1. While John initially made a point, on national television, of claiming the 911 call was his idea, Patsy offered a very different version when interviewed for the A&E documentary on the case. A third, more detailed, version appears in their book, The Death of Innocence, where John is on his hands and knees studying the "ransom" note, and tells Patsy to call the police. She reaches for a nearby phone and dials 911. This version is totally different from the version Patsy provided to the A&E interviewer: "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." I see no reason why Patsy would have wanted to lie about what happened, yet she apparently accepted John's very different version when the book was being prepared and never challenged it since. Why?
2. John's story about breaking the basement window the previous summer is, as I've demonstrated both here and in my book, almost certainly a fabrication concocted to direct attention away from the much more probable likelihood that he broke it the night of the murder to stage an intruder breakin. Despite all the many reasons to doubt John's story, Patsy backed him up by claiming she swept up all the broken glass after returning from a summer vacation with the children. Listen to what she had to say:
TT: When did John break that window in the basement?She thinks it was last summer. First sign that something's off. If it happened last summer why couldn't she have been sure? Wasn't that long ago.
PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last summer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake.
TT: In Charlevoix."Or whatever"? What does that mean? And why would he have needed her to come back if he'd left the keys inside the house, as he reported in their book?
PR: In Charlevoix and he told me to come back from out of town or whatever and he didn’t have a key and the only way he could get in was to break the window.
TT: Okay. Yeah, right.Another red flag. A broken window in the basement and she can't recall whether she had it fixed? Can't even "remember even trying to remember that"? Obviously she's confused. But why?
PR: The little um, like door, little window to the basement there.
TT: He had to lift the grate out of the way to, to get in there.
PR: Yeah, that’s the one, um hum.
TT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?
PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that
um, I remember when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass.
TT: Okay.
PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there
TT: Um hum.
PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere.The above is especially revealing. First, as we know, Linda (the housekeeper) later testified that she knew nothing about any broken window and certainly did not help Patsy clean up any glass in the basement. If Patsy were lying, why would she have included Linda in her story, knowing full well that Linda would deny it? And if she were telling the truth, why wouldn't Linda have been willing to corroborate her story? Is there a third possibility?
TT: Okay.
PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there.
TT: To get all the glass.
PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.
Secondly, the area around the broken window was a royal mess,
not a likely place for the children to play. Patsy seems to have confused this area with Burke's train room, in a different section of the basement. Why?
Third, the "baseball size" hole in the window pane would hardly have produced "a ton of glass everywhere."
So what are we to make of Patsy's story? If she were lying she'd have made sure her story hung together, made sense and was convincing, which is certainly not the case. And she is clearly not telling the truth, as her version of what happened is inconsistent with both Linda's testimony and the facts. When we couple this totally confused story with the inconsistencies surrounding the 911 call, no logical explanation seems possible -- until we consider gaslighting.
When I first broached this possibility some time ago, it was greeted with considerable skepticism, as though I were grasping at straws to counter the many accusations that both Patsy and John were involved in their daughter's murder and lying to cover that up. As I see it, however, Patsy's involvement is totally inconsistent with all the other evidence, and her alleged lies, or most of them, can be explained due to either confusion on her part or confirmation bias based on unfounded assumptions. The "lies" that can't be so easily explained, such as her willingness to accept John's version of the 911 call, or her very confused story about the broken window glass, seem to make no sense -- unless we consider gaslighting.
It's important to realize that 1. Patsy was heavily sedated for weeks after the discovery of JonBenet's body; 2. Patsy had recently undergone chemotherapy, which could also have affected her memory due to what is known as chemo brain; 3. Once John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, and Patsy had not, she was suddenly catapulted into the role of chief suspect. All sorts of "experts" were examining her handwriting with a fine tooth comb and many felt they could prove she'd written it. A leading detective in the case, Steve Thomas, was literally accusing her to her face, convinced she'd "accidentally" clubbed her daughter to death in a rage over bedwetting. Her staunchest supporter throughout the investigation was her "devoted" husband, John, who dismissed all the accusations as ridiculous and hired one of the area's top lawyers to defend her.
All of the above would have made Patsy the perfect candidate for gaslighting. And if, as I feel sure, John Ramsey is the guilty party, he'd have had every reason to manipulate her in any way he could, to make sure they were both "on the same page."
According to the article linked above,
“Gaslighting” . . . is an insidious form of psychological abuse. It’s an intricate web of lies woven to break down one partner’s sense of self-worth and perception of what is real. . .
Nearly half of all women and men in the U.S. said they’ve been subjected to psychological aggression by an intimate partner, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For the person trying to control the partner through psychological tricks, the goal is often to make that partner feel completely dependent. By instigating this deep self-doubt and playing the role of the only one who knows what’s right, abusers can wear down their partners and gain control.In fact, Patsy, as the principal suspect, was already completely dependent on John, who controlled all the money and hired all the lawyers, which would have made manipulation all that simpler.
The typical signs of gaslighting . . . are when the abusive partner:
Refuses to listen or pretends not to understand
Challenges the partner’s memory or accuses them of being wrong
Changes the subject or suggests the partner is imagining things
Trivializes the feelings of the partner
Pretends to forget what happened or denies that anything happened at allPatsy's unconvincing window story can, as I see it, only be explained if she'd been manipulated (i.e. "gaslighted") into actually believing that these events took place but was not completely clear regarding the details. Since Linda had always assisted her in cleaning up, it would have seemed natural to include her in the story, so in her mind's eye that's how it would have happened. As for the rest, it was probably just improvisation to bolster a story that would have been shrouded in fog.
If she'd expressed any doubts regarding this event, John could have convinced her she was suffering from "chemo brain" and could not recall what happened. He would also have stressed the importance of her backing up his story, since the authorities were "out to get them" and it was essential that they present a united front.
While gaslighting might seem an unlikely stretch of your host's imagination, as we learn from this article it is by no means as unusual as one might suppose. For me this is one of the keys to an understanding of this very challenging case.
Doc, while I do believe John was a narcissist and the ruler of that house, there are too many of Patsy's statements that could not be attributed to gaslighting such as the oversized panties JBR was found in.
ReplyDeleteIf JBR was wearing them to the Whites and Patsy changed her out of the black pants they would have come off with the pants and Patsy would have noticed them. I don't think she was wearing them but was redressed. If she was redressed wasn't Patsy wondering who changed JBR? Why would the "intruder" do that?
FY
There was no reason for Patsy to lie about the oversize panties. What could she possibly have to gain by lying about the size of JonBenet's panties? Judging from her testimony on this matter it's clear to me that she was just confused, mainly because she couldn't see the point of those questions.
DeleteThat's my point, the only reason she would have to lie is if she was involved or like K said just trying to avoid arrest.
DeleteIf she was telling the truth she would not appear confused she would either say yes JBR was wearing the oversized panties or no she was wearing her size and I don't know why she was found in oversized panties.
Not only that, but Patsy tries to minimize the size difference when asked further questions by saying JBR wore a bigger size than she actually did claiming she bought her size 8 to 10 when in fact only size 6 panties were found in the drawer and claiming the size 12 panties were not that much bigger than what she wore. Why would she go to these lengths if she were innocent?
"That's my point, the only reason she would have to lie is if she was involved or like K said just trying to avoid arrest."
DeleteCome again? She had no reason to lie because nothing about the oversize panties could possibly imply that she was guilty of anything. Why should she care enough about those panties to lie about them?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood question FY. I think Patsy was simply trying to keep from being arrested for something she didn't do. Her private thoughts...we don't really know, but denial is a powerful protective device. She may have briefly suspected John and felt relieved when he was "eliminated" as the writer of the note.
ReplyDeleteIf John is the guilty party, think of all the people he has fooled.
K
That is a possibility.
DeleteFY
Patsy was a smart women; tremendous fear of John at the outset, followed later by an epiphany she had been gas-lighted all along and into a position of no escape, may have led her to play along with John's deceptions just to keep him at bay from possibly doing her more harm than going to prison and having Burke live the rest of his life knowing that his father murdered his sister. Not much is known about the Ramsey's social life in Atlanta in the years leading up to Patsies second bout with cancer, which ended with her death. It might be worth exploring more if someone had the time and was so inclined.
DeleteDoc G. Don't know if you've seen the interview on youtube of John Ramsey. He is on a show called Joni Talk. It was about a year ago. Why don't you watch the show and tell me if you observe anything different about his story.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip. I found that youtube and was, as usual, pretty disgusted at John's feeble attempts to hide his guilt behind a new-found religious "faith." His act has gotten smoother over time but just about anyone who's followed this case with any degree of diligence is well aware of his hypocrisy. You don't have to take my word for it. One way or another, it seems clear he's been lying about what happened that night.
