Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

An Open Window

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


JOHN RAMSEY: I was by myself. I was. I had
 4 gone down the basement. I went in the --
 5 LOU SMIT: You're going to have to back up a
 6 little so that the camera (INAUDIBLE)?
 7 JOHN RAMSEY: I came down the stairs. I went
 8 in this room here. This door was kind of blocked.
 9 We had a bunch of junk down here and there was a
10 chair that was in front of the door. Some old
11 things. I moved the chair, went into this room,
12 went back in here. This window was open, maybe
13 that far.
14 LOU SMIT: Okay. You said -- or how far
15 were
16 you? An inch?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: An inch, maybe, or less. It
18 was cracked open.
19 LOU SMIT: Which window?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: I think it was the little one.
21 There's three windows across here, as I recall. I
22 think it was the middle one. It was that was
23 broken. There was pane class broken out of it,
24 which I attributed to breaking myself.
25 LOU SMIT: People go into that basement?
0153
 1 JOHN RAMSEY: But it was open and there
 2 was
 3 a suitcase under it. This hard Samsonite suitcase.
 4 LOU SMIT: Describe how the suitcase was
 5 positioned?
 6 JOHN RAMSEY: It was against the wall. I think
 7 the handle was on top. It was directly under the
 8 window, as I recall. And I closed the window, I
 9 don't know why, but I closed it. And then --

John sees an open window in the basement -- and closes it. Doesn't know why.

10 LOU SMIT: When you closed it, did you lock
11 it or close it?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: I latched it. There's a little
13 latch on it.

He closes it and then latches it.

14 LOU SMIT: And you're sure of that?
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Pretty sure, yeah. Yeah, I am
16 sure. I don't think I looked anywhere else. I
17 think at that point I still was trying to figure
18 out how they'd get in the house.
19 LOU SMIT: Well wouldn't that trigger your

Looks like Smit is wondering whether an open window would trigger some suspicion in John's mind that this could be an entry or exit point for an intruder. But his exact question gets blotted out, unfortunately.

20 (INAUDIBLE).
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. Yeah.
22 LOU SMIT: Did you tell anybody about that?

Good question, Lou. Why wouldn't he have reported it? Could be an important clue.

23 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't really remember. I mean,

John remembers seeing the window open and he remembers closing it, but he can't remember if he reported it. Since he can't remember, and there is no reference in any police report to John reporting it, we can safely conclude that he didn't. He realizes how suspicious this sounds, so he struggles to explain himself:

24 part of what is going on you're in such a state of
25 disbelief this can even happen. And the, you know,
0154
 1 the window had been broken out. And you say hah,
 2 that's it. But it was a window that I had used to
 3 get into the house before. It was cracked and open
 4 a little bit. It wasn't terribly unusual for me.
 5 Sometimes it would get opened to let cool air in
 6 because that basement could get real hot in
 7 winter.

Sorry, John, that explanation won't wash. Because according to you the window got broken last summer, when you yourself broke it after losing your key. And if the window were broken, then there would have been no need to crack it open to let cool air in.

 So it was like, you know, after I thought
 8 about it, I thought it was more of an alarming
 9 situation how it struck me at the time. It was
10 still sort of explainable to me that it could have
11 been left open.

This sounds awfully lame. John is trying to explain why he wouldn't have reported the open window, but his explanation makes no sense.

Fast forward to March 20, 2000. The Ramseys are being interviewed by Katy Couric on the Today Show:

COURIC: Detective Linda Arndt was assigned to the Ramsey home during those long hours. Sometime that morning, John Ramsey headed for the basement. Why did you go there?

Mr. RAMSEY: We had a basement window that was under a--a grate, a removable grate that I had used the past summer to get into the house when I'd lost my keys. I--I wanted to check that window. I went down to that room. The window was open. It was broken. I went back upstairs and reported that to Detective Arndt.

Interesting. Back in 1998, John couldn't recall if he'd reported it or not. Then in an attempt to explain why he did not report it, he offered an elaborate excuse: the window might have been cracked to let cool air in, so an open window might not have been all that unusual. (But cool air would have been coming in anyhow, through the broken pane that he claimed he broke himself  the previous summer.)

 COURIC: You did tell her about the...

Mr. RAMSEY: Yes.

 COURIC: ...open window?

Mr. RAMSEY: I did.

Very unusual for John to be so sure of anything. In the police interviews he had difficulty recalling the simplest things. He couldn't recall reporting the open window back in 1998. And made excuses as to why. But now, two years later, his memory has somehow improved -- he's sure he reported it.

COURIC: And what did she say?

Mr. RAMSEY: I don't recall that she said anything.

So what was originally a lapse John felt he needed to explain, now becomes evidence that Arndt wasn't doing her job. He dutifully reported an open window, but she ignored him. Right!
 

221 comments:

  1. The more I read about the window, the more I understand why it's the most important clue in this case. You have set this out very clearly and logically. Even if the experts were certain Patsy wrote the RN, wouldn't John's various window "stories" cause their suspicions to shift to John? If they would have suspected that he was, at the every least, involved in the murder or coverup, he would not have been ruled out completely, and then, once they had John back in the picture as a suspect, I think they could have, through logic, eliminated Patsy, leaving John alone as the culprit.

    There were tidbits thoroughout Katie Couric's interview that made JR look very suspicious to me. Especially this statement:

    COURIC: You took melatonin that night, which is, I guess, an herbal sleep aid. You write in the book, unfortunately, you slept very soundly.

    Mr. RAMSEY: Yeah, soundly, I slept too soundly.

    COURIC: You heard nothing that night?

    Ms. RAMSEY: I heard nothing that night, Katie. Nothing. I'll never--I mean, I've asked God that a million times. Why didn't I wake up? Why didn't I hear something? I don't know why. I don't know why, but I am telling you I didn't hear a thing. Nothing.

    The first thing that crossed my mind is that is he trying very hard to convince everyone that he was NOT up that night. He goes a bit overboard talking about how "soundly" he sleeps --- overcompensating that point to establish his "alibi" of being asleep when his daughter was murdered.

    Great writing, as always, Doc. I'm always so excited to see a new post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree; he protests too much. This man was awake during the night.

      Delete
    2. "wouldn't John's various window "stories" cause their suspicions to shift to John?"

      You'd think so. I think the police failed to question JR's story for a long time. On the day of the 911 call, and for some time after, they didn't really comprehended that the window represented half completed staging. They expected he'd say the intruder must have came in that way, if they expected anything at all, and when he claimed he broke it himself they just sort of mentally crossed off the window and didn't give it much more thought. By the time of the interviews they were asking about it, but it was too late.

      Delete
    3. Well, they were definitely suspicious or they wouldn't have asked all those questions. But they never followed through on anything. At some point someone should have just said, "look John this sounds like nonsense. Do you really expect us to believe this story?" But no one did. He was handled with kid gloves. It was Patsy who was treated roughly, John literally got away with murder.

      Delete
    4. Correct me if i'm wrong but wasnt the little girl sexually assaulted? In which case the mother couldnt possibly be the killer. And if it was the father,his DNA was bound to be there isnt it?

      Delete
  2. His memory improved as the years went by. Just the opposite of what happens in real life.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Forgive me if this is answered in another thread: did the police ever determine whether or not the window was freshly broken, and whether or not it was broken from the inside or outside?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If they would have suspected that he was, at the every least, involved in the murder or coverup, he would not have been ruled out completely, and then, once they had John back in the picture as a suspect, I think they could have, through logic, eliminated Patsy, leaving John alone as the culprit."

    I've re-read my statement, above, and I realize it doesn't make total sense. What I meant was:

    "If they would have suspected that he was, at the every least, involved WITH PATSY in the murder or coverup . . ."

    It is unbelievable to me that after all his ridiculous stories about the window, which were obvious lies, he was ruled out COMPLETELY --- he was not even considered as an accomplice with Patsy. How can that be?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "If they would have suspected that he was, at the every least, involved in the murder or coverup, he would not have been ruled out completely,"

    John, like Patsy, was always under the "umbrella of suspicion." He was ruled out only as writer of the note, not as a suspect. I think many in the BPD felt pretty strongly that John was involved in the coverup, but since he was ruled out as note writer, that forced them to see Patsy as, at the very least, an accomplice. It was Patsy that always hung over this case like an albatross, making it impossible to prosecute.

    "did the police ever determine whether or not the window was freshly broken, and whether or not it was broken from the inside or outside?"

    That's never been made public, to my knowledge. I'm assuming they must have found it to be a fresh break, or they wouldn't have questioned John and Patsy about it at such length and in such detail. I'd love to see the report on that part of the investigation though. As far as the window being broken from the outside or inside, it would have been easy to make it look like an outside break, even from the inside.
    The window opened to the inside, so you would just open it and break it from the outer side of the pane, so the glass would fall inward.

    "It is unbelievable to me that after all his ridiculous stories about the window, which were obvious lies, he was ruled out COMPLETELY --- he was not even considered as an accomplice with Patsy. How can that be?"

    Well, first of all his window story was apparently accepted by the investigators, as far as I can tell. I think they accepted it because they failed to see it as an alibi -- and couldn't understand why John would have staged an intruder breakin and then make up a story that undercut his staging. Perfect example of misdirection. And it worked!

    Secondly, as I stated above, John was never ruled out as a suspect, only as writer of the note.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Doc, what I dont understand is did JR claim that he had gone down into that room earlier that morning to latch the window closed? If so, then HOW DOES HE NOT SEE JBR'S BODY lying there? Obviously he is lying about going down earlier that day, because this would then set a very important timeline imo. If JR takes a shower, at 5:50 and shortly after the 911 call is made, JR is claiming he went downstairs to an open window that he latched. There would be no possible way for JR to go in that room to latch the window closed and NOT see the body correct? Therefore in order for his story to be true, then that means that somebody moved JBR's body that morning after JR supposedly sees the open window. BR is asleep in his bed, PR was making the 911 call and upstairs, and unless and intruder was playing hide and seek in their basement, then only 1 person could have moved the body....JOHN RAMSEY!
    Anybody who believes it wasnt JR really needs to come up with an explanation of JR's blatant lies about this window. Nothing explains it other then he is lying about the window to attempt to cover his own butt.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  7. J - the open window was in the train room. JBR's body was found in a windowless room called the wine cellar. Ostensibly, he wouldn't have seen the body while checking the window. The whole issue about the window relates to staging, then unstaging, and all the surrounding lies to cover up the fact that he had an "incomplete" staging on his hands that he had to cover up for. Doc is right...his misdirection confused the police, and that alone is a reason for me to think of Steve Thomas and his crowd as not too competent in murder investigations. I agree with Doc that Alex Hunter didn't proceed with the indictment because he knew that a vague case of "2 people involved" was not going to fly. He knew you had to pin the murder on one person. He knew that person was John. I'll bet he hoped that Burke would one day break and this murder could be solved. I do wish Burke would come forward for the sake of his sister and his mom. I don't know how much he knows, but I think he knows a few things: 1) he saw or heard his dad creeping into his sister's room at various times to do something, which we now can suspect was molestation. 2) He knows that a parent was up that night, making noises downstairs. 3) He knows in his gut that his mom would not kill Jonbenet by accident and stage a murder. Regardless of how much Burke knows about that one night, I think he knows his dad was doing something to Jonbenet over the past year or more.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ok, right after I posted, I thought I may have had it wrong, so thanks for clearing that up. Yes, the window is such a key part to the case as Doc has suggested because this is an issue that JR has lied so many times about and its shocking that a man who supposedly wants to find the killer for his daughter doesnt seem to concerned with giving facts that help the investigation.
    I have posted before that BR is 100% the ket to this whole case as even if he heard his Dad up that night at any point it completely proves JR has lied about sleeping soundly through the night as he has said so many times. JR who cant remember anything because he "thinks" every detail of the case has been very clear that he took a pill and slept soundly through the night.
    -J

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that John unstaged the broken window because he was not sure whether the grate was removable.

    When he broke the window at night, he perhaps did not even see the grate in the darkness. If so, he belatedly did see the grate in the morning light.

    Even if he knew the grate was there when he broke the window at night, then he might have had second thoughts in the morning -- is that grate removable?

    If the grate turned out to be NOT removable, then the broken window would be suspicious to the police. The kidnappers could not have entered the house through the non-removable grate, and there was no reason to try to exit through the window.

    Uncertain whether the grate was removable and having no opportunity to go outside and verify whether the grate was removable, John panicked and immediately unstaged the broken window.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make an interesting point. Hadn't thought of that. But he also might have overheard the police discussing the spider web they found connecting the grate to the lawn, which had not been disturbed.

      Delete
  10. I just read a transcript of an early interview where John states he knew the grate was removeable and he had actually gone through the window once when he was locked out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He couldn't fabricate the story about coming through that window when he forgot his keys unless he knew the grate was removable.

      Delete
  11. " I do wish Burke would come forward for the sake of his sister and his mom. I don't know how much he knows, but I think he knows a few things"

    He knows whether or not that window in the room where he keeps his electric train set up was broken or not. And if he knows that, he knows whether or not his parents lied about it. And if he knows that.......

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, but he'd probably be a hostile witness, thus not much help. What would be needed in a trial would be the tech report on the condition of the broken glass.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In one of his interviews, describing when he found JB's body, JR states that the wine cellar door was blocked with a chair. He also mentions that he had to unlatch the door to enter. It is so obvious to me that whoever put her body in that little room was hiding it. There would be no reason for an intruder to do that, even if it were a "botched kidnapping." In fact, if JR knew his plan to remove the body was foiled by Patsy's 911 call and the subsequent arrival of police and friends into the house, he would have been better off to put the body back out in the train room so that it would appear that's where the intruders left it. But I think he was still hoping he would be able to remove the body somehow. However, once he got wind that the police saw no forcible entry, and were therefore skeptical about an intruder, he knew the gig was up and he might once again be able to "redirect" the police (or at least confuse them some more) by discovering JB's body himself.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well whats really odd is that JR would have us believe that the "intruder" entered the house while the Ramseys were out of the house. This intruder stayed lying in wait for the Ramseys to get home so he could "kidnap"
    JBR. Regardless, why on Earth would an intruder crawl through that specific window when they could easily be spotted from anybody outside. There are a ton of other windows or doors that an intruder would more likely use. SO, whats important to me about that is that if an intruder entered through any other access point, why would there be a need to break that basement window when exiting? Assuming they are in the house, the window just opens from the inside, so even if they chose to exit the Ramsey house from that specific basement window, WHY WOULD THE GLASS BE BROKEN? And even if we are to believe JR's story that he broke it the summer before, why is there a suitcase sitting right underneath the window?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. There is really no intruder scenario that makes sense. An intruder entering during the day would be foolish to lift that grate and break in through the window, because he could so easily be spotted by a neighbor. And if he got in with a key, then why would he want to exit via that window? And besides, if anyone did go through that window, they would have smeared the dirt on the sill, but there was no sign of that. So the intruder must have left via a door. But then, why did he bother to lock that door behind him? And, as you say, what about the broken window? And the suitcase under the broken window, what was that all about? Also there were packing peanuts from the window well strewn on the floor, as though someone had entered via the window. But obviously no one did. If that wasn't staging then what was it?

