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.

Key Questions

The Ramsey case poses some very challenging questions. Any theory that can answer all these questions in a reasonable and consistent manner, based on solid evidence, should be taken seriously. Theories based largely on speculation are much harder to take seriously. Though of course, any theory might possibly be correct -- because anything is possible -- it makes sense to concentrate more on what seems likely than what seems contrived. One must be especially cautious when confronted with theories designed to explain away the evidence rather than actually account for it in a systematic and logical manner. In this regard, and according to one of the most important principles of science, Occam's Razor, the simpler the explanation, i.e., the fewer the elements needed to account for all the evidence, the more likely it is to be true. That does not mean it has to be true, just that a parsimonious explanation should generally be taken more seriously than complicated ones involving more elements and requiring more time and effort to explain.

New Improved Intruder Theory

We've seen all sorts of intruder theories, but none I've ever seen can explain 1. why a ransom note was left yet no one was kidnapped and 2. why the body was hidden in that tiny basement room. However, there is in fact a scenario that could account for these two things, though to my knowledge the only person who ever suggested it was someone on one of the anti-Ramsey forums arguing that this must have been what Patsy and John had in mind when they staged their kidnapping for the police. I'll get to that aspect in a moment, but for now, let's consider it purely as an intruder theory:

Birefringent Material

Just a quick note to clarify an aspect of the case that's often misunderstood. JonBenet's vagina had been penetrated on the night of the crime and the evidence suggested digital, rather than penile, penetration. "Birefringent material" was found in her vagina, which turned out to be consistent with the coating on one of Patsy's paintbrush handles. This led very quickly to yet another piece of Ramsey case folklore: the notion that she'd been penetrated with the tip of a paintbrush handle.

The Windowless Room

I thought I'd just about run out of topics to discuss, but some issues I've neglected have been raised in certain comments, and rather than respond to each individually, I think it best to deal with them here. I'll try to be brief.

JonBenet's body was found in a tiny, windowless basement room, sometimes referred to as the "wine cellar," though to my knowledge the Ramseys never used it for that purpose. It was essentially a storage closet. Much speculation has been devoted to John's discovering the body and whether he might have deliberately contaminated the crime scene with his own fibers, "touch" DNA, etc. Fleet White had been down there earlier, opened that door and seen nothing of interest. But he'd failed to turn the light on. When John opened the door, Fleet noted that he screamed first, before turning the light on, and this was probably the beginning of his very obvious suspicions of John, suspicions that led to a serious break between them and White's prodding the DA to investigate the Ramseys more thoroughly. 

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.