Seeing is Believing

I've already quoted the following from the transcript of the A&E documentary on this case, titled (in the British version) "JonBenet's America":

Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.          

Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And  I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." 

Open Thread Part Three

My last post is being overwhelmed with comments and getting a bit difficult to navigate. Time to open up some new space. And hopefully consider some new topics.

New and Improved

The second edition of my book, Ruled IN: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case is now available at the Amazon.com Kindle store. I'd been bothered for some time by passages where more or less the same material is unnecessarily repeated, as justly noted by some of the reviewers. I was also bothered by certain technical passages that went on for too long. And there were several passages that cried out for editing and/or refining or in some cases, outright cutting. Inspired by some recent discussions in the comments section of this blog, I also decided to add a chapter dealing with the vexing question of motive. Additionally, I moved certain long technical discussions to appendices, where they will be less obtrusive. An additional appendix is devoted to an alternative scenario based on the possibility of premeditation (as already discussed here at some length).

Open Thread -- part 2

The previous thread is getting cluttered with posts so I'm opening up a fresh window. Feel free to continue posting responses on the previous thread, but I'd appreciate it if new topics would be posted here. Thanks.

Open Thread

I'm continually impressed by the inordinate amount of interest this case has generated, as indicated by the continual flow of comments. Obviously I'm not the only one who's fascinated, if not obsessed. It's been a long time since I've had any new thoughts or theories to post, so I've decided to create a thread exclusively for your comments and questions (the last set has gotten so long as to be unwieldy). As I've been busy with other projects, I've decided to keep my responses to a minimum, much as I'm tempted to reply to all. I'll respond to questions related to issues that still remain open, but otherwise won't be commenting. Please feel free to discuss the case among yourselves, as in any open forum.

PS: As before, I'll ask that each comment be accompanied by some sort of identifier, either your name or a moniker of some sort. It can get confusing trying to tell one "Anonymous" from another.

A New Wrinkle

I've been considering a piece of evidence I hadn't thought about in a while, something that's rarely if ever discussed. Not something I myself discovered. I found it on a Facebook page devoted to the case -- can't recall what that was or how to find it again. But someone here might know.

I'm not going to tell you what it is, because I'm curious as to whether anyone reading here will see it. It concerns a very interesting difference between this page of the ransom note

and this one:

Premeditation Revisited

Back in July 2013, I presented a theory, prompted by some comments from someone calling himself "Pete," that John could have premeditated the murder and could therefore have prepared the "ransom" note in advance. You can find that post here. My theory prompted a lively debate in which considerable skepticism was expressed. I admitted then that I was on the fence regarding that possibility. There would certainly have been plenty of time for John to write his note after the murder. On the other hand, it did seem to have been carefully prepared, both conceptually and physically. And if, as I strongly suspect, it had been traced or copied from a computer display, that in itself would have taken considerable time and patience, not to mention a certain amount of trial and error. Not to mention, also, the possibility that his wife or son could awaken at any moment and catch him in the act.

Patsy's Role

There's been lots of discussion here lately by several very intelligent, observant (and persistent) commenters focusing primarily on the 911 call and whether or not John wanted that call made. To save time and effort, I've decided to add a post summarizing my thoughts on this issue, and explaining, moreover, why I feel so sure John is the culprit and Patsy the innocent dupe.

If we focus only on the call per se, and neglect the overall context of the case as a whole, then admittedly it's hard to understand why Patsy would want to support John in a lie over who decided to make that call. Since my approach has been to concentrate primarily on the facts, I've emphasized that it was Patsy who called, not John. And on the basis of that incontrovertible fact, I've concluded that, given the absurdity of the intruder theory, Patsy must be innocent and John guilty. My reasoning is summarized as follows:

Open Forum Part Two

Since the previous post now has over 200 comments, I've decided to continue the discussion here.

Open Forum

NB: this page is now also filled up with comments. To see the most recent comments, you need to go to the very bottom of the page and select "Load More." I'll be opening a new forum soon, on the next blog post, so please post any new comments there. Thanks.