DeleteDid you catch John saying he took JB for a ride around the block on her new bike Christmas day?
DeleteIn the past he always said one of his biggest regrets was that he didn't do that.
Disgusting.
K
Specifically what I was referring to was it seems he has changed several parts of his story. One part in particular was when he found Jon Benet in the basement not breathing he screamed. Do you remember him ever saying that before? Or, his friend who was with him? I thought he was very calm?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSpecifically he said "I started to scream" he didn't say "I screamed." Very odd. Why would he say "I started to scream." This means he really didn't scream but he wanted to give the impression that he did scream.
DeleteHe did supposedly cry out as I recall. The relevance of that seems to not be "he's saying he really didn't scream" - starting to scream is screaming. If I started to walk, it means I began walking. However, it seems to say he was making himself do it. "I made the decision to scream" would be the equivalent.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHere is the Linda Arndt interview:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y52_gRlI4Ho
"I started to scream" is someone giving the impression they screamed but they really didn't. Psychopaths out themselves if you pay attention.
DeleteNo, I think you're recalling wrongly. Here is Linda Arndt's interview about what she heard. She heard Fleet White scream out to call for an ambulance. John Ramsey remained very calm. And, John's description was "I opened the door, and turned on the light, and there she was." (Not Jon Benet but "she"). So, he is mentally distancing himself from Jon Benet. Also, "I started to walk" is not the same as "I started walking." "I started to walk" means you didn't walk. In a sentence you would say "I started to walk, but I instead rode my bike."
DeleteI was born in '58, and, people in my generation, when recounting an event, routinely said, "I started" prior to a verb (i.e., "I started walking" or I started to walk."
DeleteOr, "I began [verb]ing."
Recreating history again? Does he do that for the audience...or himself?
ReplyDeleteK
Like everything this guy does, it's mainly for himself.
ReplyDeleteSam
What's even more disgusting is the sham that the State of Colorado has allowed its legal authorities to perpetrate on the American public in one instance after another, even as the Boulder Police Department remains tight-lipped about a case remains it claims "remains an active investigation". One wonders how "active" it will be the day after John Ramsey dies on the lamb from old age, and is buried in the ground "according to his wishes".
ReplyDeleteIf they were both involved in the staging during the night then what does it matter who said call 911. John might have told Patsy it was time to make the call and Patsy could have told John I'm going to call them now. Both statements are correct. Where Patsy has lied is to add the fabrication that John went upstairs to check on Burke. They knew Burke wasn't in any danger and they knew right where he was. No checking necessary. Y
ReplyDeleteYou should read and answer CC's questions in Docs introduction in his thread Whats More To Say on May 23 before you start up on both being involved again.
DeleteWho called the police matters because it is a fact in evidence, impossibly refuted, without speculative embellishments---ergo both statements ('John MIGHT HAVE.., etc., and Patsy COULD HAVE.., etc.,') are not only not correct, they are obtuse manifestations of confirmation bias. Your claim that they BOTH "knew Burke wasn't in any danger" is even more obtuse because there is NOTHING in evidence to support it. So long as people continue to keep John and Patsy attached at the hip as co-conspirators and/or co-perpetrators in this case, John Ramsey will never serve a day in prison for his crime.
DeleteIt is more than just that. You have to understand that Patsy's decision to call makes everything fit logically. If they were both in on it then they don't make the call with the ransom note and the body still in the house. Nothing makes sense then.
DeleteWe are all entitled to our own theories and opinions on this blog. If you choose not to agree that is your prerogative. I am under no obligation to answer anyone's questions here, Anonymous. I find Doc's theories interesting. He knows I don't subscribe to all of them. My focus is that Burke did it, the parents covered it up, they have both lied, failed multiple polygraph tests and indictments were handed down by a Grand Jury after hearing all points of view.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnon's point may have been that we have many BDIers here, Y, none of whom have been able to answer my questions.
Delete"Obligation"? Certainly not, but if you want to bring something new to the table, give 'em your best shot, else you raise nothing that has not been discussed here, endlessly.
Yes to all this! I've long believed that John did it all. I hate that Burke gets blamed and really feel for him. Why are John's lies never questioned by authorities? How is he getting away with it all for so long?? It all seems so obvious when you take into account the window stories, the baseball bat, the scarves, the suitcase and rope, the photos, the oversized underpants... well I don't have to go on. Then there's all the lies that continue to this day. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Grand Jury was out why did Patsy say she fully expected she was going to jail, and was trying to figure out what to wear and what to pack. Does that sound like an innocent person, manipulated by her Svengali husband?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like Patsy. That was her personality. She handled the very real potential of dying from ovarian cancer the same way; with humor, candor, and some acceptance of the inevitable. You simply cannot know why she was fooled by John at that time; it was probably due to the overwhelming panic, then deep grief at her loss, and later there was some level of denial.
DeleteTo answer your questions again, not that it will bring any satisfaction, I will reiterate.
ReplyDeletea) You are assuming they weren't acting in concert - that Patsy called 911 without John's permission or agreement.
b) Couldn't remove the body - might have been seen or heard by a neighbor or a passerby - even at that late hour.
c) The focus was on writing a note to distract the police and manipulate an investigation, buy time for the body to decompose, tie up loose ends, and contaminate evidence.
d) why not arrange her body at the foot of the spiral staircase? The ME would have determined cause of death was not due to a fall down the stairs. And last, the Ramsey's did not commit 1st degree murder - they were indicted for child neglect, endangerment and covering up a crime of some other person. They won't get the death penalty for that - in fact no one in Colorado is going to get the death penalty, not even The Joker Holmes.
You're not thinking this through:
Delete1) He's just going with what happened. It is a fact Patsy called the police.
2) Then why write a ransome note but leave the body in the house?
3) It doesn't logically fit. Why write a note about a kidnapping and then leave a strangled body?
4) Because he was trying to fool Patsy. He was going to dispose of body later.
Paul, you have to look at this from the perspective of what was likely to have happened that night. Not one child up late, but two. Both the parents and Burke took great pains to try and distance themselves from the idea of JB being awake as to fabricate elaborate stories about carrying her in to bed, changing her clothing with no lights on (yet her bedroom light was still on the next morning) and Burke changing his story from staying up late to sneaking out of bed later and John suggesting he put Burke to bed (and Burke stayed in bed until John got him up and whisked him out of the house the 26th). Also the crime did not occur in the basement. If you were a little 6 year old kid would you want to go down to a cold dark basement on Christmas night when all of your presents and Christmas trees were upstairs? She was put there, by the strongest one physically in the house, after she was murdered upstairs, for a reason. To make it look like she was killed there (or she was gone entirely, kidnapped). That bought time, to take an investigation out of the house, away from suspicion indicating the parents or Burke. And the ransom note did just that as well. It's unlikely John sought to fool Patsy.
DeleteDoc has already gone through this intricately. He has already laid out the reasons it can't be "Burke did it" or "the parents did it." He has explained that you have to go with deductive reasoning based on the facts. The indisputable facts are: Patsy called the police. There was a ransom note written with pen and paper from the house. Jon Benet's body was found in the basement. Based on these facts alone the most logic inference is that John killed her. There are many possibilities, yes, but the most logical inference from these facts is John killed her.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletecorrection last sentence: it's likely that both of them coordinated (and choreographed, since it was a performance) when the call was to be made and by whom. Highly likely.
DeleteThen when you look at the other facts in the case which are few: Jon Benet's skull was fractured before she was strangled. The coroner indicated there were signs of molestation. These facts should tell anyone with any deductive reasoning skills that it wasn't Burke nor was it Patsy.
DeleteYou get that you have no adequate reply to Trump's racist and anti-Semitic rant, right?
DeleteYou get that Horowitz found no presumptive evidence of FBI wrongdoing in the Carter Page investigation, right?
You get that the motive for John's killing of JBR originated with me, right?
You get that you've contributed zilch to this blog to date, right?
You do get you're on the wrong thread? No, I don't think you get anything.
DeleteI agree with you on that Paul. And thanks for the conversation (earlier). Y
DeleteThis might be a case you want to look at Doc. Pretty interesting.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nccai.org/mark-carver/
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion changed of Lin Wood after he took on various media outlets in behalf of Nicolas Sandman - the Covington high school kid who was with a group of other kids in D.C. and was accosted by a paramilitary protest group and an American Indian loudly beating a drum in his face. It was the media's assuming Sandman was guilty of...something - and smearing his name in a series of corrupt media reports and fake news (because he was wearing a maga hat and was pro-life). I believe Lin Wood did the right thing when he defended Burke Ramsey against the claims made on the CBS documentary by CBS and Werner Spitz. Although I do not believe Patsy or John Ramsey had nothing to do with the coverup of their daughter's death, Lin Wood is doing his job protecting his clients - all of his clients. Recently the Richard Jewell story has been told by Clint Eastwood in the movie titled "Jewell." Oddly CBS aired an old 60 Minutes show featuring a very young Lin Wood defending Jewell as well as a new discussion of the case on 60 Minutes. Is all forgiven? Last I checked CBS settled with Burke Ramsey and now they are putting Wood in a favorable light. If you wish to see a young Lin Wood in action go to CBS.com He is smooth as glass, extremely handsome, and very confident. Even still.
