tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post7409551779941385051..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Open Thread -- Part SevenDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger318125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-42159900005828512872016-02-17T22:53:09.919-05:002016-02-17T22:53:09.919-05:00i328.photobucket.com/albums/1336/robert457/2016021...i328.photobucket.com/albums/1336/robert457/20160217_193527Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-44133904321259307922016-01-05T09:40:41.312-05:002016-01-05T09:40:41.312-05:00Yes, Tracy, it's a complicated case. Which is ...Yes, Tracy, it's a complicated case. Which is why I chose to focus on the uncontested facts and not the multitude of "clues," all of which lead nowhere. We can understand the various bits of evidence only if we have a solid theory of the case to begin with. That's what I've tried to do. As I see it, most of the little mini-mysteries become much easier to understand once we accept that: 1. there is no such things as "the Ramseys" but two independent individuals; 2. John cannot be ruled out as writer of the note; 3. no intruder theory makes sense (so you can forget about the "visit from Santa", the DNA "evidence" etc.); 4. and yes, Patsy would not have called 911 if she had written that phony note, whose only purpose was to stage a phony kidnapping. <br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how so many following this case fail to grasp that crucial point. The whole purpose of the note is to stage a kidnapping. That should be obvious to anyone intelligent enough to reject the intruder theory. And if you are staging a kidnapping, you don't undercut that staging by calling the police before you've had a chance to get the body out of the house. That's basic.<br /><br />It's clear from what you've written that you too are stuck in the morass. Trying to figure out what all these bits and pieces of case folklore mean is a pointless task. Without an overall grasp of the case as a whole, none of them can lead you anywhere, you just wind up going around in circles, pointlessly. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-28561755419720554382016-01-05T07:41:06.832-05:002016-01-05T07:41:06.832-05:00Doc-
1. Depends on what we mean by "intruder...Doc-<br /><br />1. Depends on what we mean by "intruder". Legitimate kidnappers/strangers? I'll agree there is a snowball's chance in hell of that scenario. Some clues that lean towards IDI need to be fully explained before I can completely rule out IDI..or completely rule it in.<br /><br />Such as..<br /><br />The "secret Santa" thing ALWAYS bothered me. That CANNOT be ignored no matter who(including LE) wishes to minimize its potential significance. If a young girl mentions to someone that Santa is going to do a "special" visit with her but its a secret and she winds up murdered, that oddity needs to be explained. Unfortunately, it leads down a rabbit hole which is probably why people choose to brush it off. "Santa" could have been ANYONE. They stopped at McReynolds and shame on them for doing so. Having said that, his family needed an even closer look although I don't lean in his direction.<br /><br />John Andrew Ramsey(or friends/associates)- Yes he was cleared but there's some strange clues regarding him. Students at his college who said he talked so much about Jonbenet it was bordering on obsession(NOT normal for a guy that age) and also that bizarre story of that informant from Michigan who claimed JAR asked him to do a hit on Jonbenet for 10k in the summer of 96. I realize how outlandish that sounds on the surface but the fact remains...she was murdered months after this allegedly occurred. How deep did LE dig into JAR's friends or associates? Not very deep at all if memory serves me correctly. Yeah JAR technically isn't an intruder so most would consider this RDI but I consider it bordering on IDI because IF he was involved, I think he would have had at least one accomplice and in fact JAR himself may not have even been in the house that night(yeah I know of his alibi).<br /><br />Sleuths like to place a lot of emphasis on that suitcase. Its an interesting clue but not because it may or may not have been used to climb out the window. The CONTENTS of the suitcase are what makes it interesting to me. It is JAR's suitcase. Inside the suitcase of a college student is a children's book and a blanket with his semen stains on it. Interesting combo of items lying near a dead six year old girl yet LE didn't seem to care. Even if the suitcase was located anywhere else in the house it does not minimize the bizarre nature of its contents.<br /><br /><br /><br />2. Disagree 100% on this point. I actually don't believe she did it either(wouldn't rule it out though) but whether or not she wrote the note would not change anything regarding the 911 call IMO. She can make the call in either scenario.