      No matter how you see that "intruder" entering or leaving, that can't explain the setup at the window, which is clearly staging. What else could it possibly be?

      Delete
    2. Doc its truly baffling! JR kind of sort of wants us to believe an intruder got thru the basement window, but also kind of sort of wants us to believe they got in some other way. I looked back at one of your other blogs about the window and there is a picture of the window sill with a piece of glass lying on it. If the window is broken from the outside into the house, then there really shouldnt be any glass lying on the window sill at all, as it would be lying on the basement floor. Even if there was, an intruder easily cuts themselves trying to crawl thru. Its painfully obivous that NOBODY entered through the window and clearly the piece of glass is sitting there because somebody broke the window from the inside of the basement to the outside.
      Smit said he believes it was already there which is convenient for him, but if we are to believe JR's story, then on his stomach going feet first into the basement, he crawled over that shard of glass and was able to not disrupt the spider web.

      -J

      Delete
    3. That chunk of glass was used by Kolar to counter Lou Smit's contention that the "intruder" broke in via that window. What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that the same chunk of glass also counters John's contention that he broke in via that same window months earlier. And you too have a point. In either case, it's hard to see how someone could have crawled through that space without either removing or displacing that glass. The spider web is a bit different, because it could be argued that the web was woven after John entered, last summer.

      No matter, though, because ALL the evidence points very clearly away from an intruder entering via that window, and John's pitiful prevarications and outright lies point equally clearly away from him having entered via the window on some previous occasion.

      Delete
    4. yep, thats exactly what Im saying. The shard of glass lying there imo is beyond crucial to the whole crime. I am not a glass breaking expert, but if the glass was kicked in from the outside going into the basement, then how does that piece of large glass end up on the window sill as it surely cuts whoever would have had to crawl thru the small window. So, it proves that the glass was broken from the inside of the house to the outside.
      One other thing I thought of was in JR's clear staging of the crime, he couldnt have broken a window anywhere BUT the basement as there would have been tremendous risk of the sound of breaking glass waking BR or PR even if he muffles the sound. So for JR it makes perfect sense to do the staging down there as he would have had privacy and no fear of waking anybody. BUT if this was an intruder, we are to believe that they felt so comnfortable in the house that they would write a 3 page ransom note, all the while going up and down the stairs? Going out the basement window actually makes almost no sense for an intruder because it would have been so much quicker and easier to go out any other window or simply open a door to leave.
      I know that I am repeating a lot of the points you have already made, I just so badly want to find that "ah ha" moment that could potentially catch JR as he is 70 and may never live to see justice.

      -J

      Delete
  15. Why are there so many discrepancies regarding Burke's age? I've seen 9 and 12 in multiple places.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm with "J" ---- looking for that "ah ha" moment of finding something that could nail JR. But if Doc hasn't found it yet, I don't think anybody will. Too bad. There are TONS of things that cause great suspicion and, in fact, logically point to JR as the murderer, but apparently none of it was good enough for either of the two former DA's to move forward on. I find that hard to believe. I see cases all the time with much, much less incriminating evidence that end up in an indictment and trial. Doc, what do you think the chances are that the new DA might reopen the case (or is it still an open case?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's still open, because all unsolved murders remain open. But the DA has called it a "cold case" and won't move on it until some "new evidence" emerges. As though there weren't already more than enough evidence. In fact there is probably more evidence available in this case than for just about any other murder case I can think of. The decision to "rule out" the leading suspect has effectively killed any hope of prosecuting this case. Until that decision is reversed, the case is dead.

      Delete
  17. It amazes me that so many people think that every crime can only be solved and get to an indictment and/or trial unless there is a smoking gun. If every case had a smoking gun, we really wouldn't even need trials would we? This case has plenty of evidence to indict John Ramsey. You don't need a an eyewitness, you don't need DNA, and you you don't need a confession. The DAs that have refused to open this case back up are cowards, and I pity them if anything similar would ever happen to them or one of their loved ones. I guess in that case they would be just fine to not have justice served. Doc is right, see if John Ramsey will get on the stand and defend himself or plead the 5th. Then let a jury decide on his guilt or innocence based on preponderance of the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The standard is reasonable doubt; preponderance of the evidence applies to civil disputes.

    I suspect the DA's have been prudent not to bring this case. As an aside, I think Hunter should have sought court-ordered electronic surveillance of Ramsey house. Perhaps microphones in the house might have picked up incriminating conversations, maybe not.

    I think the only chance of a conviction now is either a confession or newly developed evidence (Burke?) that does in fact provide a 'smoking gun.' Such evidence is not always required, true, but it will be needed here for all the reasons that have been discussed ('touch DNA,' 'exoneration,' handwriting 'experts' etc.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is one remaining hope: pressure from the media to get the DA off his duff and act. My hope is that someone with media connections reading here will get the message and run with it.

      Delete
  19. I have read your blog and the comments from all with amazement as I was not fully au fait with the case (unlike the Casey Anthony case which probably left me feeling justice has to happen SOMEwhere). What really stuns me in this case is that if John is the murderer (and it sure looks that way) then at some stage when these questions about his interviews, answers, his behaviour all came out in the investigation and the media, wouldn't Patsy have started to question the same? Woudln't she have at least become suspicious that he was molesting the little girl and did end up killing her? Even if you were totally naive about it all initially and believed him about ransom notes, intruders, etc....just hearing all that information over time would make you suspicious. Do we have evidence that she actually covered for him? ie, was she complicit in a cover-up? Or could we assume that she was oblivious and just believed him thoroughly

    ReplyDelete
  20. AsiaGirl, I have had the same thoughts as you. Doc believes John was able to manipulate her into believing an intruder did it, and that he is innocent because the experts said he could not have written the ransom note (and she knew that she had not written it!) I actually give Patsy credit for being very smart and intuitive, but I also think denial is a powerful thing. Assuming she put two-and-two together, and I have to think she did, knowing there was chronic abuse and knowing that she took Jonbenet with her everywhere she went and could have only been abused at home, school, or possibly church, then I think Patsy chose to tell herself, "my daughter is gone, I can't bring her back, I don't want to destroy Burke's life, I'm dying, and I just want to see my baby in heaven." She was probably afraid of what John would do to her if she turned on him, and knew that she couldn't put up that fight while dying of ovarian cancer. Yes, I think she died knowing that John was the most likely culprit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AsiaGirl, Patsy's bonding with John, and her apparent willingness to tell some "white lies" supporting his version of what happened, is certainly an obstacle to acceptance of my theory, I must admit. It's important, however, to recognize the degree to which John was aided by the decision that he could not have written the note. It's not just that Patsy accepted that decision -- EVERYONE did. And just about everyone still does. In her mind John could not have written that note, period! If he didn't write it, then all eyes turned to Patsy, and it was widely assumed that she must have written it. However, if she was innocent she certainly would have known that she didn't write it, which means that in her mind there could have been no question. It HAD to have been written by "the Intruder."

      Given her circumstances it's not difficult to see how any lingering suspicions she might have had would have been dispelled once she learned that John had been "ruled out." And don't forget, this is a man who fooled the world's leading profiler, John Douglas. Manipulating his wife to go along with his version of what happened would have been child's play for such a master con man.

      John's guilt becomes evident only when we lift the veil produced by the decision to rule him out, and then reconsider the case all over again from top to bottom. That would NOT have been evident to Patsy, just as it wasn't evident to Steve Thomas, who gave John "a pass." Nor was it evident to any of the DA's who've puzzled over this case. They were all taken in by the talented Mr. Ramsey.

      Delete
  21. Doc, would you please remind me (and inform your new readers) what your theory is about JR manipulating Patsy into backing his story about breaking the window and subsequently repairing it (she even went so far to say that LHP helped sweep up the glass, which LHP totally denied).

    As to the comment above, I tend to agree. I think Patsy may have at least suspected JR in the end (or sooner, perhaps), but the loss of her daughter and her fight with cancer was probably all she could handle so denial was the easiest way to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy's support of John's absurd window story is probably the most difficult element of this case to understand. But it's even more difficult to reconcile the facts of the case with any scenario involving the two of them collaborating on either the crime or the coverup. Ditto with any possible intruder scenario.

      So we are faced with a true dilemma. Something has got to give. And, as I see it, the weak link is, as I keep stressing over and over again, that fateful decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Which certainly convinced Patsy of his innocence. AND turned the investigation, and the suspicions of millions of people, in HER direction, making her both extremely vulnerable and totally dependent on his support.

      According to John that window had already been broken months earlier, and that story was certainly what saved him from immediate arrest, because otherwise his incomplete and/or amateurish staging would have been obvious. Patsy would not have seen it that way, however. Since it was, in her mind, clear that only an intruder could have written the note, then the window could only have been broken by "the Intruder."

      She would, of course, have known the window had been intact prior to the night of the murder, and she would, of course, have known very well that she didn't clean up any broken glass months before. Thus she would have realized that John's story couldn't be true. So. What were her options?

      She could have contacted the police with her suspicions. However, SHE was the one who everyone suspected at that point, not John. John had been ruled out, she had therefore been ruled IN. If she were to argue that John, and not an intruder, attacked JonBenet, the police would have countered by asking her who, therefore, wrote the note? By then, many were convinced SHE wrote it -- and were also convinced that John was covering for HER. So by accusing John of lying about the window she would only have been reinforcing suspicions that John was assisting her in a coverup involving a staged intruder breakin.

      This tells me that Patsy would have been in a position where she wanted desperately NOT to suspect John and to be reassured that he could not have been involved. First, no doubt, because it was difficult for her, as it was for John Douglas, to accept the possibility of his guilt. But secondly, because his involvement was linked, in the view of so many, with hers.

      Under such circumstances I think it would not have been difficult for John to convince Patsy that he lied to protect them both. Since, as she well knew, he could not have written the note, then that in itself was sufficient proof, as far as she was concerned, of an intruder. Thus it was the intruder who MUST have been the one who broke the window. However, as John would have reminded her, the police were out to get THEM, and consequently the police were claiming the window could not have been broken by an intruder. In other words, if he hadn't concocted that story, the police would have been convinced the two of them had staged the breakin and there was no intruder. So the purpose of his lie was to protect both of them by throwing the authorities off the scent.

      This would have been exactly what she would have wanted to hear, so she must have decided to go along with his story and tell a "white lie" rather than create a situation where the two of them were contradicting one another publicly, to the disadvantage of both.

      As I read her testimony, she sounds very ill at ease in describing the glass and the process of cleaning it up. I think she tossed in the bit about Linda helping her because deep down she must have wanted her lie to be exposed. In other words, she was clearly a terrible liar. Unlike her husband, the master manipulator.

      Delete
    2. I think it is possible that John could have convinced her she had forgotten about broken window as well as a myriad of other events. "Chemo brain" loss of memory, not to mention the depression/anxiety/sedative meds she was on could have impaired her memory. Gaslighting is a very real possibility I think.

      Delete
    3. Excellent point! I'd never heard of "gaslighting," so I googled it, and found this very interesting Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

      It defines "gaslighting" as follows: "Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity."

      Some passages in this article are amazingly relevant:

      "Psychologist Martha Stout states that sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but are also typically charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.[6] Jacobson and Gottman report that some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners, even flatly denying that they have been violent."

      Since, as you say, Patsy was on sedatives for some time after JonBenet's murder, she would have been especially vulnerable to this sort of manipulation. It's possible John was able to convince her that she actually did clean up that window glass by using gaslighting tactics to implant the memory in her mind. Since the memory was clearly false, it's not surprising that she'd have included Linda, since Linda was the person who would have assisted her in that sort of task.

      This would explain why John delayed their police interview for so long. He needed time to work on Patsy.

      It would be interesting to question John's first wife, Lucinda, regarding the tactics he used while cheating on her for two years with another woman.

      Delete
    4. Yes. Not sure when Patsy did her cancer chemo, but "chemo brain" typically lasts about 4 years after treatment. I've heard people say it's like being in a mental fog with memory loss. Patsy may have experienced that, so John could have easily convinced her she forgot about the window. And like you said, it would make the story more believeable to "remind" Patty that Linda helped clean up the broken glass.

      Delete
    5. Yes, "chemo brain" could also have been a factor. But no no no, John would NOT have wanted Linda as part of this memory, because, as he well knew, Linda would not have verified it. If he planted the memory in her head, then Linda popped into it purely via Patsy's habit of relying on her to clean up every mess. That's the best explanation I've ever heard of why Patsy would have claimed Linda helped with the window cleanup. Sounds like it was a false memory, implanted by John, but modified by Patsy to fit her usual routine.

      Delete
    6. Yes, I see what you mean about John not wanting Linda to be a part of the memory. I can imagine John being able to convince Patsy about the broken window. During a very stressful time in my life some years ago, a personal event happened I later had no recollection of. People had to show me convincing documentation that it happened. That was very unsettling that I could not remember the personal event, so it is totally in the realm of possibility that Patsy could convinced of a false memory--perhaps by being shown a saved receipt of a supposed purchase of glass, for example. Who knows!

      Delete
  22. Im honestly not hung up at all that PR backed the window breaking story at all. JR by hiring lawyers so early and proving he didnt write the note was quickly able to pin the Ramseys against the BPD. In all of his interviews he is so smart when he always says "WE" were blamed early on, referencing himself and Patsy. JR knew he did it, which obviously makes PR completely innocent. So, by always bunching himself with Patsy who is innocent, he was able to manipulate everything. Nobody wants to think their spose would be capable of molesting their child and then committing a horrific murder, so I dont think anything of PR telling a few lies to protect not only JR, but the Ramsey family.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There is a lot of discussion about how JR murdered JBR/staged her body, and that PR then messed things up by calling 911. However, what are the theories/evidence that PR could NOT have been the killer and/or part of the staging? If JR solely moved JBR's body into the wine cellar after a botched plan to take her body out of the house, given that he didn't have much time, wouldn't there have been more of JR's clothing/DNA on/near the body? Didn't they find a fiber from PR's sweater near/on the body?