ReplyDeleteYou are not right about John and Patsy, they didn't have nothing to do with the cover-up-only John did.
ReplyDeleteI had thought we could have an honest dialog about the case but I see you are very fixed in your notions about it so that won't be possible Paul. Once you see that Patsy had to know - everything about her behavior when the police arrived to her embellishments in her story to the note and stepping over the note and from that point on - indicates she has to be included. They got away with it - all of them.
ReplyDeleteGo back to Doc's thread from May entitled "What More to Say", answer my questions in the intro, and we can have an honest dialogue, Anon.
DeleteI did that - twice - and the second time you can view above November 12 posted 9:07 - two times is two times too many so that's it. But I wish you a happy new year nonetheless CC. Y
DeleteCalifornia dreaming, not.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm watching a live stream now of Mondo, who is homeless again, and about 30 minutes ago, he catches a beat down on his stream on Hollywood Blvd. He doesn't get beat down, he sees it, catches it on his stream, assists the victim, and helps police with his video and description.
His channel is Travelingpapi
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r84GCzjSGY8
*note - above contains strong language and violence, not for children
ReplyDeleteBtw, I'm not a subscriber, not in super chat, so can't see his chat, but do know that donations made via super chat, the site takes a 40% cut before Mondo (or anyone that does live streaming) gets paid. But figured their might be readers here with money and those apps that want to donate directly to a homeless person.
ReplyDeleteIf you see references to "Nala" that is the poor pug puppy that Mondo cared for that is owned by the singer Aaron Carter. (a whole other shit show)
Wow, did some of you donate to Mondo today? Armando got so many donations today he had his first $1000 to his name.(UK, Canadian, Australian and US donations) So he plans to get a room tonight. He said he's never had that much money to his name at once, and he's 27.
ReplyDelete(Geez, my hubby spent more than that this month on his car repairs and rental car.)
Anyone in Cali that wants to give Mondo a place to have a Christmas meal? :)
Some from his chat are exchanging the Happy Brexmas greetings.
I thought by now Doc would have made a new entry for the politic/impeachment posts, that's been the most posting yet.
~Christmas gift suggestion to Paul,~ ask someone for Santa to bring you the book of the true story of Sgt. Stubby. A dog that served in the war. Every American should read it. (I think I mentioned it here a few years ago)
Cheers~
That's nice you are doing something for someone Lil. There are 100,000 homeless people in California - most of them concentrated in San Francisco and L.A., due to the extreme liberal climate and ideology of the politicians in charge of their districts. Instead of figuring out how to pay builders to erect affordable housing or free housing, what is needed is to discern what category the homeless fit into - are they poor and cannot afford to live in CA; are they mentally ill; are they drug addicted. We may need to go back to mandatory hospitalization before we can talk about housing. And although I am a conservative who believes there should be a separation in power between the States and the Federal government, California has had it's chance to fix this problem and they haven't. Time to have the Federal government move in and take it over. Currently there are a little over 2,000 homeless people (in shelters) in the whole state of Kansas. Now why is that?Statistics in Kansas report (as of earlier 2019) that the homeless are mothers with children. Why are most of the homeless concentrated in California (and New York). It's a problem that's spiraled out of control. Handing a homeless person a $100 bill isn't going to cut it.
ReplyDeleteHi Anon. I didn't donate to Armando (Mando) I had spelled his nickname wrong, as I don't have any of those apps on my phone to do cash/credit.
DeleteHe did put together bags filled with nail clippers, shaving items, toothbrushes, toothpaste, floss, hand gel, socks and feminine hygiene products for the women. He also bought 40 sausage burritos and handed them out to those he found in need in Hollywood.
A few people donate to him to ride those bird scooters around. One homeless man did ask Mando if he had a blanket, as that's what he really needed. Mando didn't have one to give him.
I don't understand the politicians in the states that have such high homelessness. My local news just tonight did a story that Alabama homeless numbers are down.
I agree with the 3 groups of homeless, so you would think by now these cities would be implementing shelters for those with mental issues, addictions, and just poor in general. No doubt there are plenty of empty buildings that could be used for warming shelters, etc.
The amount of money in California by big corporations as well as athletes, actors, musicians and churches and Scientology should already have plenty of buildings in use for the homeless along with policing them.
I would think there would be organizations that give out vouchers that homeless people could use for clothing, backpacks,sleeping bags at thrift stores,vouchers for meals, vouchers for showers and laundromats...that sort of thing already in place in bigger cities. If not, why not?
Here you go, Y. Try again, in a more coherent, sensible form, point by point:
ReplyDelete(a) Had they been acting in concert, the 911 call would not have happened until after the "kidnappers" deadline;
(b) Had they been working in tandem, the staging in the basement would have been complete, perhaps the body removed; and
(c) Had they colluded their stories would have been in complete sync, from the putting-to-bed scenario to the prior summer's breaking and entering by John; and
(d) If their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911? Why commit first degree murder, thereby risking the death penalty themselves?
The glass was -supposedly- broken during the summer when Patsy and the kids were in Michigan. It should have been cleaned up long before Patsy and the kids returned. What was Linda doing all summer? Gaslighting has it's limits. It doesn't make sense that the glass was left for Patsy to clean up upon return from vacation. Patsy knows it doesn't make sense. She wasn't gaslighted, she's lying.
ReplyDeleteShe's dead.
ReplyDeleteJohn broke the glass that morning, in an attempt to suggest an intruder. According to both Burke and Patsy, he'd used that window as a point of entry before.
Of course John broke the window the night/morning of the murder. But Patsy wasn't gaslighted into believing JR's story, because the story doesn't make sense. They have a housekeeper. The glass should not still have been there for Patsy to clean up after her return from MI. Nor should the window have gone unrepaired for several months. The story needs to make a modicum of sense for PR to believe it, and it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteThat's precisely how gaslighting works. You manipulate someone into believing what they would ordinarily dismiss as nonsense.
DeleteIngrid Bergman was awesome in the movie but I liked her better in Casablanca. She costarred with two great actors- Charles Boyer and Humphrey Bogart.
DeleteWhat's the opinion of the people seeing the groups of drones at night?
ReplyDelete"So if you want to take down a drone, the order goes: Shotgun loaded with birdshot, maybe a Super Soaker or a hose, followed by a rock or a baseball, and never ever a pistol or a rifle."
Deletehttps://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/drones/how-to/a16756/how-to-shoot-down-a-drone/
well,good to know for those finding a drone encroaching their property/personal space without a valid reason. :D
Ha, a Scottish man ranks Southern beers, but questions if Florida is really a Southern state. He also doesn't know how to pronounce "jai alai", finally ends up calling it jelly. lol
ReplyDeleteThis YT site is frequently linked on my local news site
https://youtu.be/xM49TzWn4jM
~posting this here for the few that may venture away from the political debate thread~
Hi CC
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year to you (and Doc and everyone else).
As you know, I am/was BDI with both parents being involved in cover up. However, I have also acknowledged that JDI is a very good theory and could very well be correct. In regards to your questions, I believe I have answered these before...but will do so again:
Q1.Had they been acting in concert, the 911 call would not have happened until after the "kidnappers" deadline;
A1. No one can say this as a fact. It's a belief and that's all it is. There is many reasons why the 911 call happened when it did. Maybe at one stage they were planning to call 911 after the kidnappers deadline (or maybe not). Maybe they came to the conclusion that removing the body out of the house came with a whole new bunch of risks they weren't prepared to take. So they made it look like the kidnapper tried to abduct her, maybe something went wrong or he killed her due to her screaming etc. All very plausible in my opinion. And of course they were planning on leaving Boulder that morning so the 911 call either happened when it did, or happened after deadline.
Q2. Had they been working in tandem, the staging in the basement would have been complete, perhaps the body removed; and
A2. I have already answered the body removed part. It's likely they didn't have a lot of time...writing that note would have taken up a lot of time. They staged the best they could in the time they had. Of course it was never going to be perfect. These were two parents who came across an unimaginable situation. They were not criminals. They were not body staging masterminds. It was never going to be perfect.