The previous page is filling up with comments pretty quickly, so I decided to start a new page exclusively as an open forum where anyone with any questions or ideas can post them as comments. As for myself, I believe I've finally run out of new things to say about this case, but I'm always interested in what others are thinking. So if you have a comment or question, please post it below.

And remember: it's always best to post your comment on the latest blog page where everyone can easily find it. Also, please identify yourself with some sort of moniker -- makes it easier to follow up on comments if we know who is who.

Thanks.

Comment Suggestions

First of all I want to thank all those commenting here. Your thoughts, questions, theories and other comments, even the negative ones, have helped make this blog interesting, meaningful and relevant. You've noted, I hope, that I don't censor posts -- unless they are redundant, irrelevant, inordinately rude or outright spam. Even then I've deleted only a very small number of posts since day one -- as I recall, only maybe six or seven (most of which came from the same redundant source). All viewpoints are welcome here.

Facts, Facts, Who's Got the Facts?

While for me, as I've so often stressed, it is "the facts" of any case that are of primary importance, I have sometimes been accused of selecting those facts that support my theory while ignoring all those facts that don't. In other words, it's been suggested that I too, like so many of those I've criticized, have indulged in "cherry picking." So maybe it's time for me to frankly address this accusation, to see whether it has any merit.

Amanda Knox -- My very last word on this case so help me

And God help me to keep that promise because I have no desire to get enmeshed in yet another Internet morass.

My final word on the murder of Meredith Kersher and the question of guilt on the part of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito is admittedly influenced by my experiences with the Ramsey case, and for that reason I have to admit I could be biased. It's not always a good idea to base one's thinking regarding one case on what one has learned from another, so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt.

The Problem with DNA

In both the Meredith Kercher and JonBenet Ramsey cases, much has hinged on the interpretation of DNA evidence. And many people have made up their minds prematurely based on this evidence. Thus, since some unsourced traces of DNA were found on JonBenet's longjohns, consistent with DNA found mixed with blood from a stain on her panties, this, in the mind of DA Mary Lacy, must be the DNA of JonBenet's attacker, meaning her parents must be innocent. In the Kercher case, traces of Rafaelle Sollecito's DNA, found on Meredith Kercher's bra clasps, convinced the prosecution, along with the most recent panel of judges, that he must have been one of her attackers. The existence of this DNA, plus a trace of Meredith's DNA supposedly found on a knife blade from Sollecito's kitchen have been enough to convince large segments of the public that he must have been involved.

More on Amanda Knox

OK, now this case in Italy is starting to get under my skin, God help me. One reason it intrigues me so much is the existence of so many themes in common with the Ramsey case. In both we find a crime scene with "no sign of forced breakin." Nevertheless, in both we have a broken window to account for, a window through which no one apparently could have passed, strongly suggesting the staging of an intruder breakin. We have, in both cases, a huge debate over the meaning of DNA evidence. Both cases are characterized by a violent sexual attack. We also have reports of a scream. 

Another DNA Case: Amanda Knox

As is by now well known, Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were once again found guilty in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox's flat mate in Perugia, Italy. There are some interesting resonances between this case and the Ramsey case which are, imo, worth discussing here. The case is far too complex to get into in any detail in a blog post, but for those interested in digging deeper, a fairly detailed summary is provided on Wikipedia. It's a complicated case for sure, and not easy to get a handle on.

Still More on Burke

Amazingly enough, the JonBenet forums seem as active as ever, even after all these years -- but I've noticed a significant change. Whereas Patsy Ramsey was originally everyone's favorite murder suspect, that "honor" has now fallen to her son, Burke. Not only on the forums, but also in so many comments I'm reading on this blog, people seem unable to let go of the idea that Burke Ramsey could be the one who killed his sister, either on purpose or by accident. And since, as we know, she was sexually assaulted, these same people have no problem tossing that accusation into the bin along with everything else -- including, of course, strangulation with a "garotte."