    Interesting information pointing JR to the sole killer/plotter of crime scene, however I definitely find it hard to believe PR could hear all the information that came out after JBR's murder and not question her husband being part of the crime. PR's art supplies were in the basement so she would know if the window was broken for a period of time. An autopsy determined JBR was chronically molested and PR never questions her husband or makes a comment about this information to the press? Like, how shocked she was to find out this information? If she wasn't in on the staging, during that early morning and entire day the police were at the house, she never, ever reads the entire RN that states telling anyone about what is going on would result in her daughter being beheaded? She never makes a peep when the "kidnappers" do not call regarding the ransom by their scheduled time of 10am? The sole JR theory is very compelling, however I'm inclined to believe something is very amiss with PR. I'm also starting to doubt that the BPD were not trying to cover things up as the crime scene was SO botched. I have a difficult time believing the BPD would read the entire RN and not try to obey it, allow for all the Ramsey's friends to be in the house that morning (the home is still a crime scene even if they didn't know where JBR's body was as she was taken from the home - they were not at some other random location), JR's phone records from that morning were never released which could offer huge insight into what was going on early that morning. I think JR/PR seem very confident, almost too confident, during interviews in the aftermath, almost as if they know there is no way they are going to get caught.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a tough time believing that Patsy would participate in the murder -- pretty horrific stuff. As to the cover-up, more likely to me if Burke the killer. Why cover up for John?

      But I think maybe Doc closer to truth. Consider apparent sincerity of 911 call and subsequent tv interviews, reaction upon discovery of body and life-long sympathy of Detective Arndt. If John in fact the killer, then Patsy likely had at most suspicions.

      Delete
    2. I would suggest you read all of DocG's blog entries in their entirety. 1. A fiber that was thought to be from John's shirt was in JBR's panties - a pair that was opened from a package and put on her as part of the crime "clean up." 2. Doc explains that it is normal that fibers from the family and anyone else in the house could be found on Jonbenet (though harder to explain if found inside a pair of new panties.) 3. DocG explains how Patsy was under pressure when the police ruled out John based on a bogus handwriting conclusion, and began to focus on her. This pressure combined with John's manipulation, and perhaps some denial on her part, helped convince her that her husband was not involved. 4. We don't know if she made a "peep" that morning, but her reported behaviour could have indicated that she was so distraught and fearful that we really can't judge whether she would notice when the time for the call came and went. 5. The fact that she even called 911 in the first place is a good indication she didn't read the note in its entirety, or at least she didn't absorb its contents fully, before placing the call. 6. I believe the police were covering up their culpability in not sending backup. JR botched the crime scene, not the police. The problem was that Linda Arndt couldn't control everyone all by herself, and she was sent no backup after repeated requests for help. 7. If Patsy knew she didn't kill JBR, then of course she is going to claim her innocence. 8. Of course, if JR and the handwriting analysts convince Patsy that John didn't write the note, then she is going to proclaim her husband's innocence, too.

      Delete
    3. The long post full of questions does in fact pose some really good questions. It's problems of that sort which make the case such a challenge to think through. That last post does in fact answer many of these questions -- so thank you. I'm very aware of all these questions and answering them is what this blog is all about. I apologize because by now the blog is very long and unwieldy, but I can assure you that all your question are covered herein. It's easy to jump to conclusions if you don't have all the facts, so please be patient.

      For me, the key to understanding Patsy's role is the fact that she was the one who called 911. If she were involved and knew that the note was fake, and that the body was in the house, she would never have made that call. In other words, she has to be innocent. And we have to give her the benefit of the doubt when considering all other aspects of the case that might make her LOOK suspicious. Hope you'll keep reading here.

      Delete
  24. I think it is very possible that if PR were involved with the staging it would be to cover up for Burke. I think if she killed JBR, it would have been by accident most definitely. JR on the other hand, he is an entirely different story. I am starting to see the hold JR had over everything, especially PR, however I would like to know if anyone has read or seen any interviews where JR and PR talk about the reports that JBR was chronically molested. If PR thought so lightly of an autopsy report indicating her little girl was molested for quite some time, perhaps this would blow the theory that JR was molesting her out of the water, thus eliminating him as a suspect in her murder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was never any official report that JBR was molested prior to the night of the murder. The medical examiner found clear signs of chronic abrasion or erosion of the vaginal wall and that's all he reported. According to coroner Cyril Wecht, who never examined the body, but went only by the medical examiner's report, chronic damage of the sort reported could only mean prior sexual abuse. And since Wecht is widely considered the leading authority on such matters, his conclusions have to be taken very seriously. Other forensic specialists have agreed with Wecht -- but at least one disagreed, suggesting the abrasion could have been caused by something as innocuous as repeated bubble baths.

      I'm not sure, but I don't think the possibility of chronic sexual abuse ever came up in the police interviews, probably because it was never mentioned in any official report, and the police may not at the time have been aware of Wecht's conclusions. Since the Ramsey lawyers were able to find a doctor who interpreted the chronic damage differently, and since Patsy clearly did NOT want to consider such a possibility, I feel sure she would have discounted Wecht's theory. Especially because John was "ruled out" as writer of the note, which gave her no choice but to accept the intruder theory.

      Delete
  25. I continue to be convinced that the molestation of JonBenet is the key to this murder mystery. If it is determined that she was molested before the night she was murdered, then it's pretty clear to me that someone in that house was the one molesting her, both before and the night she was murdered. This further diminishes the intruder theories because what are the odds that she was being molested previously -- by someone in the family -- and then ALSO molested by an intruder the night she is murdered? If there is evidence of prior abuse, then John Ramsey becomes the most logical suspect, imo. I suppose there could be a chance that Patsy was a really sicko, perverted, jealous mom who did those horrific things to her daughter, but I don't even consider that a possibility because I agree with Doc: if she was involved in any way, she would not have made that 911 call so early while the key piece of evidence was still in the house.

    So for me, the case hinges on the molestation and whether Jon Benet was, in fact, molested prior to her murder. There seems to be a real 50/50 split on this point. Doc, what convinced you that there was prior abuse and what do you think about all the other experts who say there definitely wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly, the molestation, both acute and chronic, points away from a foreign faction, or even enemy of JR, who, had they written the RN, were motivated by money and revenge. The coroner's report revealed indications of chronic molestation deemed to be via digital penetration. Anyone who did not examine JBR themselves is just providing personal opinion. That said, the molestation helps provide motive, but you can still solve a murder based on other facts. Why did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? Was he crazy or was he a pawn in a consirracy? This case hinges on the fact that you can show an intruder did not enter the house. You can show that JR lied, and not very well, about the supposed entry point. You know that Patsy called 911, not JR. You know that JR exhibited some very strange behavior the morning after. DocG has given a good case showing John's handwriting is very similar to the RN and also his manner of expression is throughout the note. This case hinges not on the molestation, though I agree it seals the deal by providing the motive. It is a summation of the known facts that provides the case needed to indict JR. I agree with Doc, he should be indicted. If all of this had happened in your town, in your home, you would have been indicted by now.

      Delete
    2. "Doc, what convinced you that there was prior abuse and what do you think about all the other experts who say there definitely wasn't."

      As I've said before, if we try to put together all the different pieces of inconclusive evidence in this case we will find ourselves in a hopeless morass. While as I recall, the great majority of forensic specialists agree with Wecht on prior sexual abuse, not all do. And there is no way to tell for sure. It's suggestive but not conclusive, so I prefer to downplay that sort of "evidence."

      What's far more important is the FACT that JonBenet was sexually abused on the night she was murdered. That is NOT inconclusive, it's a fact. So once we rule out an intruder, which is not difficult to do, we need to ask ourselves who out of the three remaining inhabitants of that house was most likely to have a sexual interest in the victim. And that is clearly the only mature male in the house, i.e, John Ramsey.

      This in itself should have been sufficient to charge him, on the basis of probable cause. If, while on trial, he were to claim that it was actually Patsy or Burke who was molesting JonBenet, it would be very interesting to see if he could get any jury to buy it. And of course if he were put on trial while Patsy was still alive, that would have made it even more interesting.

      Unfortunately, the decision to rule him out made it impossible to charge him alone and since there was no good reason to charge Patsy, no charges were ever brought against either.

      Delete
    3. "Clearly, the molestation, both acute and chronic, points away from a foreign faction, or even enemy of JR, who, had they written the RN, were motivated by money and revenge."

      Good point. A problem with any intruder theory is the question of whether this person was motivated by sexual interest or money or revenge. If sexual interest, then why the kidnapping for ransom? And if kidnapping, then why the sexual attack? And if the motive is revenge, then why bother to write a ransom note, why not write a note expressing the attacker's anger. Of course the intruder could have been all three wrapped into one, but that seems far less likely than one or the other.

      Delete
  26. Great explanation . . from both Doc and anonymous above. As I continue to read more about this case (most recently Wiki's Jon Benet Case Encyclopedia), I find myself getting caught up in all the "inconclusive evidence" (there's lots of it) and then in that "hopeless morass", as Doc so accurately describes. Deep down, I know John Ramsey is guilty. But I guess I am a bit of a devil's advocate (pun very much intended!).

    I look forward to reading your blog every day, Doc. I hope you never tire of it.

    Ms. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  27. For me, two key pieces of information that would significantly affect this investigation are JR's phone records from the 25th and 26th and JBR's medical records for the year of 1996. I understand there are HIPPA laws, but considering she had passed and there was an investigation of her death, wouldn't there be cause for the medical records to be released? Also, just because there was evidence of manual penetration doesn't mean it was JR. It could have been Burke and it doesn't have to necessarily indicate that he had sexual intentions towards his sister. There really is no great evidence connecting JR with molesting JBR, which sort of makes the theory that he killed her less plausible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evidence of manual penetration plus the fact that no intruder theory makes any sense at all, would be enough to indict John on the basis of probable cause. While it is always possible that Burke could have been the one responsible for the vaginal injuries, clearly John is by far the most probable one of the three to have had a sexual interest in the victim. Once John was put on trial he'd have been free to cast the blame on either Burke or Patsy if he so chose. However, if both of them denied it, then it's hard to see why a jury would want to acquit him. And if one of them confessed, then we'd be a lot closer to the truth.

      There is a lack of evidence directly connecting any of them to the crime -- but if an intruder can be ruled out, then that doesn't really matter. Imo an intruder CAN be ruled out. And also if we look carefully enough at the facts we see that John is the only one of the three who can most certainly be ruled IN.

      Delete
    2. We have an autopsy that reveals chronic abrasion or erosion of the vaginal wall, which a highly respected forensic pathologist determined to be consistent with prior sexual abuse. This does not prove anyone in the house caused that. It could have been anyone (friends of family, someone at her school, relatives), or even JBR herself. There just is not evidence linking JR to the possible molestation other than it being more plausible that he did it. It is not even determined that JBR WAS actually molested based upon the reports - as you have pointed out.

      Highly suspicious of her medical records never being looked into or any authorities looking into who could have possibly caused the vaginal abrasions, even if the victim was deceased. Wouldn't the autopsy results start a new investigation into who could have possibly molested JBR? The investigation shouldn't have stopped at murder as the autopsy report opened a whole new door. Just because they couldn't prove anyone in the house killed JBR, they could have tried to prove that JBR was sexually molested by someone and that might have led them inadvertently to a potential murder suspect.

      Delete
    3. The molestation is not "possible." It happened. Her vagina was penetrated the night of the crime. No one other than Patsy, Burke or John were there at that time. While signs of chronic vaginal injury were found, and suggest she'd been molested prior to the night of the crime, that means little compared to the acute injuries, which are facts, not suppositions. And since John was by far the most likely to have inflicted those, then he could be tried on the basis of probable cause. No need to fantasize about who else might have been abusing her. All the signs point to John, not anyone else.

      Delete
    4. If one assumes that the molester was also the murderer, which seems likely, then it is significant that the grand jury did not find probable cause to believe anyone murdered JB. Instead, John and Patsy were indicted only as aiders and abetters. So, I don't know that there did or does exist probable cause to believe John to be the molester.

      There is a second hurdle to bringing this case. At least in the federal system, pursuant to Justice Department guidelines, in order for a prosecution to be brought there must not only be probable cause, but also the 'reasonable likelihood' of getting a conviction. There are a couple of reasons for this: avoiding double jeopardy in a case where a defendant is acquitted only for law enforcement to later discover the proverbial 'smoking gun,' and the efficient allocation of scarce prosecutorial resources. I assume a similar policy exists in the Colorado state prosecutorial system.

      Assuming Doc's theory is correct, that John alone committed the murder and cover-up, it would be nice if the prosecutor could find experts tying John to the ransom note.

      Delete
    5. Trust me, I am not fantasizing. I am trying to think of all possibilities. If that is going to be catagorized as fantasizing, then I am not seeing the point of the blog. All signs do not point to JR as the acute molester that night. Yes, he was most likely to stage the murder and try to get rid of JBR's body, but there is just not a whole lot of evidence other than the belief that John is the only one "ruled in" (this is by your standards - not police/investigators who have been trained for years to solve crimes). Who is to even say JBR was molested that night? What if the acute injuries came from the act of staging the murder? What if JBR and BR were horsing around (weren't scrape marks found on JBR's legs, indicating she was dragged at some point)? What if JBR caused those injuries herself? I am not defending JR in the slightest, I am trying to consider all the possibilities. How do we know there was any intent to molest JBR? If it is possible to rule out the chronic abrasions as something as innocent as a bubble bath, then how are we to determine that the vaginal injuries the night JBR died were not caused just as innocently - but perhaps something went more wrong that night? I have trouble reconciling that JBR had chronic vaginal abrasions that were determined to not be caused explicitly by molestation, yet there was acute vaginal penetration the night of her death and that was most definitely molestation - plus she was murdered that night? What are the odds of that? There are too many missing pieces, unanswered questions about the night of the 25th to even garner an idea of how JBR's vaginal area was injured the night of her death. There would need to be more of an investigation into what happened when the Ramsey's got home and before the police arrived (JR's phone records, anyone?).
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    6. Let's add Burke's input on what happened from when the family got home until he woke up that morning to the list.
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    7. Mark, with regard to the vaginal injuries, I'm not talking about what the GJ found or did not find. We may never know any of those details. I'm talking about what WE can reasonably infer from the facts of the case. But if you want to consider the GJ, then consider that they clearly ruled out an intruder. If they bought the intruder theory, then they would not have wanted to indict the parents. As I see it, the only reason they didn't indict John was due to the fact that he'd been "ruled out" and that as a result Steve Thomas came up with the theory that Patsy might have killed JonBenet and staged the vaginal attack, which to me is simply ludicrous. I think it clear that they were never able to decide who did what but felt sure one of them had committed first degree murder. And don't forget that this phrase is part of their indictment. They never mentioned a conspiracy to cover up anything done by a third party, so it's clear to me that they felt sure one of them was guilty and the other assisted the guilty one. Only they couldn't tell which was which.