Q3. Had they colluded their stories would have been in complete sync, from the putting-to-bed scenario to the prior summer's breaking and entering by John; and
A3. Again, time wasn't on their side. With the staging/note writing and general panick all round, 100% collobarting on their stories was never going to happen. There was always going to be questions from the officers that they hadn't thought of and even the stories they had agreed on could be forgotten or wrongly answered in a moment of true terror/panic.
Q4. If their aim was to protect Burke after he struck his sister a blow to the head, why not arrange her body at the foot of that child-unfriendly spiral staircase and called 911? Why commit first degree murder, thereby risking the death penalty themselves?
A4. No one can answer why they did what they did. Perhaps they thought the blow was fatal? Perhaps Burke did more with her body after he struck her? Burke probably would have waited quite a while before waking his parents. I say John and Patsy were "normal" parents, but obviously they cared very much what people thought of them...appearance was something at the top of their list. Maybe they thought JB had no chance of survival and didn't want anyone knowing what Burke did. As I said, no one can really answer this. It doesn't mean John was involved and Patsy wasn't. There is by far and away more circumstancial evidence that points to Patsy being involved vs not involved.
1. They'd nothing to lose and much to gain by waiting an additional five hours. A more convincing window break, removing the blanket from the body, tighter bindings, use of different writing instrument and paper (materials found in basement would have been less suspicious), Patsy could have showered and changed, washed the pineapple bowl; i.e., more misdirection focusing a police investigation away from the house. They could have rehearsed their stories, the 911 call. They could have arranged for the ransom money. They weren't catching a commercial flight; there was much to be gained by calling Mike Archuleta and asking him to delay.
ReplyDelete2. Again, they could have had an additional five hours, had they been acting together. It's 10 minutes from their neighborhood into the barren Rockies, another 10 to some really wild, remote areas with precipitous drops. John could easily have dumped the body while pretending to deliver the ransom, and it would not have been discovered for months, if ever.
3. Again, five more hours, had they been working in tandem. The deadline in the RN gave them a built-in excuse, and there was no advantage to the 911 call being placed when it was. None.
4. Clearly "they" knew the child was alive, else no need to strangle her, and that is, emphatically, first degree murder.
Good to see you, Zedley mine. Hope all is well Down Under, and that you and yours have a safe and happy 2020.
Hi CC...your answers make sense. However, I just don't believe it can be factually stated that Patsy was not involved because the 911 call happened when it did. We will probably never know for sure :(
ReplyDeleteDown Under is burning at the moment...not good. Luckily I am far away from the fires (for the time being).
Sorry, Z-man, that was insensitive of me. I confess I have not been paying as much attention to your national crisis as I otherwise might, given our crises here at home, but I'm not unaware, and it's heartbreaking.
DeleteStay safe. Stay in touch - if nothing else, email me privately from time to time, let me know you and your family are OK. Fingers crossed, prayers said for your sprawling, beautiful country.
They had plenty of time. It took a little over 22 minutes for experts to handwrite-copy the note. In actuality it would have taken Patsy and John even longer, since they had a practice note and had to think about what to say, what words needed to be crossed out or omitted. The murder happened soon after they returned home, closer to midnight but not later. The Ramsey way, Patsy in particular, was to neglect the house (there would have been no washing of dishes or cleaning up clutter and messes leave it for the housekeeper) and neglect the children, who were playing. If John really did get into bed (neither side of their beds look slept in) he would have barely just have gotten in bed). Patsy still up dithering about what to take to Michigan and what she needed to still wrap or put in a bag of some sort. She was oblivious all right, she didn't hear anything until too late. Ostensibly then they would have had at least 6 hours to poke around in the dark with the flashlight, remove evidence, write a long winded note and then get ready for the staged call to 911. Sexual interference while having a cord wrapped around her neck came first, strangulation second, head blow third, which explains the absence of blood and what was used. It was murder, not an accident, committed by one or two boys. Death penalty in Colorado is a joke. In fact, not even Jim "The Joker" Holmes got death. Hunter knew he couldn't prosecute this case - he wasn't clear on who did what when among other things. Y
DeleteThe point is not that they had "plenty of time", but that they could have had much more. There was no advantage whatsoever to calling 911 at 5:55 rather than at 10:00 as the RN provided and as John no doubt originally intended.
DeleteGary Davis was executed by Governor Romer of Colorado in 1997. Hardly "a joke" to the Rs in 1996.
Alex Hunter was a wimp who specialized in plea bargains. Had he any balls he would have charged them both, shown Patsy the evidence of prior sexual abuse and waited for her to turn on John.
They had to call 911 when they did. They were expected for a flight out of Boulder. Were they just going to get on the plane without JonBenet? No, it was timed, to the second. And what was the most important news Patsy and John wanted to alert the first responding officer to? The note, over here, over here, see, on the staircase, nicely arranged, spread out so one can kneel on a stairstep in one's underwear without picking it up, or carefully step over it, maybe even on it. Such horrible news in that note! Yet neither one of them picked it up.
Delete"Alex Hunter was a wimp who specialized in plea bargains." The first in a long line of wimps from then, to now. Boulder ought to get it's act together - like Greeley.
Delete(Weld County)
DeleteAll they needed to do was call Mike Archuleta, tell him they'd postponed their trip 'til later in the day; no explanation necessary, no split-second timing required.
DeleteBoulder is and always has been a very insular, hippy dippy small city which prides itself on its progressive humanism.
Alex Hunter suited the place and its politics perfectly, right up until JBR was murdered and Boulder became big news on the world stage, for which both it and he were ill-prepared.
The moment for prosecutorial backbone passed when Hunter failed to sign the GJ indictments and use them to leverage Patsy. No DA since has had that kind of opportunity.
I'm not disagreeing
DeleteHow to go forward? Full transparency - publish the results of the DNA testing several years ago; close the case and release all documents pertaining to her murder; or actually re-investigate it. Takes money.
It does, and cold cases - of which JBR's is but one - do not get major funding from any police department.
DeleteAs long as it's unsolved, her case will remain open, and all evidence sealed and thereby unavailable to us.
Re-investigation, given Patsy's death and John's litigiousness, is highly problematic, absent a new piece of evidence to kickstart the process.
Hey Zed, do you ever read/follow EmmaDownUnder on Twitter? She might not be your cuppa.
ReplyDeleteA live streamer has mentioned how the smoke from the fires are in her area, making it hard for her to breathe.
My news has been covering the horrific fires in your country as well as even tv video shows such as RTM (right this minute) showing every day citizens helping to rescue the injured koalas. The entertainment shows also mention some of the celebrities donating to help Australia. I was sickened to hear of the people purposely setting fires. Think last count I heard was 24 people that are starting fires.
Thoughts and prayers for your wildlife and people in your homeland.
For those interested- the Charley project fb page shared a posted yesterday from a woman named Martha Phillips. The link is too long to copy here, and since this blog doesn't allow photos to be embedded I am copying the text entry in the next post, as it's long too, but something to consider for those wishing to donate clothing items.
ReplyDelete"This is the underwear that no woman wants to wear. And it's not just because it's a plain cotton sports bra the color of Pepto-Bismol. It's because this is the underwear we give to survivors of rape and sexual assault after we take their own underwear as evidence. We take their nice underwear, their favorite underwear, their cute underwear, their comfy underwear, their best-fitting bra, their 75-dollar designer bra, their weekend bra, their work bra. And we take it away from them while wearing gloves, and drop it into a paper bag, and seal it with evidence tape and write their police case number on the outside, and send it to the state crime lab, and they never see it again. And we give them some Fruit from the Loom to wear home, back to a life and a world they no longer recognize and no longer trust. But here's the kicker: That boring sports bra is WAY way WAY better than what some survivors get when they're discharged. Some women have ALL of their clothes taken for evidence. Shirt. Undershirt. Pants. Bra. Underwear. Even their socks. And if the local forensic/sexual assault program that cares for them doesn't have -- or won't buy -- or can't buy -- clothes for them, they get discharged in hospital scrubs. And grippy hospital socks. And postpartum white-mesh hospital underwear. And no bra. Ever seen a woman who's just been raped, just had a three-hour forensic exam, just had every surface of her battered body swabbed and photographed and inventoried for the police, ever seen her walk out of a hospital wearing oversized hospital scrubs -- ---and her arms wrapped tightly around her chest, ashamed, because she doesn't have a bra to wear? I have. And I absolutely refuse to ever see it again. This is $150 of underwear from Kohl's. My team and I buy this underwear ourselves for our patients, because we are no longer willing to let any of our survivors go home without a bra, or without a decent pair of underwear. If you are looking for a place to donate something meaningful this holiday season, reach out to your local Forensic Nursing team, rape crisis center, or domestic violence shelter. Go to Wal-Mart, or Kohl's, or Target, and buy clothes you'd feel comfortable in curled up, safe at home, watching TV. And donate them. New underwear, a comfortable bra, a comfortable pair of pants, a soft hoody, squishy socks -- all of these things can help make a woman who has survived a violent rape feel like a person again. A person. Not a victim. Because it's a long walk down that hallway, out of the hospital, and back into the world. At least she can be comfortable as she takes each step. * * * Update 12/6 -- Looking for a local organization that supports survivors of rape and sexual assault? You can start here": https://centers.rainn.org/
ReplyDelete-written by Martha Phillips on Facebook 12/19
Just heard the news this evening, Neil Peart, drummer and lyricist of Rush, passed away on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteWhat an amazing musician. RIP
Woot, just happy the power came back on. It was out over 6 hours due to the storms.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to the *Trump thread* breaking the 1k post count. That's some non-paid dedication right there!
