The Crux

"The crux of the matter," as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms: "The basic, central or critical point of an issue."

As I see it, the 911 call is the crux of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, the critical point which, in this case, forces us to make a crucial choice. Very simply, if the Ramseys were collaborating to coverup the murder of their daughter by staging a phoney kidnapping, that call would never have happened. There are two components to be considered in evaluating this assertion. First, the call was made with the body still in the house, and once the police were called in, there was no longer going to be any way to safely get the body out of the house -- and once the body was found in the house, then it would be clear no kidnapping had taken place, thus completely nullifying the effect of the note. Second, by handing the police a patently phoney "ransom" note penned by either Patsy or John, the Ramseys would be handing them a potentially devastating piece of self-incriminating evidence. And if, as so many have attested, this note "screams Patsy," in both content and penmanship, then Patsy would literally have been placing a noose around her own neck by making that call.

Folkore 2 -- The Oversized Panties Saga

At some point someone on one of the Internet forums decided to investigate reports that JonBenet had been redressed in panties several sizes too large, labeled with the word "Wednesday." Patsy had been questioned about these panties, since the investigators were trying to determine whether they might have been brought into the house by an intruder. During Patsy's interview of August 28, 2000, the interviewer, a Mr. Morrissey, makes this clear. Here is the relevant dialogue:

Folklore

Over the years, a wide range of colorful notions regarding various aspects of this case have accumulated. Most appear to have originated with fanciful theories offered in various books and tabloid articles on the case, but their widespread dissemination and acceptance is no doubt due to the popularity of certain Internet forums, where they have come to be accepted as gospel truth.

"Passing" the Polygraphs

In May, 2000, John and Patsy Ramsey took polygraph (i.e. "lie detector") tests administered by an "expert" hired by their lawyers, one Edward Gelb. Not surprisingly, they "passed."

From the Denver Rocky Mountain News:

Edward Gelb, a respected California-based polygrapher, said he administered two tests to John Ramsey and three to Patsy Ramsey earlier this month. Both were asked whether they killed JonBenet or knew the killer. Patsy Ramsey also was asked whether she wrote the ransom note found in their home. "What are the chances that two separate individuals would take a series of five polygraph examinations and pass them all — and yet be lying?" Gelb said. "You're going to find it's somewhere between four in 1,000 and one in a trillion." 

Innocent Little Nancy -- OR -- "Moving Finger" Update

Turns out I've been doing some cherry picking of my own. Based on a document sitting dormant on my hard drive for years that I thought could have been penned by John Ramsey. I presented it a while back on a blog post titled The Moving Finger, along with a comparison with the ransom note that revealed some striking similarities. As I stated, I could not be sure this was written by John, and admitted in a comment that it could be a hoax. Nevertheless, I thought it worth looking into, and wrote to Ramsey case maven Jameson, from whom I had obtained this file, to see if she could shed some light on who wrote it and why. She could. And did. Here's the email I received from her this morning:

Big Bad Wolf -- OR -- The Dangers of Cherry Picking

At one point, the Ramsey defense team focused its attention on a Boulder reporter named Chris Wolf, based on a report from his girl friend of suspicious behavior on the morning after JonBenet's murder. Wolf subsequently sued the Ramseys for defamation, in a trial that gave "New York Lawyer" Darnay Hoffman an opportunity to present his case against Patsy (see previous posts). As a result of his girl friend's accusations, Wolf was investigated -- and considerable attention was paid to his handwriting. I recently discovered the following youtube video, which purports to demonstrate how close his writing is to that of the note:

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 8: Cherokee

On to Cherokee's "Handwriting Analysis," which begins with post no. 10 of his Forums for Justice thread. [Added on 1-23-1017: the threads containing Cherokee's analysis seem to have vanished. However, smaller versions of some of his/her comparisons can still be found here: http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?5354-Handwriting-Comparisons-of-John-amp-Patsy-Ramsey-with-Ransom-Note-Author] He immediately excludes Burke, as "The handwriting, vocabulary and syntax of the Ransom Note are those of an adult." I agree. He decides, therefore, to focus on "the two adults who were there at the time, John and Patsy Ramsey." Here too I agree, since imo there is no evidence of an intruder that's ever stood up to close examination, nor was there any reason for any intruder to both leave a hand printed ransom note and fail to remove his victim from the house. What makes his approach superior to all the others, in my opinion, is his willingness to consider John as well as Patsy, rather than uncritically accept the verdict of the "experts" who ruled him out.

