tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post4668675773577215056..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: New and ImprovedDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger283125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-33824093152698078972015-08-26T05:26:02.524-04:002015-08-26T05:26:02.524-04:00Listen carefully may also be characteristic of a b...Listen carefully may also be characteristic of a business executive accustomed to "writing" his letters by dictating into a machine for his secretary's transcription.<br /><br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-80402888589050447782015-08-17T09:09:39.408-04:002015-08-17T09:09:39.408-04:00I lived in Boulder for six years in the 70s, am fa...I lived in Boulder for six years in the 70s, am familiar with the neighborhood. There are alleys behind the homes, proving garage access and a place for garbage cans. Do we know if LE searched nearby garbage cans? As I say, I lived there, and one cannot assume competence on the part of the BPD, believe me. CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-4374242550799738732015-08-17T08:36:57.163-04:002015-08-17T08:36:57.163-04:00Thanks, CC. My best guess is that the cord and tap...Thanks, CC. My best guess is that the cord and tape were most likely detritus from Xmas packaging and/or previous repair work done on the house and both may well have been completely used up by JBR's attacker. Anything left over could easily have been cut into tiny pieces and flushed down the toilet.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-87985700566633644802015-08-17T01:00:20.020-04:002015-08-17T01:00:20.020-04:00I just posted a query about the tape and rope, for...I just posted a query about the tape and rope, forgot to add an identifier. I'm CC. Thanks, Doc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-54005156867336592412015-08-17T00:13:16.891-04:002015-08-17T00:13:16.891-04:00I downloaded your revised book last night, Doc, an...I downloaded your revised book last night, Doc, and it's spot on. One loose end I've never heard tied up: LE was never able to find a roll of duct tape or any matching, unused cord. Any theories? <br /><br />Thanks for an excellent body of work and some most thoughtful, perceptive analyses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-18278179503759361182015-06-26T18:46:15.849-04:002015-06-26T18:46:15.849-04:00This is the interview below. The child referenced...This is the interview below. The child referenced is the same one who supposedly tried to look up.JBR's dress when she did not have panties on.<br />Again, such play is normal in both cases, and clearly PR wants it to be just boy talk about peeing outside, not sexual play. But that is not what the babysitter said, according to the interviewer.<br /><br />Sibling sexual abuse is ALWAYS older on younger. Of course the older child may wish for a same age partner, but the abuse is more about sexual urges, not thinking about dating or relationships.<br /><br />MM<br /><br />June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth (Babysitters)<br /><br />0119<br />7 TRIP DeMUTH: A couple of questions<br />8 Tom. With Evan Colby, was there ever a time<br />9 when Burke and Evan were under the porch without<br />10 their clothes on something, like that?<br />11 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).<br />12 TRIP DeMUTH: Can you tell me about<br />13 that?<br />14 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I think<br />15 Cynthia Savage, my housekeeper-nanny, told me<br />16 about that one time. They were, there isn't a<br />17 porch to be under, but I think Evan taught Burke<br />18 that it was easier to go pee-pee outside than to<br />19 take the time to go inside to go pee-pee, so he<br />20 sort of taught him how to go behind the tree.<br />21 Evan is a little guy.<br />22 TRIP DeMUTH: How little is little<br />23 Evan?<br />24 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I want to say <br />25 Burke was probably six or seven, Evan was 7 or<br /><br />0120<br />1 8, or something like that. And Suzanne told me<br />2 she came out and saw -- I think she said they<br />3 were kind of by where we kept this trash can,<br />4 sort on the left side of the garage and Evan had<br />5 his pants down showing Burke his -- works.<br />6 TRIP DeMUTH: Would Burke also have<br />7 his pants down or not?<br />8 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't think<br />9 I heard that.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-50224977349157132692015-06-26T15:38:56.499-04:002015-06-26T15:38:56.499-04:00Yes, and despite any statistics one might find on ...Yes, and despite any statistics one might find on brother-sister incest, I doubt you'll find many instances of a nine year old brother sexually molesting his six year old sister. It's mature males who tend to get fixated on young children. I have a feeling most sexually precocious nine year olds would be much more interested in girls their own age or older. Not that Burke ever displayed any signs of interest in girls period.<br /><br />And I too am curious about those reports about Burke being involved in sexual play with another child. Can you provide a reference, MM?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-88559979371681590072015-06-26T11:14:35.317-04:002015-06-26T11:14:35.317-04:00I had not heard of Burke being caught in sexual pl...I had not heard of Burke being caught in sexual play with another child, can you provide the reference? Is the theory that the parents had no clue what Burke was doing, even after 30 trips to the doctor and the doctor apparently not raising suspicions, and also JBR not telling on Burke? I have heard of 10 year olds engaging in sexual experimentation, however in those cases the 10 year old had older siblings or family members who had exposed them to pornography or they had witnessed sexual acts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-7379027810772323012015-06-25T23:29:32.655-04:002015-06-25T23:29:32.655-04:00BDI - more thoughts