<br /><br />3. I agree with you on this about John...if one of the three family members living in the house murdered Jonbenet, it was more than likely John.I always had difficulty buying the Patsy theories because those theories IMO always hit several brick walls in all directions. It just doesn't add up to me. Yes I know many believe she never went to bed and its certainly possible(probable?) but that alone wouldn't make her the killer. Accomplice maybe. Her flying into a murderous rage over Jonbenet soiling herself(or whatever) doesn't pass the smell test. Yes she acted suspicious...but so what? That whole family acted suspicious but it doesn't mean the entire family killed her. That was a dysfunctional family.<br /><br />I wish we could have learned more about John and Patsy's relationship. <br /><br />I also agree with you that it wasn't Burke. I've literally laughed at some of those theories. Gets mad at Jonbenet over Nintendo and strangles her with the cord from a controller and hits her with a baseball bat and Mommy and Daddy immediately stage the crime scene and send him off to bed? Sorry..don't buy it.<br /><br />You're right, it's a very complicated case and that's what makes it so interesting to me. Yes it is difficult to factor all clues in no matter which theory is proposed. Some of the clues are red herrings which makes it even more difficult. <br /><br /><br />TracyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12620655582938925058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-40951937427837431602016-01-05T06:38:05.860-05:002016-01-05T06:38:05.860-05:00I really need to read Kolar's book. I'll o...I really need to read Kolar's book. I'll order it on Amazon. Also need a crash course on the whole case. Been years since I dove into it to the extent some of you have. Would love to get into one of these lengthy debates here but don't remember all the specific details.<br /><br />I'm one of the very few fence straddlers. I can see both sides and there are interesting theories on both. IMO if its RDI, I think what set the wheels in motion was NOT something occurring in the kitchen(with the pineapple), but instead some sort of domestic incident in the car during the drive home. There were some inconsistencies in their stories about that last drive and I think there's a reason they blow it off like it means nothing. BPD were incompetent to not make them elaborate further on this topic. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12620655582938925058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-38477523452676903932016-01-04T12:09:24.204-05:002016-01-04T12:09:24.204-05:00"Not being rude or dismissive, BN, just don&#..."Not being rude or dismissive, BN, just don't want to appear to be lecturing. Basically, in the instance you describe, Barbara could testify as to what she said but not as to what Patsy said. <br />CC"<br /><br />No, you aren't being rude at all. In fact you are being generous with your time because you're right, I could google it (and did later, but still find some aspects confusing) Thank you for setting me straight on hearsay. <br /><br />-Blue Note Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-34876529826390944452016-01-04T11:29:10.197-05:002016-01-04T11:29:10.197-05:00I'm sorry; should have been: ". . . John...I'm sorry; should have been: ". . . John broke it at some point and used it as part of his staging . . ." <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-7278271846885966202016-01-04T11:24:39.633-05:002016-01-04T11:24:39.633-05:00I don't think the basement was highly traffick...I don't think the basement was highly trafficked; it seems to have been a sloppy storage area. The kids had a playroom on the second floor, and Burke's interests seem to run to Nintendo and sports with his friends rather than an old-fashioned train set. There was a washer/dryer there, in another area of the basement, that LHP apparently used. It's possible the window could have been broken and unnoticed, who's to say? The pivotal point, to me, is that John broke it at some point as part of his staging, probably the night of the crime. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-71953274979977192732016-01-04T09:16:54.614-05:002016-01-04T09:16:54.614-05:00Not being rude or dismissive, BN, just don't ...Not being rude or dismissive, BN, just don't want to appear to be lecturing. Basically, in the instance you describe, Barbara could testify as to what she said but not as to what Patsy said. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-30402064691632938542016-01-04T09:01:49.087-05:002016-01-04T09:01:49.087-05:00Most statements made outside of court are inadmiss...Most statements made outside of court are inadmissible as not under oath, no ability to cross examine. I'm sure you can google "hearsay" and get a more complete understanding.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-75083780820755072162016-01-04T09:00:50.493-05:002016-01-04T09:00:50.493-05:00It's taking a lot of "load more" to ...It's taking a lot of "load more" to get to the most recent posts. Perhaps it's time for Part Eight ? <br /><br />-Blue NoteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-43594624509934761342016-01-04T08:58:38.275-05:002016-01-04T08:58:38.275-05:00@cc
