hours earlier but kept her hidden or moved her, to make JAR suspect PR or BR did it? Of course JR stated he was confused and didn't remember what time it was to cover himself when asked about the discrepancy in the timeline by LE.
Wouldn't that just cause JAR and Melinda to be suspicious of JR leaving his dead daughter's body downstairs for two more hours? I would think my father was insane if he did that. I suppose it's possible though. It is definitely something to think about.
And I do believe they found her in the morning, but in the wee hours and spent the rest of it trying to figure out how to cover it up.
EG
"wouldn't that just cause JAR and Melinda to be suspicious of JR"?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. They loved their Dad. But it was a comment that can work both ways for John. Either it was a moment of confusion and he can backtrack, or they will think he really did find her at 11:00 and was so shocked he didn't know what to do. Steve Thomas believed the latter. John was smart enough to know the family would be the main suspects, not an intruder. The only way to cover himself would be to make subtle hints toward Patsy or Burke. That's my opinion after everything I've read.
K
K... I suppose that's possible and would account for JAR making his forgiveness comment and works for all of our theories here. JR protecting himself, PR or BR. I would think that JAR would have asked JR about the time discrepancy sooner or later, but at that point, the seed was planted and the questioning of JAR was over.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of Barnhill saying he saw JAR walking towards the R house on Christmas Day then retracted it?
EG
15th Street is only a few blocks from the CU campus and the entire neighborhood is full of student basement apartments and rented rooms - in fact Joe Barnhill had one in his own basement.
DeleteJohn Andrew was a fairly nondescript kid, and not all college students can afford to go home for the holidays. Sounds like a simple case of mistaken identity to me.
The kid was in Atlanta. Barnhill was an older man and not involved in JBR's murder.
I agree with you CC, regarding Barnhill and John Andrew.
DeleteI didn't know about the many rentals in the neighborhood, but that makes sense near a campus. Did you live in that area?
K
Not on The Hill, but I had friends who did. I lived in scholarship housing on campus and on Arapahoe while an undergrad, and in a studio apartment carved out of an old Victorian on Pine Street while in law school.
DeleteBoulder is full of that kind of student housing - the cheaper and closer to campus, the more desirable.
Hi everyone, probably a bit behind over here with new documentaries being shown, I'm just watching Hunting Jonbenet'killer. Now as rubbish as it is, a detective and JR both stated early on that the suitcase found under the basement window had fibres in it from the clothes jonbenet had on that day. This is the first I've heard of this?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, CBI and FBI were not in agreement on this. CBI believed that the fibres on her clothes were from the duvet in the suitcase. The FBI disagreed with that conclusion. Lou Smit actually pushed the story of the duvet fibres in support of his intruder theory. Because Smit misconstrued so much evidence, I lean towards believing the FBI probably had it correct. I'm not sure if the conflicting information was ever settled.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, I had heard about the fibres and duvet but not the fibres being from Jonbenet's clothes worn that day.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnother few days of radio silence and I'll be forced to assume you lot cannot refute Doc's theory, my questions or Hunter, Beckner and Kane's exoneration of Burke.
ReplyDeleteWhat about it? Whaddayagot, EG, "Sherlock", Dink?
O/T I know it's been a long time since the entry on Casey Anthony, but Caylee would've turned 14 yesterday, if she was allowed to live.
ReplyDeleteMy theory: John did it, and it was premeditated.
ReplyDeleteThey would be spending time with family. Patsy mentions she is thinking about asking Melinda about Jonbenet’s bed wetting issues. John knows Melinda will put 2 and 2 together and he will be exposed. He must act the night before the trip. His goal is to kill her and to cover up proof of past abuse (ie a broken hymen). He knocks her out with flashlight and then stages the crime. He writes the note in advance - the goal is to buy him time to remove the body. He has manipulated patsy for years and thinks this note will fool her. He wants her to find the note - it is more convincing if she finds it. She reads it and is freaked out and calls for john. There is something in johns demeanor that scares her - a dead look in his eyes or micro expression- she knows something is terribly wrong. John knows she saw a flash of something and knows if he insists that she not call 911 she will suspect him. So he concedes, let’s her call 911 but stays in the room. John must adapt to a new plan. He suggests calling different people to come to the home, with the goal of contaminating the scene and masking the fact that there were no signs of an intruder. He hires a pr firm to plant stories that cast doubt on patsy and Burke. Patsy is thrown under the bus with the handwriting analysis. She is being gas lighted, is heavily medicated and spends the rest of her days in a fog, unable to cast off the suspicion directed at her, and unable to piece together what happened. John continues to control the narrative, and years later suggests to Burke that it’s time for him to speak publicly, knowing his son’s odd and flat effect will only implicate Burke in the public's eyes.. His son is on the spectrum and does not recognize his father’s machinations . John is a pathological liar and master manipulator. I think only when he is dead is when people will start to speak up and the truth will come out.
