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.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Open Thread -- part 2
The previous thread is getting cluttered with posts so I'm opening up a fresh window. Feel free to continue posting responses on the previous thread, but I'd appreciate it if new topics would be posted here. Thanks.
There was much discussion on the prior open thread about BDI.
IMO, the bottom line on BDI is simply this - neither JR or PR are going to go to jail for a crime they didn't commit, to "save" a 9 year old who can't be prosecuted.
For me this is enough to rule out BDI. It really is just that simple.
Doc has made a strong case for JR being prosecuted. When PR was alive she also could have been prosecuted. We know of course that the GJ wanted them both indicted. JR and PR simply aren't going to place themselves in legal jeopardy when there is no reason to do so.
"IMO, the bottom line on BDI is simply this - neither JR or PR are going to go to jail for a crime they didn't commit, to "save" a 9 year old who can't be prosecuted. "
I think the logic is the following:
They didn't know he couldn't be prosecuted. And even if he wouldn't go to jail, the authorities would potentially take him away from the family, which would be devastating after losing their daughter. They had no idea it would become a media circus. They assumed their money and connections would quickly squelch any attempts to hold them accountable.
Not saying these are all equally valid points, but it's not entirely insane that they thought this way.
To further this line of thought: JR and PR may not have known for certain what Burke could/could not be charged with, but most educated people know that under the age of 11, kids are not prosecuted for murder. In fact, all you have to do is read the news to know that. A quick call to their "connections" aka lawyers would have affirmed this, there would have been no need to garrote and sexually molest JBR, and they would have used their "connections" to get help for Burke. As far as him being taken away from them, you might not be aware that in our current system, Children and Family Services agencies are not even taking away kids from crackheads and all kinds of abusive situations. More than likely, a judge would order this child into intensive therapy and everyone would be glad the parents could pay for it vs. putting him in a system that has no funds for the poor kids from indigent families. Having been involved in trying to get help for kids, I know that taking away kids is a last resort, and even then many kids do not get help or get rescued from their home environments. Go sit in a family court for a day and you'll see what happens with these cases. Yes, clubbing a sibling is a serious matter especially when it results in the death of a sibling. But when judges see cases of extremely behavioral issues that have brought harm to others, and the parents have means and are not overall "bad people," the judge orders mandatory treatment. These parents could afford the best of treatment and upon the death of their precious daughter, would have willingly complied. A lawyer would have advised them to proceed with getting help for their son. I do think an innocent JR would have called a trusted lawyer that nigh t had he found that Burke clubbed his daughter. Anonymom
I wanted to respond to this post by Gumshoe, so I'll reproduce it here -
Anonymous March 29, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Patrick, you make some interesting points. There are, however, three facts IMO that completely destroy the BDI theory.
1. Burke was not physically capable of landing a blow with such force that it created an eight inch fissure across a skull unless he used a weapon that was heavy or hard enough to aid him. Such a weapon would have externally drawn blood from JonBenet's scalp. In this case, a softer and blunter weapon such as the Maglite adorned with a rubber tip could've swung down with enough force to not only crack the skull but to do it without breaking the skin on JonBenet's scalp. For that to be possible, the blow would've had to come from a strong person.
2. If John and Patsy took the trouble to write out a detailed ransom note, why would they call 911 after they specifically wrote in the note not to do that with threats on JonBenet's life? Doesn't that obviously make them look suspicious? They could have easily left the threats of contacting authorities out of the note if they wanted to. Why call 911 when they could have easily followed the instructions of the ransom note and dumped the body at their own convenience instead of risking having the police find the body in their own home?
3. If Burke was responsible for killing JonBenet, there is no way on God's green earth that the Ramseys would allow him to leave their side. Yet, he was awakened that morning and allowed to leave the house with Fleet White. What if Burke told Fleet something incriminating during that time with John and Patsy around to protect him? Makes no sense at all.
Gumshoe
I agree with the first point. BR wouldn't have had the strength to bash her skull with a flashlight. It's not a given that she was struck with the flashlight, but the fl is consistent and therefore a good possibility. The ball bat is also a good possibility and would give BR the necessary leverage. The round shape of the bat might have caused a skull fracture w/o breaking the scalp. If the flashlight is the weapon we can be pretty sure BR isn't the culprit. Those who wish to see it as BDI need to abandon the flashlight as the weapon that fractured JBR's skull.
Point 2 is also good. If JR/PR wrote the note to cover up a murder by BR, why would they immediately violate every warning in the note making themselves suspicious? And they could have written the note in any form they wanted, omitting the warnings if need be. PR's call to 911 and friends is inconsistent with the note, indicating she didn't write it, and probably didn't read it thoroughly. We can at least eliminate PR as having anything to do with covering up for BR.
Your 3rd point is also good. The fact that he was trusted to go with the Whites means that he neither committed the murder himself, nor did he know anything about who did. JR wasn't the least bit concerned with what BR had seen during the night.
I'm hard pressed to understand the enduring appeal of BDI. It makes absolutely no sense.
I've already posted the following two comments on the previous thread, but in case they might be overlooked, I'm reposting them here:
Patrick, I appreciate your strenuous efforts to play the "devil's advocate" by making as strong a BDI case as possible. And, as I've admitted from the start, there are, strictly speaking, no facts that tell us whether John or Burke was responsible for the fatal attack. So yes, my insistence that John assaulted and murdered his daughter, and that Burke is innocent is not exclusively based on fact. However, it is not pure speculation either.
As it seems to me, the most likely culprit by far, given the crime scene and all the other evidence -- especially the evidence for chronic molestation -- is John rather than Burke. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the notion that a 9 year old child with no history of violence or sexual interest of any kind, was chronically molesting his 6 year old sister, leading to a situation where he sexually assaulted her and then not only bludgeoned her into unconsciousness, but, on the basis of his Cub Scout training, devised a complexly knotted device to strangle her with (after a wait of 45 minutes to 2 hours), with his parents then collaborating to stage an elaborate kidnapping to cover for him, is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. What you fail to understand, as I see it, is the difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt at all. There IS a difference. And it is crucial.
Very few criminal cases are decided on the basis of airtight evidence or indisputable fact. In this particular case, we are fortunate in being able to deduce so much on the basis of the facts, but that's very unusual. While technically the prosecution is expected to "prove" its case, realistically the verdict hinges on the prosecution's ability to convince. So in order to evaluate your (and Kolar's) claim, we need to imagine what might happen in a jury trial.
While you present a series of arguments that, so you claim, would constitute reasonable doubt, it would in fact be fatal for a defense attorney to use any of them in an actual trial. Just imagine a defense that went like this:
"Well, you know I have to admit it looks bad for my client, but the truth is that he was only trying to protect his son. After all, John had no real motive to assault and kill his daughter, while it's not difficult to see how Burke could have been jealous of all the attention she was getting and certainly we know that sibling rivalry can be a powerful motivator. [Feel free to add any of the other arguments you've already presented.] While it might seem a bit over the top for parents to concoct such an elaborate coverup and take such huge risks to protect the son who had just killed their own daughter, we need to recognize that the Ramseys would have been under extreme stress and making bad decisions in an understandable panic. [etc.]"
Well, if I were on the jury, listening to this "defense," my first thought would be: "Fine. I'm willing to consider that possibility. So why not put John on the stand and let him explain exactly what happened. And also put Burke on the stand, to corroborate his father's allegations.
Of course no competent defense lawyer in his right mind would see that as good idea. So the prosecution could counter by, first, reminding the jury that both John and Burke are in a position to come forward with the truth, but have never done so, and second by pointing out that the only adult male in that house is far more likely to have sexually molested his daughter than his nine year old son, with no history of violence or interest in the opposite sex.
Unless of course Burke actually was the murderer. But if that were the case, then John and Burke would have already had ample opportunity to, finally, explain what actually happened and, if their story were convincing, there would be no trial in the first place.
As I've already stressed, my goal is to see John have his day in court. And if he can demonstrate his innocence in a convincing manner, then fine, I'd be willing to give him "a pass." But to argue that no such trial should ever take place simply because there is no way to absolutely positively and beyond all doubt prove that Burke could not have committed this crime -- that, to me, is irresponsible.
I accept the Burke theory has major problems. But if we are talking about a defense for JR, you are going about it wrong. Or misinterpreting what I wrote.
On trial for murder, JR would not bother to present a scenario where Burke was the killer. He wouldn't need to, and it's a terrible defense. He doesn't need to prove his innocence. You have to prove his guilt. So what evidence do you have that he killed his daughter? Exactly, you don't have any.
Assuming a rational jury, you can put the murderer inside that house, you can probably even put the murderer inside that family. So you are down to 3 possible assailants. But it's up to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JR did it.
Based on what evidence we have now, I don't think you can. Even though I admit the JR scenario is the most likely one...
You couldn't be more wrong, Patrick. It can be established that there was no intruder. It can be established that John made many misleading statements both in his police interviews and his book. It can be established that John lied about breaking the window on the previous summer. Which in turn strongly implies that he broke it the night of the crime, in an attempt to stage an intruder break-in. It can also be argued that the person most likely by far to have sexually assaulted and previously sexually abused the victim is the only adult male in the home, John Ramsey. These factors in themselves constitute strong circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun that definitively links John to the murder is not necessary in a circumstantial case. And in fact most such cases are tried without such a smoking gun. Not every case is open and shut, obviously.
Now if there were no intruder, and the only people in the house that night aside from the victim, were John, Patsy and Burke, then the ONLY basis for reasonable doubt would be that one of them did it and John was "only" involved in a conspiracy to cover it up. But if in fact John is the murderer, then no lawyer would ever invoke reasonable doubt on that score, because obviously the person capable of resolving that doubt would be the defendant himself, who would be perfectly capable of explaining his role in the coverup. And if he's guilty it would be a huge mistake to put him on the stand and subject his lies to cross examination. If the reasonable doubt in question can be dispelled, and the person in a position to dispel it is in the courtroom, and refuses to testify, then I'm sorry but that isn't really a reasonable doubt defense. It's no defense at all, but practically an admission of guilt.
Now if it happens that John is innocent, then after his arrest he would be in a position to explain to the authorities how Burke or Patsy killed JonBenet and what he did to help with the coverup. And if his explanation was convincing, then the chances are that he would never be charged, as the time limit on aiding and abetting has passed.
So as you can see, while you and Kolar and many others reading about this case might harbor some reasonable doubt, there would be no room for such a defense in an actual trial. If John is one of three people who could have committed the murder and he knows who did what, then it's up to him to testify and attempt to exonerate himself. Doubt would exist ONLY if there is no one available who could dispel such doubt.
John would probably not take the stand. You are convinced that nobody was in that house. I am convinced. But others are not, and that is why he would never allow the prosecution to show it was an inside job. His lawyers would push back against that. There would be endless testimony about mysterious people walking around the neighbourhood, endless discussion of robberies in the neighbourhood, pedophile rings involving mysterious powerful interests, how he handed out multiple keys (apparently half the neighborhood had a key to his house), the fact the police botched the investigation and aren't really sure if the home was secure or not, the foreign DNA ("if the DNA don't fit, you must acquit!"), etc., etc.
For those jurors would could be convinced that someone inside that house committed the crime, his lawyers would show how many "experts" were unanimous that JR did not write that ransom note, although PR could not be ruled out.
If he got on the stand (which I doubt), he would say it was an intruder. If his lawyer asked him if he thought his wife did it, he would say absolutely not, he just couldn't imagine his wife would do it, she loved their daughter as much as he did (a tear would now form), etc., etc. But he would feign a bit of uncertainty when responding to the Patty question, as if he was actually considering it for a few seconds ("No, no, absolutely n-- [pause].. I mean... [pause]... no, I just can't imagine it. No way. It was an intruder."). It's win-win, he is defending his wife (who obviously can't testify) like a good husband, and yet, and yet, he seems to have a slight bit of doubt...
The handwriting analysis, as you've noted, was absolutely crucial. Not just to eliminate him early as the prime suspect. But if he ever went to court, it's the perfect "evidence" to show he wasn't even involved with the cover-up.
Yes, of course he wouldn't take the stand. It would be too easy for the prosecution to shred his lies. Now if Burke were actually the murderer, John would of course know about it, and upon arrest he would spill the beans to save his own skin -- and if his story was convincing, and Burke were willing to back him up -- then there'd be no need for a trial in the first place.
But assuming, as I do, that he's guilty as Hell, then you're right. The defense would never concede that any Ramsey was guilty of anything and they'd fight tooth and nail for the intruder theory. They'd really have no choice. If they did that, however, then there is no way PDI or BDI could ever be floated as part of a reasonable doubt defense -- that would be completely off the table, as I think you now agree. And John would not be in a position to hint at it, because, as you yourself realize, there is no way he'd take the stand.
So all the prosecution would need to do is debunk the intruder theory. And the best way to do that would be to take the jury step by step through John's basement window break-in fairy tale, pointing to all the obvious obfuscations, prevarications, and other nonsense. Following up with testimony from Linda Hoffman that she was unaware of any such broken window and did not help Patsy clean up any glass.
They would then point to the absurdity of any possible intruder theory, focusing on the "ransom" note written on a notepad from the house, the body hidden in the basement, the oversized panties, etc., not to mention the lack of an actual kidnapping to go along with the "ransom" note. And if the defense pointed to the 911 call, the prosecution could take a cue from this blog, arguing that it was Patsy and not John who made that call.
So the case would hinge on reasonable doubt concerning the intruder, not the possibility of PDI or BDI, which the defense would be foolish to even hint at. And if the prosecution was able to demonstrate effectively that John's window story is an outright lie to misdirect away from his window staging, then reasonable doubt would fly out the window. Once John's lies are exposed, then he can kiss the intruder goodbye.
Thus, on balance I happen to believe a strong case could be made and John should certainly be arrested, interrogated and, if he is unable to explain himself adequately (he won't be), brought to trial.
I don't understand why so many people refuse to ignore facts that could only point to one person. John Ramsey. It seems like every suspicious thing, every suspicious lie he told is simply waved off because an educated, wealthy, Christian man couldn't possibly be a psychopath. But the very trait that makes a psychopath so elusive is he or she's ability to convincingly deceive anyone with ease. Some people say he has no history of sexual abuse or murder (that we know of presently) but we do know that John was a master manipulator and liar. He managed to deceive his ex-wife, Lucinda for 2 years while he committed adultery. Lest we not forget there is so much more that we don't know about him. I can only imagine how many of those so called "business trips" were actually personal trips to quench his sexual appetite. Once Patsy was diagnosed with cancer, John had to spend more time at home while she underwent treatments, thousands of miles away. Take a look at all the facts that support John being the killer and contrast them to the possibility of Burke being responsible. Why oh why would so many people rather believe a complicated and contrived fairy tale about a 9 year old, sexually abusive murderer that has absolutely zero facts to support it? And we have Patrick who insists that John Ramsey did not have a motive to kill his daughter. How about avoiding prison, humiliation, and not wanting to lose all the wealth he had acquired? Sounds like a plausible motive to me. Who else had a better motive? There is a list of facts, behavioral clues and inferences that point squarely at John.
1. There was no evidence of an intruder. John was one of three people in the house.
2. John has a history of manipulation and deception.
3. Highly intelligent and well-educated.
4. John was a computer wiz and it wouldn't be difficult for him to erase any connection that he had to child pornography.
5. The ransom note is full of computer-like terminology that would undoubtably be part of John's vocabulary.
6. John was the strongest person of the three and most likely the only one capable of delivering one single blow to JonBenet's skull of that magnitude.
7. John was the most sexually active person in the house and had a history of being unable to control sexual urges (i.e. cheating on his first wife).
8. John used such uncommonly used phrases such as "and hence" and "for proper burial".
9. John's ridiculous lies about breaking the basement window himself on a prior occasion to gain access to his home. The window had obviously been broken recently because Fleet White found a shard of glass that John overlooked while in a hurry and attempting to clean up the staged scene with the purpose of unstaging it. Why? Because Patsy called 911. He had to unstage his original, incomplete staging that he thought was effective enough to fool Patsy but he knew it wasn't going to fool law enforcement.
10. The ransom note was written to give John full control of the situation. It gave him every excuse to perform all the outlined tasks alone. In his mind, it was the best way to dispose of the body without anyone suspecting him as the killer.
11. Fibers from John's (dry cleaned) shirt were found inside the new, never previously worn, never washed panties that JonBenet's body was found wearing. Indirect transfer is possible but HIGHLY unlikely.
12. John's suspicious behavior regarding his unusual request to his pilot to fly him and his family out of the state only a few minutes after discovering his daughter's body.
13. John's unaccounted for absence for over an hour while they waited for the kidnapper's call.
14. Inferences of John failing some of his lie detector tests.
15. The similarities of John's handwriting to certain letters and words of the ransom note proves that he should have never been eliminated as the author.
Also wasn't he in the navy in the Philippines? I remember that being mentioned where garrotes were used to kill people? Also as the only skilled sailor in the house who else would have been capable of tying those elaborate knots. I think you've listed most of them gumshoe and that is exactly why I think Doc is right about JR. But man alive is he a good liar in interviews it's kind of scary.
"Also as the only skilled sailor in the house who else would have been capable of tying those elaborate knots."
Exactly. This wasn't something a child could produce based on Boy Scout teachings. This was a sophisticated device constructed for one purpose. To kill. I believe the killer had experience assembling this device several times in the past on women who enjoyed the sexual gratification of being choked while having sex. Why would the killer, who is obviously in a hurry to complete the crime, construct a complex garrote unless he knew he could do it quickly and efficiently. Does this sound like a 9 year old Boy Scout?
Gumshoe: "I believe the killer had experience assembling this device several times in the past on women who enjoyed the sexual gratification of being choked while having sex."
Inferences based on logic and behavioral psychology at least presents a solid foundation about what I'm speculating about. Patrick, you've yet to provide anything plausible for the BDI theory, but I do respect your quest for the truth.
"The fact that he was trusted to go with the Whites means that he neither committed the murder himself, nor did he know anything about who did. JR wasn't the least bit concerned with what BR had seen during the night. "
This is a very good point. I don't think either of these 3 points makes the Burke scenario untenable. But you're right, the more I think about it, had Burke killed her, they would want to keep him near them the following day at all costs...
Ok, I've played devil's advocate, I think you all underestimate the possibility that Burke was somehow involved. But overall, I don't think it's the best explanation for all the facts. I think the JR acting alone scenario is still probably the best.
I was struggling with how a parent, a father, could brutally kill his little girl. It's hard for me to accept this, even though I realize it happens. Again, I am not naive.
I was looking at the transcripts of the Ramseys in their few documented interviews after the murder. I just finished a book, I Know You're Lying, where the Ramsey's behaviour after the murder was included as a case study in detecting deception (one of many case studies in the book, which I highly recommend). I was struck at how egoistic they both were, especially JR, during these interviews. It was all about them. How they were coping, their issues, their struggles, etc., etc. I can't imagine talking like that after losing my daughter, as if she were already a footnote in my life. It was creepy.
But I still think the weak point in the JR theory is the motive. I'm still struggling with why JR killed his daughter. I just can't see it as premeditated, it doesn't fit with the crime scene. He killed her suddenly, for some reason that was not planned. What happened there, can anyone speculate?
I don't think DocG's scenario of a "mercy killing" to the back of the head makes sense. The guy is not a Navy Seal or James Bond. I'm not saying he couldn't do it, but he's not the kind of guy who can think about what kind of blow would just work and not leave blood, etc., etc. I think it had to be a spontaneous attack, something that happened quickly and he probably instantly regretted. But he quickly realized his life was over if he didn't finish her off and disguise the crime.
I wonder if he thought after bashing her skull, "Do I call 911 and try to save her? Or just assume she will die, and finish her off in dramatic fashion to help my staging and my alibi?" That's just so incredibly sick and disturbing if true.
I never characterized it as a "mercy killing." But a blow to the head is the best way to kill someone if you don't want your victim to suffer. You don't need to be a master criminal or a navy seal to understand that. As far as the blood is concerned, I doubt John would have been worried about that. The lack of blood could have been coincidental. If blood had been found in the house after the body had been removed, it could be argued that her kidnapper assaulted her before taking her with him. On the other hand, John was in the navy and it's possible his training may have made him aware that something like a Maglite would not leave a bloody wound. Maybe that's why he chose it. Who knows?
"But I still think the weak point in the JR theory is the motive. I'm still struggling with why JR killed his daughter. I just can't see it as premeditated, it doesn't fit with the crime scene. He killed her suddenly, for some reason that was not planned. What happened there, can anyone speculate? "
Motive is necessarily speculative. I too believe there may be a different explanation, though I'd certainly say that Doc's theory of motive makes good sense.
I think it's possible the blow to the head was an act of sudden anger rather than a premeditated event. I don't want to get too graphic, but maybe she bit him in a private area? Maybe she was struck by someone standing over her rather than directly behind her?
What gets me is the idea that he could have known ahead of time that the blow to the head wouldn't break the scalp. He either got very lucky or had planned on a much bigger clean-up. It's hard to see him planning something so potentially messy.
It's possible to spin different scenarios, but it really doesn't matter. She was bashed in the skull with tremendous force. Most likely this was done by JR, regardless of what his motive was. If we remind ourselves there was no intruder, and that neither PR or BR likely had the strength to bash her with something as short as a flashlight, it really narrows the suspect list down to one person. (PR/BR would have needed something longer to give them more leverage)
You hit on a good point that I posted about on the first part of this thread. JR is extremely narsisistic (think I spelled that right). In his interviews, it comes across as "me, me, me", and if you read the ransom note with an open mind, it'll raise the hair on your neck. It's all about "me, me, me" (JR). It's addressed Mr. Ramsey, it is "your" business, it is "your" daughter, it is "your" bank account, it is "make sure you" bring an adequate sized attache, it is "make sure you" are rested, it is "if we monitor you", it is two gentlemen "don't like you" (might not be exact wording), and the list goes on and on. The note hits a crescendo with the last page written with emphasis on "John" (3 times), and declaring "it is up to you". You can't deny the eerie similarities between his narcissism in interviews and the sole subject of the ransom note. BTW, as posted before, this "sole subject" ransom note affords one person in that house an alibi, guess who that is? You got it, JR. So, your argument that you have to have absolute, definitive proof, undeniable evidence, and remove all doubt in order to prosecute JR is wrong. Your right, there isn't a fingerprint on the garrote (though JR would just say he picked up that paintbrush the other day/last month/ect.), or his semen on her, but you can still convince a jury through a well-thought-out circumstantial argument that only JR perpetrated this crime. Isn't odd that JR never comes to the defense of PR or BR. It's always "we are being accused". That's because if he is adamament that PR and BR could not have killed JB, it only leaves one person left in the house. JR thinks he's smarter than everybody else, but he made some serious incriminating mistakes (as most criminals do).
I think most likely what happened was John had gotten increasingly impatient because he hadn't had a chance to "be alone" with JonBenet because of the Christmas holidays. He saw a small window of opportunity on the night of her death. It was either seize the moment or wait another two weeks since they were about to leave town to visit family in Michigan. At this point John couldn't control his urges any longer. He made up his mind at some point early that day and he was determined to make it happen. His attempt to wake up JonBenet didn't go smoothly. She had had a long day and was exhausted from playing with her new toys and riding around town for social visits. JonBenet most likely pushed him away and rolled over to the opposite side of the bed. John was afraid that would happen so he offered her some pineapple (her favorite) and another Christmas gift in the basement (this could be why JonBenet told someone that Santa is making a special visit just for her). JonBenet is now curious and decides to follow him downstairs. He's carrying a flashlight so he doesn't wake anyone else up. Once they reach the kitchen it's safe to turn on lights. He prepares her pineapple. She eats only a little bit, eager to see her present. They go down to the basement. John begins to touch JonBenet inappropriately and she gets aggravated. She wants her present but John can't contain himself. He forces himself on JonBenet. He tells her if she cooperates then he'll give her the present but she refuses. He grabs her again. This time she screams. He tells her to be quiet. She screams louder and John instinctively slams the flashlight on her head to silence her.
"He tells her if she cooperates then he'll give her the present but she refuses. He grabs her again. This time she screams. He tells her to be quiet. She screams louder and John instinctively slams the flashlight on her head to silence her."
Yes, it's speculative obviously, but that makes sense. Wasn't the mother undergoing cancer treatments at this time? Perhaps they had completely stopped having sex?
Patsy had already been undergoing cancer treatments for two years so I would imagine her sex life during that time frame was nonexistent. Meanwhile, John had been predisposed to seeing JonBenet sexualized in pageants and photographs that hang proudly on the walls of the Ramsey household.
While they were at the neighbour's house, an intruder came into their home. His plan from the beginning was to molest and murder the daughter. He was familiar with the Ramsey's and knew they would be away for a few hours. He had in fact been observing them for weeks. He had his own flashlight, but found a better one inside the house, which he decided to use. He found a pad and pen and decided for shits and grins to make a fake ransom note, just to torment the family further, because that's what sick psychopaths do. He hadn't planned on it, but he had time while he was waiting for them to return home.
He was a friend of a friend of the family, which is how he had his own key, he had taken it from his friend without him knowing it. It's also how he heard about the 118k USD bonus (his friend was telling him the story with disdain about how JR was bragging about his bonus, while explaining that the key in the drawer was to the Ramsey house, since he occasionally did a few repairs for the family and needed a key).
When they were asleep, he snuck up to the room and snatched the daughter, covering her mouth to prevent screams. He took her down stairs and killed her. He waited a bit to make sure nobody heard anything. When he was convinced they were still asleep, he took pictures of her dead body for later sexual gratification. He put her in various poses for these pics, the last one being the one she was found in the next morning.
He let himself out the door and locked it back. He did not want to leave any clue as to how he had gotten in the house, which door he used, etc. He left footprints, but the police simply failed to notice them the next day. Because they were incompetent, as everyone admits.
Did it happen this way? Almost certainly not. But it only takes one juror to think it's reasonably possible. Otherwise, that nice man must have murdered his lovely daughter....
This looks to me very much like a theory once concocted by Jameson, a long-time staunch Ramsey defender. According to her, the note was more of a fantasy than anything else, written largely out of boredom while waiting for the Ramseys to return. Not bad!
Such a theory might work as fuel for reasonable doubt -- but it fails to account for the scene at the basement window. Nor can it explain why the body was hidden in that remote basement room. Nor can it explain why JBR was redressed in those oversize panties. It still might invoke reasonable doubt, however, if not for John's outrageously improbable window break-in story. That for me is the smoking gun in this case, and if it's ever brought to trial, that obviously phony story is what will do him in.
I haven’t posted on this site in a long time, but reading some of these posts I wanted to chime in. The one problem that all of the JDI theorists is that you preach on how obvious it is that John committed the crime, YET no arrest has ever been made. Its been established that the authorities never believed an intruder committed the crime, therefore that should lead us to believe they always felt it was an inside job. By being an inside job, that leaves just 3 people who could have done it and nobody else. PR is not alive and can no longer defend herself, yet neither JR or BR came forward to say she did it which could have been an easy out to put the case to rest. JR could have concocted a story that he lived with the secret for too long and could no longer defend his wife. It was a horrible accident, etc.