Don't you think it's likely that some...@cc<br /><br />Don't you think it's likely that someone in the household might notice that the hole was there one day but not the day before? The kids would have been home during this time due to winter break. <br /><br />Both you and DocG seem to feel a hole can be put through a window at any time and the members of the household and anyone else, such as the housekeeper, wouldn't have any idea long it had been there. <br /><br />Of course John wants the break to be "old" and imo he chooses July or Aug. because Patsy and the kids were away and therefore couldn't deny the break had happened at that time. He doesn't need anyone saying the break is "old" but only a week old. <br /><br />It seems clear to me that glass was broken either the night of the murder, or possibly was actually broken "last summer". I don't see several days prior to the murder as very likely at all. <br /><br />-Blue Note. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-67335783356819713052016-01-04T08:45:52.078-05:002016-01-04T08:45:52.078-05:00So someone can't tell a jury what someone else...So someone can't tell a jury what someone else told them? <br /><br />-Blue NoteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-56674054173531168262016-01-04T08:06:10.927-05:002016-01-04T08:06:10.927-05:00Doc doesn't need me for this; of course it'...Doc doesn't need me for this; of course it's hearsay, and it would be disallowed. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19854450699519042742016-01-04T07:56:34.409-05:002016-01-04T07:56:34.409-05:00"First of all, we don't know that Patsy w..."First of all, we don't know that Patsy wasn't concerned. All we have is Kolar's version of Barbara Fernie's version of what she thought she observed in Patsy's demeanor when she was shown the damaged screen door. All Patsy is reported to have said was that the damage MIGHT have been caused by John. "<br /><br />You are trying far too hard to get around this. If Patsy said John might have made the pry marks then she is implying that John did need to break in at some time. The only logical reason for doing so would be that he forgot his keys. She's also allowing, with the word "might", that the marks may have had some other cause. Had she considered that it was a burglary attempt (not John) she might be expected to show fear, apprehension, dismay,...something. Barbara can testify as to her own impressions of Patsy's demeanor. She wouldn't be making a conclusion as to Patsy's actual state of mind. The jury would decide how much credence Barbara's testimony has. <br /><br />I'm not sure you're correct in referring to this as hearsay (perhaps cc can weigh in) It would be Barbara on the stand telling the jury what Patsy said to her. It wouldn't be Kolar saying what he thought Barbara had been told by Patsy. <br /><br />Now of course if Kolar has got the statement all bungled up, and Patsy said something substantially different, then it would be a different ballgame. Given that Kolar had access to the entire case files and probably read Barbara's statement I'd suggest he probably has it right. <br /><br />Since the statement that John "might" have made the pry marks is made at a time when there is no reason for Patsy to by lying to Barbara, it seems fairly obvious (as I suspect it would be to a jury) that John actually did need to break in at least once, prior to the murder. <br /><br />Given that the inner door had no pry marks it's logical to assume that John may have jimmied the screen door, found the inner door locked, realized he couldn't jimmy open the inner door, and so went around the house looking for another entry point. <br /><br />To me this does not prove the window was broken during the summer. I still can't accept the family living with a broken window that length of time. But, it does give John's story some credence. <br /><br />-Blue NoteAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-46104241678626216992016-01-03T23:45:55.790-05:002016-01-03T23:45:55.790-05:00Bending over backwards to try to keep a more open ...Bending over backwards to try to keep a more open mind and give Hercule a chance, but you're right - it's no use.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-9824686818513526182016-01-03T22:35:23.757-05:002016-01-03T22:35:23.757-05:00I'm sorry, CC, but you're giving Hercule f...I'm sorry, CC, but you're giving Hercule far too much credit. His conclusions are based on assumptions, not facts. The quote from Barbara Fernie tells us nothing about Patsy's attitude toward that break. Just because she gave Barbara the impression she wasn't concerned, does NOT mean she wasn't concerned. And even if she wasn't concerned, that tells us nothing about John breaking in at some earlier date. This is the sort of extrapolation that's all too easy to make when we stray from the facts.