      Once we agree, on the basis of the new approach that I've taken here, that it makes no sense to consider Patsy as involved in any way, then the focus is, very simply on John. If you're talking probably cause, then HE is the most likely by far to have inflicted the vaginal injuries and thus the most likely to be the murderer. While strictly speaking, Burke can't be ruled out, when it comes to probable cause I think it's clear that we can go after the adult male rather than the 9 year old child.

      As far as "reasonable likelihood" of getting a conviction, I would think that once an intruder is ruled out, there is in fact an excellent likelihood of conviction. And if John would want to argue that Burke is actually the one who did it, let him. And let's see what Burke has to say about it.

      Delete
    8. Anon2, there've been so many red herrings tossed out in this case that it's easy to forget something very important. In the entire history of crime I don't think we have more evidence in any one case than we have in this one. We have the body of the victim. We know where she was killed, or at least that she was killed in her own home. We know how she was killed, more or less. We even have the weapons used, assuming the maglite is what was used to strike her, which seems likely. We also know that she was sexually assaulted on the night of the murder. We have clear evidence of staging, in the form of a broken window and a clearly phoney "ransom" note. We know that there was no evidence of forced breakin.

      All the evidence points away from an intruder and clearly in the direction of someone living in that house. We also know that the mother called 911 while the body was still in the house, making it extremely unlikely that she knew anything about either the note or the body in the basement. We also know that the note could not have been written by a 9 year old. AND we know that the father lied about breaking that window in order to distract the police away from seeing the broken window as staging. And there are other signs of staging at that window.

      So what more do we need? Sure, it's possible to argue that the 9 year old was the one who molested and killed the victim, but by FAR the one most likely to have done both is the only mature male in the house. I'm sorry, but to me that simply screams "probable cause." And as I said, once it's established that there could have been no intruder, then there is certainly a reasonable expectation of conviction. In view of everything we know about this case, to hesitate to prosecute simply because we might have some lingering doubt over whether John or Burke commuted these crimes would be not only wrong but immoral. And if in fact Burke is the guilty party, John would certainly have an opportunity to make that argument in court, so we would certainly not be treating him unfairly by putting him on trial.

      Just think about the Sandusky case, and Sandusky's argument that all these boys were accusing him solely because they were planning lawsuits and had been corrupted by their lawyers. Is there any way to prove his theory is absolutely positively wrong? I don't think so. But he was tried and convicted anyhow, and for good reason.

      Delete
    9. I don't think it is safe to assume that JBR was molested which led to her death that night, especially if there was previous chronic vaginal abrasions that are not deemed indicative of definite molestation. I don't think it is fair to pick and choose what constitutes molestation as a basis for cause of motive. It is understood that there was a staging after JBR was killed however who is to say that the molestation was not part of the staging and that no one actually molested JBR that evening prior to her death. If JBR had chronic abrasions that did not equate to being technically molested, why would she all of a sudden be molested that evening? If the Maglite was most likely the murder weapon, how was it that the Maglite was found in the kitchen and JBR's body was in the basement? And if JBR was molested that night, say in the basement, would JR bring the Maglite down to hit JBR on the head and then bring it back up to the kitchen? We know JBR had the pineapple, presumably in the kitchen, and that PR prepared the pineapple for JBR. PR and BR's fingerprints were found on the bowl. I know it is argued that the fingerprints could have been on there from a previous time, but they were on the bowl. JBR was at least present in the kitchen that evening, along with the supposed murder weapon. Wouldn't it be most "probable" that JBR was murdered in the kitchen?
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    10. Anon2, it looks to me like you are overthinking this case. Sure, all sorts of possibilities exist. It's possible that JonBenet just happened to be masturbating vigorously that night, and maybe this was the cause of the acute injuries to her vagina. Or it's possible that she had a really really intense bubble bath that day and that this is the cause of her vaginal injuries. And, yes, it's possible that the injuries resulted from her killer's attempt to stage an assault by some sex maniac who happened to sneak into the house, somehow. All sorts of things are possible.

      But realistically, when we see a murder victim with vaginal injuries severe enough to draw blood, we would normally assume the injuries were produced by the same person who killed her. And if this were any other case than the Ramsey case, I doubt anyone would seriously question that assumption. There are always going to be all sorts of possibilities in any such case, which is why it's important to focus on what seems likely and not get distracted by the sort of absurdities that have routinely been tossed out in the Ramsey case. While it's true that Steve Thomas argued that the vaginal injuries were inflicted post mortem by Patsy, to stage an intruder attack, to me that seems so far fetched as to be laughable. I simply can't imagine a mother who'd just accidentally killed her daughter deciding to stick a finger into her vagina to stage a sexual assault. That to me is ludicrous. But because of the way this case developed over the years, and the difficulties of sorting out who did what, that theory has been taken seriously to the point that for many it seems quite logical and not absurd at all. Which is why, if John is ever brought to trial, it will be necessary to find an unbiased jury untainted by that long history.

      It's important to remember that once John is put on trial he will have the opportunity to defend himself in any way he can. And if he or his attorneys want to argue that he had nothing to do with the vaginal injuries they'll be free to do that. He'll also be free to make the points you've made about the various inconsistencies you've noted.

      But such possibilities and such inconsistencies are NOT a reason to sit back and let this case ride forever without a trial. Everything we know about what happened that night and the following morning points to John and only John and there is most certainly probable cause to indict him. Once he's on trial he'll have ample opportunity to defend himself.

      Delete
    11. Do you think I am someone who has the ability to stop JR being indicted? Do you think lawyers will read this blog and see what some people are writing on here and use it to get out of indicting JR? It is really insulting to state that I am overthinking things and focusing on "absurdities". If a Police Detective can come up with the theory that someone inflicted the vaginal wounds as part of the staging, then surely there is something to that theory. If there is some protocol I need to follow on here as far as being able to not think for myself and only follow the "JR did it theory", then just direct me to those instructions, as I seem to have missed them.

      I am not sitting back and defending JR. Someone in the house killed JBR. It was one of the three other family members in the house that night. However, the more I learn, the more I question. If someone says the Maglite is most likely the murder weapon as it was wiped clean of fingerprints, then I will question what the murder weapon was doing in the kitchen when JBR's body was found in the basement. No one seems to be discussing that. I will question where JBR was molested, if she was in fact molested. Was she molested in the kitchen where the murder weapon was found? Is that a normal place to molest a child? If she was molested in the basement or even her bedroom, when was she hit on the head if the most likely murder weapon was found in the kitchen? If she was hit on the head in the kitchen (where the murder weapon is located), would she have been dragged down to the basement and then molested? If she was molested prior to being hit on the head, wouldn't there be more blood smeared on her body? What would be the reason for JR to hit JBR on the head if she was molested by him that night? If the flashlight were in the basement, why would someone bring it up into the kitchen and not hide it away? If JR is such an intelligent man who is able to evade the FBI, then wouldn't he be smart enough to not bang JBR over the head with a flashlight in order to keep her quiet? A grown man who is highly intelligent would know that banging a small, female six year old over the head with a flashlight would most likely inflict a mortal wound.
      (Anon2)




      Delete
    12. There are a few other things that concern me. One neighbor's account:

      Barbara Kostanick was the mother of a playmate of JBR's. She asserted: "The day before Christmas, JonBenet was at our house playing with Megan. The kids were talking about Santa, getting all excited. I asked JonBenet if she had visited Santa Claus yet. She said, “Oh, Santa was at our Christmas party the other night.” Megan had seen Santa at the Pearl Street Mall, so we talked about that. Then JonBenet said, “Santa Claus promised that he would make a secret visit after Christmas.” I thought she was confused. “Christmas is tonight,” I told her. “And Santa will be coming tonight.” “No, no” JonBenet insisted. “He said this would be after Christmas. And it’s a secret” (Schiller 1999:38-39).

      What if the man who played Santa, Bill McReynolds, came over to the house late at night and with JR's permission, molested JBR. This would give more than enough credibility to the fact JBR was hit on the head as getting caught with another person there while molesting JBR would more than likely cause problems for both McReynolds and JR. If it were just JR, then he could always explain away as we know he does very well. I don't think JR molesting JBR on his own would lead to her death. McReynolds would then leave quickly and JR would clean up the crime scene and stage the kidnapping/murder. I just don't buy that JR molested JBR alone and then hit her with a flashlight. There had to be some other reason for a wound that severe to be inflicted onto JBR and the thought of getting caught while someone else was there would be enough reason for them to act so aggressively. The ruse of Santa coming over to see JBR as a special secret would have worked as it would have caused JBR to be quiet that night and keep it a secret. Quite despicable.

      Also, McReynolds could have molested JBR, with JR's knowledge, and JBR could have died from asphyxiation due to the cord on her neck, and then was hit on the head to formulate a complete death scene. There would be no way to cover up that JBR died from having a cord around her neck, as opposed to explaining away a blow to the head which could be caused by anything (falling down stairs for example). I think the cord death came first, they hit her on the head to ensure complete death, wrote the ransom note explaining JBR would be "beheaded" (as opposed to shot with a gun, or any other vague reference for murder)which would explain why she had the cord around her neck. The RN specifically tired to explain why JBR had the cord around her neck, as if she was in the process of being beheaded. Complete deflection from the sexual game. Am I on the right track?

      Delete
    13. "It is really insulting to state that I am overthinking things and focusing on "absurdities"."

      I didn't mean to insult you and I'm sorry you feel that way. I do think Steve Thomas' theory that Patsy inflicted those vaginal injuries to stage an intruder attack IS absurd, sorry but that's how I see it. But most of the things you question are in fact not easy to explain, from ANY pov and you certainly have a right to raise these issues.

      From where I sit, however, these are old questions that keep coming up over and over again and will never be resolved until we, hopefully, some day have a confession. So I'm sorry but I get a bit impatient when I hear them yet again.

      I'm not sure why it's so important to you that the maglite was found in the kitchen rather than the basement. We don't really know what room she was struck in, but I see no reason why her attacker could not have decided to set the maglite down on the kitchen table. Maybe he thought it better to hide it in plain sight than try to stash it in some dark corner. What's important is that the prints were wiped clean, even on the batteries, which suggests an inside job for sure, since an intruder would simply have taken it with him.

      As for your other questions, these represent what I've called "the morass," because if you try to understand every detail you'll never get anywhere. That's what's been happening on the forums for years and they keep going around in circles over these things. I'm sorry but I can't explain most of them either, but as far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter. Because as I see it, we already have all the FACTS we need, facts that have been confirmed and are well understood.

      Delete
    14. "What if the man who played Santa, Bill McReynolds, came over to the house late at night and with JR's permission, molested JBR."

      There are hundreds of such "what ifs" in this case and you can drive yourself crazy just thinking about them. As I see it, we have no choice but to stick with what we KNOW FOR SURE about this case. And if we do, then the truth emerges. There was no reason for ANY intruder to have done what was done that night, not Santa, not Fleet White, not any of the other 20 or so people who seem so much like perfect suspects. Did they all do it?

      Anything is possible, but if you let yourself be mesmerized by all those possibilities then you'll never get anywhere, sorry if that offends you but that's how I feel.

      Delete
    15. "
      From where I sit, however, these are old questions that keep coming up over and over again and will never be resolved until we, hopefully, some day have a confession. So I'm sorry but I get a bit impatient when I hear them yet again."

      If you have a blog that new people are continuously joining on a frequent basis, you MIGHT want to consider closing it off to only a few select people that do not question anything (or you) as you might get annoyed on a daily basis. Just my POV.
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    16. I'm sorry but I think you're being unfair. I allow everyone with every point of view to post here (so long as it isn't obvious spam), I don't censor anyone on the basis of whether or not they agree with me. But on the other hand I am not required to agree with you either.

      Delete
    17. I'm being completely fair. I question what you say, what everyone says here on the board, but I don't insult, demean, or patronize. I think my posts speak for themselves, as do your posts.

      Delete
    18. I'm not aware that I was insulting, demeaning or patronizing you. If something strikes me as absurd, I have no problem expressing that thought. And if your feelings are hurt, that's too bad. My intention was not to insult you or dismiss your questions, but simply to express what I think, and I have a right to do that, just as you have a right to disagree.

      I've actually been extremely patient with you and have tried to take your many questions seriously. But I'm sorry I don't have time to drop everything and once again, for the umpteenth time, go over all these issues in depth again and then yet again every time someone brings them up. I'm not running a seminar on the case, though at times it might seem that way.

      As I've made clear on this blog, there are a great many aspects of this case that pose interesting questions but are basically inconclusive, and thus can never bring us closer to the truth, no matter what we prefer to think about them. I tend to avoid them, especially because, as I see it, we already have enough solid facts to solve the case unequivocally.

      Delete
    19. DocG wrote on November 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM:

      "It's important to remember that once John is put on trial..."

      As most of us here can't wait for that day to come (keepin' my fingers crossed) is there somethin' you know that we don't? Or is this statement more like an example of the power of positive thinkin'? :-)

      And speakin' of the power of positive thinkin':

      Since ya've gotta pretty good followin' here, what if, on a predetermined day & time we collectively direct all thought & energy out into the universe demandin' that JR finally be brought to justice?

      Think it'll work? ;-)

      Delete
  28. About prior sexual abuse. In the last interview Patsy had with police they tell her towards the end of interview about prior abuse. She claims she was hearing about it for the first time and in my opion seems genuinely shocked. One of the investigators tell her it's a fact. He swears it's medical fact. Patsy makes him swear it . Then she dismisses it.
    This crime has nothing to do with kidnapping and everything to do with child sexual assault. Incest at that. To question prior sexual abuse is absurd and illogical. If you were a scientist with a dead little girl on a table with "fresh" evidence of sexual assault along with previous "older" indicators what would make you even second guess the "older" markings? Plus we are positive she was "sexualized" in living life. I've seen the videos,only very sick parents would partake in the coaching and styleing of a six year old to act "sexy". She has more moves the an average flirty adult. JBR was extremely flirtatious. That is not normal and for sure she learned and was encouraged to act that way. Even the name "Jonnie B" sounds like a strippers name. That's what they called her at home. Jonnie B was made to wear heels, a pound of makeup, and traditional vegas show girl costuming. All at a tender innocent age of six.
    The reason this case did not go through like the jury wanted (keep in mind the jury represents us the general pulic) is becuase historically society protects sexual predators with good standing in society. Case after case you will find whole network of family members and friends protecting the abuser and shunning the victim. Particularly with father/daugher incest. I know it sounds crazy but it's the standard for the mother to side with the father. Just know, dysfunction begets(no pun intended) dysfunction. alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "About prior sexual abuse. In the last interview Patsy had with police they tell her towards the end of interview about prior abuse."