People come on this site because there is a little bit of a websleuth in all of us that is fascinated by an unsolved crime just like this one. The problem that I have though is if Doc, or any number of people on here have “solved” what seems to them to be an obvious resolution, then how havent the authorities also solved what you all claim is a pretty easy open and shut case? Of all the cold cases in Colorado, this has to be #1 for the authorities to finally solve. Doc has said that the handwriting expert dismissed JR, therefore no charges have ever been filed. Sure, that might have been the case, 18 years ago, but I don’t believe that is the case in present day. This case has probably had hundreds of eyes looking at it, and I find it hard to believe that a bunch of people posting on a site have solved a crime that trained professionals have not.
The point of this post is to say that maybe there is just something we are missing away from the obvious points that have been made. Linda Arndt supposedly went from thinking JDI to changing her tune and she was the lead Detective on scene the day of the crime.
Yes, fair point J. My guess is there is no political will to prosecute anyone. Too much time has passed. A trial would be long, expensive, and a media circus. You would be going up against a very rich person. If you failed to get a conviction, it would be political suicide, a huge waste of taxpayer money. It would also make all of the previous investigators, DA, etc. look terrible because there is no new evidence. So why prosecute now after all these years with no new evidence? Why didn't it happen sooner? And again, if the DA failed to convict, he would look silly.
As I've already posted here recently, even if you can convince a jury that the killer was in that family (and that is a huge IF with all the "noise" surrounding this case), you are still left with proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was JR. The evidence that points to JR that so many here see as obvious will not look so obvious to a jury. And a good DA, in my opinion, understands that. So huge negatives, few positives.
I think prosecutors are waiting for some new evidence to allow them to go after JR. Something new that they can claim to be a game changer, that gives them the political cover they need to prosecute. A friend confesses JR said something, a neighbour breaks her silence, etc.
Sadly, it seems all of the evidence is already out there. So the only possible game changer is if either JR or BR decide to talk about what happened that night. Likely? Hardly.
If JR committed the crime, as most here believe, he's certainly not going to say anything. If BR was asleep throughout, then there is nothing to discuss. JR is home free. If BR saw something, then perhaps he will one day talk. But that might be after his father dies. Or never. And memory is a strange thing, especially after all those years. Even if he saw something, perhaps he remembers it differently now.
Patrick and J, Is it possible that JR wrote the ransom note? That's the point. This whole blog stems from answering that one particular question with a resounding "yes". The Police have dodged this question. The DA has dodged this question. Other forums on the internet have dodged this question. Because deep down inside, if you answer yes, then you are looking at a cold-blooded, sociopathic, child molester and murderer. I refuse to believe he deserves a "get out of jail free card", just because he thinks he outsmarted our entire justice system. And if something is said or pointed out on this blog that helps spark another look at the evidence or interview transcripts by Boulder detectives, then I will be escatic. Cold cases are solved every year by a "fresh set of eyes", and by going over everything once more and finding that one thing that was over looked. We're not acting like we are smarter than anyone else, and we're not naive enough to think there isn't evidence stored away that we don't know about. We have an insatiable desire for truth and justice, and we seek to bounce ideas off each other out of a common respect (peer review). If it holds up, it holds up. If it doesn't, then we revise our stance. JB deserves justice, just like every other child that is victimized in this country. We offer to keep her trajedy alive in hope of one day seeing her killer brought to justice.
Well said, Jay, and I agree. The decision to rule John out is key, and it has never been questioned. All I really ask of the law enforcement people at this point, or even someone in the media, is to, for once, take a good hard look at that decision. Ask the opinion of forensic document professionals who weren't involved in the case, interview some of those who were, take another look at the samples John provided, compare them with the legal document we've all seen (which may not have been seen by the "experts" who ruled him out) and ask yourself how it is possible to rule out your number one suspect just because his handwriting doesn't seem to resemble the handwriting on the obviously deceptive ransom note.
And as Jay implies, once he is ruled IN, then the whole tenor of the case changes and everything points in one direction: John Ramsey.
"Because deep down inside, if you answer yes, then you are looking at a cold-blooded, sociopathic, child molester and murderer."
Jay....this isnt Harriet the Spy investigating this case, these are professionals! To think they they just couldnt even fathom the consequences of saying JR wrote the RN is just preposterous. Their jobs arent to investigate PG rated cases...they see murder cases every day. Its just frustrating to keep reading the same things about Ruled IN vs. Ruled out.
Ok, let me put it this way. Do you think the authorities are looking at the case and saying: "well, JR had access, JR could have been molesting her, JR definitely could have hit her over the head, JR was lying about the broken window, Fleet said that JR probably wouldnt have been able to see the body in the darkness unless he knew where it was, JR found the body and removed the duct tape and we dont believe it was an intruder." But wait for it..those same authorities who see all the blantantly obvious arrows pointing towards JR say, "well, EVERYTHING points to JR, but Im just not sure about this RN, because handwriting experts that Mr. Ramsey hired have ruled him out and even though handwriting experts arent admissable in court, I guess we have to rule him out."
Yes, the authorities botched this case in the beginning, there is no denying that. Det. Arndt never should have been alone in the house that day as there was no way she could have eyes on everybody in the house. But, in the last 20 years, do you honestly deep down believe the fresh eyes on the case have never questioned those handwriting experts? I just think we need to be better than hanging our hat on a few experts 20 years ago being the ONLY reason John is walking free.
J, I honestly don't know what's bogged this case down over the years, but I do know, until I came across this blog, everything I read, and everything I heard (including the Boulder authorities) was PDI, IDI, BDI, in that order. Not one mention of JDI.
"I find it hard to believe that a bunch of people posting on a site have solved a crime that trained professionals have not."
Let's not forget that a grand jury felt that Patsy or John was the murderer and the other was abetting. The main reason the grand jury felt Patsy was involved was because John was erroneously ruled out as the writer of the ransom note so they deduced Patsy must have written it. Since first degree murder and child abuse was mentioned in the report, we know they were not referring to Burke as the murderer who was aided and abetted since he was a minor.
Gumshoe, where is that Grand Jury report. I heard they found the Ramseys guilty of neglect. You say here murder and aiding and abetting. Where is the report?
Ok, this is exactly my point. Do you honestly believe that the authorities have been looking at this case for 20 years and don’t think there is a strong possibility that JR is the author of the note? The people that were closest to this crime have never come forward to say JR is the killer. Do I believe he most likely did it? Yes, I do. But, there are other reasons that he is walking free than the authorities just never being able to crack who the author of the RN is.
Also, if they did take this to court, I don’t honestly believe it would be that hard to make a case against JR. There is enough circumstancial evidence that could point to John that I think they could make a very strong case. SO, the biggest question is WHY havent they charged him in what to many seems like an obvious crime? Maybe the reason is because there are other people i.e BR, or another that might be on their radar. I don’t have the answers, but I do know that there is information we are all not privy to as well as key people in this case that chose to never come forward with what they know.
J, I get what you're saying, and I think we agree that there is a very strong circumstantial case against JR. The problem, is that everything coming out of the authorities, is "not JR, not JR, not JR". The DA exonerated them completely and apologized, Berkner won't commit, but seems to lean toward PR, and Kolar stands by BRI. What am I missing? The thing that they have in common... JR couldn't have written the note. I agree that there is something holding the authorities back from considering JR, and my guess is fear. There is no reasonable explanation to exclude him as the author. Thanks for your comments.
"The people that were closest to this crime have never come forward to say JR is the killer"
Because he's extremely litigious and had the obvious and unconditional support of the DA. How often do you see active law enforcement naming uncharged suspects anyway?
The lack of prosecution is because the of the statute of limitations on the easy charges combined with the false public exoneration on the murder charge.
If you were the DA and you were being asked to take a case that your predecessor had publicly cleared your suspect of, with the same evidence, would you jump right in?
Whether people "come forward" to the public doesn't make a difference to the case, as long as they have presented their suspicions officially. Almost everything I have read from law enforcement involved in the case suggests to me that they strongly suspect John. Even the Beckner AMA to me screams that he thinks JDI.
It's an obvious crime but the defence is obvious too because JR has been making it in public for years. DNA is extremely powerful in people's heads - I could easily imagine a reverse-OJ where the defence spins the jury into relying more on the DNA than is merited. All JR has to do is say (or more likely get his lawyers to say) "I don't have to prove my innocence but I've spent years and millions trying to catch the killer and so this is what I've discovered which I believe rules me out". His story of refuting all the evidence against him so that the police would focus on catching the "real killer" convinces people. It's a happier narrative than "father rapes and murders six year-old daughter". For the sort of crime that JDI implies this was most people's "doubt" seems more "reasonable" than normal.
I just want to chime in that you are assuming that a consistent study of this case has been occurring over the years. I don't think that has been the case. In the beginning you had political motivations, police fighting with the DA and within their own ranks, and investigative failures -- all of which distracted from putting together the facts, just the facts. The case was transferred to the DA's office and then back to the police, but during that time people have come and gone in those organizations. Kolar may be the best "constant" that they have. And again, he is overlooking the handwriting analysis issue. So why are we even discussing the fact that the justice system has failed? We already can see that it has failed this victim in many ways. This is not the only case in the world where the system has failed. Anonymom
In terms of looking at the evidence again, I had a thought about the knot. Most all of the items used to subdue or kill Jon Benet were wiped down, or discarded somewhere unknown by the killer. I'm sure that forensics tested the rope used to make that knot for DNA, hair, or fibers, but I have always wondered if they ever untied that knot and tested the "inside the knot" portion of the rope? If the knot itself is evidence, maybe they couldn't untie it or just didn't and left it as is just in case they needed it in a trial.
If it hasn't been done already, I think it would be very interesting to see if trace evidences of DNA or something else could be found on the inside of that knot. If police have kept it in its original form, its the only place in a state of semi "preservation" from that crime scene.
I would think the knot would have been tested for DNA, but you never know. Of course, John loosened that knot, so if his DNA were found it wouldn't mean much. He made sure to contaminate that crime scene very effectively it would seem.
It's not difficult to see why no one has moved forward on this case for so long. John being "ruled out" is a huge factor for one thing. Never in all the years I've followed this case, practically from the beginning, have I ever seen even a hint that anyone in LE or the media had any question whatsoever about the validity of that conclusion. While it might seem reasonable to assume someone at some point must have looked into it, there is in fact NO evidence that anyone actually did. As I see it, this was the key blunder that prevented the authorities from seeing the obvious. They literally had blinders on.
For another thing, the decision to "exonerate" the Ramseys on the basis of the DNA evidence would be very hard to overcome. That decision led to numerous media reports continually reiterating the "fact" that the Ramseys were no longer on the suspect list, and many in LE were also convinced.
Finally, John managed to find the perfect lawyer in Lin Wood, an extremely aggressive and competitive individual ready to sue at the drop of a hat. If John were indicted and found not guilty, you can be sure the DA's office would be hit with a huge lawsuit along with an effort to ruin everyone involved. I have a feeling it was fear of such a lawsuit that led DA Lacy to "exonerate" rather than pursue the Ramseys in the face of that (very dubious, but psychologically compelling) DNA "evidence."
I still think John could be indicted, but it would take an extremely confident, brave and aggressive DA to make such a decision. And that could happen only if such a DA could ever be brought to see the case as most of us are now seeing it. Is this a long shot? Sure. But I'm an optimist, so I prefer to think it's a possibility. Let's hope.
"John being "ruled out" is a huge factor for one thing. Never in all the years I've followed this case, practically from the beginning, have I ever seen even a hint that anyone in LE or the media had any question whatsoever about the validity of that conclusion."
I'll give you that it's hardly a direct endorsement but in Beckner's AMA he was asked about "a blog" which was clearly yours and in response he said "interesting" then directly invoked "Occam's razor" - which is the crucial point of your "key questions" post. When asked directly about the handwriting he made sure to note "signs of deception".
Someone mentioned the Ramsey's passing out multiple keys as an argument for reasonable doubt in a trial. The prosecution could then counter with "multiple reasons not to break into your own home". The broken window and multiple keys contradict.
He claims it was late at night, he didn't want to bother anyone.
The entire broken window story is bogus if you read through his story, featured somewhere here on this blog. It's just not very believable, to say the least. But unfortunately it was never really challenged at the time,
So now a jury will hear, "I came back late, I didn't want to wake anyone." And that will sound reasonable.
Sorry if I missed these points being addressed, I can't go through all the comments, but..... do you think there was a cover up by the DA or LE or some big wigs in Denver? Like they KNEW JR did it but he either paid them all off or there was some conspiracy? I've heard ritual child abuse is rampant in the upper eschelons of our society. That prominant government names are involved (remember the Franklin Cover Up?).
Also, are the court documents released and available from the time the jury found the Ramseys indictable on grounds of neglect? What did they mean by that? What sort of neglect? Has anyone from that jury spoken? What's the deal with that? I know the DA at the time said there was not enough evidence to indict them but what did the jury conclude? What evidence were they going on to find them guilty of neglect?
" I've heard ritual child abuse is rampant in the upper eschelons of our society. That prominant government names are involved (remember the Franklin Cover Up?). "
I suppose anything is possible, but there is no evidence to support this. I think the main issue was JR's wealth and influence. His lawyers were quick to show anyone attempting to go after him were going to pay a price, legally, politically, etc.
This is why poor people are more often targeted by the police and our judicial system. They can't fight back as effectively.
Still, having said that, when a young child was sexually abused and murdered, there is really no excuse for not doing everything in your power to bring someone to justice, then and now. Sometimes people just need to do the unpopular thing because it's right.
"Also, if JR was missing for over an hour on that day, he must've been asked about it in court or by LE. Where did he say he was?"
John claims he spent a lot of that time upstairs peering out windows with binoculars hoping that he could uncover the source of surveillance that the "kidnapper" spoke about in the ransom note.
". . . where is that Grand Jury report. I heard they found the Ramseys guilty of neglect. You say here murder and aiding and abetting. Where is the report?"
There is more than one way to interpret the wording but John and Patsy simply being accused of neglect is incorrect. I'll refer you to the section in this blog entitled "Reading The Oracle". It's located in the October 2013 section. Doc does an excellent job with the interpretation of the vagueness issued by the Grand Jury indictment.
I just reread several responses from Mark Beckner's AMA, and he twice stated that sexual assault didn't fit the crime scene. He went so far as to say JB was hit extremely hard on the head and knocked out, then later strangled to death, but everything else was staged, including the vaginal penetration. As most people know, he never commits to who he believes is the perp(s), but I'm seriously wondering if he doesn't believe it is PR and JR. JR was dismissed as the author of the note, and Patsy is highly unlikely to have tied the knots/nooses. If there is no real sexual assault (in his mind), that would tend to swing away from "JR only" and it would also remove a possible motive for JR. Add to that, that the note author appears to have started the note "Mr. and Mrs.", but started over with " Mr.". "Who's fingerprints are on the pineapple dish?" (PR, BR), and who does the most intimate witness inside that house (Hoffman-Pugh) believe did it? PR. Lastly, who found the body? (JR). Who wanted to get on a plane within min.'s of finding the body?(JR). And who presented a united front to the public and Police? (JR, PR). I don't want to put words in his mouth, but by dismissing any sexual assault (night of the murder or prior), then it makes sense as to why there was/is no fight to put JR back on the list of possible authors of the ransom note. No sexual assault changes everything.
"If there is no real sexual assault (in his mind), that would tend to swing away from 'JR only' and it would also remove a possible motive for JR."
Interesting angle but there are problems with it. Beckner stated that he believed the death was most likely an accident and covered up. He did, however note that there were signs of previous trauma to JonBenet's vagina and wasn't sure if it could be classified as chronic but there had definitely been prior abuse. That information alone tells me the original plan was not to murder JonBenet, but to sexually abuse her. The origin of this crime was precipitated on sexual assault. Murder came as a consequence due to either JonBenet's refusal to cooperate or her threats to blow the whistle on John's actions. John may have gone overboard on the staging so LE would suspect a sexual predator or pedophile who perhaps preys upon girls he discovers on the pageant circuits. I think John tried to cover his tracks from previous assaults by using the paintbrush. He knew that evidence of prior molestion would make him a prime suspect. So yes there was staging, but without the motive of sexual assault and gratification, there never would have been a murder.
Beckner recognizes the evidence for previous sexual abuse, but refuses to draw the obvious conclusion. Typical of how drastically the decision to "rule out" John Ramsey affected the investigation of this case. If John didn't write the note and there was no intruder (as Beckner certainly realizes), then only Patsy could have penned the note. And why would she do that if her husband had just raped and murdered her daughter? So that leaves only some sort of "accident" on Patsy's part, or the need to cover up something that Burke did.
If John were ruled IN, on the other hand, then he'd have been the most likely suspect by far, and he probably would have been indicted as soon as the autopsy report came in. When we are left with only Patsy and Burke, then the sexual assault becomes particularly difficult, if not impossible, to account for. So Beckner and the others had no choice but to see it as part of the staging. The only other possibility is that Burke was the abuser -- but to my knowledge Kolar is the only one to ever even consider that possibility, which as far as I'm concerned, is a huge stretch -- with no evidence to back it up.
Now please: a mother who has just "accidentally" clobbered her daughter over the head, is going to call 911 immediately, and make up a story about her falling down the stairs or fainting and hitting her head on the bathtub, or something like that. She is NOT going to penetrate her daughter's vagina with her finger, strangle her with a "garotte" and write a 2 1/2 page "ransom note." Same with a mother who's discovered that her son and daughter had a fight and the daughter is now unconscious. Also, if you are staging a kidnapping, there is no need to also stage a sexual assault on top of that, penetrating your daughter's vagina in a desperate attempt to stage BOTH a kidnapping AND a sexual assault? Why? It's not hard to see why DA Alex Hunter was in no hurry to prosecute Patsy -- such a theory would be laughed out of court.
And by the way, there is no evidence she was penetrated with a paintbrush handle. That would have led to much more bleeding than was seen. And it's ludicrous to begin with. Fragments from the paintbrush handle were found in her vagina, implying indirect transfer, nothing more.
I agree that the digital penetration could have been an attempt by John to cover over evidence of previous sexual abuse, that certainly makes sense. But it could also have been a sexual assault plain and simple. It is certainly not something a mother would want to do after "accidentally" beaning her daughter.
i recently had several guests round to my home for drinks. During the evening i decided to test out the bdi theory.I asked all the guests what would you do bearing in mind you love both of your children, you are awoken one night, you come downstairs, and your 9yr old son has been sexually exploring with your 6yr old daughter, she has tried to get away, and he has hit her with something and now she is dead. What would you do. Without hesitation, all answered they would call the police. Not one person said they could protect their other child by a staging scenario. Regarding the rope/cord used to tie and strangle JBR, it appears to be the sort used in boating and arts and craft, perhaps stored in the basement along with Patsies paintbrushes. Even though the source of the duct tape was never found, it seems likely, along with the pen and pad, that all the items used by the killer came from within that house?
For the BDI theory to hold, the young Ramsey had to both kill her and molest her that night. I cannot imagine the parents, or even just JR, staging a crime scene involving sexual trauma under any circumstances. Also, it's the brutal sexual assault that forces the parents to cover up the crime. Otherwise, a hit on the head could simply be explained as a fight between two kids that got out of control. And if BDI is true, that's probably how it happened, anyway, so the parents would only have to tell the truth. Tragic, perhaps requiring a bit of counselling, etc., but manageable.
However, if Burke had sexually assaulted her in a brutal fashion after knocking her out, perhaps not even fully understanding what he was doing, then I suppose everything changes. Later strangling her with the garrote, which he fashioned himself, to add a macabre twist to the murder.... Then I would argue the parents may have believed they needed to come up with an intruder theory to save their son from the lifetime stigma of being a sexual predator who murdered his little sister. And also a huge embarrassment to them as parents. Their reputations would be ruined. About which they no doubt cared quite a lot.
However, how likely is all of this? A brutal hit on the head is certainly possible. Doesn't happen often between siblings, but it can definitely happen. So that's a reasonable explanation.
But the brutal sexual attack by a 9/10 year old boy? Hmmmm..... Again, I suppose it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely. And then to fashion a garrote to finish her off, or as part of an elaborate game in which he had no understanding of the consequences? It just seems so incredibly unlikely.
But for BDI to work, I think he has to kill her, sexually assault her, and then kill her with the garrotte, for the reasons explained above. A 10-year old boy with no prior history of anything that would even indicate this type of behaviour.... Hmmmm.....
And if true the parents left with a neighbour the next day, that is also inexplicable for two reasons. One, he could say something and ruin the entire plot. They would never risk that. And two, if he had done this, they would have wanted to be with him, talk to him, make sure he is OK, etc., they would never, ever leave him alone, or i someone else's care. The mother, especially, would want to hold him nonstop to comfort him, viewing what he had done as requiring immediate psychological help, love, support.
I'm not sure how Chief Kolar gets around these problems in his book. To me they seem devastating for BDI. But perhaps he has a different scenario that is more plausible?
I never have given BDI much weight. It's so highly improbable for a 9/10 year old boy to be sexually interested in girls, and just as improbable for a mother and father to fabricate a kidnapping/assault in order to protect their son. How messed up would you have to be to believe you can convince your 9 year old boy that even though he "messed" with his sister, and whacked her over the head, knocking her out, it was a stranger who broke in our house that very same night that actually killed her. As far as protecting him from LE, I don't think there's anyway they would've known he couldn't be prosecuted ( most people had no idea until this case), but rather that it's a crime to concoct a false kidnapping, obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, and disturb a crime scene. It doesn't make sense to protect BR, but both parents get thrown in jail. IMO.
I never have given BDI much weight. It's so highly improbable for a 9/10 year old boy to be sexually interested in girls, and just as improbable for a mother and father to fabricate a kidnapping/assault in order to protect their son. How messed up would you have to be to believe you can convince your 9 year old boy that even though he "messed" with his sister, and whacked her over the head, knocking her out, it was a stranger who broke in our house that very same night that actually killed her. As far as protecting him from LE, I don't think there's anyway they would've known he couldn't be prosecuted ( most people had no idea until this case), but rather that it's a crime to concoct a false kidnapping, obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, and disturb a crime scene. It doesn't make sense to protect BR, but both parents get thrown in jail. IMO.
I wonder if LH-P ever remembered seeing similar duct tape (same color), and similar rope in the basement before JB's murder. She seems to have a good memory about the knife and the blanket. Grant it, an argument could be made that the intruder took both of them when he/she left, but the question is why? Not taking the items would make more sense, seeing they used the pad/pen and left them, as well as using the paintbrush and leaving it. The missing duct tape and rope are very intriging. If LH-P says she remembers them, then where did they go? Or better yet, why did they go? If she doesn't remember them, then where did they come from? And here's a twist, what if she claims to remember them, but JR denies it. Think about that. I definitely lean heavily JDI, but if there is one thing that gives me pause, it's H-PDI. IMO.
The "missing" duct tape and cord is a red herring. They were probably lying around the basement, most likely detritus from some gift packaging, or something left lying around by workmen. Whatever was found at the crime scene was probably all there was. Besides, John would have had ample opportunity, when he went AWOL from Arndt, to dispose of all sorts of things, either down the toilet or down the street.
Jay, i too have always struggled with JDI and LHPDI, and listened to Doc's reasoning.There is perhaps explanations that i could see on John's part, for some of his actions. However, if the story is true about him being overheard arranging with his pilot to leave only 20min after finding Jonbenet, is something i find disturbing. I feel we can rule out BDI as for the above discussions, also IDI for many reasons including that the intruder would have brought items needed with him. I do feel that Doc's theory is most likely correct, but for some reason can't let go that LHP AND CO, could have also committed the crime. Back to the missing duct tape. Unless cut with an implement, the perps teeth marks would be left, unlike the other items who's prints on them could be explained by handling at some point. It would be intriging as you say, to know what she had to say regarding if she saw the items.
If it was HPDI, the motive would appear to be vindication against PR. LHP is on record as being convinced of PDI. The ransom note appears to be part of a staged kidnapping with JR exclusively mentioned throughout. LHP would've known about Patsy using the spiral staircase, the alarm not being used, the dog being gone, ect. She mentions both PR and JR would've known about the knife, but only PR would've known about the blanket and nightgown. The ransom note is also written in a way to disguise the author's identity. Interesting to say the least. IMO.
If Linda was behind some sort of kidnapping attempt, or simply an attempt to frame Patsy, then we have to accept John's story about breaking the window the previous summer, after either leaving his keys in the house (according to Death of Innocence) or lending them to his older son (according to his testimony) or for some other reason he "can't recall"; and after returning from the airport either in his car or by taxi (he "can't recall"); and after deciding not to retrieve a key from his next door neighbors (for fear of waking them, at 11 PM); deciding to break into the filthy basement window rather then one of the far more convenient ground level windows in order to save the money it would have cost to replace a single pane of the more expensive window, which made it necessary for him to remove the pants from his expensive business suit, which would have been ruined when he lowered himself into that filthy window well; then, in total darkness, accurately breaking a "baseball size" hole in the window pane closest to the latch, despite not being able to see what he was doing. We have to accept also that neither he nor Patsy could recall whether or not that broken window pane had ever been repaired, despite the fact that bugs would have entered the house via that opening in the summer and bitter cold winds blown through there in the winter.
I'm sorry, but Linda's version of that story (that they were lying to cover up staging) rings true, while John's version is an obvious, and crude, fabrication.
Doc has said that if that theory was to work then why didn't they fake patsy's hand, and also the Hp' s had limited education, but to me that would explain why the rn only had referces to john as from patsy, and patsy's unusual" A"' s in it
I admit that JDI is the most probable scenario, but IMO LHP and her husband cannot be eliminated as suspects. LE has never seriously considered the broken window, focusing more on someone in the house or someone with a key. Neither one has an alibi (even worse, they only have each other as witnesses), LHP had intimate knowledge of the family and the house (claims by IDI proponents), and she also made potentially incriminating statements about knowing where the knife was, knowing where the blanket was, and knowing what nightgown was JB's favorite. I admit I haven't read LHP's book, but I have read several of her interview transcripts, and though she points out PR should be suspected for knowing where the knife and blanket were, she never mentions the duct tape and rope. It's interesting that JR and PR never mention them either. Maybe the intruder did bring something in? As for the broken window, LHP never adamently denies it was broken since summer. From what I remember, she claims that she doesn't remember it being broken. She also claims that PR lied about helping her clean it up, but not that it wasn't broken. Three adults and none of them are adament about the state of that window. Maybe that window was broken twice. If LHP wanted to frame JR, then she could've broken the same window knowing she had JR dead to right, if he actually did break into his home that summer. He would look suspicious either way, whether he denied it or admitted it, once she told LE about it. Maybe that's why he wasn't real excited about telling LE when he saw it. Just something to think about. IMO.