January 25 will be the Chinese New Year, year of the rat. I am a dragon, and that sign enters into good things for 2020, union, Hui Tai Sui. So maybe that will mean the family home stolen last year by the convicted murderer Riley will be back under our ownership.
My daffodils already have buds on their stems, but I know winter is still in full force elsewhere. So keep the hand sanitizer at the ready.
To our Aussie readers, just earlier this week I stumbled across one of your national treasures ;D
ReplyDeleteLord Dobby
and he has a fanbase here too, lol
By the way the only real chink in Doc's hypothesis is if JDI and wrote the note to Patsy why didn't he do a better job of hiding the body and why he didn't do a better job of convincing Patsy not to call the police? However, is hypothesis seems like the most plausible and "fits" all of the facts.
ReplyDeleteI always thought it possible that John thought he HAD convinced her, and perhaps went upstairs to get dressed. Meanwhile, Patsy grabs the phone and makes the call. She initially gave her address and ended with "hurry, hurry, hurry"(sounding very frightened to me). John could have come back downstairs at that moment and would have been really angry that she made the call. I'm speculating, of course, but that could have been the reason for Patsy calling her friends, and also a reason for J & P's reported "distance" from each other that morning. Unfortunately, we will probably never know.
ReplyDeleteK
K
Just don't understand leaving the body somewhat exposed in the basement. If I'm Patsy I run all over the house looking for her. I know it was a big house. Seems to me John would have stuffed her into a suitcase or something-not just left her lying on the floor under a blanket. Maybe he ran out of time.
DeleteIt was John who reported that the body was right out in the open and visible as soon as he opened the door. More likely it was hidden in a remote corner under a blanket. I would not take John's version of any aspect of this case at face value.
DeleteBut wasn't Fleet White with him? I'm not saying it was out in the open but wasn't it fairly easily discoverable? Also, why wouldn't he have put it in a suitcase or something so as to make it easily transportable. Do you think he hadn't finished with his fantasy and wanted to leave it out?
DeleteThe thing I find interesting about John is he is a very functional psychopath. He is a lot like Russell Williams. John was retired military and a distinguished businessman. Williams was a distinguished Colonel in the Canadian Air Force. Both of their psychopathies seemed to manifest later in life as far as we know.
DeleteIt is my personal belief that JR initially did place JonBenet in the suitcase, hence fibres of her clothing being found inside of it. It also explains the very specific "adequate sized attache" line in the ransom note (I've always been of the opinion that John was providing himself a sound alibi should any neighbours - or Patsy herself - observe him carrying the suitcase containing her body). Once Patsy called the police, his plan was foiled, thus he removed her body from the suitcase and placed it in a remote area of the basement, along with staging the scene further to make it appear as though it was the work of an intruder (being sure to use Patsy's art supplies to further distance himself from the crime)...something he initially had not intended on doing, because if all had gone according to plan, the police were never going to be inside the house that morning, and JB's body was never going to be found (I'm certain, due to the very deliberate line in the ransom note regarding the large attache, that he was going to dispose of her body during the time he was ostensibly obtaining/delivering the ransom money contained in said portmanteau. John would drop off the money, JB wouldn't be delivered, THEN he and Patsy would call the police...by that time the body, along with all damning evidence, would have likely been buried or thrown off a cliff somewhere in the Rocky Mountains. The peculiar line "The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested" then makes perfect sense - John included it in order not to raise suspicion with Patsy when he was away for such a lengthy period disposing of the body...a location I believe he had already scouted in the week leading up to his daughter's murder, hence he knew it was some distance away, therefore he was sure to include a firm alibi as to why he would be absent for so many hours). This is my opinion based on the, otherwise, purposeless lines in the ransom note. I am not of the opinion that the seemingly random instructions contained in the note are the ramblings of a confused and panicked author, but rather, they are deliberate and methodically planned instructions designed to provide the author with excuses and alibis. This is why Doc's blog was an eye opener for me...until then, like most, I simply dismissed the bulk of the ransom note as superfluous and unnecessary filler. Once you understand the motivation of the person who penned the note, every detail contained therein serves a purpose, which is why I have no doubt that it was John who wrote the note, as it was only John who would gain from following the note's curious instructions.
DeleteYou made me go back and read the note. Those are excellent points. He put carry a large attache in the note in case anyone spotted him. Those are excellent points. Once you read the note again it is obvious it was written by a man. Women don't write that way.
DeleteAlso, you can tell it was written by someone who is methodical with high intelligence. Subsequent interviews he has done through the years reveal more lies. There was one recently within the last few years. The story keeps evolving.
DeleteOne other thing, I'm sure John peruses the internet reading about the case. He probably reads this blog and might have even commented. He is obsessed with JonBenet. Put that in your pipe.
DeleteMs D is parroting points made about the RN by Canuck and LE 4 or 5 years ago; they did not originate with her.
DeleteAs far as her "suitcase theory" is concerned, Dr Meyer's autopsy report describes JBR as being 44" tall and weighing 45 lbs. How could her body have been wedged into even the largest Samsonite suitcase, even if bent double at the waist, without breaking bones? Had it remained in this mythical suitcase for even just an hour or two that would have changed the pattern of livor mortis, and the ME would have easily determined the body had been moved. He did not.
It's simply not possible.
As far as the suitcase theory is concerned, I'm not "parroting" anyone. As far as I know, my opinion is an unpopular one and I wasn't aware that anyone on this blog shared it with me. You're right though that her body couldn't have actually been in the suitcase for any substantial period of time due to the livor mortis evidence, but at the time John wrote the note, I believe that putting her in the suitcase was his plan. I have no problem believing he would have broken her bones in order to fit her into the case - he'd already smashed her skull in two and twisted a cord around her neck until she stopped breathing (not to mention the likely sexual abuse that preceded her murder), so causing a few broken bones post-mortem wouldn't be unfathomable, especially if it means saving his own ass.
DeleteI did not say you'd parroted the suitcase theory, but Canuck and LE's explanation of the RN, which you presented without proper attribution.
DeleteForgive me, but I don't remember Canuck and LE's theories. It's been such a long time since I've discussed the case with them, and as there are but a few plausible theories, it is only natural that many people will inevitably share the same ones without necessarily having drawn from others - if I have done so, then it is subconscious, so of course I'm not going to attribute my thoughts to Canuck, LE, or anyone else here. I have been saying the same things for four years (yes CC, I'm aware that I've not contributed a single, original, thought to this blog, but take comfort in the fact that I rarely stop by these days). It is Doc's theory that I subscribe to, as do the aforementioned contributors, so aside from my feelings about the suitcase, naturally my comments are going to be in the same vein as everyone else's here who also agree with Doc's theory.
DeleteApologies, Ms D. I sometimes forget that not everyone shares my absorption with this case and my accursed memory for detail.
DeleteHey Ms D, how you been? :)
DeleteYou on the SE coast? I cannot remember. We have gone from fires to days of rain...crazy country we live in.
I hope you've been well. For the record, I think you write very well and you have contributed a lot to this blog over the years. Like you, I rarely stop by these days.
Hey Zed! Thanks for the kind words!
DeleteYep, I live in Melbourne's south east, and unfortunately we haven't received any real rain here in months, just oppressive humidity which has been trapping in the smoky air. It's been like this since new years...lots of rain elsewhere in the state this past week including local suburbs in the east, but we always seem to just miss out which really irks me because I do love the rain (probably because it's such a rare occurrence here). It looks like Sydney got the lion's share of the rain this week and didn't save any for us! Great news for the areas still affected by the fires though...let's hope they continue to get the rain, as we're a long way from the end of bush fire season yet.
I just deleted a chunk of posts consisting largely of inappropriate flames. Please folks, try to keep things civil. As far as off-topic posts are concerned, I'm willing to tolerate them if they are meaningful. I'm not willing to tolerate personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Doc you're trying to turn The Wild West into the Marquis of Queensbury. It's not going to work for you and eventually few will come here. You've got some smart people visiting here but people enjoy heated debate. My recommendation is either less moderation or fold up the site.
DeleteSince the former is a time and place and the latter a personage, your simile is hardly apt.
DeleteDoc's blog thrived for many years prior to your advent, and while often impassioned, the rhetoric was never heated.
My recommendation is that you confine your particular "debate" style to the Trumpy thread rather than allow it to spill over onto the JBR discussions, thus spoiling them for serious participants.
You're wrong, again.
ReplyDeleteBut, I guess you deserve a better response than "you're wrong again" even though you're wrong again. "The Wild West" refers to more than just a time and place and you know that. You're being contrary just to be contrary.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know fibers from JonBenet's clothing were found in the suitcase. If they were, it could be explained by John Andrew's room being used as a catchall room, where Patsy often folded laundry or packed for trips. What is more peculiar to me is why would anyone put a duvet cover in an old Samsonite suitcase along with a Dr. Seuss book and carry it down to the basement. And if you look at the suitcase it's not properly closed - the ribbons holding clothing inside are half out of it. Also John's excuse for transporting the suitcase to the basement (acandyrose) makes very little sense. He said he wanted to do a little de-cluttering and the suitcase belonged in the basement.
ReplyDeleteGaslighting again? Doc, you are making this case more complicated than it needs to be. I respect your logic. For someone that has no formal training in this arena, you hold up fairly well. But if there was a marionettist in this case, Patsy Ramsey was at the control bar, not John.
ReplyDeleteHercule
I don’t know how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Forget about what we think we know about the two of these people before the murder; let’s take a look at how their lives evolved afterward. Something we were actually privy to and could measure. John Ramsey, controlling the narrative to the media, to the lawyers, within the book he writes, on talk shows, even with law enforcement and “special” investigators. Patsy Ramsey, along for the tortuous ride, parroting everything her husband says, getting interrupted when her narrative goes off track on any public speaking medium, barely adding anything but a sense of deep sadness and calling on her faith to try to survive for her son, while John spends most of his writing time being the victim and chastiser of all those who dared look at him like he could possibly be involved. Look at who had the most emotional, and physical deterioration. This once beautiful, vivacious, woman will continually lose interest in her appearance, will dress the part when she has to, but doesn’t seem to care about her weight or attractiveness as much anymore. John is still finding ways to make himself relevant to the public while pursuing and marrying women half his age to feed his Fotis Dulos level of narcissistic bullshit.
ReplyDeleteSpot on, Suzs.
DeleteThough I doubt Hercule will take the time to address any of the above.
There is really nothing to address that I have not addressed before. I do not understand all of the misconceptions about Patsy Ramsey’s true nature. People like Suzs will see what they want to see. You will never convince me that Patsy’s personality was weak enough to be controlled by a quiet, mild mannered man such as John.
DeleteHercule
I agree with you Hercule. John controlled the domain of work, Patsy the home, and children, although both parents were guilty of child neglect. Both children had toilet training issues long past toddler-hood, Patsy's head was filled with looking good, pageantry, and appearances, John's with making money, expanding his business operations and ultimately appearances as well. The murder of their child brought them together as a cohesive front to deflect from what really happened, and put blame on the police and the press.
DeleteI believe Patsy was put in charge of household and pageantry and John business and money as well. That’s par for the course. I also think Patsy was a smart and emotionally/spiritually strong person with an extra dose of wit and sass. John is cool, controlled and exacting. By mild mannered, did you mean to say covert narcissist and emotional manipulation?
ReplyDeleteI love how people throw around the word narcissist - covert, overt, now there's a new one - communal narcissist. I suppose narcissist has replaced sociopath in pop psychology, trying to get traction with a one-size fits all description of personality types we know nothing about. I'm more comfortable with observable behavior. And how the Ramsey's interacted with each other after reporting their daughter's "disappearance" to their television interviews and reluctance to speak to police until they could put together a possible defense for a possible future told me exactly who they were.
ReplyDeleteYou love how people throw around the word narcissist? Hmm. Observable behavior is just getting more defined by psychology and if it helps people understand a dysfunction or those who have been abusive toward them, then I think its okay to bring psychology into the mainstream to help those being affected. It doesn't have to be exclusive and reserved to 20 year old outdated definitions you know to be relevant and helpful. Does it? Anyhoo, John controlled the entire narrative from beginning to end because...wait for it...he was guilty of murdering his child. It's okay if you don't want to characterize him as a narcissist for that. I think the term murderer would suffice nicely.
ReplyDeleteWhat have you observed about John Ramsey that would lead you to believe he tortured, strangled and bludgeoned his daughter to death? "John controlled the entire narrative from beginning to end"^^ to protect his family, Patsy and himself, for covering up a crime, and his son from being scrutinized and ruining any future he may have had growing up and to protect his company, his image, his standing and status in the community and elsewhere, and to protect his fortune. He gambled it all, he gambled doing the right thing for his daughter and in some ways he's won (he's not in jail) and in many other ways he's lost.
ReplyDeleteWhat have we observed about John Ramsey and his constantly evolving story? John Ramsey is a psychopath. Psychopaths have no conscience. They lie with ease. If you have any deductive reasoning abilities at all and you lay out all of the known facts of the crime and evidence the scenario with the greatest probability is that John did it. There's no evidence of any intruder. If there had been an intruder he certainly would have abducted the girl and not risked getting caught by hanging around in the house while torturing her for several hours. He wouldn't have written a ransom note and possibly left evidence of himself in the house and then left the body in the house with his DNA evidence. She was killed by someone in the home. FBI statistics show that in most of the cases when a young girl is murdered, she is murdered by an adult family member of the opposite sex, a father, a brother, an uncle, a grandfather. A murder by Burke doesn't fit the facts of the crime. John did it is the not the only fact pattern that fits but has the greatest probability of being correct.
ReplyDeletePaul has no diagnostic ability and deems any with whom he disagrees a psychopath. It's wise to disregard him in terms of a sober JBR investigation; most of us do.
ReplyDeleteTo understand our point it's best to begin with Doc's original two posts, available through his archives, and move on from there.
If you've any substantive evidence that anyone other than John committed the murder, please share it here, Anonymous.
Hello CC. There is no substantive evidence John killed his daughter, or that Burke killed her, or anyone else. All we have is a note, and we take it from there. "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
ReplyDeleteAnd a couple of Grand Jury indictments for abuse and neglect.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Anon, we have no definitive TV-friendly, CSI-style DNA, hair, fiber, fingerprint or other hard evidence in this case.
ReplyDeleteWhat we do have is the conclusion of a group of forensic pathologists and child abuse experts who found JBR was chronically sexually abused, and the likely conclusion it was at her father's hands.
Well now wait a minute. The last half of your sentence has flaws: "and the likely conclusion it was at her father's hands." "Likely" and "conclusion" are antonyms aren't they? That is if you are using the word conclusion to be synonymous with the word definitive. Who was doing the concluding, the group of forensic pathologists who couldn't have possibly known who was doing the abusing? We can all agree that there was vaginal interference, there was blood present in her panties and smeared on her leg as well as on the cuff of her white sweater. The group of forensic pathologists looked at slides and believed there were signs of erosion on her hymen, which may indicate previous sexual abuse certainly, or at the least interference. If it were at the hands of John Ramsey one wonders if Patsy's role in the equation would have been one of enabler - a little hard to swallow. But if the sexual interference had been at the hands of someone else in the family wouldn't there have been a higher likelihood that it may have been covered up, or dismissed? And most certainly indicative of neglectful parenting, for which the Grand Jury indicted both parents.
ReplyDeleteYou're right; my last sentence was poorly constructed. It's not the "likely conclusion" of the seven medicos that John chronically abused his daughter, but mine, based on statistics and experience prosecuting child sexual abusers in the way back.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, the GJ did not mention "neglect". Count IV was child abuse resulting in murder, while Count VII was accessory after the fact, which to me begs the question:
For what were the other, at minimum, five counts upon which the GJ did not agree?
Totally agree with you, we need to know what the other five counts were. If not for Charlie Brennan we wouldn't have known what any of them were.
ReplyDeleteI do find John Ramsey to be a scumbag. He's not above using his children to spin a narrative he knows to be false. One can only wonder what might have happened had the note been omitted, and he retired quietly from the spotlight. John is still trying to make a case for the intruder.
And here I'm torn between a grand jury's secrecy, which I know to be a necessary component of their ability to function, and the public's right to know.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I don't believe we were well-served by Judge L's partial release. Grand juries can conduct their own investigations, hand down reports as well as indictments. This one sat for more than a year; there's more there, and this judicial breach of protocol only furthered BDI speculation, in my opinion.
It's probably cheap and easy to assume Counts I, II and III to be for murder in the first, second degree and manslaughter, but I do so assume.
Which to me leaves another question begging: Hunter presented that slate of charges. What did he know?
Hunter undercut his own man, Mike Kane, who led the grand jury investigation, convinced he couldn't make a case. I'm sure he was influenced by the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial, knowing what it would be like to be outgunned by a defense team that only money can buy. But are you saying Hunter did present the slate of charges? I thought he decided not to proceed with the grand jury indictments.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't.
ReplyDeleteI meant he presented a slate of charges for the GJ's consideration, a sort of menu from which they may choose when they begin their deliberations. It's SOP for grand juries.
If I'm right in my surmise that Counts I, II and III were for variations of murder, that means Hunter believed someone in that house killed JBR.
I'm a big Mike Kane fan. Did you read his questioning of John in the third interrogation? It's available on acandyrose.
I see - so you are thinking Hunter knew something in order to have presented charges. At some point or other I've read everything. If anyone tripped John up it was Mike Kane. And of course that is why Lin Wood had all kinds of negative things to say about him. But I'll take your suggestion and read the third interrogation specifically.
ReplyDeleteI am.
ReplyDeleteNote especially Kane's questions about the fiber from John's Israeli-made shirt found in JBR's underwear, and Lin Wood's artful dodge ... like Kane would have brought evidence with him to Atlanta.
Ha ha. Of course you do know, and I'm sure you have considered, that if John's shirt fiber was found in JonBenet's underwear it only means he helped re-dress her. Not that he murdered her.
ReplyDeleteWe've got too many Anonymii to remain clear. Please self-identify with an initial, your dog's name, anything.
ReplyDeleteHad John "helped re-dress her" his hair and fibers would have been everywhere, not just in her underpants. HER UNDERPANTS, not her sequined-star t-shirt, not her Gap leggings, not Burke's longjohns. HER UNDERPANTS. Where she was sexually violated one final time at her father's hands.
I found the interview, with Kane, Wood, Ramsey, et al. What he's asking Ramsey is why he dry cleaned two shirts and sent them, when he doesn't seem to recall what he was wearing Dec. 25. John explains that's why he sent in two shirts, because he doesn't recall what he was wearing. But I don't see in that interrogation (2000) where Kane mentions fibers in JB's underwear consistent with an Israeli-made shirt. The mention of the dry cleaned shirts is sandwiched in between Kane asking John about Burke's baseball bat and his Hi-Tec boots, which John then gets into a debate whether they were tennis shoes or boots. And whether or not there was a compass imprint on the shoe, and what kind of shoe laces were on them. Clearly anything to do with Burke John wants to stay clear of. I do see in a 2016 post from this forum, Doc's Solving JonBenet forum, is where fibers are mentioned in JonBenet's underwear. Alot of myth going on about this case. And if you want to include blue or black fibers in her underwear, you will need to include fibers from Patsy's jacket found on the sticky side of the duct tape over JonBenet's mouth. Y
ReplyDeleteMR. LEVIN: Let's move on to
ReplyDelete7 another topic.
8 THE WITNESS: If the question is
9 how did fibers of your shirt get into your
10 daughter's underwear, I say that is not
11 possible. I don't believe it. That is
12 ridiculous.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: I need to
14 change the audio cassette. It will take
15 just one moment.
16 MR. WOOD: Did we ever find it?
17 MR. KANE: No. I can't put my
18 finger on it. I will send it to you.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, we have
20 never, knowingly to me, ever solicited any
21 funds from the public.
22 It was not the intent and is not
23 the intent. In fact, we may even not accept
24 funds from the public because of the
25 innuendoes that seem to be cast upon that.
0064
Its best to read starting from 0055 and onward from jramsey depo 8/20 on the acandyrose jonbenetramsey website.
ReplyDelete18 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
19 I appreciate the opportunity.
20 MR. WOOD: Thank you.
21 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Mr. Ramsey, it is
22 our belief based on forensic evidence that
23 there are hairs that are associated, that the
24 source is the collared black shirt that you
25 sent us that are found in your daughter's
0058
1 underpants, and I wondered if you --
2 A. Bullshit. I don't believe that.
3 I don't buy it. If you are trying to
4 disgrace my relationship with my daughter --
5 Q. Mr. Ramsey, I am not trying to
6 disgrace --
7 A. Well, I don't believe it. I
8 think you are. That's disgusting.
9 MR. WOOD: I think you --
10 MR. LEVIN: I am not.
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, you are.
12 MR. LEVIN: And the follow-up
13 question would be --
14 MR. WOOD: Posing the question in
15 light of what I said to you yesterday is
16 nothing more than an attempt to make a
17 record that unfairly, unjustly, and in a
18 disgusting fashion points what you might
19 consider to be some finger of blame at this
20 man regarding his daughter, and you ought to
21 be ashamed of yourself for doing it, Bruce.
22 You knew we weren't going to
23 answer the question. Why don't you just
24 give us the report, and we'll put it out
25 there for someone to look at and tell us
0059
haha sorry CC, I see we were posting along the same track at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Suzs. Well done, as ever.
ReplyDeleteI never met Mike Kane, but Bruce Levin is a good guy and a first class attorney.
Sorry; was a first class attorney. We overlapped at Georgetown. He died of cancer a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteStill hard to think of him in the past tense.
ReplyDeleteAnd Lin Wood is correct. If they had a report of "hairs" from a collared black shirt found in JonBenet's underwear from a shirt (or one of the shirts) John had sent them then a report should have been made of it, if one ever was, and entered into evidence. John cannot be questioned about something for which there was no report. Then there should be a forensic analysis of the hair or fiber from the shirt from either side, the defense side specifically before John should be allowed to be questioned about it. Lin Wood is right on in this issue. Y
ReplyDeleteRead down. There was a report. Levin offered to send it when he got back to Boulder.
ReplyDeleteYou're dead wrong; prosecutors have no obligation to reveal evidence to defendants in an investigation, only at trial.
And Ramsey has a right to refuse to answer until his side has had a chance to go over the alleged evidence, hire their own forensic scientist and prepare.
ReplyDeleteAny defendant has a right to refuse to answer questions propounded by prosecutors or cops during an investigation.
ReplyDeleteThey do not have a right to review evidence and "prepare" other than at trial or during pre-trial discovery.
And until the prosecution wants to bring charges and haul a defendant into trial, he remains a witness, and as such, does not have to answer to what he cannot see. Lin Wood's point was well made that Mr. Lewis cannot show the test result, is only representing what the test result is, that the shirts were collected in 1997 and weren't asked about in 1998, and that there were other fibers Levin admits were found that they couldn't source and here it was the year 2000 and it's only now being brought up.
ReplyDeleteThe BPD, improperly, did not impound the clothes John and Patsy wore on Christmas Day. They were obtained years after the fact, by mail, from Atlanta, and to my mind that makes the entire chain of evidence and line of questioning suspect, but there you have it.
ReplyDeleteTypical JBR screw up. Badly done, start to finish.
We're on the same page again, good to hear. Only I would add that it was a Boulder County screw up, start to finish.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that it was Boulder County's failure as much as it was John Eller's, Tom Koby's and the BPD, which had jurisdiction as the murder occurred within the city limits.
ReplyDeleteTheir hubris led them to turn down assistance from the much more experienced Boulder County Sheriff's Department, the CBI and the FBI, to quibble with Hunter over everything from search warrants to investigators, to the case's detriment and armchair investigators' eternal frustration.
Did you ever win a case? You're all over the place. This isn't a forensics case. You babble on and on about authority and experts. You don't even understand 4th grade math. If you ever won a case it had to have been against public defenders who didn't care whether their clients were convicted or not.
ReplyDelete"What we do have is the conclusion of a group of forensic pathologists and child abuse experts who found JBR was chronically sexually abused, and the likely conclusion it was at her father's hands."
LOL
You don't even understand the difference between fact and speculation. It isn't a fact JBR was sexually abused. It is a fact that some "experts" believe she was sexually abused. See the difference? Pseudo intellectual.
Doc put this case together with logical inference based on actual facts. He took the facts of the case which didn't include forensic evidence and solved it.
With my help. Not yours.
ReplyDeleteI understand your need to please authority/father figures, but it's misplaced here. You add nothing. You've contributed nothing, other than some serious sucking up and alienating potentially serious scholars who wish to discuss JBR.
ReplyDeleteGo back to the Trumpy thread where you belong, Paulie Poo.
Please ignore Paul and continue to post, Y and other Anonymii. Your input is valuable, your questions viable.
ReplyDeleteTell us more about your great prowess as a forensics expert? How you solved this case with your "diagnostic" skills? Tell us how you helped Doc piece together this intricate puzzle, math genius? Constance De Beverley, legend in her own mind.