      I looked through the transcript for the 1998 interview and couldn't find it. There were questions about possible abuse in Patsy's family, but no reference to the abuse of JonBenet. I also couldn't find any reference to abuse in the 2000 interview. Can you be more specific?

      I agree with the rest of your comment. JonBenet was definitely sexualized and yes, since John was a respectable and successful businessman there has been a reluctance to suspect him of abuse. Even among those convinced of "Ramsey" guilt, most find it easier to suspect Patsy or Burke than John.

      Delete
  29. I agree that society protects sexual predators. Look at the amount of time someone spends in jail for smoking a joint/selling drugs vs. someone who molests or sexually assaults another person. Is the joint really that big of a deal?? Someone's entire life is ruined when they are assaulted sexually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well look at the Sandusky case and the many years that went by before he was finally brought to trial. Meanwhile he continued with his abuse, years after the problem should have been obvious to the authorities.

      Delete
  30. Johnny Cochran said "if the glove dont fit,you must acquit" and the jury bought it hook line and sinker. The jury must have figured that despite the mountain of evidence against OJ, the gloves "couldnt" have fit so it must be someone else. The reason I say this is because as Doc has said a hundred times, JR helped rule himself out so early on with the handwriting experts that it almost felt as if the investigation was searching for a reason to find someone else guilty.
    All the evidence points to JR and every time there might be a theory of an intruder, or PR or BR, it still doesnt explain JR lying about the basement window. He flat out lied about it and even if he didnt commit the crime, WHY LIE TO THE POLICE???????

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, J, the "rule out" decision may well be the equivalent of the non-fitting glove in the OJ case. Of course, the glove may well have shrunk, and John may well have written the note in spite of what the experts thought. John's lies about the broken window ought to have been sufficient to get the authorities to re-examine the note, and rethink the decision to rule John out. But that decision was fixed in concrete and would NEVER be questioned by anyone associated with the investigation.

      Delete
  31. Please refresh my memory as to how John Ramsey lied to police about the window. I know his story about breaking it earlier when he was locked out sounds a little vague and unbelievable in parts, but he admitted finding the window open the morning of the 26th and has always stuck to that story (and has maintained that that is how an intruder got in).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Doc could better explain, but JR months after the murder sort of remembered the summer before the crime having to break in thru that window. Then he couldnt remember if they had it repaired or not and neither could PR. The housekeeper said she has no memory of the window ever being broken. He also said he told Detective Arndt about finding the window open that morning, but I dont believe that has ever been verified.
    So, 2 scenarios: 1) JR did in fact break the window previously and they just never had it repaired which is competey ridiculous OR 2) the window was broken the night of the crime, even though there is pretty clear evidence that nobody could have entered the house thru that window.
    If the window wasnt broken previously, there is strong evidence that the whole scene was staged.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To quote Mr. Monk, here's what (I think) happened:

      1. John stages the window breakin, complete with broken window, packing peanuts from window well strewn on floor, suitcase placed under window. He neglects to actually go through the window and open the grate, feeling sure he'll have plenty of time to complete his staging the following day and night -- assuming Patsy would be to frightened to call the police.

      2. Patsy calls the police anyhow. They arrive and soon notice the spider web connecting the undisturbed window grate to the lawn. John sees them and realizes that his staging is about to backfire. He runs down to the basement, cleans up most of the glass and closes the window, telling no one about it because at this point he does not want attention drawn to that window.

      3. Later, when he and Fleet go down to the basement looking for JonBenet, John makes a point of reassuring Fleet that he himself broke that window on an earlier occasion, when he'd lost his keys. This is a complete fabrication, designed to misdirect attention away from his otherwise obvious window breakin staging.

      4. Months later, when John is (finally) questioned, he suddenly "reminds" himself that he had found that window open, and then closed it. Why did he say nothing at the time? and then spill the beans only months later? Because the situation had changed. He was no longer as vulnerable as before, because he'd been "ruled out" as writer of the note -- and the authorities had not arrested him, so he must have felt confident they believed his story about breaking the window earlier. Meanwhile, I have a feeling he was getting some signals from Lou Smit, who was in the process of convincing himself that someone may have entered via that window after all. So, by the time his police interview rolled around it probably seemed convenient for John to help Lou out by testifying that he'd seen that window open -- which would have been consistent with an intruder having left via the window -- after boosting himself up on the suitcase. Since John had good reason to believe the police had found the window shut and latched, it was important for him to convince them that he was the one who shut and latched it, meaning the "intruder" must have left it open after he exited the house.

      I know this sounds complicated but really it's not. John originally needed to point away from the window, but after he got the all clear and needed an entry/exit point for an intruder, he changed his story.

      Delete
    2. Patsy's art supplies were in the basement. Wouldn't she have known if a window was broken or not?
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    3. No question she would have known about a broken window. But so would the housekeeper. And if Patsy had known about it, she would certainly have had it repaired as soon as possible. But as we know, if Patsy and John had been conspiring the 911 call would not have been made when it was. So the only explanation is that she was either manipulated by John into lying to support him, or he was able to implant a false memory in her mind.

      Delete
    4. I think you are set on the theory that JR was going to get rid of JBR's body from the house. They didn't find any evidence that would indicate that JBR was stashed away anywhere else prior to being in the wine cellar. If the approximate time of murder was very early on in the morning of the 26th, say midnight to 2 am, then that would leave more than enough time to get rid of the body, and better to do it when it is dark outside rather than in daylight. In fact, why even write the RN to begin with indicating to leave the house and get the money - and leave it to be found when PR woke up? We know JR is a liar, he could have made some excuse that he got a call in the middle of the night that JBR was taken from the home or that he woke up to find JBR in the kitchen and someone came to the door with a gun trying to rob the house and took JBR. Why didn't JR just take JBR's body out to the car and drive away, put her somewhere, then go home and write the note if he wanted this elaborate plan to go off without a hitch. Why would he wait until early morning when it is daylight and when people would be out and about to finally try and get JBR's body out of the house? I know the whole theory is that JR couldn't get the body out of the window, but who is to say that he couldn't just carry JBR outside covered in a blanket or bag in the dead of the night? I know that it will be argued that it would seem more logical to leave the house once with JBR during the following of the RN instruction, but wouldn't it have made sense to put JBR's body in the car in the middle of the night if that was the plan? I don't even think the staging makes any sense unless they WANTED police to find her body in the home. Unless we get JR's phone records proving otherwise, I believe he called people that early morning and got help. Legal help. Medical help. I believe he was advised to keep JBR's body in the house as there would be less evidence to implicate them as opposed to if JBR's body were found outside the home and however he transported her body outside. I think they were advised to mess up the crime scene by bringing all their friends over that morning. I don't know how PR fits into all this (the possible molestation/murder/staging) but I just can't buy that she wouldn't read the entire note and would not want to follow it to the "t" in order to save her daughter. I know you can argue that emotions took over, which I can understand would be the cause of her calling the police, but not her entire rolodex of friends, especially if the note said to not talk to anyone. That doesn't add up with the PR was so upset on the 911 call, PR was so upset when the police arrived, PR was too distraught to leave the couch. Please. Any mother would be too scared to move if she found a note that says to not talk to anyone, to just get the money, and wait for our call, or your daughter gets beheaded. They would not call over all their friends and their daughter's pediatrician?? Anyone would feel tremendous guilt if their daughter were found "dead" after reading a note that said to not talk to anyone or your child gets killed. If you argue that PR didn't read the entire note before she called 911 and her entire group of friends to come over, then didn't read the entire note at any time during the many HOURS long time they sat with police that day, then, when JBR's body was found, didn't express any guilt that perhaps she should have read the entire note and followed the instructions or else perhaps her child would still be alive. I just don't buy it....at all. Unless JR coaxed her to call 911 and the friends that morning... however PR never indicated that to be the case.
      (Anon2)

      Delete
    5. John didn't attempt to dump the body that night because it would have been far too risky. Sure, he could easily have gotten the body into the trunk of his car, since the garage was attached to the house. No need to climb through the basement window or any other window. But what if Patsy had been awakened by the sound of the car starting up or the garage door opening. What if a neighbor had spotted his car driving off on the same night it would later be determined his daughter had been killed? What if someone had spotted his car near where the body was dumped? Sure, he could have taken the risk, but as we know he didn't. Which was probably a wise decision because if Patsy hadn't called 911 he could have dumped the body the following night and if anyone had seen him he could have said he was delivering the ransom. Perfect alibi.

      As for the rest, again, I see no point in going around in circles trying to understand why the friends were called, why John didn't stop Patsy from making the call, why Patsy made the call ignoring all the threats, etc., etc., etc.

      The FACT is that the body was in the house when the police arrived. The FACT is that Patsy did in fact make that call despite the threats. The FACT
      is that friends were called in, for whatever reason. We have no choice but to stick with the facts and not feel we need to account for every single odd and inconclusive thing that happened or that might have happened.

      Delete
  33. And all the while cold air (and snow/rain) is blowing into the basement room because of the broken glass, as it has done so since summer--fall--and now winter, while the kids played down there, Christmas gifts were stored, and laundry was done. All into a millionaire's home that had housekeeping services and lawn maintenance people. So unbelieveably crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish there were a "like" button

      Delete
  34. Thanks for the great explanation! You write so well and everything you say makes sense. I think I finally understand some of the oddities of this whole window scene.

    When exactly did John get the "all clear" and by whom? I've been researching this case and haven't come across any details about this. Everything I've read seems to have been written AFTER he was already cleared and the focus was on Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, by "all clear" I meant that at a certain point John must have realized that his preposterous window story had been accepted, so it was no longer necessary to misdirect the investigators away from that window. What then mattered was to direct them BACK to the window, in the hope that his original staging might be made to fly after all. Because even if John had broken the window earlier that doesn't mean it could not have been used by "the intruder" to both enter and leave the house. And since Lou Smit was buying into that idea, then his attitude could also have been an "all clear" signal for John to report that he'd found that window unlatched and open. So the talented John Ramsey would have had the benefit of both the staging AND the unstaging.

      Delete
  35. It's creepy to think that he was so clever to hide such an evil act. And now he could get an academy award for his acting the innocent, suffering father. Creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Doc, PR june 23 1998 interveiw page 0581...Sorry there's so much material in this case.It's literally at the end of the interview. alexandra

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, thanks. Sorry, I missed that portion of the interview. Now I've found it. Thank you much, that's very interesting.

      A few things occur to me:

      First, Armistead confesses that this was something he knew about and yet Patsy claims never to have heard anything about it before. If she's telling the truth, and I think she is, why wasn't she informed by Armistead or any of the other people they had working for them?

      Second, I find it very interesting that Haney never actually asks her if she thinks it possible that John was molesting JonBenet. He certainly seems to be implying that, but he never actually comes out and says it. This strikes me as consistent with the entire tendency of the investigation, to look away from John and focus on Patsy.

      Finally, while this does look like something that should have made Patsy suspect John, we can't forget that in her mind the note could only have been written by "the intruder," since John had been "ruled out." And as Armistead correctly states, there was considerable debate about the meaning of those vaginal injuries, so it would have been easy for Patsy to see what she wanted to see, i.e., that they had an innocent source. The only other alternative would have been both unacceptable and also illogical to her.

      Delete
  37. Doc, not that I believe this, but has it been considered that JBR wasnt in fact being molested until that night and JR simply sexually assaulted her after she was dead to further the "intruder" theory? For whatever reason he kills her and then sexually assaults her, ties her up to further cover up the murder? I do tend to lean towards the long term sexual abuse by JR, but just interesting that everybody who believes PR killed JBR over wetting the bed.......how do we know that JR didnt kill her for the same reason?
    Again, I dont believe that, just interesting as you have stated that he murdered her to stop her from talking, so if she wasnt being molested prior to that night, then the motive could be a million things or simply JR overreacted.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there are literally a million things it could be. In ANY such case it's possible to dream up all sorts of alternative scenarios. And in every case there are going to be certain doubts about what happened. But we can't let ourselves be distracted by all those possibilities, we have to concentrate on what seems most likely in the face of the evidence and the facts seen in the light of logic and common sense.

      Yes, if John had been planning on having the body found in the house by the police then it might have made sense for him to stage a sexual assault by inserting his finger in her vagina. But if that were the case, then there would have been no need for a "ransom" note. The note tells us the plan was to get the body out of the house and dump it before calling in the police. And under such circumstances there would have been no need to stage a sexual attack, the "kidnapping" and murder would have been more than adequate. Kidnappers kill to protect their identity, no need to turn them into sexual predators as well.

      Delete
    2. Good call, again I honestly didnt believe that, but didnt know if it was considered.

      Thanks!

      Delete
  38. As long as we're digging up old material about this case, here is something I found. I'm not sure the sources are reliable, but it is still interesting. Anything John says is interesting to me.

    http://www.lsiscan.com/ramsey_s_t_v__interview.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, anything John says interests me as well. But this "analysis" is a perfect example of why I can't take profiling seriously. The author makes one assumption after another and none of them make much sense, as far as I can see.

      Delete
  39. Why is this individual questioning how the murder weapon ended up in the kitchen? Um, it was wiped down, which means that John did not want anyone to be able to point the finger at him. He also redressed JonBenet in the wrong underwear.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Doc, what bothers me to no end was the investigations focus on the author of the RN based solely on handwriting and not content. If they did feel that PR was the author of the not and it went to trial, there is no way in hell that I would hve fond her guilty as there is wayyyyy to much room for reasonable doubt.
    I have seen so many cases on Dateline and 48 Hours where after 20+ years a fresh new set of eyes looks at a case and it is blown wide open. So, here is to hoping that happens with this case!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Doc, I agree with you (and many others) that this was an inside job. No intruder. So, in analyzing the three remaining suspects, I have these questions/comments:

    You've mentioned quite a few times that John Ramsey was the only "adult male" in that house that night, which furthers your believe that he was the one who killed Jon Benet. What exactly do you mean by "adult male" and how exactly does that point towards him and not Burke? There was so semen found to my knowledge.

    As to Patsy sexually assaulting her daughter, I don't find that hard to believe. If a woman could put all three of her children in a car and let the car slide into a pond of water so they would drown, I don't see why people would find it so hard to believe Patsy could have been sexually assaulting JB. I would agree that it doesn't make sense that she would call the police so early if she WAS the one responsible, but who knows. I don't think she was as intelligent as John, and she might have thought it would, in fact, point to her innocence if she DID make that 911 call when she did. After all, many people did feel it was a "kidnapping gone bad" and maybe that's exactly what she hoped people would think and, therefore, it would not be unusual for the body to still be in the house.