LHP denied from the start that she knew anything about any broken window. She had been working in the basement in that same area prior to Xmas and would certainly have noticed if cold air was blowing in from a broken window pane. This was at a time when she was enthusiastically defending Patsy -- before Darnay Hoffman got to her, suggesting a book deal if she'd help him go after Patsy. Which, very sadly, she did. There is absolutely NO evidence connecting her to the crime, nor any real motive. Since no kidnapping actually took place, no ransom was ever paid. And if she'd been hoping to collect a ransom anyhow, she would not have told John to expect a call "tomorrow," but would have been sure the call would come that morning. Makes no sense to wait a full day while a body is rotting away in a basement.
And sorry but I must repeat: there was no attempt to make the writing on the note look like Patsy's or John's writing, thus obviously no attempt to frame either of them. What possible other motive could she have had?
Out of everything that I've read about Mr. Cruel, I've never seen any indication that he ever perpetrated a crime in the U.S., before or after JB's death, and the girls who were victimized by him were never that young (6 v/s 10-13). That's a huge hurdle for MCDI proponents. I do however like the "movie junkie" slant. I tend to lean JDI, but I've read that the Ramseys claim not to have seen the movies with phrases mentioned in the RN (Dirty Harry, Ransom, and Speed). Now JR took a lot of trips, so who knows what he watched alone wherever he was staying. I'm sure LE has already pursued a similar line of thought, but I'd love to know what kind of movie library the Pugh's had.
IMO, there is a strong resemblance between photos of Mervin Pugh and the drawing done by the psychic. The drawing can be "googled" as "sketch man". Just ballyhoo???
sorry about that Jay, if you type the words separately, it still comes up even without the blogspot.com, it's apparently LHP Cchapter 1, on a book she was going to write.
I've seen that "chap. 1" before, and it's interesting, but then there's nothing else (no chap. 2, no rest of the book). Makes me wonder if it's a hoax. Like Doc said earlier, Darnay Hoffman offered a book deal to LHP, but I don't know that it was ever finalized and written. I know LHP won her case about going public with what she told the grand jury, but to my knowledge, there are only bits and pieces that are out there. I read somewhere that LHP had a choice to either write a book, or bring a lawsuit against the Ramseys for libel (portraying her in a suspicious way) in their book. She did file a lawsuit ($50,000,000 if I remember right), which she lost. I also read that LE showed up at her door on the night JB was found, however I don't know that they suspected the Pugh's, but more or less wanted to ask them questions about the Ramseys. If the "chap. 1" is a hoax, then I'm not sure what role LHP had in JB's murder, if any. If that chapter is legit, and truly how she felt about PR, then that brings her back into the equation, IMO.
"If that chapter is legit, and truly how she felt about PR, then that brings her back into the equation, IMO."
The fundamental problem is still the same. There is NO evidence of an intruder WHATSOEVER. No DNA of the Pugh's was found on JonBenet. Nothing inside or outside the house showed signs of intrusion. No footprints, tire tracks, or witnesses claimed to have seen anyone entering or leaving the Ramsey home. I agree that the Pughs are highly suspicious. They have no solid alibi and there was plenty of motive, but if they were going to ransom JonBenet, I imagine there would've been a far simpler way. Why sneak inside the Ramsey home at night and risk getting caught by John or Patsy? Linda could've arranged JonBenet's kidnapping while she kept her alone and saved herself a lot of trouble.
I agree that there is very little direct evidence pointing to the Pugh's, but there isn't a whole lot of direct evidence to begin with. Nobody can be directly connected to the garrote, the rope, the duct tape, the ransom note (fingerprints, deceptive writing, ect.), the blunt force trauma (not even sure what was used), or the sexual assault (no semen). I can already hear it now, "the paintbrush was PR's, along with the pad and pen", but from what I've read, LHP physically put the paintbrush tray where it was on the night of JB's murder, outside the wine cellar, and being the housekeeper, she most likely put PR's pads/pens away periodically. And yes, there was no forced entry found by LE, so that leaves anybody in the house, or someone with a key. LHP had instructions to let herself in while the Ramsey's were away on the 27th, to get a check PR was leaving her. My point is that the Pugh's had means, motive, and opportunity. Doesn't mean they're guilty, but nothing excludes them either. I find it interesting that the whole crew (LHP, MP, and three others if I remember correctly) were down in that very same wine cellar, a month earlier. Again, I lean JDI, but just like the ransom note, the only people that should be excluded are those that physically couldn't write it/perpetrate it. I'm sure I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm sure LE has looked at numerous angles of how the Pugh's could be involved and dismissed them, but the way my mind works, it's not quite there yet.
If someone entered with a key, then how do you explain the scene at the basement window, with a broken pane of glass, packing peanuts from the window well on the floor, and a hard suitcase propped against the wall just beneath the window?
And if you want to argue that this was done deliberately, to point away from someone with a key, then please explain why John claimed he'd broken that window months before? Or why he finally, after months of delay, confessed to finding the window open and then closing it -- and telling no one about either the open window or the suitcase. Or remind yourself of the many absurdities of his break-in story, including the failure of both John and Patsy to recall whether the window had ever been repaired -- or how a broken window could possibly have gone unrepaired for such a long time, letting in bugs in the summer and ice cold air in the winter.
Then ask yourself why there is there is no sign in the note of any attempt to forge the hand of either John or Patsy. Finally, the Pughs would have realized that they would be prime suspects since Linda had a key, was familiar with the house and needed money. If they had collected the ransom, what were they supposed to do with it? Any sign of new found wealth would have given them away, so what would have been the point?
Sorry for belaboring the LHP/Pugh's possibility. I was just struck by how she tried to use her details and memory to accuse PR, when she put herself in the same boat, by knowing the location of the knife, the blanket, the nightgown, the paintbrush tray, the wine cellar, ect. She also had access to the house, and could've written the note prior to that night, with "tomorrow" being the following morning after she left it. As for getting away with a kidnapping, people do dumb things all the time (especially criminals). However, I went back and reread earlier postings, and found a problematic statement I had made concerning keys, "the broken window and multiple keys contradict". It was in reference to JR not having a reason to break in, but it became clear that diversion only works if someone else doesn't take credit for it. Someone with a key could've entered the house and perpetrated the crime, using the broken window as a diversion, however JR taking credit for the window creates a disfunctional crimescene. I rescind my thought on PughDI.
Since finding this blog, I've been a solid JDI supporter. I don't buy into IDI, PDI, or BDI, but as I thought about the idea of someone with a key being the perp, LHP stood out as a possible suspect. She has gone on record as a PDI proponent, and it didn't make since that her reasonings included PR knowing the location of the hidden knife, the blanket in the dryer with JB's favorite nightgown, ect. Not sure that it can validated, but I also read that LHP brought up that PR makes her "a"'s like a keyboard " a", which is a huge red flag, because the "a"'s in the ransom note were manipulated to look like a keyboard "a". Everything LHP has pointed out about PR can be used against her (LHP), because she knew where they were at and could have had access to them as well., and it could've been her writing the ransom notetand making her "a"'s like a keyboard "a" in order to draw attention to PR (maybe she felt she had it coming). Why would she do this? Maybe she was involved, maybe she was covering for someone else, maybe she helped stage some of the crime scene. Well, a good diversion for a perp with a key would be to stage a different entry point (like a broken window), because "why would they enter the house that way, when they had a key?". However, the theory falls apart when the "staged different entry" is claimed by someone else in the house, in this case, JR. Therefore, the crime scene doesn't work for someone with a key (at least LHP), and PughDI is no longer a possibility, unless there is a perfectly good explanation for the broken window , or unless they are in it with JR. I agree that the window was not broken since summer, and since JR wasn't shocked by it being broken, but rather took responsibility, that doesn't provide a perfectly good explanation. The only other possibility for PughDI, is to be in it with JR, and I don't think anybody would buy that. Long story short, it wasn't PughDI.
unless John was telling the truth when he said he thought the handyman had fixed it, and it was fixed, only to be broken again to stage. Jay, All your reasoning above, is exactly the same as what goes through my mind. And like yourself, either the pugh's or JR is responsible IMO.
That's the tantalizing thing about PughDI, the handyman was MP, and if JR would've been shocked by the broken window, and insistent that he thought MP repaired it (and now it's broken again), that would put JDI and PughDI in the same boat, because JR could've broken it and said "that's the very same window MP fixed a month ago, directing attention to MP", or "MP could've broken it and said "that's the very same window JR broke to get in the house, that he had me repair". That is of course, if the window was actually broken, and actually repaired. However, JR wasn't shocked by the broken window, in fact he was kind of aloof (no big deal), saying that he had broken it over the summer. That to me keeps the attention on JDI and makes it improbable for PughDI.
According to a chronology report I read, Officers French and Veitch arrived separately, 7 min.'s after the 911 call (5:52a). Within a min. or two, JF arrived, followed a couple min.'s later by FW and PW.
Hmm., I have just re-read statements that suggest fleet white and an officer, went down to the cellar earlier before Jr, who didn't know they had Been down there, fleet saw the broken window, but it was not open and the officer did not report it open either, i wonder if this is why there was tension later on between john and fleet?
I have just re-read statements regarding the open window. Apparently John didn't know that fleet white and an officer had separetly been down to the basement before they found Jonbenet. Neither said they saw the window open.Perhaps this contradiction is why there was some conflict between John and Fleet later on in the investigation. Who knows.?
If it was open, then JR must've closed it immediately after the 911 call. Nobody knew about the window being open until JR brought it up 4 mths. later. It is heartbreaking how close FW and French were to finding JB at 6am. Officer French stood at the wine rm. door, but decided not open it, because it was latched at the top, and FW opened it, but couldn't find the light switch. It's interesting how neither of them paid much attention to the broken window. I do wonder if French saw the broken window and went outside immediately to check for signs of someone coming in and out of that window. He was solely looking for a point of entry/exit. I know there are reports of no footprints in the frost and the spider web attaching the grate and the edge of the window well, but I wasn't sure if that was French's report (6am) or another officer at a later time.
If it was open, then JR must've closed it immediately after the 911 call. Nobody knew about the window being open until JR brought it up 4 mths. later. It is heartbreaking how close FW and French were to finding JB at 6am. Officer French stood at the wine rm. door, but decided not open it, because it was latched at the top, and FW opened it, but couldn't find the light switch. It's interesting how neither of them paid much attention to the broken window. I do wonder if French saw the broken window and went outside immediately to check for signs of someone coming in and out of that window. He was solely looking for a point of entry/exit. I know there are reports of no footprints in the frost and the spider web attaching the grate and the edge of the window well, but I wasn't sure if that was French's report (6am) or another officer at a later time.
John said he was down in the basement that morning but "could not recall" when. I don't think we can assume he was down there later than the police officer or Fleet White. It's easy to make assumptions about who did what that morning, and when, but realistically we have no way of knowing for sure.
Hi DocG! I've just become engrossed with the case, honestly out of this air, wondering what ever happened...ah the 90s are so long ago. Anyway, your work and book were a thrill to read, and I do agree with you the JR is ruled in. What I wonder though, is have you considered that JR narrated or worked with Patsy to construct the note? I ask for a few reasons.
My first doubting of Nancy's sincerity came from hearing the 911 phone call that she placed. Her words, reactions, and interaction with the responder was extremely familiar to me.....and then I remembered. She was almost mirroring the 911 call made by Micheal Peterson, noted author found guilty for murdering his wife. This case was famously (but terribly) documented in the film "The Staircase." Here is the link to the audio and it's transcription.
http://www.peterson-staircase.com/9-1-1.html
Eerie? I think so. They're similarities in how they open the call, act hysterical, answer/not answer the responder, and abruptly hang up are all there. What catches me is Patsy's "What?!", which is the same response Peterson gave, almost as if they expected a short call without multiple questions.
Now, this did not discount me from JR, as you've done excellent work noticing the connections between his vernacular and the wording of the note. However, you could also do this, and it has been done, with Patsy. In addition, over the course of my life, I've noticed that parents writing style was rather similar, in that it seemed they began to copy/mimic each other, likely subconsciously. Not that they're hand writing was alike, but they did end up having some similarities.
Which brings me to this - I've looked at both JR and Patsy's handwriting vs the ransom note, and I thought about your evidence for JR, which is very clear. He likely thought up the note, as the language and verbiage used mimics the evidence you've provided. However, I do find mannerisms and verbiage of Patsy in there as well! In addition, I take the analysis of Foster very seriously, in that we have academic who outed the Unabomber, Klein, and even a 1692 writing of Shakespeare! (yes, I'm also reading Foreign Faction hehe), stating that he is pretty darn positive Nancy wrote the note.
Now, why is JR the one who narrated the ransom note and created the content? The clues ares just too much. Many are the ones you've pointed out with the verbiage of "proper burial," percentages, 118,000, etc. However the "Victory S.B.T.C " is what sold me. The person who wrote that note either knew of or was part of John's past in the SBTC.....or John thought this was a clever way to end this foreign faction invasion, and make the story even more personal.
What I propose to you is the possibility that JR and Patsy both were involved in the murder, in that Nancy knowingly made a fake 911 call and wrote the note, however it was the CEO JR that directed the story of the note. Based on the above, what are your thoughts? Thank you!
First of all, the name is Patsy, not Nancy. To respond to your main point:
Many people have made all sorts of assumptions regarding this case, based on what seem like reasonable observations such as yours, which are indeed reasonable. However, as I see it, we can't go by assumptions, we have to be guided primarily by the facts. And what strikes me about this case is that the facts point very clearly to John doing this on his own, manipulating both the investigators and Patsy herself.
It's not only the 911 call, which imo Patsy would not have made if she were involved, it's also several other factors. If you do a search on this blog for "Patsy's Role," you'll see what I mean.
Imo there is no way to tell for sure whether someone making a call for help is being sincere or acting. It's all too easy to be led by our prior assumptions to "hear" what we want to hear in such a recording. Also, as I see it, there is no way to tell simply by examining the note who wrote it, because deception is clearly a factor and there is no way to tell what elements are a "giveaway" and what are intended as deception.
It's only by a careful observation of the facts, and logic associated with those facts, that we can make our way through all the smoke and mirrors of this case.
I just finished watching a documentary about Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping. There are many videos of the parents pleading for the release and return of their daughter. In fact, Ed Smart went before cameras the very next day, while police were swarming around their house looking for clues, and pleaded for Elizabeth's release. It was reported that Ed Smart later became so distraught, that he literally became sick. And Lois Smart was a basket case too. The night she was awoken by Elizabeth's sister and told that Elizabeth was gone, she immediately got up, turned on all the lights in the house and searched all the rooms. Upon finding the cut window screen in her kitchen and realizing that someone had entered her house and taken her daughter, she screamed. Watching this documentary and studying the Smart's behaviour makes me compare to the Ramsey's behaviour the morning of Dec. 26 after they discovered their daughter missing and later when her body was discovered.
What a huge difference between these two parents!! Although Patsy is a little more convincing of a mother who has just lost her daughter, John shows NO emotion at all. Ed and Lois Smart show more emotion over their missing daughter than the Ramseys showed over their MURDERED daughter.
I know this is just an observation and cannot be used as evidence against the Ramseys, but it certainly is noteworthy. And I know the investigators do take into account the behaviors of people after a crime has been committed. Linda Arndt certainly noticed when she was at the Ramsey's house that morning. The behaviours of both these parents speak volumes.
I think that Doc's theory fits with the behaviors of PR and JR as observed by Linda Arndt and others on Dec 26. I know this is speculation on my part, but I think Patsy even noticed that John was acting strange. She was clearly distraught, but I think she was also initially afraid of John. Maybe not suspicious of him per se, but afraid, based on how he was reacting and how he was treating her, that he knew something. Maybe she thought he had an idea of who was "out to get" him and his family. She probably thought he knew how to get JBR back and even wondered if he was involved somehow with some bad people. Ultimately, he made sure she stayed medicated and then he gaslighted her. Finally, she got boxed in with the handwriting analysis and was being guided by attorneys of John's choosing...attorneys he was paying for. We have no idea what John told these attorneys either. People say that pedohiles don't just manifest their behaviours out of the blue and argue that authorities found no evidence that he was a child molester. However, everyone knows that men who abuse their young daughters are a special breed of molesters - they are especially smart, conniving, and manipulative. At the very least, we can see that John was known to be an elusive, somewhat cold, and calculating person. Heck, that's probably the reason Patsy was not in the happiest of marriages. The Smarts were in a happy marriage, Ed Smart was not the type of man that JR is, and Lois did not observe her husband acting strangely. IMO, both women behaved similarly. Keep in mind, too, that the media was not always kind to Ed Smart. Even a nice guy like him had to endure some speculation that he knew something about his daughter. Interestlngly, the Smarts had reason to suspect those who had been in their house because they hired some serious deadbeats off the street to work on their home. As compared to the Pughs these street people were not regular citizens. One could speculate on why the Smarts were not immediately suspicious about those workers. Again, this is the reason you cannot judge people based on their outward reactions to such tragic events. Linda Arndt was suspicious of John, not so much of Patsy. She simply noted that they stayed in separate rooms. Patsy could not even move she was so distraught. It was John who did not console her, left and went roaming around the house and opened his mail. I feel we need to separate John's behavior from Patsy's. Anonymom
According to a chronology report I read, Officers French and Veitch arrived separately, 7 min.'s after the 911 call (5:52a). Within a min. or two, JF arrived, followed a couple min.'s later by FW and PW.
Jay
Ok, so at any time did the first responding officers talk to BR?
Ok, so then this is bizarre. If JBR was "kidnapped" wouldn't it be assumed that a stranger got into the house, went upstairs, and took JBR? That would be at least one of the scenarios if JBR were kidnapped. Wouldn't the police want to question every single person who was in the house that night?
As I recall, Fleet White and his wife took Burke home with them before the body was found, so the police would not have had an opportunity to question him that day. After that, the Ramseys refused to allow him to be questioned by the police, though he was questioned by a social worker at some point, mainly to determine whether he'd ever been abused, I believe.
He did testify at the Grand Jury hearings, but his testimony remains sealed.
Of course they should have questioned Burke, but as happened so often in this case, they were faked out. Looks like John was just too smart for them.
Just read your book. Excellent analysis. I tried to post this, but apparently I did something wrong as it did not show up. I reviewed photos of the basement window on the Candy Rose website. The photos taken from outside the house show a length of rope mixed in with the leaves on the sill. This rope looks like it could be similar to the garrote rope. Any info on whether this rope was compared to the garrote rope? You made an insightful find re PR making the 911 call. I reviewed the call and found that JR's voice does not appear in the background, nor does PR say anything to JR during the call. I would think PR would make some cry out to JR during the call -- even if just to say "they're sending someone." I would also think JR would be barking commands, such as "tell them to hurry" or "there's a ransom note!" instead of simply mutely reading the note while PR is on the phone. It therefore seems that JR may not have been present when PR made the 911 call. Maybe she called without telling him. With the high stakes, it seems JR would've done almost anything to stop her from calling 911 until he could move the body. Maybe he assumed she would come to him first when she saw the note, but instead she first called 911? JR also said he broke the window in July or Aug 1996. Any thoughts on whether there would be water stains on the walls or carpet/carpet pad from storms if the window had been broken for months? Finally, it's curious to me why JR would take the trouble to find JBR new underwear and re-dress her. He could have put her pull-ups back on, or not dressed her at all. Perhaps he did not decide to kill her until after she was dressed? At that point, did she threaten to tell?
Yes I noticed that too. Looks a lot like the cord used to strangle and bind JonBenet doesn't it? Yet I don't recall any mention of that cord in any of the reports. Could have been the source of the cord. Could be something totally different. I'd assume the police would have checked it.
I too have never heard any other voices in the background of the 911 call. I enhanced the recording and still could not hear what Steve Thomas and some others claim was John and Burke's voices. But even if their voices were on that recording I can't see that would tell us much.
It's very possible John wasn't present. In the A&E doc., Patsy says she ran downstairs to make the call while John went upstairs to check on Burke.
Your question about water stains is a good one. But the police were apparently content to accept John's story because it supposedly "explained" why the window would have been broken, without any evidence anyone went through it the night of the murder. The possibility that this could have been a plan gone wrong, and that John would have been able to complete his staging the following night if Patsy hadn't called 911 probably never occurred to them.
As for the panties, I think some semen probably got onto the original panties and since there was no easy way to get rid of them, he redressed her in fresh ones and probably tossed the stained pair into a hamper with all the other laundry. He assumed the police would never think to look for the original pair if they found her already wearing panties -- but if the panties were missing they would probably have searched the house very thoroughly, looking for them. The fact that the second pair were grossly oversized was probably noticed too late for it to do the investigators any good.
"As for the panties, I think some semen probably got onto the original panties and since there was no easy way to get rid of them, he redressed her in fresh ones and probably tossed the stained pair into a hamper with all the other laundry. He assumed the police would never think to look for the original pair if they found her already wearing panties -- but if the panties were missing they would probably have searched the house very thoroughly, looking for them. The fact that the second pair were grossly oversized was probably noticed too late for it to do the investigators any good. "
In JR's original plan, there would have been no reason to replace the original panties. The body was to be disposed of. When and if the body were found the lack of panties could be blamed on the "kidnappers".
Not that there is really any need to explain missing panties, as there would be no reason for the police to assume she'd need to wear panties under long johns. Both are underwear.
I also doubt JR would have put semen stained panties in the hamper. Sooner or later either LHP or PR would do laundry and the risk of either woman seeing the semen stains would be great. Pretty difficult to explain. Of course it's possible JR would do laundry himself had things gone more to plan, but even so, it would be much safer to flush the semen stained panties.
I tend to favor the view that JBR was actually wearing the too big panties all along. That would explain why they were put back on, (or pulled back up) and why PR said JBR sometimes wore the size 12s, and that 12s were available in JBR's underwear drawer. It would be strange if PR made this up, knowing full well the police had searched the underwear drawer. It would also be strange if this didn't make PR deeply suspicious of JR, if in fact JBR did not, on occasion, wear the size 12s. In part, this theory of yours (which I agree with about 99%) depends on PR being reassured that JR couldn't be the killer. She'd surely have become suspicious of size 12 panties if there were never any prior instance of JBR wearing them.
You make some excellent points. Nevertheless, it's very hard to imagine JonBenet wearing panties that large and being able to move around comfortably. Also, Patsy would have known she was wearing them and would have said so when asked. Instead, she was obviously confused by the question.
You're right about John's original plan, which tells me he must have changed her after the 911 call, very likely when he went AWOL on Arndt later that morning.
While it's true the police might not have expected her to be wearing panties, Patsy would have known and would probably have said something that would cause the police to search the house for them. Of course this is all speculation. We really have no way to tell for sure what actually happened. But the bottom line is that an intruder would not have had a reason to change her, and would not have known where to find those panties labeled "Wednesday." John would have, on both counts.
As far as Patsy being suspicious, it's clear from the police interview regarding those panties that she didn't really understand the meaning of what they were asking her and wasn't sure what to make of it. I think you're expecting too much of her. She wasn't a detective, she wasn't a sleuth, she never showed any inclination toward analyzing any of the evidence and putting two and two together, very possibly because she just wasn't psychologically prepared to deal with the possibility of John's involvement.
She may not have needed to move comfortably, as she may simply have put them on for sleeping. I'm not suggesting she wore them to the party earlier in the night. (I doubt she wore the ljs earlier either)
Patsy may have been more confused by where LE was trying to go with the LJs questions than by the existence of the size 12s themselves. . She wouldn't necessarily know if JBR was wearing them or not if JBR put them on herself later in the night. I agree completely that had Patsy known JBR was wearing them when she went to bed Patsy would simply have said so. Instead she tells a story of the size 12s being in JBR's undie drawer. Many people take this to be a lie, but if she really had no clue why JBR was in size 12 panties, why wouldn't she just say that? No need to lie, just disavow any knowledge. Instead, she claims they were in the drawer for JBR to put on whenever she wanted, which is a very strange "lie" to tell when she's had months to be prepped by her lawyers (had all questions in writing in advance) and knows full well whether or not 12s were ever available in the underwear drawer. IMO this is not a lie. It's too stupid a story to be a lie.
So, if the size 12s were in the drawer, and JBR put them on herself, that explains PR's story, and explains why JR would pull them back up (put them back on) Otherwise, it's hard to see why JR would bother with them, as there is no real reason for the police to become suspicious based on not wearing a double set of underwear.
In your scenario, by far the most important part would be disposing of the stained panties in the hamper. After that, it doesn't really matter whether JBR is wearing panties under the LJs or not. So it's hard to see him opening a package found in the basement (if that's where they were) and putting them on JBR with the police and friends in the house, any of whom may have walked down the basement and discovered what he was up to.
If JR's plan B is to "find" JBR and claim an intruder did it, he could still blame the missing panties (if that even came up) on the intruder.
As you say, it's all speculative, but my scenario is equally consistent with the evidence.
Lastly, I'm not suggesting PR did any sleuthing. It's just that if the size 12s came out of the blue (e.g. were never available in the underwear drawer - no reason at all for JBR to have been wearing them) then PR couldn't help ask herself how an "intruder" knew where the size 12s were, or why he'd bother putting them on her.
The last thing JR wants is an intruder story that makes any less sense -to Patsy- than it already does.
You make a pretty good case, CH, but I'm not any more convinced of your panty theory than you are of mine. JonBenet's body was thoroughly washed down. To me, that strongly suggests that semen was spilled. Why not, since there was a sexual assault, after all. If some semen got on her panties, that couldn't be washed off very easily, so he'd have to get rid of the panties at some point. He could originally have just planned to get rid of them when he got rid of all the other evidence, the following day, if all had gone according to plan.
But after Patsy called 911, he would not have been able to just let them remain on the body. He would have needed to get rid of them. The problem was that Patsy knew she'd been wearing panties that night, and she might have wondered aloud where they were. John knew that once the body was found in the house, he would automatically become suspect no. 1. It wouldn't be enough to assume the police would think "the kidnapper" took them, because there had never been a kidnapping -- and there was no sign of forced entry.
Sure it would have been risky to go upstairs, root around in a drawer and find fresh panties -- but he'd have had no choice. Once the stained panties were found it would have been the end for him. So what seems most likely to me is that he found a pair he thought were appropriate, even choosing the right day ("Wednesday"), ran downstairs while everyone else was corraled in the sun room (or wherever) with Arndt, opened the wine cellar door, then closed it behind him -- and changed her panties to the new, oversized pair.
He couldn't just remove the original panties, because as I said, Patsy might notice that she wasn't wearing panties, and the police might start turning the house upside down looking for them. So it would have made sense for him to redress her in the new pair. And it worked! No one noticed the discrepancy until much later and by then John would have had many chances to get rid of the originals. Placing them with the dirty laundry might have been his best option, because a stain on the panties of a bedwetter sitting in a laundry hamper would hardly be noticed.
As for JonBenet changing into the oversize pair herself in the middle of the night, that does remain a possibility, yes. But, assuming she'd wet herself and wanted to take the original pair off, I don't see any reason for her deciding to put on a fresh pair since she was already wearing long johns. Moreover, if she'd wet herself, the long johns would have also gotten wet, so she'd have wanted to change them too. But she was apparently found in the same long johns Patsy had put her into when she put her to bed.
So sorry, I just can't visualize a scenario where JonBenet would want to change into an overize pair of panties in the middle of the night. Possible, yes. Likely? No.