By Popular Request

Well, not exactly popular request. However, some readers have been bugging me to write a book on the case for some time, and they keep pestering me, and so finally I decided, against my better judgement, to give in and let them have their way. So here it is:

(To purchase a copy, click on the cover image.)

Traffic Jam

This blog has been popular for some time, but at the moment it's been getting an unusual number of hits -- and also a surge of comments. Please keep those comments coming, folks, because I always hoped this blog would become a forum for discussion of this troubling but also fascinating case, and that does seem to be happening, which is great.

On the other hand, with more and more comments piling up I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I've always tried to respond to every comment, at least where a response seemed called for, but at this point I'm afraid I can't keep up anymore. That's a GOOD thing as I see it -- so long as everyone understands and is willing to cut me some slack. I'll still try to respond as much as I can, especially to questions or theories that haven't yet been adequately addressed. But so long as the surge continues I won't have time to keep up to the extent I've done in the past. Thanks so much for your participation and I do hope it continues. But please forgive me if your comments aren't always addressed by me. I'll continue to read every one, but won't always be able to respond.

Methodological Issues

I'm aware, of course, that I'm not the only one with a theory regarding this very notorious, highly publicized case. And when I read some of the other theories I get discouraged, because I realize, very painfully, how easy it is for people to delude themselves into believing they've solved it. We can't all be right, obviously, but nevertheless most of us are in fact all too easily convinced by our own arguments, which is troubling. And I have to admit, my thinking may be no better than anyone else's.

That said, I do feel that my methods are very different from those of anyone else writing about this case and I think it important that I make some attempt to explain them.  So here goes:

An Open Window

From police interview with John Ramsey, June 23, 1998:

A Prosecution Strategy

I often hear, even from those who agree with me, that prosecution of this case is unlikely, and I've tended to agree. Because 1. the case is just too complicated for a typical jury to follow; 2. it would be too difficult to overcome the opinion of the six forensic documentation "experts" who ruled John out, 3. it would be too difficult for the prosecution to convince a jury that Patsy was manipulated by John  into lying about certain key aspects of the case. Finally, the fact that the Ramseys had been "exonerated" by DA Mary Lacy on the basis of that "touch DNA" evidence would be impossible to overcome.

Nevertheless, I've come up with a strategy that just might work despite the above-stated obstacles. Pay attention, please. This is going to be long, but it's really quite simple and straightforward:

Some Ramsey Case Flowcharts

[For the benefit of early readers of this post, I must confess to having made some important changes a few minutes after posting it -- hope that's not confusing.]

To summarize and also clarify the various possibilities discussed on this blog, I decided to see if I could put together some "flow charts" illustrating the logic behind some of the most common theories of the case. Instead of literally producing flow chart diagrams, I decided it would be simpler to present my "flow chart" logic in outline form. So here goes:

Three Little Words

Not sure why I never caught this one until the other day. Check it out:

JonBenet Investigation Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJnTEbCdQTQ)

Specifically, check out what John has to say at precisely 3 minutes and 28 seconds into the clip:

"To think that they would, uh, withhold her body for proper burial was . . . was barbaric."

Which should, of course, be compared with this sentence from the ransom note: 

"You will also be denied her remains for proper burial."

The Power of Inference

Much of the debate in this case has centered on the evidence, and I must say, there's a whole lot of it, far more than in a great many other cases. The problem is that much of it really isn't relevant (such as, e.g., the stun gun, butler door, "pubic hair," baseball bat, Hi-Tec print, DNA, etc., etc.) and  just about all of it is, to coin a term: inconclusive. One might comment that, in fact, there seems to be too much "evidence" in this case, to the point that ones head starts to spin just trying to get a handle on it. A trip to one of the forums will give you an idea of what I mean. We see endless discussions and debates that just go around continually in circles over the meaning of this that or the other piece of "evidence" and there never seems to be any definitive agreement on any of it.