    As to John, yes it seems he is the most probable murderer. More than anything, because I think he was the smartest and most conniving of all three people and he would be clever enough to cover up the murder and confuse the police. Patsy was not that savvy and would have slipped up somewhere, and Burke was not only not that smart, but I think he would have cracked under police questioning.

    Such a fascinating case!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe what I should have said was "sexually mature male." John was, Burke was not. Nine year old boys are not interested in girls. Period. While there are exceptions to every rule, I see no reason why Burke should be seen as an exception, as there is no sign he ever exhibited any such tendencies during that time period. Nor do I see any reason to assume Patsy would have had any sexual interest in her daughter, as there were never any signs of that sort of interest at any time during her entire life. While one might think the same could be said of John, in fact we know very little about John as he was away from home much of the time, often overseas on "business" trips. Patsy, on the other hand, was living in a fish bowl, constantly surrounded by friends and people helping her with household duties. Surely someone would have noticed if she'd exhibited any sexual interest in females, not to mention six year olds.

      So, just because Susan Smith drowned her children, under extreme emotional pressure and in a suicidal state, does not make it any more believable that Patsy would have a sexual interest in her daughter.

      As for the 911 call, I'm sorry but if Patsy had taken all that time and effort to pen such a long, detailed note, filled with very precise instructions as to what to do and not to do, it's very hard to believe she'd have wanted to completely undermine her effort by calling the police before getting rid of the body. And handing them a hand written note written in HER hand, to be used as evidence that could send her to the electric chair. One can, of course, always argue that "anything is possible" and we have "no way of knowing for sure" what was going on in someone else's mind at a time of stress, but that is not a license to toss logic and common sense out the window.

      Yes, the case is fascinating. But as I see it, it's not anywhere close to being the deep mystery most people see it as. Once we rule John back in, and see that he's by far the most likely to have written the note, then there is no longer much of a mystery.

      Delete
  42. As always, you explain things so perfectly. Like many people, I tend to get off on these tangents that cause me to look again at other possible scenarios and suspects. It's quite easy to do. But you always bring me back to square one and I realize that, yes, this case is NOT as complicated as I make it through constant analyzation, and if I just look at John as the writer of that note and remind myself of his crazy stories and lies about the window, I am once again totally convinced he is guilty.

    Masterful writing, Doc. I've said it before . . . you need to write a book!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Happy Thanksgiving, Doc.

    RIP Jon Benet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much. Hope everyone reading here enjoyed their Thanksgiving as much as I did. Had a great dinner with old friends.

      Delete
  44. I don't imagine the conversation over your dinner was the Jon Benet murder case! If it were at my table, I'd still be sitting there discussing it! This case has mesmerized me.

    I did have a dream that John Ramsey had been reading this blog secretly and then, through some major sleuthing, he was discovered and he ultimately confessed. Wouldn't that be nice? Do you ever wonder if he has (or still does) read this blog? I have to believe that he is haunted by what he did and would still be somewhat fearful of a possible future indictment. IOr maybe he is so arrogant and selfish that it never crosses his mind.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I just read the transcript of Larry King's interview of John Ramsey, December 2006. Very interesting. Besides the scattering of "percentage" usage (there are several), John says this in response to a caller asking why JBR's headstone says she died on December 25:

    CALLER: Hi.

    This is kind of a petty question but it bothers me nonetheless. Why is it that on the gravestone for JonBenet it lists 12-25, Christmas Day, when according to the accounts that I've read, it was the early morning hours of the 26th when she actually passed away?

    J. RAMSEY: Well, that's a good question. We don't know exactly when she passed away. I made that decision because the ransom note said, "I will contact you tomorrow."

    And so my presumption was that that ransom note and her death occurred the night before. It was just -- there's been no clear definition of exactly what hour she died.

    ***********

    I'd be interested to know what you think about his comment, Doc.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, that's an interesting find. John's explanation actually makes no sense, though. If the phone call actually had come that morning, then it would be logical to assume that “today” for the “intruder” would have been prior to midnight and that JonBenet had probably been killed on the 25th. But in fact there never was any phone call. Moreover, the writer of the note clearly meant “tomorrow” to be the 27th, not the 26th. We know that because there was no way John was going to be collecting a ransom from any bank prior to 8AM. John is just playing dumb here, because he certainly knew when JonBenet had died and he certainly knew “tomorrow” meant tomorrow, NOT this morning.

      Delete
  46. That's what I thought too. But I do think she died Dec. 25 and he knows it. I think most parents would NOT want the date of their child's death to be on a major holiday, like Christmas, if there is any possibility the date of death is the next day. I especially think Patsy would be against this since she loved the holidays so much and she still had Burke to spend future Christmases with. I think John convinced her to go with the 25th ---- not because of his interpretation of the note, but because he knew that was the proper date (to go along with her proper burial!).

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Doc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a point. John certainly wanted everything to be "proper."

      Delete
  47. Over the weekend, Nancy Grace Musteries was on, and sure enough this case covered. Of all the stuff shown, one thing glaringly stuck out to me. They showed the Larry King 2000 interview and at one point Larry asks the Ramseys when the body was found. JR responded something like "they found her a few hours after the police came." "THEY?????" JR was the one who found his daughter and yet he said "they" which just perplexed me. It ultimately proves absolutely nothing, other than JR alway seems to never really put himself near the crime.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If he actually said "they," then that's very revealing, yes. Thanks. My suspicion is that John has distanced himself from the murder and at this point might have even convinced himself he had nothing to do with it, and actually IS the innocent victim he's portrayed himself as.

      Delete
  48. It goes to show that JR has a selective memory about things that no parent who lost a child in this way would EVER forget. It shows that he lies, changes his story, and as you point out, never puts himself near the crime. If he were covering up for Patsy, I think he would spend more effort putting them both away from the crime. Yet he never defends her, its always, always, always, about JR looking out for JR.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Yes, I actually just watched that portion of the interview again and he says "they" twice. Larry King asks when the first time they saw their daughters boy, and JR responds something like "you mean when they found her? Well, they found her..." Its just so weird to say "they" twice when he was clearly the one who found her.
    Doc, why do you think JR didnt get up before PR and make sure to see the note 1st to ensure that he could have explained the not calling the police? My only explanation would be that it would take a very good acting job by JR to sell the contents of the note to PR. In his head he must have thought that PR HAD to be the one to find the note. What do you think?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all we don't really know exactly what happened, do we? All we know about what happened then is what they've told the authorities and what they wrote in their book. Oh, and also what Patsy said in the A&E documentary, which contradicted the book.

      That said, I think John probably felt it would be better for Patsy to find the note, because it might look too suspicious if he was the one who found it. Just like the person who finds the body is generally considered suspect in homicide investigations generally. The note was a cog in a little machine he constructed and Patsy was another cog. Wind up the machine and let it run on its own, with minimal input from him. That's how I see it, anyhow.

      I don't think he ever anticipated that she would have needed any "help" from him in reading the note or paying attention to the warnings. He assumed she'd read it, read the warnings, and agree with him to go along with the wishes of the "kidnappers" and not call the cops. I'd have assumed that myself, to be honest. For some reason she panicked and called 911 anyhow. That's how things are in real life, as opposed to a murder mystery or the game of Clue.

      Delete
  50. PR is usually the one to be described as over the top, but this RN, by JR, is really OTT. SFF, surveillance, counter-measures, movie lines. SBTC. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  51. He had an alter ego or two...one of which did the crime. That's why it's easy to say "I didn't do it." (The alter ego did it.) That's my theory on how I think killers rationalize their actions when they deny deny deny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's occurred to me that he might have multiple personality disorder, yes. But I'd assume there would have been signs of that. I wonder, though, because one gets the impression John spent lots of time on his own and off the charts, and that could still be the case.

      Delete
  52. But I do think he definitely knows his alter ego did it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. ...and that also is consistent with him stating he didn't necessarily want to know who did it (like Patsy did) but why. I think he already knew who did it (himself), but was genuinely puzzled why he flipped into his alter ego. That was have been very unsettling and troubling to his main ego. Just my opinion of course.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I read someone's comment in another forum (can't remember which one) regarding John's statement that "they" found the body. The person suggested that the reason John said "they" is because HE already knew where the body was; "they" (everyone else) did not. Do you suppose he slipped when he said this?

    ReplyDelete
  55. You know, I didn't cross my mind that he had multiple personality disorder/dissociative identity....I'm wondering if you can have multiple personas or a split personality without that diagnosis. Yes he was skilled at leading a "double" life--he had an affair for a couple years with his first wife. And he was off the radar a lot with his travels--even overseas. He could present any persona he wanted to when on his own. I wouldn't doubt it would be easy to do and probably not that uncommon and even titillating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's possible John had/has multiple personalities but that's hard to say. I can understand someone snapping into a different personality, killing someone, and then snapping back and forgetting he did it. But that ransom note is very carefully thought out and was very carefully penned, and it's long. Not only that but it was part of a plan that involved staging at the basement window and also following through the next day with a trip to the bank, dumping the body, etc. Not sure if someone can remain in an alternate state of mind that long and also think so clearly while in such a state.

      Delete
    2. Good points. After the initial panic of killing her( in an altered state) he would have had to immediately snap back to reality and get into major cover-your-tracks mode--which he certainly did, as you describe. Ironically that would take a lot of ego strength (and an entire night) to accomplish all that. Yet he still ran out of time. JonBenet most likely did die on Christmas night.

      Delete
  56. Another part that is fascinating is that JR seemed to like controlling/manipulating things, so it would make sense for him to find the RN and instruct PR what to do. But, in this case, I believe JR didnt necessarily write the RN for the police or investigators, but wrote it specifically for PR. A 3 page note doesnt make sense, but maybe JR felt he had to spell it our perfectly for PR to keep her from calling the police. His mistake was that when a child goes missing, PR reacted like any parent would, which would be in a hysterical state of mind.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I think he wrote it specifically for Patsy to find, and much in it was intended for her -- first to discourage her from searching the house, second to scare her into not calling the police. But it was also written to give him a reason to be seen driving around in the area where the body would eventually be discovered.

      Delete
    2. I too think it was primarily written for PR to read. But the police would have to know enough about it to know it was "real" and to know at least some of the details, because as the investigation goes on they'll need to know why JR takes out $118K, why his car was gone for several hours on the 27th, etc. Elsewhere on this blog it's been suggested JR might have given the cops a photocopy of the RN, "returning" the original as per the kidnapper's demand. I think that very likely was part of the plan, but if so, then it follows the note would have to consider that the police are a secondary audience for the RN.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it was written for Patsy, but also to convince the police that there was a reason for not calling them at first, and also for John to be seen near the place where the body would eventually be found. However, I feel sure John would not have given the police a photocopy, but would probably have provided them with a copy typed into his computer or written out on paper by him. He would have wanted them to be aware of the contents but not the handwriting.

      Delete
  57. I'm always leery of armchair psychoanalysis. We have no solid reason to think JR had multiple personalities. Humans (all of us) are capable of terrible things w/o developing alternate personalities to do the dirty work.

    He said "they", most likely, to distance himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree regarding armchair psychoanalysis. And I do find it difficult to "blame" the murder on multiple personality disorder. Not only out of skepticism, but also from an assessment of John's behavior in the months and years following the crime. Throughout that entire period there was definitely one very cold and very strong personality, in control of not only himself, but also Patsy, his investigative and legal team, and ultimately the District Attorney's office.

      Delete
  58. We can all agree that anyone who will molest a little girl, then murder her, has to be mentally disturbed. John may have been born with a mental problem or acquired one during his upbringing. Regardless, he has a serious mental problem. He was not able to control his sexual urges, he willfully molested and murdered a child who was his own child, and he coldly distances himself from his actions. Normal people who do evil things eventually confess, or at least feel some level of remorse. In my mind, John Ramsey is nutcase and its just terrible that Patsy ever fell for this guy and married him. She was truly a sucker for his wily ways.

    ReplyDelete
  59. On behalf of all people with mental issues(myself included I'm bipolar) evil,perversion,greed,selfishness, etc. have nothing to do with mental sickness it is a character defect. A psychopath is a term that labels citizens not mentally ill people. When you encounter evil people in your life don't assume they have a medical condition. I don't mean to be so combative but this stigma really hurts me and all mentally ill people. Perpatrators of abuse don't have multiple personality disorder. It's the victim of excessive, repetative abuse that can develope a split or break off of one central personality. Its a defense so as to be able to endure insidious abuse.
    JR is a psychopath. That's not an illness. The hallmark of its features are 1.Great liar,good at putting up appearances. 2. Excessively selfish,materialistic,power hungry3.Usually have an addiction to sex and risky behavior 4.Enjoy watching failure,humiliation or pain in others,sadistic5. Are overly confident in themselves. Thats what makes them such good liars. alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Perpatrators of abuse don't have multiple personality disorder. It's the victim of excessive, repetative abuse that can develope a split or break off of one central personality. Its a defense so as to be able to endure insidious abuse."

    That's an excellent point, and I tend to agree. And I also agree that we need to distinguish between mental disorders in the usual sense and psychopaths. And by the way as far as John is concerned, I prefer the somewhat milder term, sociopath. We have no evidence that John Is a serial killer or has some sort of compulsion to molest little girls or anyone else. He appears to be someone who crossed a line at some point and at that point morphed into a very dishonest, very controlling individual, with no regard for the concerns of others, i.e., a sociopath.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The intruder theory really is getting weaker and weaker simply by taking a pragmatic
    approach.How did the intruder know where the Ramsey's were on Christmas?..
    What if he was in the kitchen getting the paper when the Ramsey's came home?. .
    What if the Ramsey's had watch dogs,or a silent alarm,or a housekeeper walking around?
    Also,how did he handle three pieces of paper during the whole process?What if
    one of the Ramsey's got up to use the bathroom etc..What if the Ramsey,s didnt
    go to bed and he was trapped in the house for days?If he was hiding ,how did he
    know the Ramsey's would not go into the area he was hiding in when they got home?..like a closet, for example.Seems like this would be super risky for any
    intruder to attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "We have no evidence that John Is a serial killer or has some sort of compulsion to molest little girls or anyone else. He appears to be someone who crossed a line at some point and at that point morphed into a very dishonest, very controlling individual, with no regard for the concerns of others, i.e., a sociopath."