As for Patsy not getting suspicious when she learned about the overize panties during questioning. Well, there were many things that could have triggered her suspicions. I think she just didn't want to go there, was just psychologically incapable of suspecting John. And the fact that John had been ruled out would have made it literally impossible for her to take any suspicions to the police. She was the one they suspected of writing the note, not him.
Sure, it's likely semen was spilled, on the body. There's no necessity that it had to be spilled on the panties and the fact that the wounds to her vagina are consistent with digital penetration, and some wounds were fresh, tells us clearly the panties were pulled down at some point that night. (Or possibly removed altogether) It's very possible then that no semen ever got on the panties. It seems likely, to me, that size 12s could be pulled down right along with the LJs, and right back up with the LJs.
You second paragraph, about PR knowing about the panties has one flaw. If PR knew JB was wearing panties, because she (PR) had seen them when putting the LJs on JBR, then PR would also know what size they were. Too big panties raise much the same red flags as no panties, unless of course there was a history of JBR wearing too big panties (which is consistent with PR's statements to the police)
So, JR would have two bad choices to make, either let PR wonder what happened to the missing panties, or let her wonder why JBR was in size 12 panties (which still begs the question what happened to the original panties) Neither is a good option. Since JR would originally have decided to dump the body, the missing panties (which would become an issue if/when the body was found) could be blamed on the kidnappers. Once it becomes clear the body will be found, in the house, he is still intent on blaming an "intruder", so there is still no reason not to simply leave her w/o panties and blame their disappearance on the intruder. In fact putting size 12s on her at that point is really worse than doing nothing. It's more plausible that an intruder took the "missing" panties as a souvenir, or to avoid leaving a trace of himself, than an intruder roamed the house looking for "Wednesday" panties and took the time to redress the body instead of getting out of Dodge. Once JR realized he was going to have to cook up an intruder scenario he'd have realized the intruder could be blamed for the missing panties too.
Neither PR, or anyone else, could have noticed the discrepancy until later, because for once the police (almost) followed procedure and didn't tamper (much) with the body or it's clothing before the autopsy. Had they found no panties at autopsy it might not have raised any eyebrows at all with the police. Only when the autopsy results were made known to PR would she realize something was wrong -e.g. the panties were missing, but she'd realize something was wrong with size 12s too. Either way there is a panty discrepancy, and either way it has to be blamed on the intruder.
Your theory depends on JR not noticing or caring about the size discrepancy. This is harder to believe if he took fresh size 12s from a package and took off the LJs and put on the large panties. At that point he'd have to know there was a discrepancy that was hard to explain.
The notion that JBR was wearing the 12s all along is a good reason for them to be found on her. They simply went down and back up with the LJs, and JR may never have really noticed the size, or if he did, he'd have no reason to think it would raise suspicion, since she was already in them. It's also consistent with PR's statement about the panties being in JBR's drawer, available for her to put on.
I believe my theory of the panties is actually more consistent with your overall theory of the case. JR restored her clothing as he knew it to be when he took her from her bed. If and when the body was found (after being dumped) it would be found dressed as she had been at bed time (as far as JR knew) Once it became necessary to switch from kidnapping to a "kidnapping gone bad", he would have known that no intruder would spend time rummaging through drawers or closets looking for panties to put back on a dead body..
As for JBR wearing 12s on her own volition, either PR lied, or JBR really did do that on occasion. There's really no in between. PR tells the police that the 12s were put in JBR's drawer because JBR asked for them and it had been decided not to give them to Jenny as was originally intended.
While it's possible PR lied, it's a strange lie to tell given that PR knows very well whether or not the police could have found any 12s in the underwear drawer. She also knew from the tabloids (and likely her own lawyers) that JBR had on size 12s, at autopsy, and she knew this several weeks before the police interviews. She certainly could have come up with a better story, if any story was needed. If she really didn't know why JBR was in size 12s, then she'd simply have said that. She would not make up a lie that casts suspicion on herself. As I said before, it's too bad a story to be a lie. So, JBR likely had some childish wish to wear "big girl" panties, her desire to be more grown up outweighing any discomfort.
Patsy didn't have to suspect JR, but she had to at least wonder -aloud, to friends and family- why an intruder bothered rummaging through the house finding "Wednesday" panties to put on a dead girl. Such thoughts could hardly be avoided.
I read in one of the reports that the medical examiner was aware that JB's body had been cleaned, and that there was a residue left on her thighs that they were hoping was semen, but it turned out to be JB's blood. It's hard to imagine that no semen was found on her body or clothing, but that is the case. It's also unlikely in that case, that all the semen was deposited on her underwear, and thus discarded. I agree with CH, that it appears her underwear and longjohns were pulled down and therefore free of blood, with the exception of the one or two drops in her underwear that most likely occurred after they were pulled up (after she was washed). With no semen found anywhere, residue left from a substantial amount of blood on her legs, and the missing tip of the paintbrush found, it's understandable how LE could conclude that the sexual assault was staged. IMO, the underwear could've been changed, but I have a hard time imagining the perp not getting blood on the longjohns, as well as her shirt, if they weren't pulled down and up respectively.
My thinking is based on the assumption that John would have known nothing about any oversize panties and would not have noticed anything amiss when he redressed her. He would certainly have had more things on his mind at that point than worrying about panty size. While John might have argued that the absence of panties meant they were taken by "the intruder," the discrepancy between the ransom note and the body found in-house certainly made the police suspect an inside job. And John would have had no way of knowing for sure whether or not Patsy might wonder where JonBenet's panties were.
I'm not saying it had to have happened as I envision it, but it's really hard for me to find any reason why JonBenet would have wanted to change to that oversize pair in the middle of the night. And Patsy would certainly have noticed if she had been put to bed wearing them.
I'm not saying it had to happen the way I'm guessing, just that it's a very good possibility.
Since there was no semen found, on the body or clothing, it stands to reason -as a possibility- that no semen was deposited. It may be that the night's activities didn't include JR getting his "jollies" but rather was just for the purpose of silencing JBR and obscuring evidence of prior molestation.
It's also possible he ejaculated on the body, not on the underwear.
At any rate, we know that no semen was found so it's very reasonable to think that the panties she had on when carried to the basement never became stained with semen.
One way to approach this is to ask who the 12s were for. That is, who was supposed to notice/not notice the panties?
In the original plan, the body would be dumped. With luck it would have been days -or longer- before the body was found. IMO the easiest thing to do would be blame the missing panties, along with any evidence of molestation, on the kidnappers.
But if JR didn't want to blame missing panties on the kidnappers, then the panties had to be for PR's benefit. The police have no way of knowing what JBR had on at bedtime. But PR knew. The size 12s don't keep the police from asking where the "missing" panties went, they prevent PR from asking. But that creates a problem. The panties are way too big, and if JBR went to sleep in size 6s, the too big panties are just as much a problem as no panties - more so really.
When the crime changes from an actual kidnapping to a "kidnapping gone wrong", what changes?
Well, once again, the missing panties can simply be blamed on the intruder. This is by far the easiest thing to do, if the size 6s are stained.
JR knows the body will be found in the house, and he knows there will be an autopsy. He knows that the absence of panties can be blamed on the intruder, and if he has noticed the size problem with the `12s, he knows that's a bigger problem than no panties at all.
So, once the crime morphs into a "kidnapping gone bad" the only way JR puts size 12s on her is if a) he can't think fast enough to blame the intruder for the missing panties, and b) he doesn't notice the size problem. The later is critical, as the size 12s raise more questions than no panties at all would. And the answers are more difficult to accept as believable.
So JR must not have known about the size problem? But how could that be? If he'd removed them from a package then put them on her for the first time, he could hardly fail to notice they are the wrong size for JBR. OTOH, if the 12s are already on her, he'd have no reason to think they looked suspicious, even if he did notice the size problem. If they went down and back up with the LJs, he may not have noticed at all.
But why would JBR being wearing size 12s before JR began the nights "activities" ?
Patsy tells the story that the 12s were originally for a niece but were never sent, JBR asked to have them, and they were in the panty drawer for JBR to wear when she wanted. So, whether one thinks it would be comfortable or not, it might well be that JBR had access to them and put them on herself before JR came into her bedroom later in the night. If that were the case, that would explain why they are on the dead body. The body was redressed exactly as JR had found her when he took her to the basement.
For those who can't accept that JBR already had the size 12s on, then PR's story -about the 12s being in the drawer- is a lie and must be explained. As I see it this story does not help JR. In fact, it makes the entire "intruder" scenario that much harder to accept. I certainly can't see why JR would encourage PR to make up such a story when it chips away at the credibility (already very low) of the intruder scenario.
1. If JR took the size 6s off her, and put fresh size 12s on her, he could hardly have failed to notice the size difference.
2. We don't know when the body was wiped down. My guess is that it was before the 911 call, as any evidence of sexual assault/activity might be discovered if PR woke up (and hence, the need for an additional murder). It's safer for JR to wipe away evidence even when he's still operating on plan A (dumping the body). If he left the body clean up for later, after PR/BR were out of the house then when the 911 call was made he obviously had to wipe the body before it was "found" in the house. But in this case, time would be of the essence. JR could be discovered at any moment by one of the many people in the house. It would take extra time to locate the size 12s and would take time to put them on. And of course, as I've already noted, it raises more questions than no panties at all would. '
I suggest the simple explanation is that JBR had the 12s on all along -from the time JR entered her bedroom. There was never any semen staining on the "original" panties. This fits the physical evidence and PRs statements.
Hi Doc, I have trouble posting on the blog so I thought I would send my inquiry in an email.
So many perplexing things about the case but one thing that drives me nuts is the pineapple. Didn't the ME say it was fresh pineapple? Not canned. Then it had to have been cut inside the house, were any remnants found in the trash? JR and PR claim to have no idea where the pineapple came from, doesn't that mean that someone had to have brought it in that night? As for the LHPI theory, can you point me to where she accuses Patsy? The only interview transcripts I have seen have her speaking highly of Patsy, indicating she was generous for giving her the advance that she was to pick up on the 27th. Seems highly implausible that the Pugh's walked right into that house that night, fed JB pineapple, wrote the note, killed JB, etc and no one heard a thing. Although equally implausible that JR did all of that as well without anyone hearing a thing. I know you are hardcore JDI and you have managed to convince me and many others after steering us toward "just the facts" and not speculation, I feel myself grasping for anyone but him as it is just inconceivable to me. In Mark Beckner's recent interview he admitted that not all of the evidence had been released to the public. I am curious, is there any evidence that would convince you of IDI or anyone beside JDI?
Thanks so much for the blog and your level head on this case, it is welcome and refreshing.
Feel free to post on the blog as a comment if you would like.
To answer your first question, I don't think the Ramseys ever denied there was pineapple in the house. They just denied feeding her any that night.
LHP accused Patsy in a tabloid interview, and later in a book she was working on that never got published. As I recall a chapter of the book appeared years ago on the Internet. Early on, however, she very strongly defended Patsy. I think she was seduced by the prospect of a lucrative book deal. There are many reasons for believing her to be innocent. Imo there has never been a plausible intruder theory of any kind in this case.
I agree that it's hard to see John as the killer. But we do know that many "respectable" men have abused their daughters. And it's just one step from abuse to murder, where the possibility of exposure is present.
As far as evidence that might get me to change my mind: Well, when I first learned about John Mark Karr's confession, the report also (mistakenly) mentioned that his DNA was a match. I was astonished, because that did not jibe with my view of the case at all. But you can't argue with the combination of a confession and matching DNA. So I promptly apologized, publicly, to Jameson, the Ramsey's staunchest supporter, because I had to admit I'd been wrong. As it turned out, his DNA did not match. Nor did his story. But for a moment there I was convinced I'd gotten it wrong.
Do you suspect that Burke knows the truth? If so, wouldn't he have told Patsy? I find it unbelievable that he wouldn't have, and/or that Patsy wouldn't have taken his concern seriously. Either way, do you think Patsy knew of John's guilt before she passed on? Might she have revealed any clues to anyone? Also, do you find it likely that Burke's silence stems from fear of himself being (wrongly) prosecuted, or would it be more-so fear of John? Maybe he knows JDI but just cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe he is clueless after all. I do assume he wants justice served for his sister. I finally built the courage (after several months) to look at autopsy photos. Surprisingly I'm glad I did because I was shocked at the extent of fracture in skull. I now understand why you believe Burke couldn't/wouldn't have done it, and why some think it was an act of rage. But as you've stated, a single blow that kills is not usually done out of rage but to kill quickly and relatively painlessly. I must admit, your dedication and people's cooperation in this blog is fascinating.
I have no idea what Burke might know. But I feel sure John and possibly also his lawyers worked on him to keep silent. Probably because John suspects he might know something.
PS: In your opinion why didn't Patsy ever read the RN, and according to Arndt didn't address that there was no call from kidnapper? Her daughter was first missing, then found murdered, additionally murderer's identity is still unknown and there is a, not one but three-page ransom note that she never read (?). She either knew John wrote it or someone discouraged her from reading it. I don't believe she wasn't curious. You will say if she knew JDI and was covering for him she wouldn't have made the 911 call. Maybe she knew JDI and was not covering and equally didn't trust her gut, or want to trust it, therefore avoiding RN note.
There are two very different versions of what happened prior to the 911 call, which tells us they are lying. In fact we have no way of knowing for sure what went on before Patsy called. They both may have read the note together and argued about what to do. Or Patsy may have panicked and only read the opening lines before calling. We can't make the mistake of assuming anything when it come to this case, aside from the known facts. Their version(s) of what happened is NOT a fact.
Correction: I don't believe she wouldn't be* curious (if she didn't know JDI). In fact I don't believe she'd be anything less than obsessed to find answers.
After the body was found Patsy turned into a basket case on meds, NOT a private investigator. She had no reason to assume John was guilty and a few weeks later he was declared "ruled out," which to her meant he could not have written the note. So no I don't think she suspected him at all. If she did she'd at the very least have left him.
I have been reading about the JonBenet Ramsey case for years now and have just read an listened to Law and Disorder written by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Several things in this case were never answered if they were ever asked. 1.) Where did the duct tape come from. The police and the detective stated that they conducted a very thorough search inside and out and could never find "any" duct tape. Referring to the duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth. 2.)In one of the crime scene photographs it shows an open window in the basement and a chair is clearly placed there? Did someone come in or did some one go out? It was quickly dismissed as being stated that one of the investigating officer's "may" have placed it there. 3.) Head wounds such as J.B's cause significant blood loss, if the victim is alive. Where is all the blood? Where are the towels or clothed used to clean up the blood? 4.) Linda Hoffman Pugh stated that the towel that was used to wrap J.B. was a towel that was in the dryer the day or night proceeding J.B.'s death and the Patsy Ramsey would have known that "specific" towel was in the clothes dryer. If they hired a housekeeper, would she not be the one that washed and dried the clothes?? 5.)The original autopsy never caught the fact that J.B. was possibly (more than likely) knocked out using a Tazer. It took another doctor looking at the photographs years later to catch this. Looking at these photographs, I have no idea how that was even missed. 6.) Where did the rope come from? According to the investigation this type of rope is usually sold in 50' to 100' lengths. Who uses rope like this? Usually contractors, surveyors, landscapers, and other type or similar types of workers. 7.) DNA that was found at the crime scene that did not match Patsy or John's, was never tested against the Housekeeper, her husband, or other probable suspects...why not? 8.) Detective Linda Arndt had stated that at the time of finding J.B.'s body it finally clicked..."At that time I realized what happened and thought how many bullets do I have." (I do not presume to state that this was the exact quote), but she had assumed that John Ramsey who was in the wine cellar with her had killed J.B. Years later she would retract her statement. Rope, Duct Tape, Extensive Knowledge of Contractor Knots/Navy Knot tying, unmatched DNA never tested against possible suspects.
1. The duct tape and cord were probably taken from detritus left over from gift packaging that had been temporarily stored in the basement. Also workers had been in the house and there might have been a strand of cord or duct tape left in the basement by them. It's highly unlikely that an intruder would have arrived at the house equipped with rolls of tape and cord, and also unlikely that he'd have bothered to take them away with him.
2. The open window you've seen wasn't a window at all, but a crawl space. And yes someone had left a chair under it, probably when the police checked it out that morning.
3. JonBenet's head wound produced no external bleeding, which is why the forensics people suspect that the maglite was the weapon used to bludgeon her as it has a relatively soft head.
4. A blanket was used, not a towel. And either Patsy or John could have taken it from the dryer.
5. Lou Smit was the one responsible for the stun gun theory, but there was NO evidence whatsoever that a stun gun was used. The photos can be interpreted in many different ways and there are all sorts of things that could have produced those wounds. That one's a classic red herring.
6. The cord used was probably taken from among gift packaging detritus and was probably used up by her attacker, with none left over.
7. The DNA was tested against every single suspect and no match was found. If you do a search for DNA on this blog you'll learn why I don't consider it relevant. And I'm not the only one.
8. Yes, it seems clear that Arndt suspected John and I have no doubt she still does.
As far as knots are concerned, John was in the navy and was also an experienced boatman.
1.) The duct tape and cord were probably taken from detritus left over from gift packaging that had been temporarily stored in the basement. Also workers had been in the house and there might have been a strand of cord or duct tape left in the basement by them. It's highly unlikely that an intruder would have arrived at the house equipped with rolls of tape and cord, and also unlikely that he'd have bothered to take them away with him. This is completely wrong: Detective Arndt and the investigative team found that the rope used for JB’s binds was not found anywhere on or around the property. Being a one-time contractor my duct tape always stayed in my tool boxes and I made sure it went with me when the job was done. The ransom not dictates that “the two men who are watching JB”….If I have three men involved in a kidnapping I would write the ransom note “the men I have watching JB.” 2.) The open window you've seen wasn't a window at all, but a crawl space. And yes someone had left a chair under it was probably when the police checked it out that morning: The police were questioned about this and no one remembered putting that chair in that position under that window. 3. JonBenet's head wound produced no external bleeding, which is why the forensics people suspect that the Maglite was the weapon used to bludgeon her as it has a relatively soft head. Seeing head wounds and seeing photographs on head wounds….head wound bleed profusely when the subject or victim is still alive. If the heart is beating….blood will pour out profusely until stopped or the heart is stopped…no matter how “soft the skull is” this in and of itself makes absolutely no sense. 4. A blanket was used, not a towel. And either Patsy or John could have taken it from the dryer. This in and of itself is also in question. The housekeeper did state it was a blanket (I was incorrect on this one) and Patsy or John pulled this out of the dryer. Your housekeeper cleans the house, mops, and washes and cleans the clothes. You have a company that is worth millions or billions and you hire a housekeeper….you are actually going to wash and dry your own laundry???? 5. Lou Smit was the one responsible for the stun gun theory, but there was NO evidence whatsoever that a stun gun was used. The photos can be interpreted in many different ways and there are all sorts of things that could have produced those wounds. That one's a classic red herring. This is completely wrong!!! A forensic expert specializing on autopsies was brought in by an FBI profiling team. Lou Smit asked John Douglas to come in and help him out, the doctor (whose name I cannot recall right now) matched the marks on JB ‘s neck to a Tazer... I know looking at those marks…that was a Tazer.
Yes, neither that type of cord or duct tape was found. Why would it be, if the attacker used up all that was available. Alternatively John could have flushed the remainder down the toilet. You are assuming they came from rolls of cord or tape, but that's just an assumption.
If the chair wasn't put there by the police then it was probably put there earlier by someone accessing something in the crawl space. I see nothing suspicious about that chair.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding the head wound. There was no external bleeding. It was only after the med. examiner lifted her scalp that he saw the head wound. There was interior bleeding of course, but nothing visible on the exterior of her head. Are you saying that all the witnesses and the police and medical examiner were lying?
The blanket could easily have been located by John. He certainly knew where the dryer was. I fail to see your point.
Just because some marks on the body match a stun gun does not mean a stun gun was used. If a stun gun that matched had been found on or near the Ramsey home that would be different. Smit simply went shopping around for any stun gun that might match and apparently he found one. So what? The marks could have been made by all sorts of things, most likely some objects that were lying around the floor when she was bludgeoned. What Smit did is called cherry picking.
6. The cord used was probably taken from among gift packaging detritus and was probably used up by her attacker, with none left over.
Honestly: Who uses contractor grade rope for Christmas Packaging…Seriously!! 7. The DNA was tested against every single suspect and no match was found. If you do a search for DNA on this blog you'll learn why I don't consider it relevant. And I'm not the only one. Linda Pugh, her husband’s or other contractors or landscaper’s DNA was never tested against the suspect DNA…if this is actually in one of the websites you are looking at….it is definitively incorrect. 8. Yes, it seems clear that Arndt suspected John and I have no doubt she still does. As far as knots are concerned, John was in the navy and was also an experienced boatman. You have many misconceptions about this case. John Ramsey served as a civil engineer in the United States Navy….Not a Boatswains Mate. I served in the Navy for over 9 years and did not learn how to tie a knot until I went to Alaska on a Fishing boat.
I have attended many classes pertaining to this and other cases. I have absolutely no misconceptions on this case, outside of the fact that John or Patsy stood nothing to gain by killing their daughter. I have an idea that Patsy may have known or suspected someone prior to her death….The answer lies within the note, duct tape, and the rope… If I am writing a ransom not I am not going to identify that there are two men watching the person I have kidnapped? I would write. “We have your daughter and she is being watched.”
Contractor grade rope was not used. Perfectly ordinary cord was used. It could certainly have been used on a gift package.
Everyone with access to the house had their DNA tested. Why do you believe otherwise? What is your source of information regarding who was and was not tested? Again, it seems clear that you are misinformed on many aspects of this case. If you want to continue this dialogue I'm going to ask you to provide references to reliable sources.
John was in the navy and had many opportunities to learn about knots regardless of whether he was actually a seaman or not. He also was an avid sailor on his own private boat after leaving the navy.
Police Identified the rope as “White Stansport” 32” strand 3/16” woven contractor rope that was for sale at the local Army Surplus and the local Home Depot and Lowes stores…nowhere else. Do you have access to the police reports and the autopsy reports, have you actually read these…and have actually read information from the detectives that were hired to look at this case with an unbiased opinion. Where exactly are you getting your information from? I attended one class with one of the Psychologist who was actually involved with the Ramsey interview and the case. I have read many books on the Ramsey Case including just finishing Law and Disorder and the Cases that Haunt us and have gone over some of the reports that are out there for the public to read. (From the Autopsy Report): Craniocerebral Injuries: A.) Severe Scalp Contusion B.) Linear, comminuted fracture (open fracture) of the right side of the skull. C.) Linear pattern of contusions of and on the right cerebral hemisphere. D.) Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage…bleeding should have been external. E.) Small contusions, tips of the temporal lobes.
You don’t think the detectives and other investigators didn’t look at the Christmas packages to see if there was this specific rope used. Try flushing rope and duct tape down the toilet…its easily retrievable by detectives and the crime scene units. I really think you need to look into your information a little more thoroughly. JB’s pediatrician was even interviewed and stated that JB had never shown any signs of abuse…Past behavior determines future behavior, neither Patsy or John ever showed any signs of child abusive behavior in the past….So out of some fit of unrecognizable rage, John or Patsy flew into a frenzy of anger and killed JB by either strangulation or bashing her head in???
She was not strangled or tied with a rope. She was tied with "cord." (see http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682514/The%20Cords). And yes, I've seen it described, in Steve Thomas's book, as “White Stansport” 32” strand 3/16” but whether or not it's used by contractors I can't say. I've seen several photos from the crime scene and it's definitely a fairly thin cord, resembling a shoelace, NOT rope. That type of cord could easily have been used to wrap a present or possibly used by one of the workers who'd been in the home recently. John could have used up all the cord he found, certainly. No need to presume it came from a roll that somehow vanished. And if John had cut the remaining cord and tape into little pieces it would have flushed very easily.
And yes, I've read the police reports and the police interviews and the autopsy, of course. And I fail to understand your insistence that she must have bled externally, since it's contrary to the autopsy report and all other descriptions of the crime scene. I don't care if "the bleeding should have been external." It wasn't. Period. End of story.
Signs of prior abuse were found by the medical examiner, who reported "chronic damage" to the inner wall of the vagina. According to Cyril Wecht and other forensic pathologists who examined that report, it was consistent with prior abuse. That doesn't constitute 100% proof, admittedly, and other interpretations have been offered, but it certainly is cause for suspicion. And it enables us to posit a motive for murder on John's part.
I don't think she was murdered in an act of rage. I think the killing was calculated and the motive was to prevent her from reporting the abuse. Patsy had nothing to do with it, imo. If you read further in this blog you'll learn more about my analysis of this case.
The pictures in these photos are not cords....it is rope. I am not attempting to be condescending, but a cord is made of elastic, vinyl material, rubber or some type of plastic material. http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm
Mervin Pugh transcript upon being interviewed; "How did she die? Was it strangulation." How would this be someones first guess, unless they had specific knowledge.
There was no and was never any evidence of any sexual abuse to JB...that was purely media hype...The original autopsy though not flawed "missed" several key points that two other Medical Examiners had agreed upon. The chronic damage to the inner wall of the vagina by the original Corner was later redacted as a misinterpretation. How could JB have been continually abused, sexually or otherwise and her pediatrician never reported this fact. Any case that requires a subject to beat a person tell their skull is cracked or suffers a severe subdural hematoma, no matter what the age....requires some significant rage or anger....you do not do this, just because you think it's a good idea...
Also the ingested pineapple was eaten after the Christmas dinner (crab). Therefore, someone either fed JB the pineapple prior to her death. She got up sometime prior to the assailant causing her great bodily harm and death and fed herself pineapple (this is not even remotely likely)...and the butler door that led into the kitchen was left open...
The only thing I can agree with you in this blog, is that Patsy did not kill JB....and I firmly believe the John did not kill her either.
You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Baker. But you make many assumptions and easily jump to conclusions -- and, as I must insist, are misinformed. You also provide no references and until you do I won't respond to any specifics, sorry.
Do you actually work in law enforcement or just blog about absurdities...all my information is backed by books, research, autopsy reports, and information retrieved from the case files of the people that were actually there. If you are actually a doctor or a forensic specialist I will accept your ideas as being "plausible." I don't base my information on my opinion or feelings only the facts presented to me...that's why I like doing what I do professionally.
Howdy would you mind letting me know which hosting company you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog in 3 completely different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good internet hosting provider at a reasonable price? Cheers, I appreciate it! Hope you love my site สล็อ
Just reading through this blog. Apparently "Unknown" failed to read the URL he posted as "evidence" rope was used, not "cord." The URL says "evidence-CORD" (emphasis mine). CORD.
Unknown May 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM The pictures in these photos are not cords....it is rope. I am not attempting to be condescending, but a cord is made of elastic, vinyl material, rubber or some type of plastic material. http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm
There was much discussion on the prior open thread about BDI.
ReplyDeleteIMO, the bottom line on BDI is simply this - neither JR or PR are going to go to jail for a crime they didn't commit, to "save" a 9 year old who can't be prosecuted.
For me this is enough to rule out BDI. It really is just that simple.