There are an unending number ...BDI - more thoughts<br /><br />There are an unending number of posts claiming that Burke was too young to be interested in girls or sex, and thus could be eliminated with ease from the list of suspects who might have molested JonBenet.<br /><br />This has bothered me for some time because, as detailed in the study linked below, the start of puberty for children has been steadily decreasing for many years. Boys now start puberty at 9-10 years of age. BR turned 10 in January of 1997, and JBR started demonstrating behavior changes like increased clinginess in November/December 1996. We know from several sources that JBR slept in BR's bedroom on a regular basis, including on Christmas Eve. It is frankly a little shocking that the parents allowed it, given that BR had already been caught in sexual play with another child, but they did.<br /><br />In addition, two different housekeepers said that the children were not closely supervised and were not well disciplined. So BR could have been abusing her undetected...and/or they could have engaged in secret sex games together, which is common in young children. In fact, as long as it is characterized by mutual curiosity, it is regarded as normal by child psychologists. <br /><br />However, perhaps with the onset of puberty her brother took the games to a new level, and started abusing her. That would fit with her reported behavior changes and with the autopsy report. <br /><br />We know that sibling sexual abuse (not just experimentation, but abuse) is statistically far more common than biological parent sexual abuse; some studies say it is at least five times more common. Thus, I would argue that it is more logical to assume that BR was responsible for the abuse than to point to JR, who has none of the characteristics of a pedophile. <br /><br />Puberty onset in boys:<br /><br />http://www.m.webmd.com/children/news/20121020/earlier-puberty-age-9-10-average-us-boy<br /><br />MM<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-9379284482774000172015-06-25T11:10:54.780-04:002015-06-25T11:10:54.780-04:00Doc, I think you are right...she believed in his i...Doc, I think you are right...she believed in his innocence, and even if she had any lingering doubts, fear and her own best interests would cause her to bury those doubts in her mind. Did you watch the video of Patsy and John being interviewed by a pastor in Hawaii? It was her last public appearance before she died. John did all the talking, and she sat there, not even nodding her head in agreement with John or showing much facial expression at all. I realize that she was very ill at this time, but I found it interesting that John was so smiley, like he was just enjoying being able to talk about this in public. Even 10 years later, talking about this loss would have been very sombering for me. I would not be smiling about my "strengthened faith," but rather talking about my child's lost life, missing the chance to see her grow up and become a wonderful young lady, and stating that my faith sees me through these very dark times of missing my child and mourning her lost life. It seems to me that neither of them wanted to talk about mourning. It was a very superficial discussion for a pastor to be having - he seemed to be pandering to this couple. It was just sickening to watch John, and for me just confirms what a narcissist he really is. As for Patsy, she was quiet, didn't say much other than to talk about what a delightful child JBR was, and perked up when she was asked about Burke. She spoke about how well he was doing in college and that she's proud of him - things a normal mother would say. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-79723996045119076482015-06-25T02:13:15.596-04:002015-06-25T02:13:15.596-04:00Doc, I agree with most of this but disagree that t...Doc, I agree with most of this but disagree that they necessarily ruled out BR or the Steve Thomas theory. Or, sadly, the Intruder theory. There was no "ruling out" of anyone: they simply ruled in PR and JR possessing guilty knowledge and failing to protect JR. from death. One or both could have been perpetrators, or a third party they chose to protect could have been the perpetrator.. And, as you point out, therein lies the rub.<br /><br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-7823058219644832712015-06-24T23:11:51.465-04:002015-06-24T23:11:51.465-04:00As I understand it the GJ was given some sort of m...As I understand it the GJ was given some sort of menu of different choices and that was the one they chose. I think it would be a mistake to read too much into the exact wording. Remember, if the GJ had actually solved the case, it would certainly have been prosecuted. They were choosing on the basis of what seemed most likely to them. And it's clear that all they had were suspicions, not solutions.<br /><br />However: "first degree murder" means they did not think this was an accident. So much for Steve Thomas's theory. It also means they didn't buy Lou Smit's theory either or else there would have been no indictment. Also, I must insist that "first degree murder" would not have been invoked if they suspected Burke. As a minor he would not have been capable of first degree murder. Also, I must insist that if they suspected John and Patsy of cooperating to cover for the person who really committed this crime they would have been indicted for conspiracy. It's clear to me that they suspected either John or Patsy of committing this murder and the other of placing the child "in a situation which posed a threat of injury." Only they could not determine who did what, which is why the indictments are so vague. And why Hunter felt he could not prosecute because you can't prosecute on the basis of "I really don't know who did what."DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-31530983214530525462015-06-24T11:53:01.567-04:002015-06-24T11:53:01.567-04:00Everything is sealed and protected by Colorado law...Everything is sealed and protected by Colorado law. A judge ruled that the indictments themselves, signed by the GJ foreman, were the only documents that could be released.