    Brillliant Doc! I read this and it became all so clear to me how John was able to do such a heinous act and then manipulate, deceive and control everyone around him in order to protect himself. Your writing is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  63. One element of this case that is both bizarre and fascinating is Burke Ramsey. Either he was involved in the crime, though not likely or he knows some information that would help a cold case be solved. For years and years his parents have been accused through the public eye and his Mom went to her grave with a cloud of suspicion over her. So, the big question is, why hasn't BR broken his silence and provided the information he knows that could once and for all clear his parents name? He could have come out and lied saying he heard noises through the night or something that would turn the attention away from his parents. But, after all these years, nobody has heard ANYTHING from him. His sister was savagely murdered (by his Dad) and not 1 peep from him. Cant we draw the conclusion that BR hasnt said anything simply because the information he has would cause more suspicion and potentially an arrest of his Dad?
    He was 10 years old at the time and he had to notice behaviors or events that took place that could help the investigation along. Its easy to say that his silence doesnt mean anything, but imo if any person heard something or saw something that would help clear their parents name, they would say something! In fact, if JR was truly innocent, wouldnt he depserately want BR to talk and give a detail that would help him and PR?

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  64. Yes, of course he would. Not only hasn't Burke been willing to discuss the case, he hasn't even, to my knowledge, spoken up publicly in support of his parents even once in all these years. Burke might well have heard or seen something the night of the murder. And he would certainly have been in a position to overhear his parents discussing the case, both with each other and with their lawyers. The Ramseys always claimed they never ever even discussed the case with him or even questioned him about what he might have observed. Which is totally unbelievable. I'm sure that this is what they were told to say by their lawyers, because if they'd admitted to questioning Burke then they'd be expected to testify regarding what he might have told them, which might not have been the smartest thing to report.

    I do feel that Burke knows some things he's never made public and the only reason for withholding such information would be to protect his father. It's also possible that he's just psychologically shut the whole incident off from the rest of his memories, as though it never happened. But with patient questioning and possibly with the aid of hypnosis, I'm sure some very interesting facts would be revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  65. When Burke was questioned in 2010, did he give any interesting information to the investigators?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was never questioned. They approached him but he refused. No doubt under orders from John's lawyers.

      Delete
  66. At the very least, I believe PR and JR lied about Burke being asleep during the time when the RN was discovered. Certainly he would have heard his mother scream for JR when she read the note and wonder what was happening. And wouldn't you think his parents would wake him and ask him if he heard or saw anything during the night?? His testimony of what he heard and observed that morning could be extremely interesting. Unlike Kolar, I do not believe he was involved with JBR's murder. But I would agree that he knows something or, even more telling, suspects that his dad killed his sister. Under normal circumstances that would be a very hard thing for a boy to do, unless he observed behavior in his dad beforehand, and I suspect he did. But I would agree with you, Doc, that he very possibly suppressed his memory of this incident or anything else he may have witnessed between his dad and sister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He later claimed he was in fact awake but pretended to be asleep. Realistically, however, we have no way of knowing what went on in that house that morning. If all three had been questioned separately at that time or within the next few days, the case would no doubt have been resolved very quickly. But, of course, John could not permit that, it would have sealed his fate.

      Delete
  67. In addition, Kolar wrote a sleazy book about him, accusing HIM of sexual abuse and the killing of his sister. Isn't Burke getting sick of this garbage?

    ReplyDelete
  68. jonbenet was molested that night, which adds weight to the fact that she was being abused on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  69. the talented mr ripley, the talented mr ramsey, ha, ha.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I have watched and read numerous things saying that police always love to speak with the children right after a crime because they generally will just tell the truth. In this case, the investigation was so botched that we never got BR's account of what took place. I cant imagine what it was like for BR losing his sister, then having his Mom go through a cancer fight, all the while knowing or suspecting that his Dad was involved. Maybe when JR dies, we will finally know what BR knows, but until that happens, this case will unfortunately remain cold.
    I do wonder if JR brainwashed him or what he has hanging over him that has prevented BR from talking. JR may have even told BR that PR did it after she died to silence him further.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems strange that the crime scene was as horribly unsuccessful as it was. I mean, at one point it seems the entire country was trying to figure this case out, so how could John get away with it for so long. How did John and Patsy appear as confident as they were during all the televised interviews? I think John Ramsey is very intelligent, and very cunning, but outsmarting an entire country who is watching his every move seems a bit much. He has, for 17 years, outsmarted police, FBI, countless detectives and journalists, lawyers, doctors, friends, coworkers, his wife, children, ex-wife. No one has ever said anything against him. No one saw him do anything. No one heard anything. No one suspected anything. I doubt he could have been that smart for that long and there not appear to be a crack in his plan. I think there is more to the story. It can't be attributed to very good lawyers. Or luck.

      Delete
    2. John was given a "get out of jail free" card very early on when he was "ruled out" as writer of the note. Even Steve Thomas, who felt sure there was no intruder, gave him a "pass."

      Being so conveniently "ruled out," John was literally sitting in the cat bird seat, untouchable. No wonder he's been able to fool so many people for such a long time. Even those convinced there was no intruder are still to this day focused on Patsy and not John. So John didn't need to be "that smart for that long" so long as everyone else remained that dumb.

      Delete
    3. The key to this entire blog and Doc's logical analysis is that John was ruled out as the writer of the ransom note. Though the handwriting analysis is bogus and was never questioned, it sent this case into a tailspin. John took every advantage of that to manipulate Patsy, law enforcement, lawyers, and the public at large. Other than the acceptance of the handwriting analysis, I don't believe the crime scene was badly bungled at all. Fibers and DNA from family members are not that helpful, except for example the fiber from John's shirt that was found in new underwear placed on Jonbenet during the time that John was supposedly asleep. No fibers from complete strangers were found on her. No other evidence of an intruder was found. As Doc points out, you have 3 people in that house to look at. You can rule out Patsy and Burke for the reasons he gave and you're left with John. When you rule John back in, the RN makes total sense!

      Delete
  71. burke has never spoken about that night to anyone. he knows what happened, but he will never speak against his father, if john is responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  72. re, steve thomas. his theory about patsy killing jb over bedwetting is just crazy, but remember thomas had previously worked in narcotics. he does not understand murder cases that's why is theory is nuts. he does want justice for jonbenet, but he doesnt see what is obvious in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  73. santa, bill mcreynolds had heart surgery before jonbenet was murdered. he didnt do it. john through him under a bus, just like fleet white.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Honestly, BR is a waste. Obviously I dont nor does anybody else on this blog probably know him personally, but his lack of talking is irresponsible. In clearly trying to protect his Dad, his Moms name and reputation has and contiunues to be drug through the mud. Anything BR has to say could be helpful, especially whether or not he ever noticed the window in the basement being broken. Either BR did it or he is protecting his father, but knowing who did it without saying anything is completely insane! His sister was murdered and he apparently doesnt care enough to have the person who did it put to justice. Hes not 10 anymore and at some point isnt he going to grow up and do something!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not interested in what Burke might have to say about the window. If John was able to manipulate Patsy into going along with that story he may well have been able to do the same with Burke. The last word on the window will come when the investigative report on the condition of the glass is released -- if ever.

      As for the rest, in a way Burke has already "spoken" -- with his silence.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Burke would cover for his dad if he knew for sure that he killed JonBenet. He may have suspicions, but that isn't the same as knowing for sure. He was counseled by lawyers and John not to give prosecutors or the media anything that might be considered incriminating. To this point, he has remained loyal. I wonder if he will be so loyal after his father eventually passes away?

      Delete
    3. I don't think Burke knows his father killed his sister. Or even suspects it, because he, like Patsy, would have been convinced by the decision to rule John out as note writer. But I do think there are things he saw or heard or overheard that John and his lawyers don't want him to reveal. He did, as we know, testify for the Grand Jury, but that testimony is sealed. Obviously whatever he said wasn't much help to his parents, since GJ eventually voted to indict.

      Delete
  75. IMO Burke doesn't know anything. He was probably asleep when JBR was being molested and murdered. He'd been up early (probably) to see what Santa brought. He'd been up late at the party, and stayed up a while after getting home. When he went to bed he was zonked. He woke up when PR screamed about the RN. He doesn't know anything that happened that night, only what happened that morning. The police talked to him that day, w/o his parent's knowledge. Apparently he didn't reveal anything of any importance.

    Burke knows damn well if that window was broke since summer, or not. He played down there. But he wouldn't associate the window with JR killing JB. After all, JR was "ruled out", and what son want's to believe his dad killed his sister?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke knows some things about what went on between his mother and his father after the day of the murder and for months afterward, and probably also some things about what went on between his parents and their lawyers. He would not have been and would still not be bound by lawyer-client privilege, as far as I know. So, if he were finally to decide to talk, he'd have a lot of very interesting things to say that could definitely have a bearing on the case. For example, it would be interesting to learn whether Patsy and John ever disagreed on what happened that night, or if John tried to intimidate or manipulate Patsy into telling some "white lies." It would also be interesting to learn whether they asked Burke about what he knew or coached him on what to tell the Grand Jury. Etc. Burke could be a gold mine of information if he chose to be.

      Delete
  76. Maybe, maybe not. I doubt PR/JR would have any conversations concerning the murder in front of Burke. I doubt they'd be talking to their lawyers in front of BR.

    It would be interesting to know whether or not he was coached, but if he really was asleep until PR woke him up yelling about the note, then no coaching is needed, and indeed would be dangerous. He could tell what, if anything he heard from about 5:48 until he was "woken" later that morning - IOWs the time he pretended to be asleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. If John was such a control freak and was able to manipulate everyone, there would have been no way that he would let anyone, including his wife and son, know of anything other than what he wanted to project. There would be no coaching for Burke or anyone. Too risky. Any conversations between Patsy and John would have been done without Burke there. He was most likely left out as much as possible and otherwise simply told that if he talks about anything, someone could interpret what he says as evidence that he, John, or Patsy were responsible for the death of JonBenet. I bet that is why he is still silent to this day.

      Delete
  77. Is it true that one of the officers heard John Ramsey say when he was carrying JonBenet into the living room, "He didn't mean to do it because he wrapped her in a blanket" or something to that effect?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are confusing two different incidents. At some point Patsy was quoted as saying "we didn't mean for that to happen," and this has been seen as some sort of confession. It seems clear to me that she was expressing some guilt over involving JonBenet in the pageant scene. I don't recall any report regarding any statement like that from John. Although some profilers decided that wrapping her in a blanket was a sign that the killer "cared" about her. Right. You dump your victim's body in the darkest, filthiest corner of the house and then you wrap her in a blanket because you CARE??? After KILLING her? I don't think so. I think she was wrapped in a blanket to prevent evidence, such as urine or blood, from spilling out onto the floor or, later, into the trunk of his car.

      Delete
    2. Hmmmm. Okay. There's a lot of stuff out there that isn't accurate. I wanted to check with you. Thanks, Doc.

      Delete
  78. I read that in Perfect Murder Perfect Town it was mentioned that John said something like that. I don't have the book, but I read that it was on page 80. Just passing on what I read. Maybe someone has the book and can refute or verify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I checked and you're right. Sorry about that, Bradley. The passage comes at the top of p. 62 in the hardback edition. Very interesting. Wonder what John was thinking when he said that.

      Delete
  79. I think it's this kind of evidence that led the GJ to believe that John and Patsy were covering for Burke, or someone. When you add that Burke's fingerprints were on the bowl of pineapple, his prior use of a golf club to hit JonBenet, and the odd way the Ramsey's and their lawyers have advised Burke to remain quiet. It's also strange that a 9 year old boy at such a curious age would pretend to be asleep and not go downstairs to ask questions when there is such a commotion downstairs about JonBenet. If Burke did kill JonBenet, and that's still hard for me to believe but feasible, it's possible he decided to wake John and not Patsy to tell him what happened. Maybe Burke knew that telling his mom, who clearly had a very close relationship with JonBenet, would be too devastating and she would not help him. Telling John would make more sense. John could've staged everything without Patsy knowing about it. Then after a week or two later when everything had settled down, John told Patsy about Burke and he guided her on what to say about the 911 call and the broken window. The sexual abuse could be attributed to a curious Burke, though he was not sexually active at that age, he could still have been "curious" about JonBenet's anatomy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First of all, it seems clear the GJ indictment had nothing to do with Burke. The authorities went out of their way to deny that Burke was a suspect, for one thing. For another, if the GJ thought that Patsy and John had conspired to protect any third party, Burke or anyone else, then they would explicitly have been accused of "conspiracy" in the indictments. They were not.

      The indictments were worded to reflect the fact that 1. the GJ believed JonBenet to have been murdered by one or both parents -- thus the term "first degree murder"; and 2. they were unable to determine which one killed her and which one aided and abetted the killer. That explains why the indictments are so ambiguous. It would be a mistake to interpret that wording as pertaining to Burke or anyone else, though many "Burke lovers" have jumped on that.

      As for the rest, technically there is no way to completely rule out the possibility that Burke might have committed this crime and his father was "only" trying to cover for him. But I'm sorry, such an interpretation of what happened has NO basis whatsoever in any evidence at all and is in fact completely over the top. When we assess the vicious assault, the head blow powerful enough to fell a 300 pound man, in the words of Dr. Wecht, the "garotte" strangulation, and the vaginal penetration, what comes to mind, I'm sorry to say, is a grown man, NOT a frail 9 year old boy with no history of violence or disruptive behavior of any kind.

      Delete
  80. A poster above said they didnt believe BR knew anything. Again these are all opinons, but BR hasnt ever said "I heard nothing" or "I didnt see anything." His silence is the most telling thing of all, because there is no doubt BR saw something either that day, or any of the days that followed that could be a major clue in the case.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Like I've said, there is no way, imo, that Burke would have stayed in bed with all of the commotion going on downstairs unless he was specifically instructed to or was afraid. Why would he be afraid? Maybe John and Patsy were arguing about whether or not to make the 911 phone call. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid, unless I was scared, I would be asking a million questions to my parents if something out of the ordinary was going on. If Burke really did stay in bed, he must have gotten an ear full of information. He must have told the GJ something incriminating about his parents for them to draw such a conclusion about them covering up for one or the other. But like Doc told us, those documents are sealed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Even if BR got out of bed and came downstairs it doesn't follow he heard or saw anything incriminating. Silence and sealed records are just that - silence and sealed records. Just mentioning them makes most people automatically assume there must be something that is being hidden, but it needn't be so. There may be nothing in the sealed records, wrt to something BR can tell about. His silence may simply be due to not having anything to say. Half the people following the case wouldn't believe him anyway, though it might depend on what he said. Then of course the other half wouldn't believe it.