Bex
I don't know why Beckner and Hunter made the decisions they did. Only they would be able to explain their choices. But a post today explains why Burke could not even be charged with any alleged crime at 9 years old.
ReplyDelete-From July 17 post here on the blog by CC -
"Not one of you has adequately replied to my question: Why did Beckner and Hunter both, publicly and unreservedly, exonerate Burke?
Surely if he'd been a vicious nine year old who'd sexually abused his sister for weeks or months, then struck her on the head, presumably in a fit of pique over a piece of pineapple, waited 45-90 minutes and then strangled her with a mock garrote, they would have brought charges in juvenile court to keep this monster off the streets, would they not?"
~By reddit user mrwonderful~
"Unlike 33 other states, Colorado has a defense of infancy statute. The age of criminal responsibility in Colorado is 10. Kids 10 and over are charged as juveniles, kids under 10 are by law not charged at all. Burke turned 10 in January, and was 9 on 12/26/96. Could not be charged."
https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/cptcbv/comment/ews18zx
pez
The fact that he couldn't be charged does NOT mean his involvement would have been kept secret if he'd been found responsible for JonBenet's death. Many serious crimes have been committed by young people of his age or younger and the findings have always been reported. It's also ludicrous to assume it would still be regarded as an open case, even after all these years, if the true culprit were known.
DeleteThe Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman case is still an open case. Even after all these years.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs is the Jonbenet Ramsey case.
DeleteIn furtherance of Doc's point if, as you BDIers maintain, the authorities and the GJ were aware Burke killed his sister and his parents merely aided and abetted, then what were Counts One, Two and Three - you know, the ones the GJ did NOT charge John and Patsy with, choosing instead Counts Four and Seven?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd why, if he was so sure Buke had done the deed, did Hunter not sign and prosecute the two true bills charging John and Patsy with the coverup? And go so far as to publicly exonerate Burke?
Delete"But then-District Attorney Alex Hunter said there was insufficient evidence to warrant filing charges, and he did not sign the indictment."
Deletehttps://www-m.cnn.com/2013/10/27/us/jonbenet-ramsey-district-attorney/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
I once read an attorney’s interpretation of the True Bills. In his view it was ludicrous to believe that if the Grand Jury believed Burke had killed his sister, and that his parents only aided and abetted after the fact, that there was then no course to pursue. If this was indeed the scenario, the DA would have gone to one of the courts and introduced Burke’s actions. Burke would have received mandated counseling. Colorado does not and did not have involuntary institutionalization for children. But there were other choices available including foster care or in-home visits and supervision. The parents would have then been tried in court for the 4a and 7 True Bills.
DeleteI received an email the other day from someone who, for some reason, was not able to post a comment on the blog. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteDear Doc, thank you very much for your great work on your block! About the Ramsey case I already read and wrote a lot in a German speaking forum many years ago, about the time when you started your blog here. During my 'research' I came across WL, Reddit etc. and of course also your blog. The case doesn't let me go until today. Many people have it that way. That's why I still inform myself online about the Ramsey case at irregular intervals. And so I found your blog again.
In some ways, your great work means the end of the line: you can't go any further on the basis of (the publicly available) information - that's a great and commendable result of your work. Since we are not investigators, it is not our job to bring a perpetrator to justice. As part of the interested public, however, you have pushed your considerations to the extreme by offering a conclusive solution. Great!
I feel the same as many of your readers do. Through your texts my own, quite well informed opinion has turned 180 degrees. According to all that is known, I guess, you must be right that all circumstantial evidence points to John. Only in your scenario, in which John killed Jonbénet and wrote the RN to gain time for the disposal of the body, can all known details be classified into a coherent and comprehensible narration.
I see only one small weakness, which doesn't concern the described scenario, but your argumentation: You write, in relation to the 911 call, which is so central for your scenario, John wrote the RN in such a way that Patsy would be very afraid to inform the police. I agree absolutely. But would he actually rely on the effect of the written words if he had had the opportunity to exert more immediate influence?
Your suspicion that he took a shower deliberately to distance himself from the RN at the time Patsy was supposed to find it has something for itself. But is it really likely, given the vital importance it must have had for John? Even if you leave the shower to one side - maybe it was necessary and time was so short that there had to be the overlap - Patsy obviously turned - before the 911 call, and John could probably count on that - to him first. Why didn't he use this opportunity to prevent the call, or at least to draw Patsy's attention to the threats in the RN that, according to the scenario, he had included in the RN specifically for that purpose? And finally, how can you argue that John couldn't stop Patsy from calling because it made him suspicious? How could that be? You write yourself that the threats in the RN provided the perfect explanation that the Ramseys, according to John's plan, would not have called the police, so he would have had time to find a solution to the problem that his dead daughter's body was still in the house at that time.
