tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post8578639585982323639..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: In CirclesDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger243125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-58737572231823308402017-07-04T00:20:57.955-04:002017-07-04T00:20:57.955-04:00Thanks. I'm still skeptical of the universe of...Thanks. I'm still skeptical of the universe of narratives plausibly available. Here, we are talking about a father molesting his daughter. Without being too graphic, it seems improbable that it would start with a lethal head blow ... and only then followed by the sexual garotte attack (I don't quite know the right term for that kind of abuse). So, your answer goes directly to my point: "... My best guess is that John may have thought the head blow killed her ..." which seems a nigh improbable way to begin a sexual assault (and presumably not one visited on her previously).<br />Now, this is not to be too critical because for that single "out of place" item to remain you've done pretty well considering you've eliminated several others that no one else has. I think there is a deeper backstory here, but I think it is more probable that it was JR alone behind it.kvhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04561354189810533028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-28557567750546617352017-07-04T00:20:30.527-04:002017-07-04T00:20:30.527-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kvhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04561354189810533028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-41388539940861866702017-07-03T22:45:28.743-04:002017-07-03T22:45:28.743-04:00I'm glad so much of my analysis works for you....I'm glad so much of my analysis works for you. Your question is perfectly valid though. I agree that the head blow most likely came first. As for the long delay, I think that same question could be posed regardless of what scenario or which murderer you might prefer. My best guess is that John may have thought the head blow killed her, and only realized some time later that it hadn't. Perhaps he noticed that she was still breathing.<br /><br />There are many other possibilities as well, including a prolonged period of sexual molestation after the head blow, with the strangulation being part of that. No way to know what was going on in the mind of the person who did this.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-44354983709188074722017-07-03T22:33:04.277-04:002017-07-03T22:33:04.277-04:00Good analysis. Best I've seen. But not sure I ...Good analysis. Best I've seen. But not sure I agree with all points. I can't say I've read *every* post but I can't seem to find how you address this key "out of place" item:<br />If this was a "routine" sexual assault by the father, how does a powerful blow to the head with a one hour plus delay before asphyxiation work? It doesn't add up and its hard to imagine an assault of this kind evolving that way. And the preponderance of the forensic pathology statements and documents seems to fall on the side of blow to the head first, asphyxiation last.<br />But I have to say this is the best job I've seen in terms of removing "out of place" items in this case.kvhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04561354189810533028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-59725463604878111402017-05-02T17:49:28.978-04:002017-05-02T17:49:28.978-04:00Mike G and Doc, just because it has been discussed...Mike G and Doc, just because it has been discussed by Doc doesn't mean it has been answered. And as we know, there are lots of differing opinions on every aspect about this case. Sorry for wanting to hear other peoples opinions...honestly.<br /><br />And Mike G...as Ive said numerous times, most of your posts have absolutely nothing to do with this case and a mere waste of space on this blog. No idea why Doc doesn't delete them. Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00322802250579085144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52303107713862417092017-05-02T15:33:00.703-04:002017-05-02T15:33:00.703-04:00"The fallacy of many questions: (complex ques..."The fallacy of many questions: (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda." ---Wikipedia<br /><br />Sounds like Zed to me....<br /><br />Mike G<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-32244665468799287992017-05-02T14:46:05.471-04:002017-05-02T14:46:05.471-04:00- The autopsy report says nothing about whether th...- The autopsy report says nothing about whether the head blow occurred before or after the strangulation or how many minutes elapsed between them. The small amount of blood in the subdural hemorrhage covering the brain is an indication that the heart had stopped beating before or near the time of the head blow.<br /><br />- What exactly makes the 6 doctors in question "the most preeminent child abuse and forensic pathologists in the country" -- particularly Jones, Rau and Wright? What is the source for your claim that they looked at tissue samples and slides? On the side of not being able to confirm prior sexual abuse we have doctors Sirotnack, Beuf, Doberson, Gardner, Krugman, Spitz, and Lee. It's hardly the slam dunk you like to pretend it is.John I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10042984817701080159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-65488326190940797202017-05-02T11:45:21.634-04:002017-05-02T11:45:21.634-04:00You are reading my post with your own interpretati...You are reading my post with your own interpretation of my intent. That’s cool.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-82019123017062778742017-05-02T05:46:57.251-04:002017-05-02T05:46:57.251-04:00One reason for starting this blog was my desire to...One reason for starting this blog was my desire to clear up exactly the sort of questions you have in mind, Zed. If you have any that haven't already been covered here, then by all means let's hear them.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-2232142849855471842017-05-02T02:07:23.953-04:002017-05-02T02:07:23.953-04:00If JDI, there is a hundred questions I would love ...If JDI, there is a hundred questions I would love to be answered because it simply doesn't make sense. This was not a premeditated crime. I will ask one question...why would John wait 45 to 120min after the head blow? Its nonsensical. BDI, BSI (Burke started it) or RDI are the only possible theories I can entertain.<br /><br />But hey, that's just me.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00322802250579085144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-1992212076844906782017-05-02T01:37:11.215-04:002017-05-02T01:37:11.215-04:00Anon, you offer a theory which, by your own admiss...Anon, you offer a theory which, by your own admission, is "pure speculation." Then after apologizing, you say, "SO here are some indisputable facts...."