    IMO the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is BR knows about the state of the basement window in the days/weeks/months prior to the murder. Whether or not we could get the truth out of him is open for question, but, IMO, he knows about that window and knows it in a way that JR can't manipulate. There was either cold air blowing in as he played trains in Nov/Dec, or there wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I don't think Burke's answer about the window is even the most important. He lived in the house, had a relationship with JonBenet that would have been more close than the relationship JonBenet had with her parents. He would have answers. Many answers to what happened the night she died and the morning after. Because his sister died, the issue is that the only other people in his life are his parents and as a young child, Burke would not do anything that would cause them to go away. Unless the parents were against one another (ie. Patsy thought John was involved and the parents had different lawyers) Burke would not go against both parents. He would probably lie to protect them. Now that Patsy has passed, Burke is older, there might be a chance that he will talk. That chance is greater once John passes. I have to say that Burke is protected pretty well. No journalist has been able to get access to him. No one he has known all these years has ever spoken to the press about him. If Patsy and John were able to not crack all these years, I suspect Burke is the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Sorry, but BR never even told the police that he in fact heard "nothing." He hasnt said a word, so if he in fact heard nothing, then he needs to say "I heard nothing." He wouldnt have had to see a bloody flashlight, it could be anything that his parents did, what they said that could provide a useful clue. JR lawyered up so quickly which is suspicious, that BR was protected. Patsy is dead, JBR is dead nd JR is hiding behind his religion and his experts. Im not sure how many people would want to provide any clue that could potentially incriminate their father, but knowing something and not saying almost makes BR as guilty as JR.
    Nobody knows what BR knows, but please everybody stop saying that BR doesnt know anything, because you would be putting words in his mouth since the kid has never spoke.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Only one person said, in his/her opinion, that BR doesn't know anything. That is not "everybody," but thanks for making the point that there could be a number of reasons for Burke to have not said anything. I do not give a rip what Burke knows or doesn't know. He is not really needed to confirm when that window was broken. I would trust an analysis on the condition of the glass and window far more than the memory of a 26 year old guy of what occurred 17 years ago, when he was 9. Most of the readers here are following DocG because he wants to stick to known facts and reasonable conclusions from those facts that could point to the real killer.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I care about BR's recololection of the window. He knows how important the window is in the "intruder" theory. He knows very well whether or not the window in his train room was broken. I would trust his memory (though not necessarily any statement he might make) about the window. The problem isn't that he may not remember, the problem is he doesn't necessarily have to tell the truth.

    As for putting words in BR's mouth (or isn't taking words out of his mouth more accurate?) those who are sure BR knows something are also making a huge assumption - basically putting words in his mouth.

    I think the odds are good that BR can only tell us things that are inconclusive (except about the window).

    ReplyDelete
  87. Ok, well we are all interested in finding the truth to this case, which is why we are all on here posting our thoughts. But, to say you dont give a "rip" what BR knows or doesnt know is silly. JR and PR told different stories as to how they found the note. They set a specific time frame as to when they checked on Burke and when the police were called. This isnt an opinion of mine to say that BR saw what took place that day, it is a FACT that BR was in the house all night and throughout the next day and weeks that followed the investigation. The FACT that BR hasnt said 1 word to police on this case should be troubling to any person that talks about this case. Nobody is putting words in his mouth at all, but until BR actually says the words to police "I slept the whole night and saw and heard nothing" then him speaking is important. I honestly dont see how it is an assumption to say that BR does know something, because he does. People on here talk about the famous "pineapple bowl" all the time, so not 1 person is curious what BR has to say about that? BR could answer whether or not he actually ate with JBR that night which if he did, then wouldnt that make JR's testimony false about bringing JBR going straight to bed. You wouldnt like to know if BR heard his mother scream as she claimed? See all these "little" details matter when taking this whole case in.
    The only assumption I am making is that BR isnt speaking because he is protecting his father, maybe because that is all the family he has left. We obviously dont have these answers until the day that he finally decides to speak and maybe we will finally understand why he has kept silent for all these years.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
  88. You are making an assumption - that BR knows something.

    He may not have eaten pineapple with JB. He may not have seen or heard anything before PR screamed (if she did) when she found the note. It may be that nothing was revealed to him in the subsequent weeks/months/years.

    Why is it important for him to speak when we can't be sure he is telling the truth? If he was asked these questions at age 9 and we are allowed to know what his answers were, then it might be useful. For him to speak now would be of no value at all unless he were taking a lie detector test (maybe not even then) or was under the influence of "truth serum" (maybe not even then).

    We know he knows of the condition of the window in the months prior to the murder. Whether he'd tell us the truth about it is another matter. We don't know that he has anything else of value to share, that's just an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do think Burke knows more about the case than he's let on. And the fact that he's currently refusing to talk to the police strongly suggests that he knows some things his father would not want revealed. I have a feeling he's allowed himself to be intimidated by the lawyers and that they are the ones behind his current refusal to talk.

      However, he WAS interviewed by the police shortly after the crime, and the contents of that interview are (more or less) known. I believe it's been reported in PMPT. He acted very strangely and was strangely detached. When asked if there were any secrets he could reveal he said, more or less, that it wouldn't be a secret if you told. He also testified before the Grand Jury, but that testimony is sealed.

      Delete
  89. You said that I am making an assumption that BR knows something but you end your above post with "We know he knows the condition of the window in the months prior. Sorry, that would also be an assumption.
    There are a lot of assumptions made on this blog, but Doc has layed out a very very strong case that the assumptions he makes, has strong logic behind it. Why is it important for him to speak when we cant be sure he is telling the truth? Well by that logic, then why does law enforcement EVER interrogate anybody because they could be lying right?
    I am not making some crazy accusation that BR committed this crime or that he witnessed JR actually kill JBR. I am simply saying that unless BR locked himself in his room until he moved out, then he was in contact with both his parents in the weeks and months that followed this crime. You are right in saying that he may not have eaten pineapple with his sister, but then BR can tell us in his own words that he didnt in fact eat pineapple with JBR and we dont have to assume any longer. BR at no point in the past 17 years has spoken to law enforcement about this crime, so why is anybody defending him when he doesnt even want to defend himself?
    All I want is for BR to actually speak with law enforcement and answer questions about this case. Like I said above, if BR says that he didnt actually eat any pineapple that night and after playing with toys he went to bed, then isnt that important? BR's testimony isnt needed regarding the window, because as Doc stated, there is enough evidence already to suggest it was broken that night.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my comment just above, J. As I recall Burke said he didn't know anything about the pineapple. But I have a strong feeling he'd been coached to say what the lawyers wanted him to say.

      Delete
    2. Hey Doc, ok thanks. The pineapple was just 1 example, but I just dont get anybody defending BR when he doesnt even defend himself. We can talk all day about all the facts of this case, but in the end there were 4 people in the house that night, 2 of them are dead and 1 committed the crime. That leaves 1 person (BR) who hasnt spoken.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Just read above post....last sentence meant to say that BR is the only other living person who could shed more light

      Delete
  90. J - when I read these comments, I don't interpret anyone as defending Burke. Obviously, it would be very interesting to hear what he has to say, if anything. But I agree with Doc; by now his story is going to be affected by any coaching that might have occurred. There there is the elapse of time and its affects on memory along with other motivations he may now have as a young adult living on his own. I think you're assuming the other commenters here want to defend Burke, when no one has said so. I said previously that I don't really care what he has to say (the context there was the window, but you've extrapolated it to mean I don't care about anything else has to say). I want to clarify that anything he would state now would be interesting. It would be awesome if he knew something that would provide the DA enough to prosecute. I still think the DA could go forward now with a case against JR and with or without more testimony from Burke than they already have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for clarifying and my apologies for saying anybody was defending BR. I guess I just meant that its just to easy to say that BR just doesnt know anything. This case is a giant miscarriage of justice in that JR hasnt been charged, and imo BR could potentially be holding back information that could really help lead to an arrest. PR and JR were always in front of the cameras and in the spotlight that I have always felt BR has been able to lay low. Thanks!

      -J

      Delete
    2. Yep, I ask myself if this had happened to my sister when I was a 9 year old kid, what would I do now, as an adult who also lost my mother and otherwise had watched all the trauma going on in my family? A kid learns integrity by the example set by his parents. So we don't know if Burke even has integrity as part of his value system. Without that, IMO the best solution is to go into denial about everything and try to live life for himself, and that appears to be what he is doing. I don't defend that, but I can empathize with the kid. I'm sure he is afraid his dad would bring harm to him if he turned on him. Fear is a powerful thing.

      Delete
  91. why would jr have not disposed of the body that night if he was responsible? it makes no sense to write a rn, then find body in basement. i have heard a light outside the home was not on that night, if he was responsible, it would seem the plan would be to drag body from basement through window, and away to another dispoal point. was there ever a chance someone could have sneaked into the property the night they arrived back, although even that scenario makes no sense to me about a rn when poor jbr was already dead

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you continue reading in this blog you'll learn what I think his plan was. Disposing of the body that night would have been too risky. If his car had been spotted by a neighbor or anyone else on the same night his daughter had been "abducted," then he'd have had no explanation and would have been arrested.

      I think the note was part of a plan to dispose of the body the following night, because if he'd been spotted on the road then he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom. Of course that plan was foiled when Patsy called 911.

      Delete
    2. Moving the garage door might have awakened the family. There are plenty of shift workers and insomniacs around, so someone could have recognized him in his car during the night. If JBR was missing the next morning, there’d be lots of questions directed at JR.

      I favor the theory that he was doing all of this as quietly as possible, and thought he had an entire day (26th) to dump the body, which may have been in the trunk of the car, go to the bank, and come back home with the money while PR sat by the phone. They would wait for a call which would never come. JBR’s body would be found, and the death blamed on the kidnappers. When PR became hysterical and started calling people, JR had to change his plans on the fly. The broken window seems clumsy, but the kidnappers had to get in somehow. It would have made more sense to simply unlock some back door, since the alarm was off.

      I don’t know if the garage is accessible from the house, but I’m guessing it is. That’s a common design. He might have wrapped the body and put it in the trunk right after he washed it.

      Just guesses, of course.


      Delete
    3. Yes, the garage and the house were connected. But Patsy would not have been sitting there waiting for a call that would never come. John would have had to get her and Burke out of the house, probably using the excuse that it was too dangerous and the "kidnappers" wanted to deal only with him. So he'd have arranged for them to stay with friends for the time being. Meanwhile, after collecting the ransom from the bank, he could have called his home from a phone booth and let the answering machine do its thing. That would place the record of a call in the phone company records, so he could later claim it was the kidnappers calling.

      Patsy's call spoiled his plan. It could only have been made if she were unaware of that plan and genuinely believed that JonBenet had been kidnapped.

      Delete
    4. Let's say that JR makes that call from a phone booth to his home so the answering machine picks it up. Wouldn't it have been determined through phone records that the call came from a particular booth? And once that booth was located, then wouldn't the police have looked at film from any surrounding surveillance cameras?

      Delete
    5. Well, first of all, I'm not sure the phone records would have been that detailed. Also, I doubt very much that there would have been surveillance cameras on every street corner back in 1996.

      Delete
  92. The broken window story could be verified even without BR's testimony. There are 5 people who had worked in the basement and around that window in the Nov/Dec time frame. The housekeeper, her husband and 2 adult children moved multiple Christmas trees and decors from the basement to the upper floors. The gardener who raked leaves on the grounds outside the house. Perfect Murder mentioned that both gardener and housekeeper don't recall the window being broken.

    ReplyDelete
  93. ok thanks for answering about why jr would'nt have disposed of the body that night, i expect now i will have to go and read everything on this case, for me to get a real understanding of the facts, having read just about everything on the caylee anthony case, i will probably end up with a fair idea, but never a conclusive one.(shame). before i go, i would just like to say, i have just read that there was not 1 but 3 pieces of unidentified dna found on jbr clothes, ruling out trace, and that it could not be from manufacturers. ?

    ReplyDelete
  94. it was linda hoffman pugh and mervin pugh, no doubt about it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. J

    Just to clarify some things. First, it's more an inference than an assumption to say that BR knows about the window. JR supposedly broke it during the summer. By Christmas it's still not fixed. That means the family lived with a broken window for about half a year. The window is in BR's train room. He played there. He'd have noticed the bugs coming in during summer. He'd have noticed the cool air coming in during late Sept. He'd have noticed really cold air about Halloween time. He'd have noticed really really cold air by Thanksgiving. He'd have noticed bitter cold air entering the broken window in his train room by Christmas. It's not much of an assumption. More an inference, imo. If he was in the train room regularly, over the nearly half year period it was supposedly broken, then he knows about the window. How could he not? If it wasn't broken how could he not know that? So we know that he knows about the window, one way or the other.

    We don't know if he knows anything else or not. Maybe, maybe not, but to say he does, or to say he doesn't are both assumptions.

    I wasn't defending BR, but now that I think about it, maybe he does need a bit of defending. There are now a lot of people out there who think BDI. It's kinda sad that he has to go through life with that kind of suspicion hanging over him.

    ReplyDelete
  96. No, Burke doesn't need defending. His little sister was murdered and someone murdered her. He could have done all he could to help authorities figure out who did it so that the person does not kill again and so that justice is served. Unfortunately, as a minor he is not looked up as someone who can make rational decisions himself. I think there should be a law that states when a child holds a certain amount of evidence or could posses a certain amount of information regarding a case, that the child is appointed a separate lawyer and social worker/counselor than everyone else otherwise the child could be coerced by adults who may want to keep the child quiet. This case would have been solved years ago if Burke would have been able to speak or be questioned as intently as his parents were.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I have a feeling you could be right. However, we do need to remember that he did testify before the Grand Jury and hopefully they were free to ask whatever questions they liked. We must also remember that the GJ voted to indict the Ramseys and the indictment included the charge of first degree murder. So whatever he might have said, it did not absolve his parents.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Doc, when the announcement of the Grand Jury Inditment was going to be released, there was a report that JR was trying to fight its release. Was he just fighting it because the Grand Jury voted to indict him or could it have had anything to do with BR's testimony?

    Regarding the above post from Anonymous, I 100% agree with you that BR would have been aware of the window being broken, I was just trying to make my apoint regarding assumptions.

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR's lawyer claimed it shouldn't be released unless the entire transcript was also released, so concern for Burke was not likely to be a factor. That demand was clearly a bluff, because the entire transcript is huge for one thing and for another there are valid legal reasons for keeping it confidential. Also neither JR nor his lawyer participated in the GJ proceedings and neither had access to the transcript so they'd have had no idea what went on. It was a pure and simple bluff.

      Delete
  99. Doc, it is possible that the current DA could elect to indict JR based on the previous GJ assessment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well the DA could use that assessment as a basis for re-opening the case and doing some re-assessing of his own. But the indictments themselves are, strictly speaking, for aiding and abetting in first degree murder, not for actually committing that crime -- because the GJ wasn't able to determine who did what. And the time limit for prosecuting aiding and abetting under the statute of limitations has long past.

      Delete
    2. You're saying that the GJ believed someone from outside of the home killed JonBenet and the Ramseys knew who it was or one of the Ramseys was the killer and the other knew about it?

      Delete