On the other hand, an extremely valuable investigative tool has almost been ignored -- the favorite tool of the legendary Sherlock Holmes -- logical deduction, also known as inference. Let me give you a few examples of how logical inference can be put to work in understanding certain meaningful aspects of this case:

Reading the Oracle

Well, as we now know, the Oracle has spoken. And, as with a great many Oracular Utterances, this one is definitely cryptic. Brief, but hardly to the point.

Patsy and John Ramsey, each indicted separately, "did ... permit a child 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 JonBenet Ramsey." And, in a second indictment both parents, also indicted separately, "did ... render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, 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."

Grand Jury Indictment to be Released

Yes, you read that right. As announced today in the Boulder Daily Camera, 

A judge has ordered the release of the grand jury indictment against John and Patsy Ramsey in the JonBenet case that has been sealed since the grand jury was dismissed in 1999.

Retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach ruled Wednesday morning that the indictment will be released Friday in response to a lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press seeking the release of the unprosecuted indictment of the Ramseys.

While I, like everyone else following this case, am eager to read what the Grand Jury had to say, I must confess I am far from thrilled. Yes, according to what we've heard so far, the GJ did decide to indict both John and Patsy Ramsey, thus ruling against Lou Smit and his absurd intruder theory. That's the good news. The bad news is that the GJ appears to have accepted Steve Thomas's version of what happened, which is equally absurd. The indictment is also meaningless, as far as justice is concerned, since the charge they apparently came up with was something like involuntary manslaughter associated with child abuse, a crime that can no longer be prosecuted, since it carries a three year statute of limitations that expired years ago.

Dispelling Some Myths

Myths abound in this case. More than I could possibly deal with in a single post. But here are some of the most persistent and misleading:

1. Patsy Ramsey is responsible for the notorious "and hence" in the Ramsey Christmas message, a phrase that also appears in the "ransom" note.

• Not likely. The Christmas message was a collaboration between John and Patsy, so technically we have no way of knowing which of them wrote it. We do know, however, that John made use of it in the Newseum interview of Oct. 12, 2000 (this was online at one time, but the link is now broken, unfortunately): "The police as a gov-, …you know, the justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism, and, uh…and, uh…suspicion."  I don't know of any place where Patsy is on record as using that phrase, and indeed it would seem uncharacteristic of her communication style, which always tended toward the colloquial and informal. John, on the other hand, tends to express himself in a more formal, and even academic, manner, so his use of "and hence" would not be surprising.

Either Or

The key to the JonBenet Ramsey case has always been that puzzling "ransom" note. And in the minds of just about everyone following the case, it's a matter of either/or. EITHER the note was written by some crazed, but elusive, intruder OR it was written by Patsy Ramsey. Clearly no other alternative is possible. Burke, at the age of nine, was far too young to have written it. And John was "ruled out" by some of the leading experts in the field of document analysis. So he couldn't have written it.

How to Lie with Statistics

A recent email from a reader of this blog pointed me to a website I'd seen but forgotten about, in which the author attempted to prove that Patsy and only Patsy could have written the Ramsey "ransom" note by means of a statistical analysis. If you're curious, here's the URL: http://gemart.8m.com/ramsey/note

I had to laugh, because this person's use of statistics was clearly a travesty. It reminded me of the title of a book I'd heard about, published back in the 50's by Darrell Huff, entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Here's how his little game worked:

And yet . . .

And yet. And yet. And yet.

If they were not in it together, and in fact John did it all on his own, as I contend, then . . .

In It Together?

Almost everyone who grasps the absurdity of the intruder theory feels sure both Patsy and John were both involved, either as murderer and accomplice or as "dutiful parents" desperate to cover for Burke.

But if this were the case, then . . .

Premeditated?

I haven't added any new posts to this blog for some time, basically because I felt I'd said all I had to say on this case. However, I've continued to respond to reader's comments all along, and there have been quite a few. Unfortunately the old gadget that once listed recent comments is apparently broken, so I apologize to those interested in keeping up with the comments, because they're hard to find. I just added a search mechanism to the blog, however, so if you sign with your name, rather than "anonymous," you'll hopefully be able to more easily find any comments you've made. And if you have a favorite topic, you can now look it up.