Doc has made a strong case for JR being prosecuted. When PR was alive she also could have been prosecuted. We know of course that the GJ wanted them both indicted. JR and PR simply aren't going to place themselves in legal jeopardy when there is no reason to do so.
CH
"IMO, the bottom line on BDI is simply this - neither JR or PR are going to go to jail for a crime they didn't commit, to "save" a 9 year old who can't be prosecuted. "
DeleteI think the logic is the following:
They didn't know he couldn't be prosecuted. And even if he wouldn't go to jail, the authorities would potentially take him away from the family, which would be devastating after losing their daughter. They had no idea it would become a media circus. They assumed their money and connections would quickly squelch any attempts to hold them accountable.
Not saying these are all equally valid points, but it's not entirely insane that they thought this way.
To further this line of thought: JR and PR may not have known for certain what Burke could/could not be charged with, but most educated people know that under the age of 11, kids are not prosecuted for murder. In fact, all you have to do is read the news to know that. A quick call to their "connections" aka lawyers would have affirmed this, there would have been no need to garrote and sexually molest JBR, and they would have used their "connections" to get help for Burke. As far as him being taken away from them, you might not be aware that in our current system, Children and Family Services agencies are not even taking away kids from crackheads and all kinds of abusive situations. More than likely, a judge would order this child into intensive therapy and everyone would be glad the parents could pay for it vs. putting him in a system that has no funds for the poor kids from indigent families. Having been involved in trying to get help for kids, I know that taking away kids is a last resort, and even then many kids do not get help or get rescued from their home environments. Go sit in a family court for a day and you'll see what happens with these cases. Yes, clubbing a sibling is a serious matter especially when it results in the death of a sibling. But when judges see cases of extremely behavioral issues that have brought harm to others, and the parents have means and are not overall "bad people," the judge orders mandatory treatment. These parents could afford the best of treatment and upon the death of their precious daughter, would have willingly complied. A lawyer would have advised them to proceed with getting help for their son. I do think an innocent JR would have called a trusted lawyer that nigh t had he found that Burke clubbed his daughter. Anonymom
DeleteI wanted to respond to this post by Gumshoe, so I'll reproduce it here -
ReplyDeleteAnonymous March 29, 2015 at 12:22 PM
Patrick, you make some interesting points. There are, however, three facts IMO that completely destroy the BDI theory.
1. Burke was not physically capable of landing a blow with such force that it created an eight inch fissure across a skull unless he used a weapon that was heavy or hard enough to aid him. Such a weapon would have externally drawn blood from JonBenet's scalp. In this case, a softer and blunter weapon such as the Maglite adorned with a rubber tip could've swung down with enough force to not only crack the skull but to do it without breaking the skin on JonBenet's scalp. For that to be possible, the blow would've had to come from a strong person.
2. If John and Patsy took the trouble to write out a detailed ransom note, why would they call 911 after they specifically wrote in the note not to do that with threats on JonBenet's life? Doesn't that obviously make them look suspicious? They could have easily left the threats of contacting authorities out of the note if they wanted to. Why call 911 when they could have easily followed the instructions of the ransom note and dumped the body at their own convenience instead of risking having the police find the body in their own home?
3. If Burke was responsible for killing JonBenet, there is no way on God's green earth that the Ramseys would allow him to leave their side. Yet, he was awakened that morning and allowed to leave the house with Fleet White. What if Burke told Fleet something incriminating during that time with John and Patsy around to protect him? Makes no sense at all.
Gumshoe
I agree with the first point. BR wouldn't have had the strength to bash her skull with a flashlight. It's not a given that she was struck with the flashlight, but the fl is consistent and therefore a good possibility. The ball bat is also a good possibility and would give BR the necessary leverage. The round shape of the bat might have caused a skull fracture w/o breaking the scalp. If the flashlight is the weapon we can be pretty sure BR isn't the culprit. Those who wish to see it as BDI need to abandon the flashlight as the weapon that fractured JBR's skull.
Point 2 is also good. If JR/PR wrote the note to cover up a murder by BR, why would they immediately violate every warning in the note making themselves suspicious? And they could have written the note in any form they wanted, omitting the warnings if need be. PR's call to 911 and friends is inconsistent with the note, indicating she didn't write it, and probably didn't read it thoroughly. We can at least eliminate PR as having anything to do with covering up for BR.
Your 3rd point is also good. The fact that he was trusted to go with the Whites means that he neither committed the murder himself, nor did he know anything about who did. JR wasn't the least bit concerned with what BR had seen during the night.
I'm hard pressed to understand the enduring appeal of BDI. It makes absolutely no sense.
CH
I've already posted the following two comments on the previous thread, but in case they might be overlooked, I'm reposting them here:
ReplyDeletePatrick, I appreciate your strenuous efforts to play the "devil's advocate" by making as strong a BDI case as possible. And, as I've admitted from the start, there are, strictly speaking, no facts that tell us whether John or Burke was responsible for the fatal attack. So yes, my insistence that John assaulted and murdered his daughter, and that Burke is innocent is not exclusively based on fact. However, it is not pure speculation either.
As it seems to me, the most likely culprit by far, given the crime scene and all the other evidence -- especially the evidence for chronic molestation -- is John rather than Burke. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the notion that a 9 year old child with no history of violence or sexual interest of any kind, was chronically molesting his 6 year old sister, leading to a situation where he sexually assaulted her and then not only bludgeoned her into unconsciousness, but, on the basis of his Cub Scout training, devised a complexly knotted device to strangle her with (after a wait of 45 minutes to 2 hours), with his parents then collaborating to stage an elaborate kidnapping to cover for him, is so unlikely as to be ludicrous. What you fail to understand, as I see it, is the difference between reasonable doubt and any doubt at all. There IS a difference. And it is crucial.
Very few criminal cases are decided on the basis of airtight evidence or indisputable fact. In this particular case, we are fortunate in being able to deduce so much on the basis of the facts, but that's very unusual. While technically the prosecution is expected to "prove" its case, realistically the verdict hinges on the prosecution's ability to convince. So in order to evaluate your (and Kolar's) claim, we need to imagine what might happen in a jury trial.
While you present a series of arguments that, so you claim, would constitute reasonable doubt, it would in fact be fatal for a defense attorney to use any of them in an actual trial. Just imagine a defense that went like this:
(continued on following comment)
(continued from previous comment)
Delete"Well, you know I have to admit it looks bad for my client, but the truth is that he was only trying to protect his son. After all, John had no real motive to assault and kill his daughter, while it's not difficult to see how Burke could have been jealous of all the attention she was getting and certainly we know that sibling rivalry can be a powerful motivator. [Feel free to add any of the other arguments you've already presented.] While it might seem a bit over the top for parents to concoct such an elaborate coverup and take such huge risks to protect the son who had just killed their own daughter, we need to recognize that the Ramseys would have been under extreme stress and making bad decisions in an understandable panic. [etc.]"
Well, if I were on the jury, listening to this "defense," my first thought would be: "Fine. I'm willing to consider that possibility. So why not put John on the stand and let him explain exactly what happened. And also put Burke on the stand, to corroborate his father's allegations.
Of course no competent defense lawyer in his right mind would see that as good idea. So the prosecution could counter by, first, reminding the jury that both John and Burke are in a position to come forward with the truth, but have never done so, and second by pointing out that the only adult male in that house is far more likely to have sexually molested his daughter than his nine year old son, with no history of violence or interest in the opposite sex.
Unless of course Burke actually was the murderer. But if that were the case, then John and Burke would have already had ample opportunity to, finally, explain what actually happened and, if their story were convincing, there would be no trial in the first place.
As I've already stressed, my goal is to see John have his day in court. And if he can demonstrate his innocence in a convincing manner, then fine, I'd be willing to give him "a pass." But to argue that no such trial should ever take place simply because there is no way to absolutely positively and beyond all doubt prove that Burke could not have committed this crime -- that, to me, is irresponsible.
I accept the Burke theory has major problems. But if we are talking about a defense for JR, you are going about it wrong. Or misinterpreting what I wrote.
DeleteOn trial for murder, JR would not bother to present a scenario where Burke was the killer. He wouldn't need to, and it's a terrible defense. He doesn't need to prove his innocence. You have to prove his guilt. So what evidence do you have that he killed his daughter? Exactly, you don't have any.
Assuming a rational jury, you can put the murderer inside that house, you can probably even put the murderer inside that family. So you are down to 3 possible assailants. But it's up to you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JR did it.
Based on what evidence we have now, I don't think you can. Even though I admit the JR scenario is the most likely one...
You couldn't be more wrong, Patrick. It can be established that there was no intruder. It can be established that John made many misleading statements both in his police interviews and his book. It can be established that John lied about breaking the window on the previous summer. Which in turn strongly implies that he broke it the night of the crime, in an attempt to stage an intruder break-in. It can also be argued that the person most likely by far to have sexually assaulted and previously sexually abused the victim is the only adult male in the home, John Ramsey. These factors in themselves constitute strong circumstantial evidence. A smoking gun that definitively links John to the murder is not necessary in a circumstantial case. And in fact most such cases are tried without such a smoking gun. Not every case is open and shut, obviously.
DeleteNow if there were no intruder, and the only people in the house that night aside from the victim, were John, Patsy and Burke, then the ONLY basis for reasonable doubt would be that one of them did it and John was "only" involved in a conspiracy to cover it up. But if in fact John is the murderer, then no lawyer would ever invoke reasonable doubt on that score, because obviously the person capable of resolving that doubt would be the defendant himself, who would be perfectly capable of explaining his role in the coverup. And if he's guilty it would be a huge mistake to put him on the stand and subject his lies to cross examination. If the reasonable doubt in question can be dispelled, and the person in a position to dispel it is in the courtroom, and refuses to testify, then I'm sorry but that isn't really a reasonable doubt defense. It's no defense at all, but practically an admission of guilt.
Now if it happens that John is innocent, then after his arrest he would be in a position to explain to the authorities how Burke or Patsy killed JonBenet and what he did to help with the coverup. And if his explanation was convincing, then the chances are that he would never be charged, as the time limit on aiding and abetting has passed.
So as you can see, while you and Kolar and many others reading about this case might harbor some reasonable doubt, there would be no room for such a defense in an actual trial. If John is one of three people who could have committed the murder and he knows who did what, then it's up to him to testify and attempt to exonerate himself. Doubt would exist ONLY if there is no one available who could dispel such doubt.
John would probably not take the stand. You are convinced that nobody was in that house. I am convinced. But others are not, and that is why he would never allow the prosecution to show it was an inside job. His lawyers would push back against that. There would be endless testimony about mysterious people walking around the neighbourhood, endless discussion of robberies in the neighbourhood, pedophile rings involving mysterious powerful interests, how he handed out multiple keys (apparently half the neighborhood had a key to his house), the fact the police botched the investigation and aren't really sure if the home was secure or not, the foreign DNA ("if the DNA don't fit, you must acquit!"), etc., etc.
DeleteFor those jurors would could be convinced that someone inside that house committed the crime, his lawyers would show how many "experts" were unanimous that JR did not write that ransom note, although PR could not be ruled out.
If he got on the stand (which I doubt), he would say it was an intruder. If his lawyer asked him if he thought his wife did it, he would say absolutely not, he just couldn't imagine his wife would do it, she loved their daughter as much as he did (a tear would now form), etc., etc. But he would feign a bit of uncertainty when responding to the Patty question, as if he was actually considering it for a few seconds ("No, no, absolutely n-- [pause].. I mean... [pause]... no, I just can't imagine it. No way. It was an intruder."). It's win-win, he is defending his wife (who obviously can't testify) like a good husband, and yet, and yet, he seems to have a slight bit of doubt...
The handwriting analysis, as you've noted, was absolutely crucial. Not just to eliminate him early as the prime suspect. But if he ever went to court, it's the perfect "evidence" to show he wasn't even involved with the cover-up.
Yes, of course he wouldn't take the stand. It would be too easy for the prosecution to shred his lies. Now if Burke were actually the murderer, John would of course know about it, and upon arrest he would spill the beans to save his own skin -- and if his story was convincing, and Burke were willing to back him up -- then there'd be no need for a trial in the first place.
DeleteBut assuming, as I do, that he's guilty as Hell, then you're right. The defense would never concede that any Ramsey was guilty of anything and they'd fight tooth and nail for the intruder theory. They'd really have no choice. If they did that, however, then there is no way PDI or BDI could ever be floated as part of a reasonable doubt defense -- that would be completely off the table, as I think you now agree. And John would not be in a position to hint at it, because, as you yourself realize, there is no way he'd take the stand.
So all the prosecution would need to do is debunk the intruder theory. And the best way to do that would be to take the jury step by step through John's basement window break-in fairy tale, pointing to all the obvious obfuscations, prevarications, and other nonsense. Following up with testimony from Linda Hoffman that she was unaware of any such broken window and did not help Patsy clean up any glass.
They would then point to the absurdity of any possible intruder theory, focusing on the "ransom" note written on a notepad from the house, the body hidden in the basement, the oversized panties, etc., not to mention the lack of an actual kidnapping to go along with the "ransom" note. And if the defense pointed to the 911 call, the prosecution could take a cue from this blog, arguing that it was Patsy and not John who made that call.
So the case would hinge on reasonable doubt concerning the intruder, not the possibility of PDI or BDI, which the defense would be foolish to even hint at. And if the prosecution was able to demonstrate effectively that John's window story is an outright lie to misdirect away from his window staging, then reasonable doubt would fly out the window. Once John's lies are exposed, then he can kiss the intruder goodbye.
Thus, on balance I happen to believe a strong case could be made and John should certainly be arrested, interrogated and, if he is unable to explain himself adequately (he won't be), brought to trial.
I don't understand why so many people refuse to ignore facts that could only point to one person. John Ramsey. It seems like every suspicious thing, every suspicious lie he told is simply waved off because an educated, wealthy, Christian man couldn't possibly be a psychopath. But the very trait that makes a psychopath so elusive is he or she's ability to convincingly deceive anyone with ease. Some people say he has no history of sexual abuse or murder (that we know of presently) but we do know that John was a master manipulator and liar. He managed to deceive his ex-wife, Lucinda for 2 years while he committed adultery. Lest we not forget there is so much more that we don't know about him. I can only imagine how many of those so called "business trips" were actually personal trips to quench his sexual appetite. Once Patsy was diagnosed with cancer, John had to spend more time at home while she underwent treatments, thousands of miles away. Take a look at all the facts that support John being the killer and contrast them to the possibility of Burke being responsible. Why oh why would so many people rather believe a complicated and contrived fairy tale about a 9 year old, sexually abusive murderer that has absolutely zero facts to support it? And we have Patrick who insists that John Ramsey did not have a motive to kill his daughter. How about avoiding prison, humiliation, and not wanting to lose all the wealth he had acquired? Sounds like a plausible motive to me. Who else had a better motive? There is a list of facts, behavioral clues and inferences that point squarely at John.
ReplyDelete1. There was no evidence of an intruder. John was one of three people in the house.
2. John has a history of manipulation and deception.
3. Highly intelligent and well-educated.
4. John was a computer wiz and it wouldn't be difficult for him to erase any connection that he had to child pornography.
5. The ransom note is full of computer-like terminology that would undoubtably be part of John's vocabulary.
6. John was the strongest person of the three and most likely the only one capable of delivering one single blow to JonBenet's skull of that magnitude.
7. John was the most sexually active person in the house and had a history of being unable to control sexual urges (i.e. cheating on his first wife).
8. John used such uncommonly used phrases such as "and hence" and "for proper burial".
9. John's ridiculous lies about breaking the basement window himself on a prior occasion to gain access to his home. The window had obviously been broken recently because Fleet White found a shard of glass that John overlooked while in a hurry and attempting to clean up the staged scene with the purpose of unstaging it. Why? Because Patsy called 911. He had to unstage his original, incomplete staging that he thought was effective enough to fool Patsy but he knew it wasn't going to fool law enforcement.
10. The ransom note was written to give John full control of the situation. It gave him every excuse to perform all the outlined tasks alone. In his mind, it was the best way to dispose of the body without anyone suspecting him as the killer.
11. Fibers from John's (dry cleaned) shirt were found inside the new, never previously worn, never washed panties that JonBenet's body was found wearing. Indirect transfer is possible but HIGHLY unlikely.
12. John's suspicious behavior regarding his unusual request to his pilot to fly him and his family out of the state only a few minutes after discovering his daughter's body.
13. John's unaccounted for absence for over an hour while they waited for the kidnapper's call.
14. Inferences of John failing some of his lie detector tests.
15. The similarities of John's handwriting to certain letters and words of the ransom note proves that he should have never been eliminated as the author.
Need I go on?
Gumshoe
Also wasn't he in the navy in the Philippines? I remember that being mentioned where garrotes were used to kill people? Also as the only skilled sailor in the house who else would have been capable of tying those elaborate knots. I think you've listed most of them gumshoe and that is exactly why I think Doc is right about JR. But man alive is he a good liar in interviews it's kind of scary.
ReplyDelete-SM
Yes a very good liar because it comes natural to him and every other psychopath.
DeleteGumshoe
"Also as the only skilled sailor in the house who else would have been capable of tying those elaborate knots."
ReplyDeleteExactly. This wasn't something a child could produce based on Boy Scout teachings. This was a sophisticated device constructed for one purpose. To kill. I believe the killer had experience assembling this device several times in the past on women who enjoyed the sexual gratification of being choked while having sex. Why would the killer, who is obviously in a hurry to complete the crime, construct a complex garrote unless he knew he could do it quickly and efficiently. Does this sound like a 9 year old Boy Scout?
Gumshoe
Gumshoe: "I believe the killer had experience assembling this device several times in the past on women who enjoyed the sexual gratification of being choked while having sex."
DeleteWhoa, down boy! Now we are really speculating...
Inferences based on logic and behavioral psychology at least presents a solid foundation about what I'm speculating about. Patrick, you've yet to provide anything plausible for the BDI theory, but I do respect your quest for the truth.
DeleteGumshoe
Yep super scary that there are psychopaths among us. I know they don't all kill people but still very disconcerting.
ReplyDelete-SM
"The fact that he was trusted to go with the Whites means that he neither committed the murder himself, nor did he know anything about who did. JR wasn't the least bit concerned with what BR had seen during the night. "
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point. I don't think either of these 3 points makes the Burke scenario untenable. But you're right, the more I think about it, had Burke killed her, they would want to keep him near them the following day at all costs...
Ok, I've played devil's advocate, I think you all underestimate the possibility that Burke was somehow involved. But overall, I don't think it's the best explanation for all the facts. I think the JR acting alone scenario is still probably the best.
ReplyDeleteI was struggling with how a parent, a father, could brutally kill his little girl. It's hard for me to accept this, even though I realize it happens. Again, I am not naive.
I was looking at the transcripts of the Ramseys in their few documented interviews after the murder. I just finished a book, I Know You're Lying, where the Ramsey's behaviour after the murder was included as a case study in detecting deception (one of many case studies in the book, which I highly recommend). I was struck at how egoistic they both were, especially JR, during these interviews. It was all about them. How they were coping, their issues, their struggles, etc., etc. I can't imagine talking like that after losing my daughter, as if she were already a footnote in my life. It was creepy.
But I still think the weak point in the JR theory is the motive. I'm still struggling with why JR killed his daughter. I just can't see it as premeditated, it doesn't fit with the crime scene. He killed her suddenly, for some reason that was not planned. What happened there, can anyone speculate?
I don't think DocG's scenario of a "mercy killing" to the back of the head makes sense. The guy is not a Navy Seal or James Bond. I'm not saying he couldn't do it, but he's not the kind of guy who can think about what kind of blow would just work and not leave blood, etc., etc. I think it had to be a spontaneous attack, something that happened quickly and he probably instantly regretted. But he quickly realized his life was over if he didn't finish her off and disguise the crime.
I wonder if he thought after bashing her skull, "Do I call 911 and try to save her? Or just assume she will die, and finish her off in dramatic fashion to help my staging and my alibi?" That's just so incredibly sick and disturbing if true.
I never characterized it as a "mercy killing." But a blow to the head is the best way to kill someone if you don't want your victim to suffer. You don't need to be a master criminal or a navy seal to understand that. As far as the blood is concerned, I doubt John would have been worried about that. The lack of blood could have been coincidental. If blood had been found in the house after the body had been removed, it could be argued that her kidnapper assaulted her before taking her with him. On the other hand, John was in the navy and it's possible his training may have made him aware that something like a Maglite would not leave a bloody wound. Maybe that's why he chose it. Who knows?
Delete"But I still think the weak point in the JR theory is the motive. I'm still struggling with why JR killed his daughter. I just can't see it as premeditated, it doesn't fit with the crime scene. He killed her suddenly, for some reason that was not planned. What happened there, can anyone speculate? "
DeleteMotive is necessarily speculative. I too believe there may be a different explanation, though I'd certainly say that Doc's theory of motive makes good sense.
I think it's possible the blow to the head was an act of sudden anger rather than a premeditated event. I don't want to get too graphic, but maybe she bit him in a private area? Maybe she was struck by someone standing over her rather than directly behind her?
What gets me is the idea that he could have known ahead of time that the blow to the head wouldn't break the scalp. He either got very lucky or had planned on a much bigger clean-up. It's hard to see him planning something so potentially messy.
It's possible to spin different scenarios, but it really doesn't matter. She was bashed in the skull with tremendous force. Most likely this was done by JR, regardless of what his motive was. If we remind ourselves there was no intruder, and that neither PR or BR likely had the strength to bash her with something as short as a flashlight, it really narrows the suspect list down to one person. (PR/BR would have needed something longer to give them more leverage)
CH
I don't think he premeditated it, and I don't think he could've known that her scalp wouldn't break, not with that amount of force. Just my thoughts.
DeleteJay
You hit on a good point that I posted about on the first part of this thread. JR is extremely narsisistic (think I spelled that right). In his interviews, it comes across as "me, me, me", and if you read the ransom note with an open mind, it'll raise the hair on your neck. It's all about "me, me, me" (JR). It's addressed Mr. Ramsey, it is "your" business, it is "your" daughter, it is "your" bank account, it is "make sure you" bring an adequate sized attache, it is "make sure you" are rested, it is "if we monitor you", it is two gentlemen "don't like you" (might not be exact wording), and the list goes on and on. The note hits a crescendo with the last page written with emphasis on "John" (3 times), and declaring "it is up to you". You can't deny the eerie similarities between his narcissism in interviews and the sole subject of the ransom note.
ReplyDeleteBTW, as posted before, this "sole subject" ransom note affords one person in that house an alibi, guess who that is? You got it, JR. So, your argument that you have to have absolute, definitive proof, undeniable evidence, and remove all doubt in order to prosecute JR is wrong. Your right, there isn't a fingerprint on the garrote (though JR would just say he picked up that paintbrush the other day/last month/ect.), or his semen on her, but you can still convince a jury through a well-thought-out circumstantial argument that only JR perpetrated this crime. Isn't odd that JR never comes to the defense of PR or BR. It's always "we are being accused". That's because if he is adamament that PR and BR could not have killed JB, it only leaves one person left in the house. JR thinks he's smarter than everybody else, but he made some serious incriminating mistakes (as most criminals do).
Jay
Sorry, this entry was in response to Patrick. Also, it should read "isn't it odd that JR never..." (Last part of entry).
DeleteJay
I think most likely what happened was John had gotten increasingly impatient because he hadn't had a chance to "be alone" with JonBenet because of the Christmas holidays. He saw a small window of opportunity on the night of her death. It was either seize the moment or wait another two weeks since they were about to leave town to visit family in Michigan. At this point John couldn't control his urges any longer. He made up his mind at some point early that day and he was determined to make it happen. His attempt to wake up JonBenet didn't go smoothly. She had had a long day and was exhausted from playing with her new toys and riding around town for social visits. JonBenet most likely pushed him away and rolled over to the opposite side of the bed. John was afraid that would happen so he offered her some pineapple (her favorite) and another Christmas gift in the basement (this could be why JonBenet told someone that Santa is making a special visit just for her). JonBenet is now curious and decides to follow him downstairs. He's carrying a flashlight so he doesn't wake anyone else up. Once they reach the kitchen it's safe to turn on lights. He prepares her pineapple. She eats only a little bit, eager to see her present. They go down to the basement. John begins to touch JonBenet inappropriately and she gets aggravated. She wants her present but John can't contain himself. He forces himself on JonBenet. He tells her if she cooperates then he'll give her the present but she refuses. He grabs her again. This time she screams. He tells her to be quiet. She screams louder and John instinctively slams the flashlight on her head to silence her.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
"He tells her if she cooperates then he'll give her the present but she refuses. He grabs her again. This time she screams. He tells her to be quiet. She screams louder and John instinctively slams the flashlight on her head to silence her."
ReplyDeleteYes, it's speculative obviously, but that makes sense. Wasn't the mother undergoing cancer treatments at this time? Perhaps they had completely stopped having sex?
Patsy had already been undergoing cancer treatments for two years so I would imagine her sex life during that time frame was nonexistent. Meanwhile, John had been predisposed to seeing JonBenet sexualized in pageants and photographs that hang proudly on the walls of the Ramsey household.
DeleteGumshoe
Possible Intruder Story for the Jurors:
ReplyDeleteWhile they were at the neighbour's house, an intruder came into their home. His plan from the beginning was to molest and murder the daughter. He was familiar with the Ramsey's and knew they would be away for a few hours. He had in fact been observing them for weeks. He had his own flashlight, but found a better one inside the house, which he decided to use. He found a pad and pen and decided for shits and grins to make a fake ransom note, just to torment the family further, because that's what sick psychopaths do. He hadn't planned on it, but he had time while he was waiting for them to return home.
He was a friend of a friend of the family, which is how he had his own key, he had taken it from his friend without him knowing it. It's also how he heard about the 118k USD bonus (his friend was telling him the story with disdain about how JR was bragging about his bonus, while explaining that the key in the drawer was to the Ramsey house, since he occasionally did a few repairs for the family and needed a key).
When they were asleep, he snuck up to the room and snatched the daughter, covering her mouth to prevent screams. He took her down stairs and killed her. He waited a bit to make sure nobody heard anything. When he was convinced they were still asleep, he took pictures of her dead body for later sexual gratification. He put her in various poses for these pics, the last one being the one she was found in the next morning.
He let himself out the door and locked it back. He did not want to leave any clue as to how he had gotten in the house, which door he used, etc. He left footprints, but the police simply failed to notice them the next day. Because they were incompetent, as everyone admits.
Did it happen this way? Almost certainly not. But it only takes one juror to think it's reasonably possible. Otherwise, that nice man must have murdered his lovely daughter....
This looks to me very much like a theory once concocted by Jameson, a long-time staunch Ramsey defender. According to her, the note was more of a fantasy than anything else, written largely out of boredom while waiting for the Ramseys to return. Not bad!
DeleteSuch a theory might work as fuel for reasonable doubt -- but it fails to account for the scene at the basement window. Nor can it explain why the body was hidden in that remote basement room. Nor can it explain why JBR was redressed in those oversize panties. It still might invoke reasonable doubt, however, if not for John's outrageously improbable window break-in story. That for me is the smoking gun in this case, and if it's ever brought to trial, that obviously phony story is what will do him in.