I think, with all the honesty of your argumentation, this point comes a little too short: It doesn't question the scenario itself, but rather the argumentative support apparatus: here something still doesn't seem to be fully considered, that represents more than just opinion or cherrypicking.
If John is the man we assume in your scenario, then it seems implausible to me that he wouldn't have had Patsy far enough under his control to prevent the call. So what went wrong at this point that she called 911? Or what do we overlook in your scenario if it wasn't John's priority that Patsy wouldn't call 911?
I know you don't get to read or answer the comments on your blog as often anymore, so I wouldn’t mind if you don’t find the time to answer on this.
Kind regards
Max
Thanks for your very thoughtful comment, Max. I'm pleased to learn that my analysis has changed your opinion of the case and that you, for the most, part agree with me. As for the details of the 911 call, remember that, according to Patsy's version, as found in the A&E documentary, she told John she was going to call the police and then RAN DOWNSTAIRS to make the call. We have no way of knowing what transpired before that, but I think it safe to assume they would have discussed what to do and that John would have tried very hard to dissuade her from making that call, possibly even attempting to physically constrain her. And you are right, by the way, that this in itself would not have been suspicious since the "kidnappers" threatened to behead JonBenet if the police were called.
DeleteThe key here is that Patsy ran downstairs to make the call. As there was a phone on every floor I see no reason for her needing to run downstairs unless she was trying to get away from John. Once she dialed 911 it would have been too late for him to stop her.
Of course we have no way of knowing what happened at any time prior to that call, so any theory is little more than speculation. What we DO know is: 1. Patsy is the one who made that call, NOT John; 2. She would not have made it if she were involved in a plot to stage a kidnapping; 3. the version Patsy presents in the A&E doc. is totally inconsistent with the "official" version as presented in their book and with John's claim in their initial CNN interview that he told her to make the call. As I see it, the only interpretation of the above that makes sense to me is that Patsy made the call against John's wishes and that he later manipulated her into agreeing to testify that the call was HIS idea. Since, during the earliest stage of the investigation, John was the principal suspect, any opposition on his part to the making of that call would have looked suspicious.
Hey Doc and all of you guys ,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all sorry for my bad English .I am a lurker here for quite a few years as well.
Maybe my theory was mentioned before I don't know.
I also think JDI and my theory is similar to Doc's but differs in a few points.
Here we go .. J 's plan was to stage a kidnapping for ransom as jb was a famous pageants queen and had a rich loving family. Ransom plan was the most suitable and also indicted a perpetrator out of the house .
However there was the Patsy factor. He needed her to be on his side no matter what.
He gaslighted and convinced her that Burke was responsible for what had happened to JB . Burke had had harmed JB before , he was seeing a psycologist and probably was a jealous and problematic child. He told her not to face b down , they shpuld make a scenario to play for their only child otherwise he would be jailed and their family reputation would turn all over. He told her to trust her making her write the rn on her notepad which was an important part of his plan . Her handwriting, her notepad would point the finger directly on her. While dictating the rn he chose his bonus amount as people would think that he was not that fool to choose his pwn bonus amount so the writer must be someone else. He threw a few Patsy's common words in the mix such as : two gentlemen, attache, you are not the only fat cat John etc. Perhaps patsy completed some parts as well.
(( (During that phase J concocted a few lies or planted evidence to to make B look guilty. My guess he told P that he found B's bat in the basement near JB and threw it to the garden. ( I also believe she could be hit with the bat which had fibers from the basement ) B's swiss army knife was also there. John might have told that B and JB probably fought over the Christmas presents in the winecellar as they usually did and maybe he tore a few packages himself to hint a quarrel over the presents . Add to that
" what did you do? " "we are not ralking to you!!!" durint the 911 call. )))
One way or another 911 was called. Bingo ! Patsy was trapped in the plan , her handwriting was on the letter and she had no way to give up the plan even if she learned that b was innocent. I think J later told her that he was wrong , they were lucky that their little burkey was innocent and an intruder killed their daughter.
MS
I had never considered that John may have obliquely suggested to Patsy that the police might consider Burke a suspect, MS, but certainly that would have created even more psychological pressure, increased the siege mentality.
DeleteMS, hopefully you have read Doc's handwriting analysis. This analysis left me fully convinced that John wrote the note himself - it is very compelling. So, I cannot make your theory work for me as I'm convinced that John wrote the note. However, I do believe that John gaslit Patsy, and it is plausible that he argued with her that Burke could be implicated and they needed to protect themselves and Burke as well. - LE
DeleteHad John not wished to - indirectly - implicate Patsy, as a fallback position, all he had to do was print a three-line RN in all caps, which would have been impossible to "analyze".