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 7: Cherokee

"Cherokee" is the name used by someone posting for several years at the Forums for Justice forum, among others. I have no idea whether this person is a he or she, but I have feeling it's a "he," so that's how I'll refer to "him" until I'm informed otherwise. I also have no idea whether Cherokee is a bona fide "expert," but I'm including him here because 1. he definitely sees himself in this category and 2. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll mention that Cherokee and I have a "history" on the Internet, going back many years, which I won't get into here, except to say that this person is extremely touchy and quick to take offense -- which may be the reason why I have managed to offend him so many times both past and present. On the other hand, I may simply be an offensive sort of person, who offends everyone, in which case I hereby apologize to one and all. (Incidentally, my offensiveness is intimately associated with my "popularity," oddly enough, as discussed in this amusing blog post.)

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 6: David Liebman

Cina Wong's teacher and mentor, David Liebman, appears to have excellent credentials indeed, as he is (or was) president of the National Association of Document Examiners. However, there is absolutely nothing in the brief report he prepared for Darnay Hoffman that could not have been achieved by a diligent amateur.

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 5: Tom Miller

Tom Miller, a criminal defense attorney and "court-certified document examiner" based in Denver, has a long history with this case. He was apparently the source for the various exemplars provided to Darnay Hoffman's team of "experts," and joined that team in matching Patsy's exemplars with those in the "ransom"note. He eventually wrote an indignant book about the case, JonBenet Ramsey: Prostitution of Justice. 

The quality of his work as a document examiner is evident from the report he provided to Darnay Hoffman. Here are some examples:

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 4: Gideon Epstein on the Distinguished Panel

Before moving on to our next "expert," I want to dwell a bit on an all important aspect of Gideon Epstein's testimony.  Time and again, whenever I find myself arguing against Patsy's involvement and presenting all the many reasons to suspect John and John alone, the "Patsy lovers" remind me of those six "experts" who unanimously agreed that John could not have written the note. And when I argue that this conclusion makes no sense and needs to be questioned, eyes begin to roll.

What they fail to recognize is the equally significant fact that this same panel of experts also found it "unlikely" that Patsy wrote it. They could not rule her out. But nonetheless, the consensus was that she probably did not. Which means anyone wanting to insist Patsy must have written that note also has to go against the "expert" findings of this same panel. In other words, if this was an inside job, as so many rightly believe, then there is something very wrong with the methodology employed by this distinguished panel. And if you want to accuse them of being wrong about Patsy, then you can't avoid the possibility that they were wrong about John.

The "Experts" See Patsy - Part 3: Gideon Epstein

The documents analyzed by Cina Wong were supplied by "New York Lawyer" Darnay Hoffman, an odd character who inserted himself into the case out of a deep seated and unshakeable conviction that Patsy Ramsey and only Patsy Ramsey could have written the notorious "ransom" note. To prove his point, he hired a team of forensic documentation specialists (aka "experts") whose job very clearly was to confirm his theory. Which of course they did. All used the same set of totally inadequate exemplars as those initially used by Wong -- the ones displayed on my previous post, plus two others, also very brief, that I haven't been able to get hold of. Other than the longhand letters signed by her, no one has ever to my knowledge confirmed that any of these were actually written by Patsy -- and there is good reason to suppose that at least one -- "Rainbow Fish Players" -- was not (it looks totally different from all the others).

The "Experts" See Patsy - Cina Wong Part 2

The alphabetical comparisons exhibited in the previous post are, of course, only one part of Wong's analysis. In November of 1997, she provided a written report, (currently available at ACandyRose's website) at the request of "New York Lawyer" Darnay Hoffman (now deceased). In it, she lists her sources and, fortunately for us, ACandyRose (bless her heart) has made all but two available from links on the same webpage.

The "Experts" See Patsy - part 1:Cina Wong

[NB: 1-25-2013 - Yesterday I received a notice from "The Blogger Team" that this blog post was being temporarily removed due to a notification they had received regarding the supposedly unauthorized use of copyrighted material. I was told I could repost it once the material was removed, but given no information regarding exactly who filed the complaint. In my view all such materials are covered under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright laws, but that's not my call in this instance, so I have no choice but to comply.]

From the Boulder Daily Camera, Nov. 25, 1997: 

On a scale of "1 to 10" with "10" being a "probable" match to the ransom note found at the JonBenet Ramsey murder scene, one handwriting expert gave Patsy Ramsey an "8.5."