I haven’t posted on this site in a long time, but reading some of these posts I wanted to chime in. The one problem that all of the JDI theorists is that you preach on how obvious it is that John committed the crime, YET no arrest has ever been made. Its been established that the authorities never believed an intruder committed the crime, therefore that should lead us to believe they always felt it was an inside job. By being an inside job, that leaves just 3 people who could have done it and nobody else. PR is not alive and can no longer defend herself, yet neither JR or BR came forward to say she did it which could have been an easy out to put the case to rest. JR could have concocted a story that he lived with the secret for too long and could no longer defend his wife. It was a horrible accident, etc.
ReplyDeletePeople come on this site because there is a little bit of a websleuth in all of us that is fascinated by an unsolved crime just like this one. The problem that I have though is if Doc, or any number of people on here have “solved” what seems to them to be an obvious resolution, then how havent the authorities also solved what you all claim is a pretty easy open and shut case? Of all the cold cases in Colorado, this has to be #1 for the authorities to finally solve. Doc has said that the handwriting expert dismissed JR, therefore no charges have ever been filed. Sure, that might have been the case, 18 years ago, but I don’t believe that is the case in present day. This case has probably had hundreds of eyes looking at it, and I find it hard to believe that a bunch of people posting on a site have solved a crime that trained professionals have not.
The point of this post is to say that maybe there is just something we are missing away from the obvious points that have been made. Linda Arndt supposedly went from thinking JDI to changing her tune and she was the lead Detective on scene the day of the crime.
-J
Yes, fair point J. My guess is there is no political will to prosecute anyone. Too much time has passed. A trial would be long, expensive, and a media circus. You would be going up against a very rich person. If you failed to get a conviction, it would be political suicide, a huge waste of taxpayer money. It would also make all of the previous investigators, DA, etc. look terrible because there is no new evidence. So why prosecute now after all these years with no new evidence? Why didn't it happen sooner? And again, if the DA failed to convict, he would look silly.
DeleteAs I've already posted here recently, even if you can convince a jury that the killer was in that family (and that is a huge IF with all the "noise" surrounding this case), you are still left with proving beyond a reasonable doubt it was JR. The evidence that points to JR that so many here see as obvious will not look so obvious to a jury. And a good DA, in my opinion, understands that. So huge negatives, few positives.
I think prosecutors are waiting for some new evidence to allow them to go after JR. Something new that they can claim to be a game changer, that gives them the political cover they need to prosecute. A friend confesses JR said something, a neighbour breaks her silence, etc.
Sadly, it seems all of the evidence is already out there. So the only possible game changer is if either JR or BR decide to talk about what happened that night. Likely? Hardly.
If JR committed the crime, as most here believe, he's certainly not going to say anything. If BR was asleep throughout, then there is nothing to discuss. JR is home free. If BR saw something, then perhaps he will one day talk. But that might be after his father dies. Or never. And memory is a strange thing, especially after all those years. Even if he saw something, perhaps he remembers it differently now.
Patrick and J, Is it possible that JR wrote the ransom note? That's the point. This whole blog stems from answering that one particular question with a resounding "yes". The Police have dodged this question. The DA has dodged this question. Other forums on the internet have dodged this question. Because deep down inside, if you answer yes, then you are looking at a cold-blooded, sociopathic, child molester and murderer. I refuse to believe he deserves a "get out of jail free card", just because he thinks he outsmarted our entire justice system. And if something is said or pointed out on this blog that helps spark another look at the evidence or interview transcripts by Boulder detectives, then I will be escatic. Cold cases are solved every year by a "fresh set of eyes", and by going over everything once more and finding that one thing that was over looked. We're not acting like we are smarter than anyone else, and we're not naive enough to think there isn't evidence stored away that we don't know about. We have an insatiable desire for truth and justice, and we seek to bounce ideas off each other out of a common respect (peer review). If it holds up, it holds up. If it doesn't, then we revise our stance. JB deserves justice, just like every other child that is victimized in this country. We offer to keep her trajedy alive in hope of one day seeing her killer brought to justice.
DeleteJay
Well said, Jay, and I agree. The decision to rule John out is key, and it has never been questioned. All I really ask of the law enforcement people at this point, or even someone in the media, is to, for once, take a good hard look at that decision. Ask the opinion of forensic document professionals who weren't involved in the case, interview some of those who were, take another look at the samples John provided, compare them with the legal document we've all seen (which may not have been seen by the "experts" who ruled him out) and ask yourself how it is possible to rule out your number one suspect just because his handwriting doesn't seem to resemble the handwriting on the obviously deceptive ransom note.
DeleteAnd as Jay implies, once he is ruled IN, then the whole tenor of the case changes and everything points in one direction: John Ramsey.
"Because deep down inside, if you answer yes, then you are looking at a cold-blooded, sociopathic, child molester and murderer."
DeleteJay....this isnt Harriet the Spy investigating this case, these are professionals! To think they they just couldnt even fathom the consequences of saying JR wrote the RN is just preposterous. Their jobs arent to investigate PG rated cases...they see murder cases every day. Its just frustrating to keep reading the same things about Ruled IN vs. Ruled out.
Ok, let me put it this way. Do you think the authorities are looking at the case and saying: "well, JR had access, JR could have been molesting her, JR definitely could have hit her over the head, JR was lying about the broken window, Fleet said that JR probably wouldnt have been able to see the body in the darkness unless he knew where it was, JR found the body and removed the duct tape and we dont believe it was an intruder." But wait for it..those same authorities who see all the blantantly obvious arrows pointing towards JR say, "well, EVERYTHING points to JR, but Im just not sure about this RN, because handwriting experts that Mr. Ramsey hired have ruled him out and even though handwriting experts arent admissable in court, I guess we have to rule him out."
Yes, the authorities botched this case in the beginning, there is no denying that. Det. Arndt never should have been alone in the house that day as there was no way she could have eyes on everybody in the house. But, in the last 20 years, do you honestly deep down believe the fresh eyes on the case have never questioned those handwriting experts? I just think we need to be better than hanging our hat on a few experts 20 years ago being the ONLY reason John is walking free.
-J
J, I honestly don't know what's bogged this case down over the years, but I do know, until I came across this blog, everything I read, and everything I heard (including the Boulder authorities) was PDI, IDI, BDI, in that order. Not one mention of JDI.
DeleteJay
"I find it hard to believe that a bunch of people posting on a site have solved a crime that trained professionals have not."
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that a grand jury felt that Patsy or John was the murderer and the other was abetting. The main reason the grand jury felt Patsy was involved was because John was erroneously ruled out as the writer of the ransom note so they deduced Patsy must have written it. Since first degree murder and child abuse was mentioned in the report, we know they were not referring to Burke as the murderer who was aided and abetted since he was a minor.
Gumshoe
Gumshoe, where is that Grand Jury report. I heard they found the Ramseys guilty of neglect. You say here murder and aiding and abetting. Where is the report?
DeleteJay,
ReplyDeleteOk, this is exactly my point. Do you honestly believe that the authorities have been looking at this case for 20 years and don’t think there is a strong possibility that JR is the author of the note? The people that were closest to this crime have never come forward to say JR is the killer. Do I believe he most likely did it? Yes, I do. But, there are other reasons that he is walking free than the authorities just never being able to crack who the author of the RN is.
Also, if they did take this to court, I don’t honestly believe it would be that hard to make a case against JR. There is enough circumstancial evidence that could point to John that I think they could make a very strong case. SO, the biggest question is WHY havent they charged him in what to many seems like an obvious crime? Maybe the reason is because there are other people i.e BR, or another that might be on their radar. I don’t have the answers, but I do know that there is information we are all not privy to as well as key people in this case that chose to never come forward with what they know.
-J
J, I get what you're saying, and I think we agree that there is a very strong circumstantial case against JR. The problem, is that everything coming out of the authorities, is "not JR, not JR, not JR". The DA exonerated them completely and apologized, Berkner won't commit, but seems to lean toward PR, and Kolar stands by BRI. What am I missing? The thing that they have in common... JR couldn't have written the note. I agree that there is something holding the authorities back from considering JR, and my guess is fear. There is no reasonable explanation to exclude him as the author. Thanks for your comments.
DeleteJay
That should read "BDI", sorry.
DeleteJay
"The people that were closest to this crime have never come forward to say JR is the killer"
DeleteBecause he's extremely litigious and had the obvious and unconditional support of the DA. How often do you see active law enforcement naming uncharged suspects anyway?
The lack of prosecution is because the of the statute of limitations on the easy charges combined with the false public exoneration on the murder charge.
If you were the DA and you were being asked to take a case that your predecessor had publicly cleared your suspect of, with the same evidence, would you jump right in?
Whether people "come forward" to the public doesn't make a difference to the case, as long as they have presented their suspicions officially. Almost everything I have read from law enforcement involved in the case suggests to me that they strongly suspect John. Even the Beckner AMA to me screams that he thinks JDI.
It's an obvious crime but the defence is obvious too because JR has been making it in public for years. DNA is extremely powerful in people's heads - I could easily imagine a reverse-OJ where the defence spins the jury into relying more on the DNA than is merited. All JR has to do is say (or more likely get his lawyers to say) "I don't have to prove my innocence but I've spent years and millions trying to catch the killer and so this is what I've discovered which I believe rules me out". His story of refuting all the evidence against him so that the police would focus on catching the "real killer" convinces people. It's a happier narrative than "father rapes and murders six year-old daughter". For the sort of crime that JDI implies this was most people's "doubt" seems more "reasonable" than normal.
I just want to chime in that you are assuming that a consistent study of this case has been occurring over the years. I don't think that has been the case. In the beginning you had political motivations, police fighting with the DA and within their own ranks, and investigative failures -- all of which distracted from putting together the facts, just the facts. The case was transferred to the DA's office and then back to the police, but during that time people have come and gone in those organizations. Kolar may be the best "constant" that they have. And again, he is overlooking the handwriting analysis issue. So why are we even discussing the fact that the justice system has failed? We already can see that it has failed this victim in many ways. This is not the only case in the world where the system has failed. Anonymom
DeleteIn terms of looking at the evidence again, I had a thought about the knot. Most all of the items used to subdue or kill Jon Benet were wiped down, or discarded somewhere unknown by the killer. I'm sure that forensics tested the rope used to make that knot for DNA, hair, or fibers, but I have always wondered if they ever untied that knot and tested the "inside the knot" portion of the rope? If the knot itself is evidence, maybe they couldn't untie it or just didn't and left it as is just in case they needed it in a trial.
ReplyDeleteIf it hasn't been done already, I think it would be very interesting to see if trace evidences of DNA or something else could be found on the inside of that knot. If police have kept it in its original form, its the only place in a state of semi "preservation" from that crime scene.
I would think the knot would have been tested for DNA, but you never know. Of course, John loosened that knot, so if his DNA were found it wouldn't mean much. He made sure to contaminate that crime scene very effectively it would seem.
DeleteIt's not difficult to see why no one has moved forward on this case for so long. John being "ruled out" is a huge factor for one thing. Never in all the years I've followed this case, practically from the beginning, have I ever seen even a hint that anyone in LE or the media had any question whatsoever about the validity of that conclusion. While it might seem reasonable to assume someone at some point must have looked into it, there is in fact NO evidence that anyone actually did. As I see it, this was the key blunder that prevented the authorities from seeing the obvious. They literally had blinders on.
ReplyDeleteFor another thing, the decision to "exonerate" the Ramseys on the basis of the DNA evidence would be very hard to overcome. That decision led to numerous media reports continually reiterating the "fact" that the Ramseys were no longer on the suspect list, and many in LE were also convinced.
Finally, John managed to find the perfect lawyer in Lin Wood, an extremely aggressive and competitive individual ready to sue at the drop of a hat. If John were indicted and found not guilty, you can be sure the DA's office would be hit with a huge lawsuit along with an effort to ruin everyone involved. I have a feeling it was fear of such a lawsuit that led DA Lacy to "exonerate" rather than pursue the Ramseys in the face of that (very dubious, but psychologically compelling) DNA "evidence."
I still think John could be indicted, but it would take an extremely confident, brave and aggressive DA to make such a decision. And that could happen only if such a DA could ever be brought to see the case as most of us are now seeing it. Is this a long shot? Sure. But I'm an optimist, so I prefer to think it's a possibility. Let's hope.
"John being "ruled out" is a huge factor for one thing. Never in all the years I've followed this case, practically from the beginning, have I ever seen even a hint that anyone in LE or the media had any question whatsoever about the validity of that conclusion."
DeleteI'll give you that it's hardly a direct endorsement but in Beckner's AMA he was asked about "a blog" which was clearly yours and in response he said "interesting" then directly invoked "Occam's razor" - which is the crucial point of your "key questions" post. When asked directly about the handwriting he made sure to note "signs of deception".
Someone mentioned the Ramsey's passing out multiple keys as an argument for reasonable doubt in a trial. The prosecution could then counter with "multiple reasons not to break into your own home". The broken window and multiple keys contradict.
ReplyDeleteJay
"The broken window and multiple keys contradict."
DeleteHe claims it was late at night, he didn't want to bother anyone.
The entire broken window story is bogus if you read through his story, featured somewhere here on this blog. It's just not very believable, to say the least. But unfortunately it was never really challenged at the time,
So now a jury will hear, "I came back late, I didn't want to wake anyone." And that will sound reasonable.
Sorry if I missed these points being addressed, I can't go through all the comments, but..... do you think there was a cover up by the DA or LE or some big wigs in Denver? Like they KNEW JR did it but he either paid them all off or there was some conspiracy? I've heard ritual child abuse is rampant in the upper eschelons of our society. That prominant government names are involved (remember the Franklin Cover Up?).
ReplyDeleteAlso, are the court documents released and available from the time the jury found the Ramseys indictable on grounds of neglect? What did they mean by that? What sort of neglect? Has anyone from that jury spoken? What's the deal with that? I know the DA at the time said there was not enough evidence to indict them but what did the jury conclude? What evidence were they going on to find them guilty of neglect?
Also, if JR was missing for over an hour on that day, he must've been asked about it in court or by LE. Where did he say he was?
Delete" I've heard ritual child abuse is rampant in the upper eschelons of our society. That prominant government names are involved (remember the Franklin Cover Up?). "
DeleteI suppose anything is possible, but there is no evidence to support this. I think the main issue was JR's wealth and influence. His lawyers were quick to show anyone attempting to go after him were going to pay a price, legally, politically, etc.
This is why poor people are more often targeted by the police and our judicial system. They can't fight back as effectively.
Still, having said that, when a young child was sexually abused and murdered, there is really no excuse for not doing everything in your power to bring someone to justice, then and now. Sometimes people just need to do the unpopular thing because it's right.
"Also, if JR was missing for over an hour on that day, he must've been asked about it in court or by LE. Where did he say he was?"
ReplyDeleteJohn claims he spent a lot of that time upstairs peering out windows with binoculars hoping that he could uncover the source of surveillance that the "kidnapper" spoke about in the ransom note.
Gumshoe
Interesting, I never heard this claim by JR. There he goes trying to "outsmart those kidnappers". They sure had him pegged (wink).
DeleteJay
". . . where is that Grand Jury report. I heard they found the Ramseys guilty of neglect. You say here murder and aiding and abetting. Where is the report?"
ReplyDeleteThere is more than one way to interpret the wording but John and Patsy simply being accused of neglect is incorrect. I'll refer you to the section in this blog entitled "Reading The Oracle". It's located in the October 2013 section. Doc does an excellent job with the interpretation of the vagueness issued by the Grand Jury indictment.
Gumshoe
I just reread several responses from Mark Beckner's AMA, and he twice stated that sexual assault didn't fit the crime scene. He went so far as to say JB was hit extremely hard on the head and knocked out, then later strangled to death, but everything else was staged, including the vaginal penetration.
ReplyDeleteAs most people know, he never commits to who he believes is the perp(s), but I'm seriously wondering if he doesn't believe it is PR and JR. JR was dismissed as the author of the note, and Patsy is highly unlikely to have tied the knots/nooses. If there is no real sexual assault (in his mind), that would tend to swing away from "JR only" and it would also remove a possible motive for JR. Add to that, that the note author appears to have started the note "Mr. and Mrs.", but started over with " Mr.". "Who's fingerprints are on the pineapple dish?" (PR, BR), and who does the most intimate witness inside that house (Hoffman-Pugh) believe did it? PR. Lastly, who found the body? (JR). Who wanted to get on a plane within min.'s of finding the body?(JR). And who presented a united front to the public and Police? (JR, PR). I don't want to put words in his mouth, but by dismissing any sexual assault (night of the murder or prior), then it makes sense as to why there was/is no fight to put JR back on the list of possible authors of the ransom note. No sexual assault changes everything.
Jay
"If there is no real sexual assault (in his mind), that would tend to swing away from 'JR only' and it would also remove a possible motive for JR."
ReplyDeleteInteresting angle but there are problems with it. Beckner stated that he believed the death was most likely an accident and covered up. He did, however note that there were signs of previous trauma to JonBenet's vagina and wasn't sure if it could be classified as chronic but there had definitely been prior abuse. That information alone tells me the original plan was not to murder JonBenet, but to sexually abuse her. The origin of this crime was precipitated on sexual assault. Murder came as a consequence due to either JonBenet's refusal to cooperate or her threats to blow the whistle on John's actions. John may have gone overboard on the staging so LE would suspect a sexual predator or pedophile who perhaps preys upon girls he discovers on the pageant circuits. I think John tried to cover his tracks from previous assaults by using the paintbrush. He knew that evidence of prior molestion would make him a prime suspect. So yes there was staging, but without the motive of sexual assault and gratification, there never would have been a murder.
Gumshoe
Beckner recognizes the evidence for previous sexual abuse, but refuses to draw the obvious conclusion. Typical of how drastically the decision to "rule out" John Ramsey affected the investigation of this case. If John didn't write the note and there was no intruder (as Beckner certainly realizes), then only Patsy could have penned the note. And why would she do that if her husband had just raped and murdered her daughter? So that leaves only some sort of "accident" on Patsy's part, or the need to cover up something that Burke did.
DeleteIf John were ruled IN, on the other hand, then he'd have been the most likely suspect by far, and he probably would have been indicted as soon as the autopsy report came in. When we are left with only Patsy and Burke, then the sexual assault becomes particularly difficult, if not impossible, to account for. So Beckner and the others had no choice but to see it as part of the staging. The only other possibility is that Burke was the abuser -- but to my knowledge Kolar is the only one to ever even consider that possibility, which as far as I'm concerned, is a huge stretch -- with no evidence to back it up.
Now please: a mother who has just "accidentally" clobbered her daughter over the head, is going to call 911 immediately, and make up a story about her falling down the stairs or fainting and hitting her head on the bathtub, or something like that. She is NOT going to penetrate her daughter's vagina with her finger, strangle her with a "garotte" and write a 2 1/2 page "ransom note." Same with a mother who's discovered that her son and daughter had a fight and the daughter is now unconscious. Also, if you are staging a kidnapping, there is no need to also stage a sexual assault on top of that, penetrating your daughter's vagina in a desperate attempt to stage BOTH a kidnapping AND a sexual assault? Why? It's not hard to see why DA Alex Hunter was in no hurry to prosecute Patsy -- such a theory would be laughed out of court.
And by the way, there is no evidence she was penetrated with a paintbrush handle. That would have led to much more bleeding than was seen. And it's ludicrous to begin with. Fragments from the paintbrush handle were found in her vagina, implying indirect transfer, nothing more.
I agree that the digital penetration could have been an attempt by John to cover over evidence of previous sexual abuse, that certainly makes sense. But it could also have been a sexual assault plain and simple. It is certainly not something a mother would want to do after "accidentally" beaning her daughter.
Deletei recently had several guests round to my home for drinks. During the evening i decided to test out the bdi theory.I asked all the guests what would you do bearing in mind you love both of your children, you are awoken one night, you come downstairs, and your 9yr old son has been sexually exploring with your 6yr old daughter, she has tried to get away, and he has hit her with something and now she is dead. What would you do. Without hesitation, all answered they would call the police. Not one person said they could protect their other child by a staging scenario.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the rope/cord used to tie and strangle JBR, it appears to be the sort used in boating and arts and craft, perhaps stored in the basement along with Patsies paintbrushes. Even though the source of the duct tape was never found, it seems likely, along with the pen and pad, that all the items used by the killer came from within that house?
For the BDI theory to hold, the young Ramsey had to both kill her and molest her that night. I cannot imagine the parents, or even just JR, staging a crime scene involving sexual trauma under any circumstances. Also, it's the brutal sexual assault that forces the parents to cover up the crime. Otherwise, a hit on the head could simply be explained as a fight between two kids that got out of control. And if BDI is true, that's probably how it happened, anyway, so the parents would only have to tell the truth. Tragic, perhaps requiring a bit of counselling, etc., but manageable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if Burke had sexually assaulted her in a brutal fashion after knocking her out, perhaps not even fully understanding what he was doing, then I suppose everything changes. Later strangling her with the garrote, which he fashioned himself, to add a macabre twist to the murder.... Then I would argue the parents may have believed they needed to come up with an intruder theory to save their son from the lifetime stigma of being a sexual predator who murdered his little sister. And also a huge embarrassment to them as parents. Their reputations would be ruined. About which they no doubt cared quite a lot.
However, how likely is all of this? A brutal hit on the head is certainly possible. Doesn't happen often between siblings, but it can definitely happen. So that's a reasonable explanation.
But the brutal sexual attack by a 9/10 year old boy? Hmmmm..... Again, I suppose it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely. And then to fashion a garrote to finish her off, or as part of an elaborate game in which he had no understanding of the consequences? It just seems so incredibly unlikely.
But for BDI to work, I think he has to kill her, sexually assault her, and then kill her with the garrotte, for the reasons explained above. A 10-year old boy with no prior history of anything that would even indicate this type of behaviour.... Hmmmm.....
And if true the parents left with a neighbour the next day, that is also inexplicable for two reasons. One, he could say something and ruin the entire plot. They would never risk that. And two, if he had done this, they would have wanted to be with him, talk to him, make sure he is OK, etc., they would never, ever leave him alone, or i someone else's care. The mother, especially, would want to hold him nonstop to comfort him, viewing what he had done as requiring immediate psychological help, love, support.
I'm not sure how Chief Kolar gets around these problems in his book. To me they seem devastating for BDI. But perhaps he has a different scenario that is more plausible?
"And if true the parents left BURKE with a neighbour the next day..."
DeleteSorry for the confusion...
I never have given BDI much weight. It's so highly improbable for a 9/10 year old boy to be sexually interested in girls, and just as improbable for a mother and father to fabricate a kidnapping/assault in order to protect their son. How messed up would you have to be to believe you can convince your 9 year old boy that even though he "messed" with his sister, and whacked her over the head, knocking her out, it was a stranger who broke in our house that very same night that actually killed her.
ReplyDeleteAs far as protecting him from LE, I don't think there's anyway they would've known he couldn't be prosecuted ( most people had no idea until this case), but rather that it's a crime to concoct a false kidnapping, obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, and disturb a crime scene. It doesn't make sense to protect BR, but both parents get thrown in jail. IMO.
Jay
I can't think of any scenario that works for BDI
ReplyDeleteI never have given BDI much weight. It's so highly improbable for a 9/10 year old boy to be sexually interested in girls, and just as improbable for a mother and father to fabricate a kidnapping/assault in order to protect their son. How messed up would you have to be to believe you can convince your 9 year old boy that even though he "messed" with his sister, and whacked her over the head, knocking her out, it was a stranger who broke in our house that very same night that actually killed her.
ReplyDeleteAs far as protecting him from LE, I don't think there's anyway they would've known he couldn't be prosecuted ( most people had no idea until this case), but rather that it's a crime to concoct a false kidnapping, obstruct justice, tamper with evidence, and disturb a crime scene. It doesn't make sense to protect BR, but both parents get thrown in jail. IMO.
Jay
I agree with the above posts, i cannot think of any BDI scenario that fits.
DeleteSorry, don't know how that posted twice.
DeleteJay
I wonder if LH-P ever remembered seeing similar duct tape (same color), and similar rope in the basement before JB's murder. She seems to have a good memory about the knife and the blanket. Grant it, an argument could be made that the intruder took both of them when he/she left, but the question is why? Not taking the items would make more sense, seeing they used the pad/pen and left them, as well as using the paintbrush and leaving it.
DeleteThe missing duct tape and rope are very intriging. If LH-P says she remembers them, then where did they go? Or better yet, why did they go? If she doesn't remember them, then where did they come from? And here's a twist, what if she claims to remember them, but JR denies it. Think about that. I definitely lean heavily JDI, but if there is one thing that gives me pause, it's H-PDI. IMO.
Jay
The "missing" duct tape and cord is a red herring. They were probably lying around the basement, most likely detritus from some gift packaging, or something left lying around by workmen. Whatever was found at the crime scene was probably all there was. Besides, John would have had ample opportunity, when he went AWOL from Arndt, to dispose of all sorts of things, either down the toilet or down the street.
DeleteJay, I've said exactly the same many times on this blog
ReplyDeleteJay, i too have always struggled with JDI and LHPDI, and listened to Doc's
ReplyDeletereasoning.There is perhaps explanations that i could see on John's part, for some of his actions. However, if the story is true about him being overheard arranging with his pilot to leave only 20min after finding Jonbenet, is something i find disturbing.
I feel we can rule out BDI as for the above discussions, also IDI for many reasons including that the intruder would have brought items needed with him. I do feel that Doc's theory is most likely correct, but for some reason can't let go that LHP AND CO, could have also committed the crime.
Back to the missing duct tape. Unless cut with an implement, the perps teeth marks would be left, unlike the other items who's prints on them could be explained by handling at some point. It would be intriging as you say, to know what she had to say regarding if she saw the items.
Forgot to add, and if the duct tape was cut, why did they only take this item with them, and possibly some remainder of cord
ReplyDeleteIf it was HPDI, the motive would appear to be vindication against PR. LHP is on record as being convinced of PDI. The ransom note appears to be part of a staged kidnapping with JR exclusively mentioned throughout. LHP would've known about Patsy using the spiral staircase, the alarm not being used, the dog being gone, ect. She mentions both PR and JR would've known about the knife, but only PR would've known about the blanket and nightgown. The ransom note is also written in a way to disguise the author's identity. Interesting to say the least. IMO.
ReplyDeleteJay
If Linda was behind some sort of kidnapping attempt, or simply an attempt to frame Patsy, then we have to accept John's story about breaking the window the previous summer, after either leaving his keys in the house (according to Death of Innocence) or lending them to his older son (according to his testimony) or for some other reason he "can't recall"; and after returning from the airport either in his car or by taxi (he "can't recall"); and after deciding not to retrieve a key from his next door neighbors (for fear of waking them, at 11 PM); deciding to break into the filthy basement window rather then one of the far more convenient ground level windows in order to save the money it would have cost to replace a single pane of the more expensive window, which made it necessary for him to remove the pants from his expensive business suit, which would have been ruined when he lowered himself into that filthy window well; then, in total darkness, accurately breaking a "baseball size" hole in the window pane closest to the latch, despite not being able to see what he was doing. We have to accept also that neither he nor Patsy could recall whether or not that broken window pane had ever been repaired, despite the fact that bugs would have entered the house via that opening in the summer and bitter cold winds blown through there in the winter.