<br /><br />JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-35766182313928813262015-06-24T11:40:25.391-04:002015-06-24T11:40:25.391-04:00Yes Jay, super puzzling. Where is the transcript ...Yes Jay, super puzzling. Where is the transcript to the Grand Jury proceedings? The public deserves to know everything that went on in that court room.<br /><br />ZZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-40163912123293785112015-06-24T11:38:31.418-04:002015-06-24T11:38:31.418-04:00Is there a transcript of the Grand Jury proceeding...Is there a transcript of the Grand Jury proceedings. <br /><br />ZZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-16719058632351640272015-06-24T09:17:31.564-04:002015-06-24T09:17:31.564-04:00Feel free to post any ideas you might have on this...Feel free to post any ideas you might have on this blog. That way they'll be open to discussion by everyone interested. <br /><br />As for my reasons for choosing anonymity, that's a fair question. I've been active for years doing research in the social sciences, have published a fair amount in academic journals and have also written books on my theories. Since my ideas are controversial, the last thing I want is for colleagues to dismiss me as one of those hopeless "crackpots, who thinks he's solved the JonBenet Ramsey case," which would make it easy for them to dismiss all my other ideas as part of the same "crackpot" mentality.<br /><br />As far as this case is concerned, I may in fact be nothing more than just another crackpot of that kind, that's not for me to say. I have certainly become obsessed with this case, admittedly. But I don't want my scholarly research to be undermined by my obsession. Consequently I decided to keep both realms separate, as far as possible. At least for now.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-13465824884276605682015-06-24T08:58:38.927-04:002015-06-24T08:58:38.927-04:00Imo Patsy didn't leave John because she sincer...Imo Patsy didn't leave John because she sincerely believed in his innocence. If she had had any doubts, they would have been dispelled by the decision to rule him out as writer of the note. It's important to remember also that John was her chief supporter and also the one whose money was paying her lawyers, at a time when almost everyone in the world suspected HER of writing the note and killing her daughter.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-13299037008572274622015-06-24T02:17:02.569-04:002015-06-24T02:17:02.569-04:00"Oh, I nearly forgot to mention also- in rela..."Oh, I nearly forgot to mention also- in relation to my suspicions about how much the lawyers were all involved in possibly 'fixing' this case, I've always wondered (maybe I'm a bit dense), what it could mean that although John, Patsy and Burke all had separate lawyers, only John had lawyers for other extended members of his side of the family, not Patsy? "<br /><br />Why on earth would he get lawyers for them? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-16411815821739117052015-06-23T21:07:59.494-04:002015-06-23T21:07:59.494-04:00Hello Docg. I enjoyed reading your analysis that ...Hello Docg. I enjoyed reading your analysis that I think is really good. Some of the points you brought up (particularly about the note being written "inside" the home on paper "inside" the home throws the intruder theory out the window in my opinion. I'd love to hear anyone to explain how and why an intruder would write a ransom note with paper from inside the house without making me laugh.<br /><br />I've read many books about the crime and I've never heard this point explained to clearly and logically. This is hugely important and I suspect that is the reason that Detective Steve Thomas was so passionate about his theories. Basically, whoever wrote the note was responsible for or connected with the child's death.<br />I must say that I am curious about your choosing to be anonymous (apparently.) What's that all about?<br />By the way, I'm a law enforcement fellow. I wrote a couple of emails to Brenda Anderson in response to reading some of her statements that riled me up. That's how I came across your "screen name". Never did hear back from her or see other comments so perhaps I didn't submit it properly. I'll send them to you for comment if you have interest.roberthttp://aol.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-67717914354120596062015-06-23T13:27:19.617-04:002015-06-23T13:27:19.617-04:00Are we to assume from Beckner's remarks that t...Are we to assume from Beckner's remarks that the issue of prior sexual assault to JBR is not something they consider to be conclusive? Because in my mind, if JBR showed signs of being previously molested, I find it very hard to believe that Burke did this. That child was doted on, her whereabouts always known, and she was a precocious child who would have not been shy about telling on Burke. If prior sexual assault has been established, the Burke theory is pretty far-fetched. Regardless, I think if Patsy and/or John stumbled upon Burke having hit his sister, they are normal enough people to me - they would have called for an ambulance and "unstaged" whatever Burke was in the process of doing to fake a murder. And they would have not let Burke out of their sight after the police came. No, JR did this, Patsy thought the whole scenario was off and was really scared, not knowing why in the world John was behaving as he did; he was lying, contradicting her, admonishing her, and acting like he knew something that she did not. Yep, that's why she stayed in another room and peeped at him. She was fearful of him yet hoping JBR would be found. She was trying to put all the past indicators together and slowly realizing that John was up to something. All I need to resolve in my mind, given that I accept Doc's case as the most logical case to date, is why Patsy, over the years, didn't divorce John and take Burke far away from him. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-14421551208196070622015-06-22T22:58:24.394-04:002015-06-22T22:58:24.394-04:00Recent quote from former Boulder Police Chief Beck...Recent quote from former Boulder Police Chief Beckner Reddit interview, on what happened to JonBenet:<br /><br />"Beckner: “We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad.”<br /><br />This seems to support the theory that BR was the source of the head blow and the garotte. It is highly unlikely that a parent would strangle a living child in such an odd way up to two hours after hitting her on the head. If JR. was really trying to finish her off, why not use a much safer option, like a pillow? A child trying to fake a murder, however, would be much more confused, more random, and much less able to tell if she was dead or alive.<br />MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-79005970900382710672015-06-22T13:46:44.601-04:002015-06-22T13:46:44.601-04:00Jay, I think this piece of an article from the Den...Jay, I think this piece of an article from the Denver Post pasted below speaks to your question. The grand jury apparently declined to indict on several kinds of charges, going by the numbers on the charges they chose. So, they decided that each parent knew something and aided and abetted someone in some undeclared fashion in the first degree murder of their daughter. I am assuming that they decided on "first degree" language due to the nature of the garotte. MM<br /><br />"Denver defense attorney and legal analyst Dan Recht said the documents show the conflict within the grand jury.<br /><br />"In a sense, they seem to be classic compromise grand jury decision," Recht said. "They can't decide whether to indict on murder. They can't decide not to indict at all. So they compromise in between."<br /><br />Curiously, the charges in each parent's unsigned indictment are listed as Count IV(a) and Count VII. Recht said that shows the district attorney presented multiple possible charges to the grand jury — likely including murder — and that these two were the only ones the grand jury could agree upon. And that, Recht said, shows why Hunter was reluctant to go forward with any of the charges.<br /><br />"In part, this vindicates Alex Hunter," Recht said. "He probably saw this as a classic compromise, and he believed, if he couldn't prove murder, he couldn't prove either of these beyond a reasonable doubt."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-88792747495455997812015-06-22T09:01:20.256-04:002015-06-22T09:01:20.256-04:00MM, if this is the case, then the indictment indic...MM, if this is the case, then the indictment indicates that "both" JR and PR were aware of JB's condition before she died. In other words, one parent didn't cover for the other after the fact, but rather was aware of JB's condition during the night and failed to seek help. I understand that the burden of proof is much more loose with a GJ, but after meeting for 13 months, and pouring over thousands of pages of evidence, it's pretty significant that they came up with that indictment.<br /> BTW, would the second indictment indicate that both JR and PR were aware of the garotting (first degree murder), since it was intentional and premeditated?<br /><br />JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-86413769417521722122015-06-22T02:11:16.390-04:002015-06-22T02:11:16.390-04:00Jay, I think the language covers any knowledge of ...Jay, I think the language covers any knowledge of her physical condition up to and including death. In other words, any coverup that took place by either party would be included in this language. Instead of calling 911, even if she was already dead, at least one of them engaged in "unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously" putting her life in danger possibly resulting in death. That alone was the "unreasonable situation." <br /><br />Grand Jury standards are "probable cause" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt." The GJ indictment only requires nine of twelve jurors to support-the standards are looser. It was still incredibly irresponsible for Hunter to not press charges. MMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-4862136244832381152015-06-22T00:57:59.204-04:002015-06-22T00:57:59.204-04:00"Unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and felon..."Unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly, and feloniously permitting a child (JB) to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JB", seems to indicate more than an accident or that one parent got up in the night, sexually assaulted JB and killed her. This indictment spells out much more than "One of the parents killed her, but we don't know which one?". It indicates " unreasonably" placing JB in a situation that posed a threat of injury or death (I.e. dangerous place, dangerous person, or dangerous situation), and that they were aware of the danger, and that it was unlawful and reckless. <br /> Now the first question is, "How could the GJ come up with this indictment for both JR and PR, if the BPD thought it was PR who accidentally killed JB?" The second question is, "If the BPD thought PR was covering for BR, who accidentally killed JB, then where is the 'unreasonable situation that posed a threat', and how was it 'unlawful'?" <br /> The Police interviews don't indicate JR and PR unreasonably placing JB in a situation which posed a threat of injury. Puzzling.<br /> <br />JayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com