New York City Attorney Darnay Hoffman today plans to file in Boulder County District Court a preliminary handwriting analysis completed by expert Cina Wong. The handwriting analysis will be added to Hoffman's recently filed lawsuit against Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter.

Wong's analysis shows 32 points of comparison and similarities between seven samples of Patsy Ramseys handwriting and the ransom note. However, one page of the report was redacted in media copies, Hoffman noted, to prevent JonBenets mother from disguising her handwriting in the future.

"The relatively large number of distinctive similarities found in both the 'ransom note and exemplars allegedly written by Patsy Ramsey ... cannot be ignored," wrote Wong, a board certified document examiner from Norfolk, Va., hired by Hoffman. "Statistically, it can only be concluded that it is very likely the same hand wrote all the documents involved."

The most widely disseminated example of Wong's work is a letter by letter comparison of exemplars from the note, on the top row, and Patsy Ramsey's exemplars, on the bottom:

The Moving Finger

The Moving Finger writes;
and, having writ, Moves on:
nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

                                            Omar Khayyam

 There's a file I've had for some time without knowing quite what to do with it. It's a .gif file, titled "writing sample via Jameson." For the life of me I can't recall exactly where or when I got it, but it has to have been several years ago. Possibly it's something Jameson posted on her Webbsleuths forum, after much prodding from me, because she'd let it be known she had samples of John Ramsey's writing, but was refusing to share them. I was never sure what to do with it because of its slightly ragged appearance, probably the result of a poor quality xerox. If you right click on it and select "Open Link in New Tab," and then click on it again, you'll get a better look:

The 911 Call - Part 2

I seem to be repeating myself a lot lately, so please forgive me if once again I insist, in bold: if both John and Patsy Ramsey had been collaborating on a staged kidnapping, the 911 call would not have been made while the body was still in the house.

As I see it, my reasoning (see previous post) is perfectly logical. Yet hardly anyone among those who correctly reject the intruder theory seems ready to accept it. The prevailing idea is that either Patsy or Burke struck and killed JonBenet, in a rage over bedwetting or out of jealousy, or whatever, and that Patsy and John got together to concoct both a pedophile attack and a kidnapping, complete with phoney "ransom" note, in a desperate attempt to cover it up. And ever since I began explaining, on the various Internet forums, how the 911 call was inconsistent with this scenario, I've been met with  a steady stream of very odd alternate explanations for why Patsy and John would agree to call the police before they'd had an opportunity to get the body out of the house.

The 911 Call

I'd like at this point to delve more deeply into certain specific issues that have proven especially problematic for both law enforcement and serious followers of this case. I'll begin with the all important 911 call.

Of all the many significant events to be considered here, the 911 call is key. It tells us John and Patsy Ramsey could not have been collaborating on either the crime or the coverup. In other words, if one of them is guilty, the other must be innocent.

Reasonable Doubt - Part 4

Based on the arguments presented in the previous three posts, I believe it possible to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that no intruder was present in the Ramsey home that night. There was no sign an intruder had been in the house. The DNA "evidence" is easily dismissed as the result of indirect transfer and might not even be admissible. There was no sign of a forced breakin. There was no reason for an intruder to do all that was done. And finally, the clinching evidence, John attempted to stage a breakin at the basement window and then lied about it since he hadn't had an opportunity to complete his staging. Thus, on the basis of the preponderance of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt, the crime was an inside job. And just as clearly, based on his many lies and misdirections, John Ramsey was involved. He is clearly guilty. But of what?

Reasonable Doubt - Part 3

In my view, it should not be all that difficult to convincingly argue, not only on the basis of the evidence, or lack of it, but also the logic of the case generally, that no intruder was present on the night of the murder. Whether such an argument would constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt would, of course, be up to each and every juror to decide. And regardless of how unlikely it is that an intruder would have wanted to do all the things that were done, and how seriously lame all the so-called "intruder evidence" has turned out to be, there would still be some wiggle room for the defense to assert reasonable doubt in this respect, since we have no way of knowing for sure what some unknown person or persons might have had in mind, or how devious they might be.

Reasonable Doubt - Part 2

(. . . continued from previous post.)

To foster reasonable doubt, the defense can be expected to dredge up anything it can find that can't easily be accounted for, according to the age-old principle known as "throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." We can get a pretty good idea of what to expect from my blog post That Elusive Intruder, in which the history of various dubious bits and pieces of "intruder evidence" is chronicled. Everything on that list, along with just about all the other "intruder evidence," was accounted for long ago, but that won't prevent the Ramsey defense team from tossing each and every item into the ring all over again. The basic idea: if even one single item on the list can't be fully accounted for, that could trigger reasonable doubt, and if reasonable doubt can be implanted in the head of even one member of the jury, then our client is home free.