DeleteI'm sorry, but Linda's version of that story (that they were lying to cover up staging) rings true, while John's version is an obvious, and crude, fabrication.
Doc has said that if that theory was to work then why didn't they fake patsy's hand, and also the Hp' s had limited education, but to me that would explain why the rn only had referces to john as from patsy, and patsy's unusual" A"' s in it
DeleteI admit that JDI is the most probable scenario, but IMO LHP and her husband cannot be eliminated as suspects. LE has never seriously considered the broken window, focusing more on someone in the house or someone with a key. Neither one has an alibi (even worse, they only have each other as witnesses), LHP had intimate knowledge of the family and the house (claims by IDI proponents), and she also made potentially incriminating statements about knowing where the knife was, knowing where the blanket was, and knowing what nightgown was JB's favorite. I admit I haven't read LHP's book, but I have read several of her interview transcripts, and though she points out PR should be suspected for knowing where the knife and blanket were, she never mentions the duct tape and rope. It's interesting that JR and PR never mention them either. Maybe the intruder did bring something in?
ReplyDeleteAs for the broken window, LHP never adamently denies it was broken since summer. From what I remember, she claims that she doesn't remember it being broken. She also claims that PR lied about helping her clean it up, but not that it wasn't broken. Three adults and none of them are adament about the state of that window. Maybe that window was broken twice. If LHP wanted to frame JR, then she could've broken the same window knowing she had JR dead to right, if he actually did break into his home that summer. He would look suspicious either way, whether he denied it or admitted it, once she told LE about it. Maybe that's why he wasn't real excited about telling LE when he saw it. Just something to think about. IMO.
Jay
LHP denied from the start that she knew anything about any broken window. She had been working in the basement in that same area prior to Xmas and would certainly have noticed if cold air was blowing in from a broken window pane. This was at a time when she was enthusiastically defending Patsy -- before Darnay Hoffman got to her, suggesting a book deal if she'd help him go after Patsy. Which, very sadly, she did. There is absolutely NO evidence connecting her to the crime, nor any real motive. Since no kidnapping actually took place, no ransom was ever paid. And if she'd been hoping to collect a ransom anyhow, she would not have told John to expect a call "tomorrow," but would have been sure the call would come that morning. Makes no sense to wait a full day while a body is rotting away in a basement.
DeleteAnd sorry but I must repeat: there was no attempt to make the writing on the note look like Patsy's or John's writing, thus obviously no attempt to frame either of them. What possible other motive could she have had?
one theory is mr cruel an elite home invading pedophile
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934
Out of everything that I've read about Mr. Cruel, I've never seen any indication that he ever perpetrated a crime in the U.S., before or after JB's death, and the girls who were victimized by him were never that young (6 v/s 10-13). That's a huge hurdle for MCDI proponents. I do however like the "movie junkie" slant. I tend to lean JDI, but I've read that the Ramseys claim not to have seen the movies with phrases mentioned in the RN (Dirty Harry, Ransom, and Speed). Now JR took a lot of trips, so who knows what he watched alone wherever he was staying. I'm sure LE has already pursued a similar line of thought, but I'd love to know what kind of movie library the Pugh's had.
DeleteJay
IMO, there is a strong resemblance between photos of Mervin Pugh and the drawing done by the psychic. The drawing can be "googled" as "sketch man". Just ballyhoo???
DeleteThat drawing looks to me a lot more like John. Not that I take psychics seriously, which I certainly do not.
Deletesomething to have a look at. someoneisgettingawaywithmurder.blogspot.com/.../death-of-innocent.ht...
ReplyDeleteI couldn't get it to open up. Said the page didn't exist.
DeleteJay
sorry about that Jay, if you type the words separately, it still comes up even without the blogspot.com, it's apparently LHP Cchapter 1, on a book she was going to write.
ReplyDeleteI've seen that "chap. 1" before, and it's interesting, but then there's nothing else (no chap. 2, no rest of the book). Makes me wonder if it's a hoax. Like Doc said earlier, Darnay Hoffman offered a book deal to LHP, but I don't know that it was ever finalized and written. I know LHP won her case about going public with what she told the grand jury, but to my knowledge, there are only bits and pieces that are out there. I read somewhere that LHP had a choice to either write a book, or bring a lawsuit against the Ramseys for libel (portraying her in a suspicious way) in their book. She did file a lawsuit ($50,000,000 if I remember right), which she lost. I also read that LE showed up at her door on the night JB was found, however I don't know that they suspected the Pugh's, but more or less wanted to ask them questions about the Ramseys. If the "chap. 1" is a hoax, then I'm not sure what role LHP had in JB's murder, if any. If that chapter is legit, and truly how she felt about PR, then that brings her back into the equation, IMO.
ReplyDeleteJay
"If that chapter is legit, and truly how she felt about PR, then that brings her back into the equation, IMO."
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem is still the same. There is NO evidence of an intruder WHATSOEVER. No DNA of the Pugh's was found on JonBenet. Nothing inside or outside the house showed signs of intrusion. No footprints, tire tracks, or witnesses claimed to have seen anyone entering or leaving the Ramsey home. I agree that the Pughs are highly suspicious. They have no solid alibi and there was plenty of motive, but if they were going to ransom JonBenet, I imagine there would've been a far simpler way. Why sneak inside the Ramsey home at night and risk getting caught by John or Patsy? Linda could've arranged JonBenet's kidnapping while she kept her alone and saved herself a lot of trouble.
Gumshoe
I agree that there is very little direct evidence pointing to the Pugh's, but there isn't a whole lot of direct evidence to begin with. Nobody can be directly connected to the garrote, the rope, the duct tape, the ransom note (fingerprints, deceptive writing, ect.), the blunt force trauma (not even sure what was used), or the sexual assault (no semen). I can already hear it now, "the paintbrush was PR's, along with the pad and pen", but from what I've read, LHP physically put the paintbrush tray where it was on the night of JB's murder, outside the wine cellar, and being the housekeeper, she most likely put PR's pads/pens away periodically.
DeleteAnd yes, there was no forced entry found by LE, so that leaves anybody in the house, or someone with a key. LHP had instructions to let herself in while the Ramsey's were away on the 27th, to get a check PR was leaving her.
My point is that the Pugh's had means, motive, and opportunity. Doesn't mean they're guilty, but nothing excludes them either. I find it interesting that the whole crew (LHP, MP, and three others if I remember correctly) were down in that very same wine cellar, a month earlier.
Again, I lean JDI, but just like the ransom note, the only people that should be excluded are those that physically couldn't write it/perpetrate it. I'm sure I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm sure LE has looked at numerous angles of how the Pugh's could be involved and dismissed them, but the way my mind works, it's not quite there yet.
Jay
If someone entered with a key, then how do you explain the scene at the basement window, with a broken pane of glass, packing peanuts from the window well on the floor, and a hard suitcase propped against the wall just beneath the window?
DeleteAnd if you want to argue that this was done deliberately, to point away from someone with a key, then please explain why John claimed he'd broken that window months before? Or why he finally, after months of delay, confessed to finding the window open and then closing it -- and telling no one about either the open window or the suitcase. Or remind yourself of the many absurdities of his break-in story, including the failure of both John and Patsy to recall whether the window had ever been repaired -- or how a broken window could possibly have gone unrepaired for such a long time, letting in bugs in the summer and ice cold air in the winter.
Then ask yourself why there is there is no sign in the note of any attempt to forge the hand of either John or Patsy. Finally, the Pughs would have realized that they would be prime suspects since Linda had a key, was familiar with the house and needed money. If they had collected the ransom, what were they supposed to do with it? Any sign of new found wealth would have given them away, so what would have been the point?
Sorry for belaboring the LHP/Pugh's possibility. I was just struck by how she tried to use her details and memory to accuse PR, when she put herself in the same boat, by knowing the location of the knife, the blanket, the nightgown, the paintbrush tray, the wine cellar, ect. She also had access to the house, and could've written the note prior to that night, with "tomorrow" being the following morning after she left it. As for getting away with a kidnapping, people do dumb things all the time (especially criminals). However, I went back and reread earlier postings, and found a problematic statement I had made concerning keys, "the broken window and multiple keys contradict". It was in reference to JR not having a reason to break in, but it became clear that diversion only works if someone else doesn't take credit for it. Someone with a key could've entered the house and perpetrated the crime, using the broken window as a diversion, however JR taking credit for the window creates a disfunctional crimescene. I rescind my thought on PughDI.
ReplyDeleteJay
I'm not sure what you mean, Jay. Can you elaborate or spell out your reasoning more clearly -- for slowpokes like me.
DeleteSince finding this blog, I've been a solid JDI supporter. I don't buy into IDI, PDI, or BDI, but as I thought about the idea of someone with a key being the perp, LHP stood out as a possible suspect. She has gone on record as a PDI proponent, and it didn't make since that her reasonings included PR knowing the location of the hidden knife, the blanket in the dryer with JB's favorite nightgown, ect. Not sure that it can validated, but I also read that LHP brought up that PR makes her "a"'s like a keyboard " a", which is a huge red flag, because the "a"'s in the ransom note were manipulated to look like a keyboard "a". Everything LHP has pointed out about PR can be used against her (LHP), because she knew where they were at and could have had access to them as well., and it could've been her writing the ransom notetand making her "a"'s like a keyboard "a" in order to draw attention to PR (maybe she felt she had it coming).
DeleteWhy would she do this? Maybe she was involved, maybe she was covering for someone else, maybe she helped stage some of the crime scene. Well, a good diversion for a perp with a key would be to stage a different entry point (like a broken window), because "why would they enter the house that way, when they had a key?". However, the theory falls apart when the "staged different entry" is claimed by someone else in the house, in this case, JR. Therefore, the crime scene doesn't work for someone with a key (at least LHP), and PughDI is no longer a possibility, unless there is a perfectly good explanation for the broken window , or unless they are in it with JR. I agree that the window was not broken since summer, and since JR wasn't shocked by it being broken, but rather took responsibility, that doesn't provide a perfectly good explanation. The only other possibility for PughDI, is to be in it with JR, and I don't think anybody would buy that. Long story short, it wasn't PughDI.
Jay
unless John was telling the truth when he said he thought the handyman had fixed it, and it was fixed, only to be broken again to stage. Jay, All your reasoning above, is exactly the same as what goes through my mind.
DeleteAnd like yourself, either the pugh's or JR is responsible IMO.
That's the tantalizing thing about PughDI, the handyman was MP, and if JR would've been shocked by the broken window, and insistent that he thought MP repaired it (and now it's broken again), that would put JDI and PughDI in the same boat, because JR could've broken it and said "that's the very same window MP fixed a month ago, directing attention to MP", or "MP could've broken it and said "that's the very same window JR broke to get in the house, that he had me repair". That is of course, if the window was actually broken, and actually repaired. However, JR wasn't shocked by the broken window, in fact he was kind of aloof (no big deal), saying that he had broken it over the summer. That to me keeps the attention on JDI and makes it improbable for PughDI.
DeleteJay
According to a chronology report I read, Officers French and Veitch arrived separately, 7 min.'s after the 911 call (5:52a). Within a min. or two, JF arrived, followed a couple min.'s later by FW and PW.
DeleteJay
Sorry, this was in response to the question about the Ramsey's friends and police arriving at the house.
DeleteJay
Is it known if the Ramsey's friends were at the house prior to the first responding police/detective arriving at the house?
ReplyDeleteHmm., I have just re-read statements that suggest fleet white and an officer, went down to the cellar earlier before Jr, who didn't know they had Been down there, fleet saw the broken window, but it was not open and the officer did not report it open either, i wonder if this is why there was tension later on between john and fleet?
ReplyDeleteI have just re-read statements regarding the open window. Apparently John didn't know that fleet white and an officer had separetly been down to the basement before they found Jonbenet. Neither said they saw the window open.Perhaps this contradiction is why there was some conflict between John and Fleet later on in the investigation. Who knows.?
ReplyDeleteIf it was open, then JR must've closed it immediately after the 911 call. Nobody knew about the window being open until JR brought it up 4 mths. later.
DeleteIt is heartbreaking how close FW and French were to finding JB at 6am. Officer French stood at the wine rm. door, but decided not open it, because it was latched at the top, and FW opened it, but couldn't find the light switch.
It's interesting how neither of them paid much attention to the broken window. I do wonder if French saw the broken window and went outside immediately to check for signs of someone coming in and out of that window. He was solely looking for a point of entry/exit. I know there are reports of no footprints in the frost and the spider web attaching the grate and the edge of the window well, but I wasn't sure if that was French's report (6am) or another officer at a later time.
Jay
If it was open, then JR must've closed it immediately after the 911 call. Nobody knew about the window being open until JR brought it up 4 mths. later.
DeleteIt is heartbreaking how close FW and French were to finding JB at 6am. Officer French stood at the wine rm. door, but decided not open it, because it was latched at the top, and FW opened it, but couldn't find the light switch.
It's interesting how neither of them paid much attention to the broken window. I do wonder if French saw the broken window and went outside immediately to check for signs of someone coming in and out of that window. He was solely looking for a point of entry/exit. I know there are reports of no footprints in the frost and the spider web attaching the grate and the edge of the window well, but I wasn't sure if that was French's report (6am) or another officer at a later time.
Jay
John said he was down in the basement that morning but "could not recall" when. I don't think we can assume he was down there later than the police officer or Fleet White. It's easy to make assumptions about who did what that morning, and when, but realistically we have no way of knowing for sure.
DeleteHi DocG! I've just become engrossed with the case, honestly out of this air, wondering what ever happened...ah the 90s are so long ago. Anyway, your work and book were a thrill to read, and I do agree with you the JR is ruled in. What I wonder though, is have you considered that JR narrated or worked with Patsy to construct the note? I ask for a few reasons.
ReplyDeleteMy first doubting of Nancy's sincerity came from hearing the 911 phone call that she placed. Her words, reactions, and interaction with the responder was extremely familiar to me.....and then I remembered. She was almost mirroring the 911 call made by Micheal Peterson, noted author found guilty for murdering his wife. This case was famously (but terribly) documented in the film "The Staircase." Here is the link to the audio and it's transcription.
http://www.peterson-staircase.com/9-1-1.html
Eerie? I think so. They're similarities in how they open the call, act hysterical, answer/not answer the responder, and abruptly hang up are all there. What catches me is Patsy's "What?!", which is the same response Peterson gave, almost as if they expected a short call without multiple questions.
Now, this did not discount me from JR, as you've done excellent work noticing the connections between his vernacular and the wording of the note. However, you could also do this, and it has been done, with Patsy. In addition, over the course of my life, I've noticed that parents writing style was rather similar, in that it seemed they began to copy/mimic each other, likely subconsciously. Not that they're hand writing was alike, but they did end up having some similarities.
Which brings me to this - I've looked at both JR and Patsy's handwriting vs the ransom note, and I thought about your evidence for JR, which is very clear. He likely thought up the note, as the language and verbiage used mimics the evidence you've provided. However, I do find mannerisms and verbiage of Patsy in there as well! In addition, I take the analysis of Foster very seriously, in that we have academic who outed the Unabomber, Klein, and even a 1692 writing of Shakespeare! (yes, I'm also reading Foreign Faction hehe), stating that he is pretty darn positive Nancy wrote the note.
Now, why is JR the one who narrated the ransom note and created the content? The clues ares just too much. Many are the ones you've pointed out with the verbiage of "proper burial," percentages, 118,000, etc. However the "Victory S.B.T.C "
is what sold me. The person who wrote that note either knew of or was part of John's past in the SBTC.....or John thought this was a clever way to end this foreign faction invasion, and make the story even more personal.
What I propose to you is the possibility that JR and Patsy both were involved in the murder, in that Nancy knowingly made a fake 911 call and wrote the note, however it was the CEO JR that directed the story of the note. Based on the above, what are your thoughts? Thank you!
First of all, the name is Patsy, not Nancy. To respond to your main point:
DeleteMany people have made all sorts of assumptions regarding this case, based on what seem like reasonable observations such as yours, which are indeed reasonable. However, as I see it, we can't go by assumptions, we have to be guided primarily by the facts. And what strikes me about this case is that the facts point very clearly to John doing this on his own, manipulating both the investigators and Patsy herself.
It's not only the 911 call, which imo Patsy would not have made if she were involved, it's also several other factors. If you do a search on this blog for "Patsy's Role," you'll see what I mean.
Imo there is no way to tell for sure whether someone making a call for help is being sincere or acting. It's all too easy to be led by our prior assumptions to "hear" what we want to hear in such a recording. Also, as I see it, there is no way to tell simply by examining the note who wrote it, because deception is clearly a factor and there is no way to tell what elements are a "giveaway" and what are intended as deception.
It's only by a careful observation of the facts, and logic associated with those facts, that we can make our way through all the smoke and mirrors of this case.
I just finished watching a documentary about Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping. There are many videos of the parents pleading for the release and return of their daughter. In fact, Ed Smart went before cameras the very next day, while police were swarming around their house looking for clues, and pleaded for Elizabeth's release. It was reported that Ed Smart later became so distraught, that he literally became sick. And Lois Smart was a basket case too. The night she was awoken by Elizabeth's sister and told that Elizabeth was gone, she immediately got up, turned on all the lights in the house and searched all the rooms. Upon finding the cut window screen in her kitchen and realizing that someone had entered her house and taken her daughter, she screamed. Watching this documentary and studying the Smart's behaviour makes me compare to the Ramsey's behaviour the morning of Dec. 26 after they discovered their daughter missing and later when her body was discovered.
ReplyDeleteWhat a huge difference between these two parents!! Although Patsy is a little more convincing of a mother who has just lost her daughter, John shows NO emotion at all. Ed and Lois Smart show more emotion over their missing daughter than the Ramseys showed over their MURDERED daughter.
I know this is just an observation and cannot be used as evidence against the Ramseys, but it certainly is noteworthy. And I know the investigators do take into account the behaviors of people after a crime has been committed. Linda Arndt certainly noticed when she was at the Ramsey's house that morning. The behaviours of both these parents speak volumes.
I think that Doc's theory fits with the behaviors of PR and JR as observed by Linda Arndt and others on Dec 26. I know this is speculation on my part, but I think Patsy even noticed that John was acting strange. She was clearly distraught, but I think she was also initially afraid of John. Maybe not suspicious of him per se, but afraid, based on how he was reacting and how he was treating her, that he knew something. Maybe she thought he had an idea of who was "out to get" him and his family. She probably thought he knew how to get JBR back and even wondered if he was involved somehow with some bad people. Ultimately, he made sure she stayed medicated and then he gaslighted her. Finally, she got boxed in with the handwriting analysis and was being guided by attorneys of John's choosing...attorneys he was paying for. We have no idea what John told these attorneys either. People say that pedohiles don't just manifest their behaviours out of the blue and argue that authorities found no evidence that he was a child molester. However, everyone knows that men who abuse their young daughters are a special breed of molesters - they are especially smart, conniving, and manipulative. At the very least, we can see that John was known to be an elusive, somewhat cold, and calculating person. Heck, that's probably the reason Patsy was not in the happiest of marriages. The Smarts were in a happy marriage, Ed Smart was not the type of man that JR is, and Lois did not observe her husband acting strangely. IMO, both women behaved similarly. Keep in mind, too, that the media was not always kind to Ed Smart. Even a nice guy like him had to endure some speculation that he knew something about his daughter. Interestlngly, the Smarts had reason to suspect those who had been in their house because they hired some serious deadbeats off the street to work on their home. As compared to the Pughs these street people were not regular citizens. One could speculate on why the Smarts were not immediately suspicious about those workers. Again, this is the reason you cannot judge people based on their outward reactions to such tragic events. Linda Arndt was suspicious of John, not so much of Patsy. She simply noted that they stayed in separate rooms. Patsy could not even move she was so distraught. It was John who did not console her, left and went roaming around the house and opened his mail. I feel we need to separate John's behavior from Patsy's. Anonymom
DeleteAccording to a chronology report I read, Officers French and Veitch arrived separately, 7 min.'s after the 911 call (5:52a). Within a min. or two, JF arrived, followed a couple min.'s later by FW and PW.
ReplyDeleteJay
Ok, so at any time did the first responding officers talk to BR?
That's a good question. There's no record, to my knowledge, of any of the police questioning Burke.
DeleteOk, so then this is bizarre. If JBR was "kidnapped" wouldn't it be assumed that a stranger got into the house, went upstairs, and took JBR? That would be at least one of the scenarios if JBR were kidnapped. Wouldn't the police want to question every single person who was in the house that night?
DeleteAs I recall, Fleet White and his wife took Burke home with them before the body was found, so the police would not have had an opportunity to question him that day. After that, the Ramseys refused to allow him to be questioned by the police, though he was questioned by a social worker at some point, mainly to determine whether he'd ever been abused, I believe.
DeleteHe did testify at the Grand Jury hearings, but his testimony remains sealed.
Of course they should have questioned Burke, but as happened so often in this case, they were faked out. Looks like John was just too smart for them.
Here's an email I recently received, from "Lori":
ReplyDeleteJust read your book. Excellent analysis. I tried to post this, but apparently I did something wrong as it did not show up.
I reviewed photos of the basement window on the Candy Rose website. The photos taken from outside the house show a length of rope mixed in with the leaves on the sill. This rope looks like it could be similar to the garrote rope. Any info on whether this rope was compared to the garrote rope?
You made an insightful find re PR making the 911 call. I reviewed the call and found that JR's voice does not appear in the background, nor does PR say anything to JR during the call. I would think PR would make some cry out to JR during the call -- even if just to say "they're sending someone." I would also think JR would be barking commands, such as "tell them to hurry" or "there's a ransom note!" instead of simply mutely reading the note while PR is on the phone. It therefore seems that JR may not have been present when PR made the 911 call. Maybe she called without telling him. With the high stakes, it seems JR would've done almost anything to stop her from calling 911 until he could move the body. Maybe he assumed she would come to him first when she saw the note, but instead she first called 911?
JR also said he broke the window in July or Aug 1996. Any thoughts on whether there would be water stains on the walls or carpet/carpet pad from storms if the window had been broken for months?
Finally, it's curious to me why JR would take the trouble to find JBR new underwear and re-dress her. He could have put her pull-ups back on, or not dressed her at all. Perhaps he did not decide to kill her until after she was dressed? At that point, did she threaten to tell?
Yes I noticed that too. Looks a lot like the cord used to strangle and bind JonBenet doesn't it? Yet I don't recall any mention of that cord in any of the reports. Could have been the source of the cord. Could be something totally different. I'd assume the police would have checked it.
DeleteI too have never heard any other voices in the background of the 911 call. I enhanced the recording and still could not hear what Steve Thomas and some others claim was John and Burke's voices. But even if their voices were on that recording I can't see that would tell us much.
It's very possible John wasn't present. In the A&E doc., Patsy says she ran downstairs to make the call while John went upstairs to check on Burke.
Your question about water stains is a good one. But the police were apparently content to accept John's story because it supposedly "explained" why the window would have been broken, without any evidence anyone went through it the night of the murder. The possibility that this could have been a plan gone wrong, and that John would have been able to complete his staging the following night if Patsy hadn't called 911 probably never occurred to them.
As for the panties, I think some semen probably got onto the original panties and since there was no easy way to get rid of them, he redressed her in fresh ones and probably tossed the stained pair into a hamper with all the other laundry. He assumed the police would never think to look for the original pair if they found her already wearing panties -- but if the panties were missing they would probably have searched the house very thoroughly, looking for them. The fact that the second pair were grossly oversized was probably noticed too late for it to do the investigators any good.
"As for the panties, I think some semen probably got onto the original panties and since there was no easy way to get rid of them, he redressed her in fresh ones and probably tossed the stained pair into a hamper with all the other laundry. He assumed the police would never think to look for the original pair if they found her already wearing panties -- but if the panties were missing they would probably have searched the house very thoroughly, looking for them. The fact that the second pair were grossly oversized was probably noticed too late for it to do the investigators any good. "
DeleteIn JR's original plan, there would have been no reason to replace the original panties. The body was to be disposed of. When and if the body were found the lack of panties could be blamed on the "kidnappers".
Not that there is really any need to explain missing panties, as there would be no reason for the police to assume she'd need to wear panties under long johns. Both are underwear.
I also doubt JR would have put semen stained panties in the hamper. Sooner or later either LHP or PR would do laundry and the risk of either woman seeing the semen stains would be great. Pretty difficult to explain. Of course it's possible JR would do laundry himself had things gone more to plan, but even so, it would be much safer to flush the semen stained panties.
I tend to favor the view that JBR was actually wearing the too big panties all along. That would explain why they were put back on, (or pulled back up) and why PR said JBR sometimes wore the size 12s, and that 12s were available in JBR's underwear drawer. It would be strange if PR made this up, knowing full well the police had searched the underwear drawer. It would also be strange if this didn't make PR deeply suspicious of JR, if in fact JBR did not, on occasion, wear the size 12s. In part, this theory of yours (which I agree with about 99%) depends on PR being reassured that JR couldn't be the killer. She'd surely have become suspicious of size 12 panties if there were never any prior instance of JBR wearing them.
CH
You make some excellent points. Nevertheless, it's very hard to imagine JonBenet wearing panties that large and being able to move around comfortably. Also, Patsy would have known she was wearing them and would have said so when asked. Instead, she was obviously confused by the question.
DeleteYou're right about John's original plan, which tells me he must have changed her after the 911 call, very likely when he went AWOL on Arndt later that morning.
While it's true the police might not have expected her to be wearing panties, Patsy would have known and would probably have said something that would cause the police to search the house for them. Of course this is all speculation. We really have no way to tell for sure what actually happened. But the bottom line is that an intruder would not have had a reason to change her, and would not have known where to find those panties labeled "Wednesday." John would have, on both counts.
As far as Patsy being suspicious, it's clear from the police interview regarding those panties that she didn't really understand the meaning of what they were asking her and wasn't sure what to make of it. I think you're expecting too much of her. She wasn't a detective, she wasn't a sleuth, she never showed any inclination toward analyzing any of the evidence and putting two and two together, very possibly because she just wasn't psychologically prepared to deal with the possibility of John's involvement.
She may not have needed to move comfortably, as she may simply have put them on for sleeping. I'm not suggesting she wore them to the party earlier in the night. (I doubt she wore the ljs earlier either)
DeletePatsy may have been more confused by where LE was trying to go with the LJs questions than by the existence of the size 12s themselves. . She wouldn't necessarily know if JBR was wearing them or not if JBR put them on herself later in the night. I agree completely that had Patsy known JBR was wearing them when she went to bed Patsy would simply have said so. Instead she tells a story of the size 12s being in JBR's undie drawer. Many people take this to be a lie, but if she really had no clue why JBR was in size 12 panties, why wouldn't she just say that? No need to lie, just disavow any knowledge. Instead, she claims they were in the drawer for JBR to put on whenever she wanted, which is a very strange "lie" to tell when she's had months to be prepped by her lawyers (had all questions in writing in advance) and knows full well whether or not 12s were ever available in the underwear drawer. IMO this is not a lie. It's too stupid a story to be a lie.