DeleteGood to see you, Lady Engineer.
Off topic
ReplyDeleteIf you know anyone that would like to add a pet to their family, Saturday is clear the shelters day.
Check your local shelters to see if they are participating.
All adoption fees are waived. You can bring home a new fur baby already spayed/neutered and chipped!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI know something, Doctor. And I've already contacted the FBI. I'm going to tell you what I know. Your email is doktorgosh@live.com If that's correct, then you don't have to reply to this message if you don't want to.
ReplyDeleteIf you in fact "know something", why have you waited nearly 23 years to come forward? And why contact the FBI, which has no jurisdiction in this case?
DeleteAnother comment from "Max":
ReplyDeletehere‘s a little speculation what could have happened that night before the 911-call according to your scenario. (Sorry, again couldn’t make it online by myself. Please feel free to do with that comment - of course - as you like.)
That highly speculative sequence of events is a little eclectic, as it combines bed wetting and sexual molestation as well. Haven’t read that before. Let‘s see, what you think...
- The red turtleneck,
- the fresh pineapple and
- the brush
connect
- Jonbenets room/bathroom,
- the ground floor (kitchen/dining room) and
- the basement.
For me these three objects also connect
- the bed-wetting,
- the abuse and
- the murder.
The following could, in accordance with some of the changing statements of P and J,
have happened:
Jonbenet was, after visiting the Whites, carried asleep into the house and directly into her bed. J took off her shoes, but not her red turtleneck. Jonbenet slept. While P made the final preparations and finally went to bed around 10:30 p.m., J and B put together a Christmas present. When they were finished, J also brought B to his room.
After a while J entered Jonbenet's room. Meanwhile she was awake and wet. With a hidden agenda,
he offered her help, which the little girl (from bad experience?) refused. There was an argument in the course of which he grabbed Jonbenet by her turtleneck (first strangulation marks), undressed her roughly (turtleneck on the bathroom floor) and roughly wiped her genitals (fibre traces). In this situation he was attacked by lust, shame and fear at the same time. Therefore he apologized to Jonbenet and tried to regain her trust.
He helped her to change (the way too big underwear and the white shirt), angled her into her favourite blanket and offered her a snack. While he reassuringly persuaded her, he took her down to the kitchen, prepared the pineapple for her and considered his situation. While the little girl calmed down and ate some of the pineapple, he decided that he would had to kill Jonbenet to prevent her from telling Patsy about the situation he had slipped into. He then killed her with the flashlight he found on the ground floor.
Max, continued:
DeleteAfter the massive blow to Jonbenet's head, he believed she was dead. He picked her up with the white blanket and carried her to the basement. Then he reconsidered his situation, forged the plan (see DocG's scenario). After he had written the RN, he began staging in the basement, where he broke a window of the so-called 'Train Room' and placed the suitcase (basement window).
As he turned again to Jonbenet and unwound from the blanket, he realized that she was still alive. His actions on this can hardly be understood and can only be explained if one assumes pleasure again as a partial motive: He penetrated her (with his fingers/brush fragment) and strangled her (with the 'garotte'), as was the case according to the evidence. Finally, after completing the deed, he placed her, wrapped again in the white blanket, from the hallway where the killing had taken place (urine stain/last emptying of the bladder on death), in the so-called 'Wine Cellar'.
After he walked through the house, cleaned up some things, removed some traces and placed the RN, there was no more time for him: The alarm clock was set for 05:30 p.m. and would soon wake Patsy. He could not prevent this, as an early departure to the airport was planned. So he had to hurry. To cover the traces of the sleepless night, he took a shower, where he was, when Patsy awoke 05:35 p.m. (Patsy's statement to the police). After dressing and applying makeup, she went downstairs and found the RN.
Patsy, in keeping with her temperament, was immediately beside herself and unable to think clearly. Although she immediately sought John's advice, she had no ears for his words. Without having even listened to him, she rushed to the phone and called 911 before John could prevent it. (Perhaps her impulsiveness even followed a strategy learned in marriage to John, the intellectually superior and always dominant partner, to occasionally give her heart an advantage over his rationality.)
Cheers, Max
https://tenor.com/view/pineapple-dance-excited-jumping-gif-7341867
ReplyDeleteHa! Zed, your pineapple friend needs some tunes to dance to. I think some Usher and a bit of Luda is called for - take that!
Deletehttps://youtu.be/GxBSyx85Kp8
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSince it's fairly well established that all humans display grief differently, I fail to take your point, and btw you're missing Doc's larger one.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete