tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post1576648941278856026..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Open Forum Part TwoDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger213125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-56259151896317352372014-10-15T23:06:08.480-04:002014-10-15T23:06:08.480-04:00excellent ! ...as a high school end year test , yo...excellent ! ...as a high school end year test , you read all the questions and answering most of them by the time you still get to complete the test , by priority the easiest (in JR case is the most important instead of easiest !) and then the rest IF you have enough time....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-84727197634357967092014-10-14T14:53:38.470-04:002014-10-14T14:53:38.470-04:00Thank you! I did read your info on DNA transfer, ...Thank you! I did read your info on DNA transfer, and the experiment that researcher from Ventura conducted, but let me read a bit more. Thanks for pointing me there (no need to post this! )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-24783589861697019592014-10-14T09:25:09.793-04:002014-10-14T09:25:09.793-04:00The following blog post should answer your questio...The following blog post should answer your questions, regarding both the Kercher case and the Ramsey case: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-problem-with-dna.html<br /><br />I've discussed the Ramsey DNA evidence in additional posts as well. You can find them by doing a search on "DNA". DNA is microscopic and can easily be transferred. Recently developed methods have made it all too easy to find minute traces of so-called "touch" DNA that are usually overlooked because they are so miniscule. Samples of such DNA from six different unknown sources were found on JonBenet's body or clothing, telling you how easily such innocent transfers can occur. The fact that some of this DNA was found on both her clothing and mixed with blood from her panties means little. Once some of it got on her hands, it could easily have been transferred to her crotch if she scratched herself there. Most DNA experts have discounted the significance of the "touch DNA" evidence.<br /><br />And by the way, if John's DNA wasn't found on her body or her clothing that too means little. Since he was her father it would be very surprising if some of his DNA was not found on her. If it wasn't found, that means they didn't look hard enough.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-39722031798641562032014-10-14T02:04:44.909-04:002014-10-14T02:04:44.909-04:00The idea that unknown male DNA was found in JonBen...The idea that unknown male DNA was found in JonBenet's blood and was put there by secondary or tertiary transfer I suppose is possible, but not plausible. On the underwear maybe, but it was newly opened, so how does the DNA get there? In blood on her body? No.,I don't think it was transfer. Is there case law showing DNA transfer via blood on a victim? I think you are stretching here. I also believe Amanda Knox was absolutely involved in her roommate's death, but I won't go into it since I know this is not the purpose of this blog. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-8993657092003247402014-10-13T21:47:47.242-04:002014-10-13T21:47:47.242-04:00I am new to studying this case and I found your we...I am new to studying this case and I found your website. it's got some great information. I'm curious why you still think John Ramsey participated in this crime after the DNA was tested. My understanding is that there were 3 blood spots on JonBenet and they tested those in 2005. Unknown male DNA was found in those blood stains. Now I understand how unknown DNA could be on the underpants, but I don't see how it could be in blood on JonBenet if John committed this crime? I'm curious what you all think of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-91906242857284847452014-09-16T09:41:46.054-04:002014-09-16T09:41:46.054-04:00"that the person who wrote the Ransom note wo..."that the person who wrote the Ransom note would NOT have wanted the police called until that person had a chance to get the body out of the house. Otherwise, what would be the point of writing that note?"<br /><br />DocG this statement makes "total" sense to me, and sets a standard of basic commonsense-fact-based "logic" which also explains many other subsequent decisions made (by the perp and any/all/willing/unwilling conspirators after the fact). JMO<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-65285805810203268272014-09-14T22:28:56.248-04:002014-09-14T22:28:56.248-04:00The facts, and logical inferences based on those f...The facts, and logical inferences based on those facts, tell us who committed the crime, which is the essential thing. However, in order to account for certain aspects of the case that seem contradictory in the light of these facts, it is necessary to speculate. Whether my speculations are accurate or not doesn't matter so long as I've gotten my facts straight and my logic is sound.<br /><br />For more, see my latest post, hot off the press.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-1998013196761743242014-09-14T22:24:09.476-04:002014-09-14T22:24:09.476-04:00When you catch a rat in a trap, there is no longer...When you catch a rat in a trap, there is no longer any need to explain how his footprints got on the ceiling.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-79437861389195147732014-09-14T22:17:49.112-04:002014-09-14T22:17:49.112-04:00According to Burke's testimony he was faking t...According to Burke's testimony he was faking that he was asleep but was actually awake. John and Patsy would have had no way of knowing that until he "confessed" so I don't see any reason to believe they lied.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-23714913316246697922014-09-14T19:47:12.133-04:002014-09-14T19:47:12.133-04:00DogG-
Do you believe it has been determined exactl...DogG-<br />Do you believe it has been determined exactly what Burke was doing during the 911 call ? From what I have read, there are varying accounts..<br />.<br />To be direct- your base your theory on 'the facts' but much of your theory is speculation...Such as the following:<br /><br />" She was manipulated, which is a very different thing. Also she desperately wanted to believe in John's innocence."<br /><br />You have no FACTS that support she was manipulated- this is your conjecture based on your interpretation on the facts.<br /> <br /><br />"Yes, she lied to support John's lies"<br /><br />You have no true way to know why she lied..<br /><br />I believe your theory has some solid ground but you add to the facts- inferences that are not fact- simply your logic. There are alternate reasons that Patsy could have called 911ning-(my main interest arise from Burke's contribution to the morning). <br /><br />OWL<br /><br />To say making the 911 proves her innocence entirely- and dismiss any future behaviors as John's manipulations is merely convenient.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-62468446180593631732014-09-14T18:29:43.635-04:002014-09-14T18:29:43.635-04:00How is she going to loose her son? BR can't ...How is she going to loose her son? BR can't be prosecuted. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25796647784787523472014-09-14T16:53:56.036-04:002014-09-14T16:53:56.036-04:00BG - you have made the best point I have seen on h...BG - you have made the best point I have seen on here in a while regarding Patsy telling the 911 operator about the beheading. If John is guilty, which most believe he is, it truly throws a wrinkle in the theory, because that 911 call foils Johns ultimate plan and the "beheading" of their daughter was the key point John put in the note to sway Patsy away from making the call. SO, does Patsy believe the note or not believe the note? The fact that she makes the call seems like she would believe it, but having friends comes over and the police come so soon after finding the note would draw WAY too much attention to the Ramsey house. Let's remember that the call comes in before 6 AM and the body isn't found till hours later. So, what precautions did the family truly take to prevent a "beheading?" I don't know what it ultimately means, but its starting to shed a negative light on Patsy. If she suspected John, then why stay with him till she died in 2006? Doc has made the argument that when John went upstairs to look after BR, that she went downstairs to dial 911. The problem with this is at NO POINT does Patsy ever let on that she didn't trust John or Johns story of the events. <br /><br />Everybody on here think about this logically. Both Patsy and the police bought the note enough to have John withdraw the money and coach John if the kidnappers called. So, up until the point where the body is found, the Ransom Note was believed to be real. The problem is we have TWO 911 calls from the house that morning and possibly Patsy calling on purpose when John wasn't around......just a lot to explain.<br /><br />-JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-53577059025091814462014-09-14T16:30:27.771-04:002014-09-14T16:30:27.771-04:00As mentioned above, one scenario is that Patsy may...As mentioned above, one scenario is that Patsy may have thought John covered up a crime by Burke. John is guilty, Patsy is innocent but terrified to lose her son, and Burke is innocent. John just needs to plant the idea and the need for a united front.<br /><br />I just remembered another lie of John and Patsy: that Burke was asleep all morning long. Later revised. United to protect their son.<br /><br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-21326560571677018532014-09-14T16:19:18.636-04:002014-09-14T16:19:18.636-04:00There are more options. One scenario I have float...There are more options. One scenario I have floated before is that John convinced Patsy that Burke somehow hurt/killed JonBenet and John covered it up. I cannot fill in the blanks, I can only assume it happened after she called 911, maybe in the days to follow. Maybe John never even said it out loud, only implied it and she understood the stakes. She could lose her husband and only remaining child if she did not circle the wagons. To me, it explains her lies and passionate, feisty defense of John that would not have happened if she suspected he alone molested and killed JonBenet.<br /><br />To argue John alone, you have to explain Patsy. And one explanation we can imagine is that, like the rest of America, she was afraid her son might have had something to do with it.<br /><br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-9754350738030378402014-09-14T15:48:52.791-04:002014-09-14T15:48:52.791-04:00I was referring to her references to Susan Smith a...I was referring to her references to Susan Smith and O. J. Her lawyers could have prompted her to mention them as examples of tragic events that have caused Americans to "lose faith" in the family.<br /><br />"one fact is that Patsy joined John in his lies and there is no evidence that she was easy to manipulate."<br /><br />Yes, she lied to support John's lies. But if we assume thereby that she was collaborating with him on the coverup, that assumption is inconsistent with the facts. As I mentioned in my most recent response to BG, if you want to see Patsy and John agreeing to call 911 at that time then you will need to explain why. Either they are both innocent, which means there was an intruder in the house that night. Or they are both guilty and decided to blow the whistle on their kidnap staging for no good reason. Or Patsy is guilty and John is innocent. Which makes it impossible to explain all his many deceptions, half truths and lies.<br /><br />So, by all means, take a number and make a choice. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-10737673417591696602014-09-14T14:57:26.291-04:002014-09-14T14:57:26.291-04:00Hi doc, prompted by the lawyers to appear rational...Hi doc, prompted by the lawyers to appear rational and intellectual? To talk about the suffering of the American people who think she is a murderer? I am not saying she did it, I am saying she was one extremely odd mother of a murdered child, and her actions muddy the case. <br /><br />If we are to only attend to the facts of the case, one fact is that Patsy joined John in his lies and there is no evidence that she was easy to manipulate. To me she seems strong willed, bright, and connected to many family and friends, not isolated and gaslit by her overpowering husband.<br /><br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-73505294027946430892014-09-14T14:30:30.315-04:002014-09-14T14:30:30.315-04:00BG, I agree. And if Patsy called 911 against his ...BG, I agree. And if Patsy called 911 against his wishes, he could assume she was not 100% on his side. Drugs or no drugs, he would have needed to appease her, not make her more wary by telling a flat lie. He has no idea what she actually knows, six days in. All she needs to say is that he did not go to bed until the wee hours...case closed.<br /><br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-20298999842413358892014-09-14T14:13:28.584-04:002014-09-14T14:13:28.584-04:00So what alternative theory would you offer? If the...So what alternative theory would you offer? If the call were John's idea then clearly he had no role in staging the kidnapping or writing the note. What would be the point of going to all that trouble and risk and then calling the police before you've completed your staging by removing the body? <br /><br />And if you'd changed your mind and decided you couldn't go through with your original plan after all, then why report a kidnapping, complete with obviously phony note in your own (or your spouse's) hand? And why hide the body in a remote basement room? Why not display it openly and report a home invasion?<br /><br />So what you are implying is that either both are innocent or John is innocent and Patsy both murdered her daughter and staged the kidnapping on her own. In which case you will need to explain the sexual assault and the garotte. And if you see John as innocent, then why does he support Patsy so strongly, and why does he work so hard to delay questioning by the police? Why does he concoct an obviously phony story about breaking that window the previous summer? Why does he close the basement window without telling anyone? Why does he vanish from sight for over an hour while Det. Arndt is keeping everyone else together? Etc.<br /><br />And if both are innocent, then how do you explain a kidnapper who enters a home without bringing his note with him? And takes hours to pen a long detailed note while in the house where he could have easily been detected? How do you explain a kidnapper who forgets to kidnap his victim but nevertheless leaves his ransom note for the police to examine? Or someone out to frame John Ramsey who writes the note in his own hand, with no attempt to forge John's?<br /><br />So I'm sorry, while it might seem reasonable to you that John wanted that call made, it sounds totally unreasonable to me. Your conviction that John could have prevented Patsy from making it is based on an assumption that is easily refuted and is also inconsistent with an analysis of the case based on the facts.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-21013570602413154802014-09-14T12:34:15.220-04:002014-09-14T12:34:15.220-04:00Again, If John was so great at manipulating Patsy,...Again, If John was so great at manipulating Patsy, I don't see how he would've had any trouble convincing her to not call 911.<br /><br />BGAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-56502854053673576862014-09-14T12:10:43.782-04:002014-09-14T12:10:43.782-04:00Excellent point! It could have been not so much to...Excellent point! It could have been not so much to show how an intruder could have gotten in but primarily to explain away the evidence of staging. By that time Smit was behaving like a defense lawyer, not an independent investigator. His primary intent was to promote reasonable doubt.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-44208310441853699832014-09-14T11:52:47.129-04:002014-09-14T11:52:47.129-04:00I wonder if LS came up with his intruder theory pa...I wonder if LS came up with his intruder theory partly because it would "explain" the apparent attempt to stage ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-39126166648083521002014-09-14T10:26:36.731-04:002014-09-14T10:26:36.731-04:00You could be right.
Actually as I recall it was ...You could be right. <br /><br />Actually as I recall it was John himself who claimed he found the suitcase flush against the wall, just under the window. But that was months later. He didn't report it on the 26th. And by that time he'd been inspired by Lou Smit to give an intruder break-in at the window another shot. So by the time he finally reported seeing it, the implication was pretty clear that he thought the "intruder" used it to boost himself out the window. And of course we have no reason to accept anything John said, so who knows what that suitcase meant.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-53657165074900163492014-09-14T10:17:40.419-04:002014-09-14T10:17:40.419-04:00She could have been prompted by the lawyers. As I ...She could have been prompted by the lawyers. As I see it, it's the facts that count. It's so easy to make assumptions.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-37236616340902515492014-09-14T10:12:10.038-04:002014-09-14T10:12:10.038-04:00"It would be so easy for him to say "I w..."It would be so easy for him to say "I was very worried about JonBenet's safety based on the ransom note threats, but Patsy convinced me that the police could help us find her." There. He is on the side of calling 911 AND Patsy has no reason to suspect him. But he said HE told her to call 911. If this is true, then they basically called 911 together and JDI falls apart."<br /><br />You make an interesting point. After all, there is nothing suspicious per se in John arguing against calling the police in the face of all the threats in the note. But John's claim has to be placed in context. Already by the time of the CNN interview he is the leading suspect in the murder of his own daughter. The combination of ransom note plus body found in the house certainly makes it look like an inside job and the police may well have suspected this was not so much a kidnapping gone wrong as a staged kidnapping gone wrong. And since the murder also involved a sexual assault -- not to mention the use of a garrote -- the only mature male in the family (who as a sailor also happened to be familiar with knots) would naturally be the leading suspect.<br /><br />If the decision to call 911 had been John's then it would seem unlikely he could have been involved. After all, if you're staging a kidnapping, why call the police before you've had a chance to get rid of the body? So under the circumstances John would have had a very good reason to claim the call was his idea -- this was his opportunity to establish his innocence.<br /><br />Of course we have no reason to believe Patsy ever suspected John, so she would not have seen it in that light. And since she'd been heavily sedated for days it would seem reasonable that her memory could have gotten a bit foggy. So it would have been easy for John to manipulate her regarding who made that all important decision.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-64282520834058555502014-09-14T09:23:36.730-04:002014-09-14T09:23:36.730-04:00The suitcase must have been nearby during the brea...The suitcase must have been nearby during the break. I don't think it would have to be directly under the window. There's going to be some glass "flying" a bit, even if JR just gently presses until the glass breaks. <br /><br />It's also possible JR just set a piece of glass on the suitcase as he cleaned up, probably intending to dispose of it, then forgot it. <br /><br />The pane that was broken was the upper left, as viewed from inside the basement. <br /><br />I'd have a hard time seeing him standing on a suitcase, trying to keep a hinged frame still, while breaking glass. This is a recipe for injury. <br /><br />CH<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com