ReplyDeletePaul, you're being rude.
ReplyDeleteCC, you're being rude.
ReplyDeleteApologies, Anon. Paul has name-called and insulted not just me, but others, since his advent here last September, and I fear he's imperiling one of the few JBR sites with diverse opinions and intelligent discussion.
ReplyDeleteI try to keep the incivility on the political thread, but you followed me over here and started the insults. You must be completely oblivious to your impropriety. I admit, I get testy when people post on here when it is obvious they haven't thoroughly read or digested Doc's (not yours) logic. Go back and read his logic. It has nothing to do with John's mild manners, or forensic evidence, or red herrings. It is Sherlock Holmes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't fawn all over Doc. I give credit where credit is due. I completely disagree with him regarding Amanda Knox. In that case he goes to the forensic evidence and gets away from logical inference. The forensic evidence though damning to Amanda Knox is also a red herring for some people. But, if you look at only the facts but not any forensic evidence they point directly to her.
ReplyDeletePaul, do you believe John gaslit Patsy?
ReplyDeleteI don't know. It doesn't matter what I believe. One of the facts of the case is she is the one who called the police. Anything else is conjecture.
DeleteAlso, another thing, I don't think Patsy ever gave any indication in public or in a police interview that she was suspicious of John. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I've read almost all of this blog's content through the years but don't remember it all. Difficult to believe she wasn't suspicious of him though or knew what might have been occurring.
DeleteHow does your theory differ from Doc's regarding JonBenet Ramsey, Paul. No differences at all? Among the different "camps" on this forum, there are differing opinions, as to why, where, who, and when. Y
ReplyDeleteIt isn't my theory. It is Doc's theory and I agree with it 100%. If you use only logic and facts they lead to no other conclusion. His theory doesn't mean that it isn't possible that it happened another way. It is the greatest probability is that John did it.
ReplyDeleteYou're here because you cannot answer my questions on the trumpy thread.
ReplyDeleteRead. Research. Do the work.
Start with the books. Go on to acandyrose and the JBR Encyclopedia.
ReplyDeleteRead. Do the research. Until then you've no place here.
Doc doesn't need another sycophant. Just ask Ms D.
ReplyDeleteYou get that you were being baited by Y, right? No one cares what you think. No one.
ReplyDeleteYou'll need to specifically explain how Y baited me. You can do that, right?
DeleteSame way I always do. Back to the trumpy thread til you get some smarts.
ReplyDeleteDidn't think so. You're good at spellcheck and Grammarly but when it comes to reasoning and logic you're woefully deficient.
DeleteI wanted to see if Paul was just parroting Doc's theory or if he had anything to contribute. Or if he had anything to add to Doc's theory. If he has nothing to add then true, there would be no reason for him to be here at all, given this is a discussion group, other than to state as a matter of fact everyone who thinks differently is dense or stupid, which is insulting. In either case, true, another sycophant isn't needed. However I will respond to your statement (above, at 10:15 p.m.) and counter my own question regarding gaslighting - you said: "I don't think Patsy ever gave any indication...she was suspicious of John." If you are saying this is so due to gas lighting, then you are suggesting when one is successfully gas lit the damage is permanent. I would suggest that she was never suspicious of John because she knew what happened. My answer is much simpler. Y
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm just parroting Doc's theory. I also parrot the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Gravity, and Ohm's Law. I'm not saying it is due to gas lighting. I have no way of knowing. It is just speculation. The fact that she called the police with the ransom note and body still in the house indicates she wasn't a participant of the crime. I come here because of all you brilliant people.
ReplyDeleteHasn't helped.
ReplyDeleteRead. Research. Do the work.
Is your theory different than Doc's? Let's hear it?
ReplyDeleteMine or CC's? I shouldn't speak for CC but I know that she added two elements to Doc's theory - premeditation, and the sexual abuse theory. My theory is totally different and would take up more than a small comment box. Y
ReplyDeleteYou may. And I'd welcome your theory.
DeleteI don't think it's any mystery I think Burke killed his sister, nor is my theory particularly unique or creative. I also know it can't be proved. I don't think it had to do with a stolen piece of pineapple but I also don't think one kid did everything on his own. His parents didn't do him any favors. But what else could they do except come up with an elaborate coverup. The elaborate part of it was Patsy's idea. John did the heavy lifting. Had the police been told it was an accident, or the Ramsey's removed the cord for example, the ME would declare it not an accident.
DeleteIf Burke killed his sister and they colluded and staged the bondage scene then what was the purpose of the ransom note?
DeleteAlso, so Burke killed his sister then strangled her? Or the Ramsey saw that she was going to die and decided to go ahead and strangle her?
DeleteThose actually aren't different theories. Doc's theory is JDI based upon only facts or concrete evidence. For instance we have concrete evidence that Patsy called the police. We have concrete evidence the body was found in the home. We have concrete evidence the ransom note was found in the home. The coroner's report is concrete evidence. The lab report is concrete evidence. Premeditation or chronic sexual abuse are just speculation.
ReplyDeleteGo read. Research. Do the work. Until then you have no place here.
ReplyDeleteGo back to the trumpy thread, where your hero is failing too.
I'm waiting for you to explain how Y baited me?
ReplyDeleteI did. Same way I always do. And you always walk right in knowing nothing but shrieking at the top of your voice.
ReplyDeleteBack to the trumpy thread, where today the administration is making plans for 18 months of the epidemic.
ReplyDeleteBut Paulie assures us it will all be over in a month.
Didn't think so. More of your typical "logic." LOL
ReplyDeleteBy the way the market's going to start bouncing at the end of this month and will do so for several months. The big corona virus scare will have turned the corner. But, the fissure in the credit system won't be over. I know you have no hope of understanding any of this but maybe some who read this thread will.
ReplyDeleteI think something we need to be fearful of is government overreach. Two years ago, and every budget discussion since, this president has increased the national debt. Which just goes to show it doesn't matter if you are a Rep. or a Dem. they all like to spend money.
ReplyDeleteThe problem(s) is or are entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and other various entitlements plus interest payments make up over 70% of our budget. The military spending which is actually the one function that is defined in the Constitution plus all the rest are less than 30%. In order for the budget to equal our spending we have to cut spending by 40%. That means all the retirees, not future retirees, will need to start receiving 40% less in their Social Security checks. All the union pensioners will have to start receiving half of their pensions. All the Federal employees will need to be cut in half. Do you think the American people are going to accept this? The point at which a President or Congress could something about this was about 40 years ago.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the overspending didn't start with President Trump. It escalated with Obama. But when given the opportunity to cut spending, he didn't. Any president must be ever-vigilant at attempts to pad an expense sheet with extraneous pork. I think this President initially thought he had to give a little to get a little (like funding for the wall). But it is a fact that the state coffers (over here on the Left Coast and the East Coast)have been spending far too much on providing benefits and food to people here illegally, not enforcing the law, on climate change and on phantom pet projects that are disguised as education bills and roads projects.
DeleteThe time to have cut social security was long long ago, by removing the tax, the compulsory "donation" out of the young and able-bodied worker's pay, instead encouraging personal saving, without being taxed on it, instead of a governmental lockbox with a promise that after you turn 62 you get it back. As for an inflationary price of a loaf of bread, look no further than Hawaii, now, in the 21st century.
That was to Paul, and as usual I forgot the "Y".
DeleteI agree with almost everything you just wrote. However, let's not forget what President Trump was going through. It was an unprecedented attack from the left, mainstream media, the deep state, never Trumpers and the Democrats. He has been investigated, impeached, under minded, ridiculed, harassed, etc. etc. He focused on his first responsibility as President-protect the country. How was he in a position to cut spending? And, if he had, at this point would it have mattered?
DeleteWe're supposed to be discussing this on the other thread by the way.
DeleteAfter this deflation there is going to be a hyper inflationary period where a loaf of bread will cost $50. Paper money will be absolutely worthless.
ReplyDeletePaul - Amanda Know is 100% innocent.
ReplyDeleteHow can that even be debated?
Would you like to debate it?
DeleteAmanda Knox is not even 1% innocent Y
DeleteY,
DeleteYou're offering too much reasonable doubt, not even 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.
Probably. She's made a little cottage industry around professing her innocence. That's what's so sickening. Y
DeleteYes, agree, never understood the media's callousness regarding Meredith Kercher's murder. But, with recent events the last couple of years, it is much more clearer to me now.
DeleteSame here, plus I read up on it somewhat - 2 books. It was one of those cases I stayed away from for a while, I mean can't tackle them all. And of course you can't trust the media to dig in and uncover the truth and report it.
DeleteYou and your family staying safe, Zedley?
ReplyDelete