Reasonable Doubt

Based on the arguments in my previous post, I'm convinced it would not be difficult for the DA to establish probable cause for John Ramsey to be indicted for the sexual assault and murder of his daughter. Once he is put on trial, however, probable cause is no longer sufficient. It will be necessary to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And before I continue I want to make it clear that putting John on trial and hearing what his defense will be like, when challenged by a determined prosecutor with a solid understanding of the case, has always been my first priority. If he and his lawyers can establish reasonable doubt in my mind, that's fine with me, because like most of us I would prefer to think some strange intruder with baffling motives and methods assaulted this child rather than her own father.

Probable Cause

In several recent posts, I've considered the case against John Ramsey in the context of a potential criminal trial. And, as is well known, conviction in a criminal case must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, admittedly a difficult standard. But the standard in bringing a suspect to justice, i.e., trying him before a criminal court, is much less demanding. The prosecutor need only show probable cause that the person in question committed the crime.

The Defense

If the case ever comes to trial, the defendant will be John Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey is no longer with us. Burke Ramsey was too young at the time and cannot be tried. As far as an "intruder" is concerned, even in the event of a DNA match the suspect's lawyer would have no trouble getting the case tossed out of court by challenging the prosecution to explain that person's motive for murdering an innocent child, how he could have entered the premises through locked doors, leaving no sign of forced entry, his reasons for writing a long "ransom" note while in the house, using paper and pen from within the house, his reasons for hiding the body in a remote room rather than taking and holding it for ransom, etc. Even in the unlikely event of a handwriting "match," his lawyer could challenge such results as unscientific, on the same basis the Ramseys themselves challenged the "experts" who matched Patsy's writing to that of the note in the Wolf case. And thanks to John Mark Karr, we've learned that even a confession is, in itself, all but worthless.

The Scene at the Window

The scene at the basement window has been the focus of much speculation and dispute, centering on the question of whether or not there was any sign of a forced break-in at that point. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, most recently in Kolar's book, the condition of the grate, the well, and the sill is clearly inconsistent with such a possibility. In the words of DA Alex Hunter, "No one passed through that window." What's rarely if ever discussed, however, is another aspect of the window scene that, for me, is of even greater significance. Let's consider the various pieces of evidence at and around that window.

Prosecution Hints and Tips

I've already outlined a strategy for the prosecution, but I'll now add some additional hints and tips.

First hint:

GO AHEAD AND PROSECUTE THIS CASE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!

THE LONG DELAY IS NOT ONLY EMBARRASSING, IT'S IMMORAL.

IF ARCHBISHOPS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OFFICERS OF PENN. STATE UNIVERSITY ARE NOW BEING HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR UNCONSCIONABLE DELAYS IN PURSUING CHILD MOLESTERS WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU WON'T?

The Experts

Now that I've reviewed all the various fantastic theories, I want to return to the one that isn't fantastic at all, but was, from the very beginning -- and by far -- the most likely. To understand why this theory got sidetracked in favor of all the others, regardless of how unlikely and indeed wacky they might sound, we need to return to the fateful decision of the so-called "experts" who ruled John out as writer of the note. And this decision did indeed determine the entire history of the case. Whenever I've attempted to convince anyone with any influence or clout that John is the most likely suspect by far, I've been greeted with the same response: "but wasn't he ruled out by the experts?" End of conversation.

Fantastic Theories - Part Five

I can't resist adding one more scenario, another little skit I dreamed up a few years ago, as a companion to the skit featuring John and Patsy. This one features an apocryphal character who, as has been alleged, teamed up with "bootman" Michael Helgoth, to invade the Ramsey home and slaughter JonBenet. An especially interesting feature of this one is the explanation it offers for the very strange initials S.B.T.C. 

Fantastic Theories - Part Four

A popular theory of late, thanks to Kolar's book, is that Burke killed JonBenet and the parents staged to cover for him. Would a Burke-did-it theory be less fantastic than the others?

Burke Did It

JonBenet can't sleep so she wakes Burke and the two of them have some pineapple together. One thing leads to another and either 1. Burke gets upset and swats her with the Maglite or a baseball bat or 2. Burke attacks her sexually, she resists and he swats her. In either case, the parents are awakened by the commotion, see what's happened, and are afraid to call 911 because 1. Burke is now Patsy's only remaining child and she's afraid he'll be arrested; 2. John is alarmed by the injuries to JonBenet's vagina and is afraid he'll be blamed for molesting her, because no one could possibly believe nine year old Burke could be responsible. 