I'm posting again thanks to some comments by someone calling himself "Pete," who kept insisting that the ransom note was too well thought out and too detailed to have been written after the murder. Pete feels sure JonBenet was killed by an intruder, but at the same time it's hard for him to believe the intruder could have composed such a long, complicated note while at the Ramsey home. While Pete is sure John didn't write the note, and of course I'm sure he did, his argument for premeditation is kind of convincing, I must admit. So thank you, Pete. (And I want also to apologize to Pete for sometimes being rude and impatient when responding to his posts, which was uncalled for and unfair.)

Child Sexual Abuse -- Some Facts and Figures

According to the essay, "Child Sexual Abuse. Challenges Facing Child Protection and Mental Health Professionals," by David Finkelhor*, the majority of victims are female, and roughly 90% of offenders are male:

The Basic Dilemma

Just posted the following at the Topix forum, addressed to all my fellow sleuths, PDI, BDI, JDI and IDI, puzzling over this very puzzling, and vexing case:

Look, as far as this case is concerned, we are all faced with essentially the same dilemma:

Patsy's London Letter Revisited

For Topix poster "Cyber," Patsy's left-hand sample was not the only decisive piece of evidence:

The nail on the coffin for me is the so-called "London Letter", a form letter given to suspects to copy. This is also at the back of the book. Patsy's sample of the London Letter shows a lower case "a" which is the same style as in the Ransom Note.
The Ransom Note features an "a" that faces "left", such as in the typeface in which I am writing. Almost all of Patsy's samples show the "elementary school a", a circle with a post on the right side, EXCEPT for the a's in the London Letter. They are dead ringers for the Ransom Note a's, and they have the final word with me. I believe she wrote the note. I don't see how anyone else could have written it and just coincidentally have left handed printing that was just like Patsy's.

We've already discovered that the ransom note is in fact not at all "just like Patsy's" left handed printing (see previous post) -- not remotely. So now let's turn to her London Letter:

Patsy's Left Hand Sample Revisited

Ah the joys of cherry picking. The National Enquirer obviously wanted in on the Patsy Ramsey bandwagon (before they were threatened with a lawsuit, that is, after which they changed their tune completely). So they decided to publish a (partial) copy of the ransom note alongside a (partial) copy of Patsy's left-hand sample, with a headline blaring the dramatic news: Patsy's sample was "AN EXACT MATCH"!

Johnisms

Some years ago, I put together a list of what I called "Johnisms," i.e., characteristics of John Ramsey's speech that seemed consistent with certain details found in the "ransom note." I find it remarkable that so many of those who've looked so hard for signs of Patsy in the note, had never made any attempt to do the same for John. Yet as far as I can tell, there are far more "Johnisms" in the note than "Patsyisms." Here are some examples -- pay attention to the words in Italics (unfortunately many of the links I provided are now dead):

Grand Jury Voted to Indict

I suppose just about everyone reading here has seen the news. The Grand Jury formed back in 1999 voted to indict Patsy and John Ramsey, a decision that was kept under wraps by DA Alex Hunter, who decided to abruptly end the process without taking any further action. This tidbit has been splashed over headlines in a great many news venues, but it originated with an article in the Boulder Daily Camera, by a reporter with a long history of reporting this case: Charlie Brennan. Incidentally, Brennan collaborated with Lawrence Schiller on what is probably still the most definitive book on the case, Perfect Murder, Perfect Town.

Open Letter to Stanley Garnett, Boulder County DA

Dear Mr. Garnett,

I can understand your reluctance to pursue the JonBenet Ramsey case after so many years of futility and frustration. You see no point in pursuing the case any further until new evidence emerges and I agree. This case has all the markings of an insoluble conundrum, leading from one dead end to another. So, without anything more to go on than what you already have, it seems pointless to continue. And yet the sexual assault and violent murder of a child remains unsolved and her attacker walks free. The continued failure to close this case must weigh very heavily on you and your colleagues.