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-77799137436520018452016-01-03T22:29:21.513-05:002016-01-03T22:29:21.513-05:00I have no idea what you're thinking, CC. If Jo...I have no idea what you're thinking, CC. If John broke the window to stage an intruder break-in, why would he have wanted to remove the glass and take it with him to the airport days before the police were called?<br /><br />As far as dirt and grime coating the broken glass overnight, I feel sure the investigators would be able to tell the difference between a fresh layer and an old one. And if they'd identified an old layer, then there would have been no reason to question John any further about that window or whether it had been repaired.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-56632074362290073442016-01-03T22:20:47.881-05:002016-01-03T22:20:47.881-05:00First of all, we don't know that Patsy wasn...First of all, we don't know that Patsy wasn't concerned. All we have is Kolar's version of Barbara Fernie's version of what she thought she observed in Patsy's demeanor when she was shown the damaged screen door. All Patsy is reported to have said was that the damage MIGHT have been caused by John. To turn this one piece of hearsay, twice removed, based on someone's idea of how Patsy would have or should have reacted if she'd been concerned, and turn it into evidence that John had broken into the house on some earlier occasion is a huge stretch. <br /><br />All too often people following this case take one tiny bit of evidence or someone's statement or some rumor and blow it up into far more than it really is. If you follow this blog you'll see that this is NOT what I do. My version of the case is based on the evidence taken as a whole, not just odd bits and pieces. And I base my version of the case on facts and/or evidence, not hearsay.<br /><br />As far as the video of the broken window pane is concerned, I went to the frame referenced above, at 2:52, and I have no idea what Hercule is referring to. The only edge that's clearly visible is the diagonal edge on the extreme right, and that looks clean to me. I see no sign of any encrustation. The upper part of the edge looks dark but that could easily be a shadow. However, if you use your imagination you can probably convince yourself of anything you like.<br /><br />I really don't see any way that one could determine the presence of a layer of dirt without actually examining the glass first hand, and that's supposedly what the forensic experts did. And according to Kolar, they were unable to determine from examining the glass whether or not it was an old break. But we knew that already, didn't we? If there had been such an encrustation on the glass, then there would have been no reason for the investigators to question both John and Patsy about that window at length and on two separate occasions. Nor would there have been any reason to ask whether the window had been repaired. In fact that last question strongly suggests that the break was fresh, because otherwise it would be obvious that it had not been repaired. <br /><br />I've already written about that window and John's story at some length and see no reason to continue along this line. To me it's clear that the break was fresh and that John lied. But if you think otherwise, fine, you are free to think what you like. I prefer to focus on facts, not figments of my imagination.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-55162072838103192082016-01-03T17:25:58.313-05:002016-01-03T17:25:58.313-05:00Sam Valkin does the best job in describing a perso...Sam Valkin does the best job in describing a person with NPD. It took us years to figure out what was so strange about my husband's brother until we found his web site. I think unless you have ever dealt with a true narcissist that they are hard to understand just by reading about them. You kinda gotta experience them to "get it".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-21504577606369227542016-01-03T16:10:57.883-05:002016-01-03T16:10:57.883-05:00Patsy's cavalier attitude toward the marks on ...Patsy's cavalier attitude toward the marks on the door seems strange to me, too, Gumshoe, but she apparently had a naive streak, or at least a very relaxed attitude about her children's safety, as proven by JBR's pageant appearances and permitting anyone within earshot to wipe her in the bathroom. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-33350743936342844332016-01-03T15:59:29.620-05:002016-01-03T15:59:29.620-05:00If you believe the murder was premeditated as much...If you believe the murder was premeditated as much as eight days in advance, JR could have broken the window in advance of the crime, taken the broken glass with him to the hangar when he wrote the RN. Why leave everything to the last minute? <br /><br />Boulder is one of the windiest cities in the country. Dirt and grime from the Front Range coats everything in a matter of hours. I lived there forsix years, and it was nothing to come out in the morning and find your formerly clean car filthy. <br /><br />Doesn't change the fact that JR lied, doesn't adversely impact Doc's theory. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-14470008483358584432016-01-03T15:12:52.974-05:002016-01-03T15:12:52.974-05:00I am afraid that Hercule has made a valid point. I...I am afraid that Hercule has made a valid point. If someone were to take the time to show me evidence of a possible attempt at a break in when I have two children to consider then I would be very concerned unless I felt pretty certain that my spouse was responsible for it. Patsy showing no concern whatsoever is the most important part of Barbara Fernie's testimony. I have also watched the crime scene video and I must admit that the break does appear to be old. The edge of the glass is certainly encrusted with something at the 2:52 mark. These are valid points, however, this does not mean Patsy murdered JonBenet. It does nevertheless remind us to keep our minds open to any possible scenario.<br /><br />GumshoeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19473735817934875822016-01-03T10:27:09.506-05:002016-01-03T10:27:09.506-05:00Hercule, your thinking is too binary...not typical...Hercule, your thinking is too binary...not typical for a person in the psychology field who should understand the nuances of human behavior. Linda P. had no reason to lie about the window. Normal people usually have a reason for lying. Later on, after she got angry that the Ramseys or their lawyers were looking at them as suspects, and Darnay Hoffman was coaxing her to file or suit and/or write a book, she then decided, with his influence, to state that she thought Patsy did it. I really don't care what Linda thought, she was not privvy to all the information at that time, she was not educated or very intelligent, and she naively concluded that Patsy would be the only person in the house who could locate the swiss army knife. So how can you discredit Doc based on such binary logic? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-47921777791512529752016-01-03T08:25:22.072-05:002016-01-03T08:25:22.072-05:00Sorry, but Patsy said no such thing. I won't b...Sorry, but Patsy said no such thing. I won't bother to quote the passage yet again. See my other comments on this matter.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-90939188824853063572016-01-03T08:10:37.523-05:002016-01-03T08:10:37.523-05:00I'm sorry, Blue Note, but you too, like Hercul...I'm sorry, Blue Note, but you too, like Hercule, are spinning the evidence based on unwarranted assumptions. The point Kolar is making has nothing to do with what Patsy might have thought about John breaking into the house, but the fact that Patsy was aware that the damage existed prior to the murder -- and yet she had apparently made no effort to dissuade their PR people from implying that this could have been done by an intruder. If Hercule wants to make a case against Patsy based on that, he is welcome to do so. As I see it, she was too distraught to deal with the PR people and left all those details to John. We have no way of knowing for sure what was on her mind when that poster was released.<br /><br />But there is NOTHING in that passage that implies anything at all regarding what Patsy might have thought regarding John losing his keys or breaking in earlier, that's just Hercule's fantasy and you are falling into the same trap. If you choose to read that into what Barbara Fernie (allegedly) said, you are welcome to do so -- but that does not alter what was actually written in Kolar's book.<br /><br />Here once again is the passage:<br /><br />"Patsy expressed no concern about the damaged screen door and suggested that perhaps John was responsible for the marks. He reportedly was always forgetting his keys and had broken into the house on other occasions."<br /><br />Patsy suggesting that John might have been responsible for the marks does NOT tell us that this is what she believed -- only that she thought it was possible. None of us were privy to that conversation, including Kolar, and none of us is in a position to know what Barbara's take was on what Patsy said, or if she actually quoted Patsy accurately. The following sentence makes no reference to Patsy and I see no reason to assume it tells us anything at all about what Patsy knew or did not know about John breaking in earlier or forgetting his keys. That's Hercule's lame assumption and yours as well. Kolar referred to what was "reportedly" stated -- by someone un-named -- most likely John himself, but again we have no way of knowing what report Kolar might have had in mind. That wasn't really his main point so he didn't bother to clarify.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.com