Fantastic Theories - Part Three

Another perennial favorite, possibly the most popular of all, since the permutations, and thus the possibilities for speculation, seem endless:

Partners in Crime

This one is a variant of Patsy Did It, with both John and Patsy collaborating on various aspects of the crime and coverup, with no way of telling who did what. In some versions we see Patsy clobbering JonBenet with the Maglite and John agreeing, for some odd reason, to assist in the coverup, mainly by finishing the victim off with a "garotte." No telling who would have wanted to penetrate her vagina or why, but since her vagina was unquestionably penetrated (not to mention the clear signs of prior abuse), then that too somehow has to be woven into the staging. In other versions, it's John who clubs her, for reasons unexplained, and Patsy who agrees to assist, also for some odd, inexplicable reason. 

Fantastic Theories - Part Deux

Now to continue with the next fantastic theory, a perennial favorite entitled:

Patsy Did It

Christmas comes and goes. The Ramseys return from a party at the White's, deliver some packages, go home and go to sleep. At some point during the night, JonBenet wets her bed. For some reason Patsy wakes up, discovers the wet bed and flies into one of those rages so typical of so many women who fly into rages over the bedwetting of their children. This has been documented so we know it can happen.  One thing leads to another and at some point Patsy cracks. Reaching for a handy Maglite flashlight that just happens to be nearby, she smashes her daughter over the head with a tremendous blow, a blow so powerful it's been described as capable of felling a full sized man.

Fantastic Theories - Part One

There is only one theory of the Ramsey case that makes any sort of sense. The essentials can be stated succinctly. John Ramsey has been molesting his daughter, and on the night after Christmas, prior to a trip where they'll be visiting family, becomes convinced she is about to expose him. He consequently decides to kill her, in the least painful manner, by clubbing her over the head. When he notices she's still breathing, he strangles her with the aid of a ligature, twisted by a stick for convenience. To cover for himself, he contrives a staged kidnapping, complete with phoney ransom note and window breakin. (For details see A Scenario.)

As I understand it, John was in fact the prime suspect until an unexpected thing happened: he was "ruled out" as writer of the note by a team of handwriting "experts." Consequently the case was thrown into disarray where it has remained ever since, because once John is ruled out, the only possible alternatives to the scenario I've offered above are too fantastic and literally beyond belief to present in court. Not too fantastic, however, to be widely accepted by a great many people following the case, including some experienced law enforcement veterans who should know better.

Desperately Seeking Patsy

[NB: 1-25-2013 - Yesterday I received a notice from "The Blogger Team" that this blog post was being temporarily removed due to a notification they had received regarding the supposedly unauthorized use of copyrighted material. I was told I could repost it once the material was removed, but given no information regarding exactly who filed the complaint. Consequently I have decided to remove all materials that might have prompted this notification, at least for the time being, until I can more accurately determine its source. In my view all such materials are covered under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright laws, but that's not my call in this instance, so I have no choice but to comply.]

I believe I've demonstrated very logically that Patsy could not have been involved in any aspect of this crime, including the writing of the "ransom" note. Nevertheless, many of those following the case will find this extremely difficult to accept, because of all the supposedly "obvious" similarities between her handwriting and that of the "kidnapper." I've already covered some aspects of this issue in earlier posts, here and also here, but the handwriting evidence is so widely misunderstood that I feel the need to tackle it in more detail at this point.

Scaling Justice Mountain - for midwest mama

I recently was challenged on the Websleuths forum, by a poster calling herself "midwest mama." This is what she wrote:

I see your point. And I agree that the case can be made by simply looking at the facts leading to a RDI theory, as they are indisputable to me as well.

If a clear, DOCUMENTED and SUBSTANTIATED analysis of John's testimony can be prepared in order to enable those of us not clearly in the JDI camp, then perhaps that's the hill some of us should start climbing, instead of so many of us going around and around on the same track over and over which has been leading to nowhere.

If we start at the bottom, with all the right equipment, and focus on the goal, which is proving JR suspect for prosecution, and take it step by step up an unencumbered path, then we should make it to the top of the hill. Let's call this task: Scaling Mt. Justice or perhaps, Scaling Justice Mountain !!