<br /><br />That begs the question "so...what?", for which there are only two possible answers; to make plausible that which starts out as speculative, or to make that which is speculative SOUND plausible. Since you knew the facts you presented were NOT indisputable, you obviously intended the latter. <br /><br />Mike G <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />so here are some indisputable facts:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-47794802264471078232017-05-02T00:53:52.943-04:002017-05-02T00:53:52.943-04:00David died of pancreatic cancer. I haven't bee...David died of pancreatic cancer. I haven't been back to Boulder since his memorial. I first knew him while an undergraduate working at NARF, which he founded. Truly an extraordinary man.<br /><br />Stick around. John did it, and I can be very persuasive.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25315517456670038412017-05-02T00:38:19.869-04:002017-05-02T00:38:19.869-04:00CC, I’ve enjoyed the dialogue with you. True. Whil...CC, I’ve enjoyed the dialogue with you. True. While I do have a legal scholar’s opinion on this, I cannot reveal more because of an agreement not to use this person’s name. If that makes my comments inauthentic, so be it. What you don’t know is that I am fully RDI and came here to discuss JR because I can’t omit his participation. While a BDI is compelling for the head blow, maybe for her genital injuries, I think the complexities beyond the head blow show a very calculating mind. <br /><br />Though the lawyer comment on Case of is what many take as an absolute BDI, I'm not entirely sure. <br /><br />I know your mentor passed away in 2011. He was an outstanding dean and legal scholar.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-90355146848267542132017-05-02T00:11:04.053-04:002017-05-02T00:11:04.053-04:00Sorry; I believe you're misinterpreting the la...Sorry; I believe you're misinterpreting the law, but I applaud your bothering to look it up at all, or to claim acquaintance with a "Colorado legal scholar". David Getches was my mentor. Who ya' got?<br /><br /> CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-32154248721369837132017-05-01T23:55:34.725-04:002017-05-01T23:55:34.725-04:00It is located in the annotations to C.R.S. 18-1-80...It is located in the annotations to C.R.S. 18-1-801.<br />An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent. Calkins v. Albi, 163 Colo. 370, 431 P.2d 17 (1967).<br /><br />An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959); LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).<br /><br />Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).<br /><br />At one time I also thought that an infant (child under 10) could not commit child abuse. I was told differently by a Colorado legal scholar. As the annotation explanation indicates, an infant can commit any offense, just not be held culpable.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-38778097563045424262017-05-01T23:49:56.751-04:002017-05-01T23:49:56.751-04:00Levin said ". . .accidents at school. . .&qu...Levin said ". . .accidents at school. . ." which you plainly stated as one of three "indisputable facts" that suggested abuse.<br /><br />Sounds to me like she wet her pants.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-51146152746329335232017-05-01T23:32:15.828-04:002017-05-01T23:32:15.828-04:00You do that; I'm familiar and the GJ was made ...You do that; I'm familiar and the GJ was made aware, you can be sure. And while you're about it, look up the statute that covers children committing child abuse, as the true bill reads:<br /><br />". . .knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-43112685896269147752017-05-01T22:59:37.881-04:002017-05-01T22:59:37.881-04:00Sorry, CC. I will have to find the statute, but it...Sorry, CC. I will have to find the statute, but it plainly says that an infant (child under 10) could commit a crime, but an infant is considered incapable of forming an intent to commit such a crime. The infant is not chargeable.<br /><br />The accessory charge, is "accessory after the fact." No?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25960143491749845332017-05-01T22:52:54.093-04:002017-05-01T22:52:54.093-04:00My reply was to Mike G regarding my admission of s...My reply was to Mike G regarding my admission of speculation about Burke. <br /><br />Yes, perhaps Patsy made up the story about PW. Then it's entirely spurious. If she didn't make it up, then it's unknown what was on PW's mind and was so important that she wanted to talk to Patsy at this tragic time. Scratch the comment that PW had suspicions. <br /><br />AFAIK, lawyers are bound not to lie to a suspect/or person of interest or to intentionally mislead them. Levin was a highly respected Colorado attorney. Therefore, his comments to JR about JB's issues at school would not seem to be a lie, an intent to mislead. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-43919624802987485302017-05-01T22:48:16.641-04:002017-05-01T22:48:16.641-04:00Thanks for clearing that up ccThanks for clearing that up ccAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-60109403709079972092017-05-01T22:46:28.408-04:002017-05-01T22:46:28.408-04:00Are you,then saying Burke did all of it except th...Are you,then saying Burke did all of it except the staging of course<br />Would he not remember this at all?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-66722648938379388272017-05-01T22:45:05.502-04:002017-05-01T22:45:05.502-04:00And according to this lawyer, that's not true....And according to this lawyer, that's not true. The second true bill accuses the Rs of being accessories in the commission of <br />first degree murder, a crime Burke could not be found to have committed, and had the GJ found evidence of an intruder, they would have charged a "person or persons unknown".CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-89897558909769125602017-05-01T22:30:48.369-04:002017-05-01T22:30:48.369-04:00However anyone puts the pieces of the case togethe...However anyone puts the pieces of the case together, the analysis of the GJ was that the parents covered for a third person. According to the Colorado lawyer on the production of Case of, if the GJ had thought one of the parents had been responsible, the wording of the GJ would have been different. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-91932897802801935702017-05-01T22:12:31.681-04:002017-05-01T22:12:31.681-04:00I didn't bother to address your speculation th...I didn't bother to address your speculation that Burke was somehow his father's scapegoat, only your spurious "facts".<br />CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982213709500570429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-77242764434967208292017-05-01T22:09:00.357-04:002017-05-01T22:09:00.357-04:00Fair enough. Someone investigating for the BPD bro...Fair enough. Someone investigating for the BPD brought this to the attention of those who were conducting the interview. No source as to who claimed to have revealed this to JR. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com