Her request is eminently reasonable. So here is my 5 step summary, based on my Websleuths response:

Odds and Ends

As I've made clear from the start, the heart of the case can be found in just a few uncontested facts. Aside from these facts, outlined in my first two posts, almost everything else has been deemed "inconclusive." Nevertheless, a great many people following the case, both professional and amateur, have set great store by some of this evidence, which from their standpoint is especially important. To make my position as clear as possible, I'd like now to go over some of these "odds and ends," which I have to admit I've neglected thus far. It should be remembered, however, that when we focus too strongly on trying to understand the meaning of this type of evidence, the case, as I see it, can very quickly turn into a morass, so we need to proceed with caution. Nevertheless, each item can tell us something significant, if we are willing to place it in perspective.

Patsy and John

I have to admit that the biggest problem with my theory concerns Patsy's role. As I see it, she was innocent of both the murder and the initial coverup, but participated in later aspects of the coverup by either remaining silent about what she knew to be true or lying outright. I'm referring in particular to two specific cases: 1. her decision not to challenge John's assertion that calling 911 was his idea (despite the fact that, in the A&E documentary, she provided a very different version in which this was her idea) and 2. her testimony supporting John's obvious lie about breaking the basement window pane on an earlier occasion. I think it revealing that in both instances she was lying to support John's version of what happened.

Making the Case

At first it might seem hopeless to attempt to make a case based on such a complicated state of affairs. First you'd have to prove a negative, i.e., that no intruder could have been present, which seems awfully hard to do, especially given the fact that the Ramseys have already been exonerated on the basis of what some believe to be solid DNA evidence. Second, you'd have to convince the jury that six highly regarded handwriting experts were wrong in ruling John out as writer of the note. Then you'd have to prove that calling 911 was Patsy's idea and not John's, despite the fact that Patsy never seems to have challenged John's claim that he told her to make the call.

The Case Against John Ramsey

For some time after my epiphany, I was nevertheless troubled by the thought that some key piece of evidence could be missing, that, however unlikely, an intruder or intruders may have somehow entered the house after all, leaving no trace, possibly with a key, and left the note and the body for reasons of their own that I couldn't fathom. Despite my growing conviction that my theory explained all the strange "mysteries" of this case, there was always the possibility I could be wrong, and was pointing the finger of suspicion at an innocent man.

Half Truths, Deceptions, Lies

However, with the release of the police files, containing transcripts of all the Ramsey interrogations, it became crystal clear John was either hedging or lying outright about many key aspects of the case in a manner that removed all doubts. The most damaging lies are to be found in his testimony regarding the basement window, which I've already covered and will return to presently. There are many other instances as well, duly noted by Kolar in a chapter aptly titled, "The Evolution of John Ramsey's Statements." I'd already gone over many of these inconsistencies in a series of blog posts [correction, I should have written "forum posts"] back in 2005. Here are some excerpts, with my slightly revised comments:

Burke

Burke Ramsey has now become "flavor of the month," as one forum poster recently put it. Thanks to Kolar's book, many have now become wedded to the theory that Burke must have struck JonBenet over the head in a fit of rage and/or jealousy, and his parents, terrified the "family honor" would be tarnished, contrived an elaborate coverup, involving a vicious strangulation by a demented sexual predator using a "garotte," and a two and a half page ransom note, written of course by Patsy, everyone's favorite villainess. John appears to have gone along for the ride, or possibly had nothing to do with it at all, as Boulder detective Steve Thomas seems to believe. (Steve gave him "a pass.")

The Basement Window -- Part 4

Time to deal with some remaining issues related to the window staging.

Repaired or Unrepaired?

First of all, we must ask the question: why wouldn't John and Patsy have testified simply that the window had in fact never been repaired? What would have been the harm in saying "no, we never got around to replacing that window"? Why did both, on the other hand, insist that they couldn't recall whether that work had been done or not?

The Basement Window -- Part 3

The Gospel According to Patsy -- 1997

Continuing with my 2005 review.

From Patsy's 1997 police interview: 

ST: Tom has some questions for you about when John had to break in that basement window . . .

PR: Right.

ST: . . .but was there any reason you couldn’t or John could not have retrieve the key from the Barnhills at that time to get in rather than breaking the window?

PR: He, he may not have know they had a key.

TT: When did John break that window in the basement?

PR: He, I don’t know exactly when he did it, but I think it was last suimmer sometime when we, the kids and I were at the lake. 

Another Ramsey who doesn't "know exactly" when or what or how or who. She THINKS it was last summer. Funny, I think John thinks he thinks the same thing.