So, if the size 12s were in the drawer, and JBR put them on herself, that explains PR's story, and explains why JR would pull them back up (put them back on) Otherwise, it's hard to see why JR would bother with them, as there is no real reason for the police to become suspicious based on not wearing a double set of underwear.
In your scenario, by far the most important part would be disposing of the stained panties in the hamper. After that, it doesn't really matter whether JBR is wearing panties under the LJs or not. So it's hard to see him opening a package found in the basement (if that's where they were) and putting them on JBR with the police and friends in the house, any of whom may have walked down the basement and discovered what he was up to.
If JR's plan B is to "find" JBR and claim an intruder did it, he could still blame the missing panties (if that even came up) on the intruder.
As you say, it's all speculative, but my scenario is equally consistent with the evidence.
Lastly, I'm not suggesting PR did any sleuthing. It's just that if the size 12s came out of the blue (e.g. were never available in the underwear drawer - no reason at all for JBR to have been wearing them) then PR couldn't help ask herself how an "intruder" knew where the size 12s were, or why he'd bother putting them on her.
The last thing JR wants is an intruder story that makes any less sense -to Patsy- than it already does.
CH
You make a pretty good case, CH, but I'm not any more convinced of your panty theory than you are of mine. JonBenet's body was thoroughly washed down. To me, that strongly suggests that semen was spilled. Why not, since there was a sexual assault, after all. If some semen got on her panties, that couldn't be washed off very easily, so he'd have to get rid of the panties at some point. He could originally have just planned to get rid of them when he got rid of all the other evidence, the following day, if all had gone according to plan.
DeleteBut after Patsy called 911, he would not have been able to just let them remain on the body. He would have needed to get rid of them. The problem was that Patsy knew she'd been wearing panties that night, and she might have wondered aloud where they were. John knew that once the body was found in the house, he would automatically become suspect no. 1. It wouldn't be enough to assume the police would think "the kidnapper" took them, because there had never been a kidnapping -- and there was no sign of forced entry.
Sure it would have been risky to go upstairs, root around in a drawer and find fresh panties -- but he'd have had no choice. Once the stained panties were found it would have been the end for him. So what seems most likely to me is that he found a pair he thought were appropriate, even choosing the right day ("Wednesday"), ran downstairs while everyone else was corraled in the sun room (or wherever) with Arndt, opened the wine cellar door, then closed it behind him -- and changed her panties to the new, oversized pair.
He couldn't just remove the original panties, because as I said, Patsy might notice that she wasn't wearing panties, and the police might start turning the house upside down looking for them. So it would have made sense for him to redress her in the new pair. And it worked! No one noticed the discrepancy until much later and by then John would have had many chances to get rid of the originals. Placing them with the dirty laundry might have been his best option, because a stain on the panties of a bedwetter sitting in a laundry hamper would hardly be noticed.
As for JonBenet changing into the oversize pair herself in the middle of the night, that does remain a possibility, yes. But, assuming she'd wet herself and wanted to take the original pair off, I don't see any reason for her deciding to put on a fresh pair since she was already wearing long johns. Moreover, if she'd wet herself, the long johns would have also gotten wet, so she'd have wanted to change them too. But she was apparently found in the same long johns Patsy had put her into when she put her to bed.
DeleteSo sorry, I just can't visualize a scenario where JonBenet would want to change into an overize pair of panties in the middle of the night. Possible, yes. Likely? No.
As for Patsy not getting suspicious when she learned about the overize panties during questioning. Well, there were many things that could have triggered her suspicions. I think she just didn't want to go there, was just psychologically incapable of suspecting John. And the fact that John had been ruled out would have made it literally impossible for her to take any suspicions to the police. She was the one they suspected of writing the note, not him.
Sure, it's likely semen was spilled, on the body. There's no necessity that it had to be spilled on the panties and the fact that the wounds to her vagina are consistent with digital penetration, and some wounds were fresh, tells us clearly the panties were pulled down at some point that night. (Or possibly removed altogether) It's very possible then that no semen ever got on the panties. It seems likely, to me, that size 12s could be pulled down right along with the LJs, and right back up with the LJs.
DeleteYou second paragraph, about PR knowing about the panties has one flaw. If PR knew JB was wearing panties, because she (PR) had seen them when putting the LJs on JBR, then PR would also know what size they were. Too big panties raise much the same red flags as no panties, unless of course there was a history of JBR wearing too big panties (which is consistent with PR's statements to the police)
So, JR would have two bad choices to make, either let PR wonder what happened to the missing panties, or let her wonder why JBR was in size 12 panties (which still begs the question what happened to the original panties) Neither is a good option. Since JR would originally have decided to dump the body, the missing panties (which would become an issue if/when the body was found) could be blamed on the kidnappers. Once it becomes clear the body will be found, in the house, he is still intent on blaming an "intruder", so there is still no reason not to simply leave her w/o panties and blame their disappearance on the intruder. In fact putting size 12s on her at that point is really worse than doing nothing. It's more plausible that an intruder took the "missing" panties as a souvenir, or to avoid leaving a trace of himself, than an intruder roamed the house looking for "Wednesday" panties and took the time to redress the body instead of getting out of Dodge. Once JR realized he was going to have to cook up an intruder scenario he'd have realized the intruder could be blamed for the missing panties too.
Neither PR, or anyone else, could have noticed the discrepancy until later, because for once the police (almost) followed procedure and didn't tamper (much) with the body or it's clothing before the autopsy. Had they found no panties at autopsy it might not have raised any eyebrows at all with the police. Only when the autopsy results were made known to PR would she realize something was wrong -e.g. the panties were missing, but she'd realize something was wrong with size 12s too. Either way there is a panty discrepancy, and either way it has to be blamed on the intruder.
Your theory depends on JR not noticing or caring about the size discrepancy. This is harder to believe if he took fresh size 12s from a package and took off the LJs and put on the large panties. At that point he'd have to know there was a discrepancy that was hard to explain.
The notion that JBR was wearing the 12s all along is a good reason for them to be found on her. They simply went down and back up with the LJs, and JR may never have really noticed the size, or if he did, he'd have no reason to think it would raise suspicion, since she was already in them. It's also consistent with PR's statement about the panties being in JBR's drawer, available for her to put on.
I believe my theory of the panties is actually more consistent with your overall theory of the case. JR restored her clothing as he knew it to be when he took her from her bed. If and when the body was found (after being dumped) it would be found dressed as she had been at bed time (as far as JR knew) Once it became necessary to switch from kidnapping to a "kidnapping gone bad", he would have known that no intruder would spend time rummaging through drawers or closets looking for panties to put back on a dead body..
CH
As for JBR wearing 12s on her own volition, either PR lied, or JBR really did do that on occasion. There's really no in between. PR tells the police that the 12s were put in JBR's drawer because JBR asked for them and it had been decided not to give them to Jenny as was originally intended.
DeleteWhile it's possible PR lied, it's a strange lie to tell given that PR knows very well whether or not the police could have found any 12s in the underwear drawer. She also knew from the tabloids (and likely her own lawyers) that JBR had on size 12s, at autopsy, and she knew this several weeks before the police interviews. She certainly could have come up with a better story, if any story was needed. If she really didn't know why JBR was in size 12s, then she'd simply have said that. She would not make up a lie that casts suspicion on herself. As I said before, it's too bad a story to be a lie. So, JBR likely had some childish wish to wear "big girl" panties, her desire to be more grown up outweighing any discomfort.
Patsy didn't have to suspect JR, but she had to at least wonder -aloud, to friends and family- why an intruder bothered rummaging through the house finding "Wednesday" panties to put on a dead girl. Such thoughts could hardly be avoided.
CH
I read in one of the reports that the medical examiner was aware that JB's body had been cleaned, and that there was a residue left on her thighs that they were hoping was semen, but it turned out to be JB's blood. It's hard to imagine that no semen was found on her body or clothing, but that is the case. It's also unlikely in that case, that all the semen was deposited on her underwear, and thus discarded. I agree with CH, that it appears her underwear and longjohns were pulled down and therefore free of blood, with the exception of the one or two drops in her underwear that most likely occurred after they were pulled up (after she was washed). With no semen found anywhere, residue left from a substantial amount of blood on her legs, and the missing tip of the paintbrush found, it's understandable how LE could conclude that the sexual assault was staged. IMO, the underwear could've been changed, but I have a hard time imagining the perp not getting blood on the longjohns, as well as her shirt, if they weren't pulled down and up respectively.
DeleteJay
Sorry, it should read "missing tip of the paintbrush not found".
DeleteJay
My thinking is based on the assumption that John would have known nothing about any oversize panties and would not have noticed anything amiss when he redressed her. He would certainly have had more things on his mind at that point than worrying about panty size. While John might have argued that the absence of panties meant they were taken by "the intruder," the discrepancy between the ransom note and the body found in-house certainly made the police suspect an inside job. And John would have had no way of knowing for sure whether or not Patsy might wonder where JonBenet's panties were.
DeleteI'm not saying it had to have happened as I envision it, but it's really hard for me to find any reason why JonBenet would have wanted to change to that oversize pair in the middle of the night. And Patsy would certainly have noticed if she had been put to bed wearing them.
@ Jay
DeleteI'm not saying it had to happen the way I'm guessing, just that it's a very good possibility.
Since there was no semen found, on the body or clothing, it stands to reason -as a possibility- that no semen was deposited. It may be that the night's activities didn't include JR getting his "jollies" but rather was just for the purpose of silencing JBR and obscuring evidence of prior molestation.
It's also possible he ejaculated on the body, not on the underwear.
At any rate, we know that no semen was found so it's very reasonable to think that the panties she had on when carried to the basement never became stained with semen.
But, if not, why the size 12s?
CH
Why the size 12s?
DeleteOne way to approach this is to ask who the 12s were for. That is, who was supposed to notice/not notice the panties?
In the original plan, the body would be dumped. With luck it would have been days -or longer- before the body was found. IMO the easiest thing to do would be blame the missing panties, along with any evidence of molestation, on the kidnappers.
But if JR didn't want to blame missing panties on the kidnappers, then the panties had to be for PR's benefit. The police have no way of knowing what JBR had on at bedtime. But PR knew. The size 12s don't keep the police from asking where the "missing" panties went, they prevent PR from asking. But that creates a problem. The panties are way too big, and if JBR went to sleep in size 6s, the too big panties are just as much a problem as no panties - more so really.
When the crime changes from an actual kidnapping to a "kidnapping gone wrong", what changes?
Well, once again, the missing panties can simply be blamed on the intruder. This is by far the easiest thing to do, if the size 6s are stained.
JR knows the body will be found in the house, and he knows there will be an autopsy. He knows that the absence of panties can be blamed on the intruder, and if he has noticed the size problem with the `12s, he knows that's a bigger problem than no panties at all.
So, once the crime morphs into a "kidnapping gone bad" the only way JR puts size 12s on her is if a) he can't think fast enough to blame the intruder for the missing panties, and b) he doesn't notice the size problem. The later is critical, as the size 12s raise more questions than no panties at all would. And the answers are more difficult to accept as believable.
So JR must not have known about the size problem? But how could that be? If he'd removed them from a package then put them on her for the first time, he could hardly fail to notice they are the wrong size for JBR. OTOH, if the 12s are already on her, he'd have no reason to think they looked suspicious, even if he did notice the size problem. If they went down and back up with the LJs, he may not have noticed at all.
But why would JBR being wearing size 12s before JR began the nights "activities" ?
Patsy tells the story that the 12s were originally for a niece but were never sent, JBR asked to have them, and they were in the panty drawer for JBR to wear when she wanted. So, whether one thinks it would be comfortable or not, it might well be that JBR had access to them and put them on herself before JR came into her bedroom later in the night. If that were the case, that would explain why they are on the dead body. The body was redressed exactly as JR had found her when he took her to the basement.
For those who can't accept that JBR already had the size 12s on, then PR's story -about the 12s being in the drawer- is a lie and must be explained. As I see it this story does not help JR. In fact, it makes the entire "intruder" scenario that much harder to accept. I certainly can't see why JR would encourage PR to make up such a story when it chips away at the credibility (already very low) of the intruder scenario.
CH
A few last stray thoughts on the panties.
Delete1. If JR took the size 6s off her, and put fresh size 12s on her, he could hardly have failed to notice the size difference.
2. We don't know when the body was wiped down. My guess is that it was before the 911 call, as any evidence of sexual assault/activity might be discovered if PR woke up (and hence, the need for an additional murder). It's safer for JR to wipe away evidence even when he's still operating on plan A (dumping the body). If he left the body clean up for later, after PR/BR were out of the house then when the 911 call was made he obviously had to wipe the body before it was "found" in the house. But in this case, time would be of the essence. JR could be discovered at any moment by one of the many people in the house. It would take extra time to locate the size 12s and would take time to put them on. And of course, as I've already noted, it raises more questions than no panties at all would. '
I suggest the simple explanation is that JBR had the 12s on all along -from the time JR entered her bedroom. There was never any semen staining on the "original" panties. This fits the physical evidence and PRs statements.
That's all I can say about the panties.
CH
Another comment delivered via email, from Cindi:
ReplyDeleteHi Doc, I have trouble posting on the blog so I thought I would send my inquiry in an email.
So many perplexing things about the case but one thing that drives me nuts is the pineapple. Didn't the ME say it was fresh pineapple? Not canned. Then it had to have been cut inside the house, were any remnants found in the trash? JR and PR claim to have no idea where the pineapple came from, doesn't that mean that someone had to have brought it in that night?
As for the LHPI theory, can you point me to where she accuses Patsy? The only interview transcripts I have seen have her speaking highly of Patsy, indicating she was generous for giving her the advance that she was to pick up on the 27th. Seems highly implausible that the Pugh's walked right into that house that night, fed JB pineapple, wrote the note, killed JB, etc and no one heard a thing. Although equally implausible that JR did all of that as well without anyone hearing a thing.
I know you are hardcore JDI and you have managed to convince me and many others after steering us toward "just the facts" and not speculation, I feel myself grasping for anyone but him as it is just inconceivable to me. In Mark Beckner's recent interview he admitted that not all of the evidence had been released to the public. I am curious, is there any evidence that would convince you of IDI or anyone beside JDI?
Thanks so much for the blog and your level head on this case, it is welcome and refreshing.
Feel free to post on the blog as a comment if you would like.
Cindi
To answer your first question, I don't think the Ramseys ever denied there was pineapple in the house. They just denied feeding her any that night.
DeleteLHP accused Patsy in a tabloid interview, and later in a book she was working on that never got published. As I recall a chapter of the book appeared years ago on the Internet. Early on, however, she very strongly defended Patsy. I think she was seduced by the prospect of a lucrative book deal. There are many reasons for believing her to be innocent. Imo there has never been a plausible intruder theory of any kind in this case.
I agree that it's hard to see John as the killer. But we do know that many "respectable" men have abused their daughters. And it's just one step from abuse to murder, where the possibility of exposure is present.
As far as evidence that might get me to change my mind: Well, when I first learned about John Mark Karr's confession, the report also (mistakenly) mentioned that his DNA was a match. I was astonished, because that did not jibe with my view of the case at all. But you can't argue with the combination of a confession and matching DNA. So I promptly apologized, publicly, to Jameson, the Ramsey's staunchest supporter, because I had to admit I'd been wrong. As it turned out, his DNA did not match. Nor did his story. But for a moment there I was convinced I'd gotten it wrong.
Doc, if the Ramsey's flight was at 6:15, why did PR wake up at 5:30? Seems very late to make a flight.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, they were scheduled to take off around 7AM, not 6:15.
DeleteDocG:
ReplyDeleteDo you suspect that Burke knows the truth? If so, wouldn't he have told Patsy? I find it unbelievable that he wouldn't have, and/or that Patsy wouldn't have taken his concern seriously. Either way, do you think Patsy knew of John's guilt before she passed on? Might she have revealed any clues to anyone? Also, do you find it likely that Burke's silence stems from fear of himself being (wrongly) prosecuted, or would it be more-so fear of John? Maybe he knows JDI but just cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe he is clueless after all. I do assume he wants justice served for his sister.
I finally built the courage (after several months) to look at autopsy photos. Surprisingly I'm glad I did because I was shocked at the extent of fracture in skull. I now understand why you believe Burke couldn't/wouldn't have done it, and why some think it was an act of rage. But as you've stated, a single blow that kills is not usually done out of rage but to kill quickly and relatively painlessly.
I must admit, your dedication and people's cooperation in this blog is fascinating.
Responses welcome.
MC
I have no idea what Burke might know. But I feel sure John and possibly also his lawyers worked on him to keep silent. Probably because John suspects he might know something.
DeletePS: In your opinion why didn't Patsy ever read the RN, and according to Arndt didn't address that there was no call from kidnapper? Her daughter was first missing, then found murdered, additionally murderer's identity is still unknown and there is a, not one but three-page ransom note that she never read (?). She either knew John wrote it or someone discouraged her from reading it. I don't believe she wasn't curious. You will say if she knew JDI and was covering for him she wouldn't have made the 911 call. Maybe she knew JDI and was not covering and equally didn't trust her gut, or want to trust it, therefore avoiding RN note.
ReplyDeleteThere are two very different versions of what happened prior to the 911 call, which tells us they are lying. In fact we have no way of knowing for sure what went on before Patsy called. They both may have read the note together and argued about what to do. Or Patsy may have panicked and only read the opening lines before calling. We can't make the mistake of assuming anything when it come to this case, aside from the known facts. Their version(s) of what happened is NOT a fact.
DeleteCorrection: I don't believe she wouldn't be* curious (if she didn't know JDI). In fact I don't believe she'd be anything less than obsessed to find answers.
ReplyDeleteAfter the body was found Patsy turned into a basket case on meds, NOT a private investigator. She had no reason to assume John was guilty and a few weeks later he was declared "ruled out," which to her meant he could not have written the note. So no I don't think she suspected him at all. If she did she'd at the very least have left him.
DeleteI have been reading about the JonBenet Ramsey case for years now and have just read an listened to Law and Disorder written by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker.
ReplyDeleteSeveral things in this case were never answered if they were ever asked.
1.) Where did the duct tape come from. The police and the detective stated that they conducted a very thorough search inside and out and could never find "any" duct tape. Referring to the duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth.
2.)In one of the crime scene photographs it shows an open window in the basement and a chair is clearly placed there? Did someone come in or did some one go out? It was quickly dismissed as being stated that one of the investigating officer's "may" have placed it there.
3.) Head wounds such as J.B's cause significant blood loss, if the victim is alive. Where is all the blood? Where are the towels or clothed used to clean up the blood?
4.) Linda Hoffman Pugh stated that the towel that was used to wrap J.B. was a towel that was in the dryer the day or night proceeding J.B.'s death and the Patsy Ramsey would have known that "specific" towel was in the clothes dryer. If they hired a housekeeper, would she not be the one that washed and dried the clothes??
5.)The original autopsy never caught the fact that J.B. was possibly (more than likely) knocked out using a Tazer. It took another doctor looking at the photographs years later to catch this. Looking at these photographs, I have no idea how that was even missed.
6.) Where did the rope come from? According to the investigation this type of rope is usually sold in 50' to 100' lengths. Who uses rope like this? Usually contractors, surveyors, landscapers, and other type or similar types of workers.
7.) DNA that was found at the crime scene that did not match Patsy or John's, was never tested against the Housekeeper, her husband, or other probable suspects...why not?
8.) Detective Linda Arndt had stated that at the time of finding J.B.'s body it finally clicked..."At that time I realized what happened and thought how many bullets do I have." (I do not presume to state that this was the exact quote), but she had assumed that John Ramsey who was in the wine cellar with her had killed J.B. Years later she would retract her statement.
Rope, Duct Tape, Extensive Knowledge of Contractor Knots/Navy Knot tying, unmatched DNA never tested against possible suspects.
1. The duct tape and cord were probably taken from detritus left over from gift packaging that had been temporarily stored in the basement. Also workers had been in the house and there might have been a strand of cord or duct tape left in the basement by them. It's highly unlikely that an intruder would have arrived at the house equipped with rolls of tape and cord, and also unlikely that he'd have bothered to take them away with him.
Delete2. The open window you've seen wasn't a window at all, but a crawl space. And yes someone had left a chair under it, probably when the police checked it out that morning.
3. JonBenet's head wound produced no external bleeding, which is why the forensics people suspect that the maglite was the weapon used to bludgeon her as it has a relatively soft head.
4. A blanket was used, not a towel. And either Patsy or John could have taken it from the dryer.
5. Lou Smit was the one responsible for the stun gun theory, but there was NO evidence whatsoever that a stun gun was used. The photos can be interpreted in many different ways and there are all sorts of things that could have produced those wounds. That one's a classic red herring.
6. The cord used was probably taken from among gift packaging detritus and was probably used up by her attacker, with none left over.
7. The DNA was tested against every single suspect and no match was found. If you do a search for DNA on this blog you'll learn why I don't consider it relevant. And I'm not the only one.
8. Yes, it seems clear that Arndt suspected John and I have no doubt she still does.
As far as knots are concerned, John was in the navy and was also an experienced boatman.
You have many misconceptions about this case.
1.) The duct tape and cord were probably taken from detritus left over from gift packaging that had been temporarily stored in the basement. Also workers had been in the house and there might have been a strand of cord or duct tape left in the basement by them. It's highly unlikely that an intruder would have arrived at the house equipped with rolls of tape and cord, and also unlikely that he'd have bothered to take them away with him.
DeleteThis is completely wrong: Detective Arndt and the investigative team found that the rope used for JB’s binds was not found anywhere on or around the property. Being a one-time contractor my duct tape always stayed in my tool boxes and I made sure it went with me when the job was done. The ransom not dictates that “the two men who are watching JB”….If I have three men involved in a kidnapping I would write the ransom note “the men I have watching JB.”
2.) The open window you've seen wasn't a window at all, but a crawl space. And yes someone had left a chair
under it was probably when the police checked it out that morning:
The police were questioned about this and no one remembered putting that chair in that position under that
window.
3. JonBenet's head wound produced no external bleeding, which is why the forensics people suspect that
the Maglite was the weapon used to bludgeon her as it has a relatively soft head.
Seeing head wounds and seeing photographs on head wounds….head wound bleed profusely when the subject
or victim is still alive. If the heart is beating….blood will pour out profusely until stopped or the heart is
stopped…no matter how “soft the skull is” this in and of itself makes absolutely no sense.
4. A blanket was used, not a towel. And either Patsy or John could have taken it from the dryer.
This in and of itself is also in question. The housekeeper did state it was a blanket (I was incorrect on this one)
and Patsy or John pulled this out of the dryer. Your housekeeper cleans the house, mops, and washes and
cleans the clothes. You have a company that is worth millions or billions and you hire a housekeeper….you are
actually going to wash and dry your own laundry????
5. Lou Smit was the one responsible for the stun gun theory, but there was NO evidence whatsoever that a
stun gun was used. The photos can be interpreted in many different ways and there are all sorts of things
that could have produced those wounds. That one's a classic red herring.
This is completely wrong!!! A forensic expert specializing on autopsies was brought in by an FBI
profiling team. Lou Smit asked John Douglas to come in and help him out, the doctor (whose name I
cannot recall right now) matched the marks on JB ‘s neck to a Tazer... I know looking at those
marks…that was a Tazer.
Yes, neither that type of cord or duct tape was found. Why would it be, if the attacker used up all that was available. Alternatively John could have flushed the remainder down the toilet. You are assuming they came from rolls of cord or tape, but that's just an assumption.
DeleteIf the chair wasn't put there by the police then it was probably put there earlier by someone accessing something in the crawl space. I see nothing suspicious about that chair.
I'm not sure what your point is regarding the head wound. There was no external bleeding. It was only after the med. examiner lifted her scalp that he saw the head wound. There was interior bleeding of course, but nothing visible on the exterior of her head. Are you saying that all the witnesses and the police and medical examiner were lying?
The blanket could easily have been located by John. He certainly knew where the dryer was. I fail to see your point.
Just because some marks on the body match a stun gun does not mean a stun gun was used. If a stun gun that matched had been found on or near the Ramsey home that would be different. Smit simply went shopping around for any stun gun that might match and apparently he found one. So what? The marks could have been made by all sorts of things, most likely some objects that were lying around the floor when she was bludgeoned. What Smit did is called cherry picking.
6. The cord used was probably taken from among gift packaging detritus and was probably used up by her
ReplyDeleteattacker, with none left over.
Honestly: Who uses contractor grade rope for Christmas Packaging…Seriously!!
7. The DNA was tested against every single suspect and no match was found. If you do a search for DNA on this blog you'll learn why I don't consider it relevant. And I'm not the only one.
Linda Pugh, her husband’s or other contractors or landscaper’s DNA was never tested against the suspect
DNA…if this is actually in one of the websites you are looking at….it is definitively incorrect.
8. Yes, it seems clear that Arndt suspected John and I have no doubt she still does. As far as knots are
concerned, John was in the navy and was also an experienced boatman. You have many misconceptions
about this case.
John Ramsey served as a civil engineer in the United States Navy….Not a Boatswains Mate. I served in the
Navy for over 9 years and did not learn how to tie a knot until I went to Alaska on a Fishing boat.
I have attended many classes pertaining to this and other cases. I have absolutely no misconceptions on this case, outside of the fact that John or Patsy stood nothing to gain by killing their daughter. I have an idea that Patsy may have known or suspected someone prior to her death….The answer lies within the note, duct tape, and the rope…
If I am writing a ransom not I am not going to identify that there are two men watching the person I have kidnapped? I would write. “We have your daughter and she is being watched.”
Contractor grade rope was not used. Perfectly ordinary cord was used. It could certainly have been used on a gift package.
DeleteEveryone with access to the house had their DNA tested. Why do you believe otherwise? What is your source of information regarding who was and was not tested? Again, it seems clear that you are misinformed on many aspects of this case. If you want to continue this dialogue I'm going to ask you to provide references to reliable sources.
John was in the navy and had many opportunities to learn about knots regardless of whether he was actually a seaman or not. He also was an avid sailor on his own private boat after leaving the navy.
Police Identified the rope as “White Stansport” 32” strand 3/16” woven contractor rope that was for sale at the local Army Surplus and the local Home Depot and Lowes stores…nowhere else.
DeleteDo you have access to the police reports and the autopsy reports, have you actually read these…and have actually read information from the detectives that were hired to look at this case with an unbiased opinion.
Where exactly are you getting your information from? I attended one class with one of the Psychologist who was actually involved with the Ramsey interview and the case. I have read many books on the Ramsey Case including just finishing Law and Disorder and the Cases that Haunt us and have gone over some of the reports that are out there for the public to read.
(From the Autopsy Report): Craniocerebral Injuries:
A.) Severe Scalp Contusion
B.) Linear, comminuted fracture (open fracture) of the right side of the skull.
C.) Linear pattern of contusions of and on the right
cerebral hemisphere.
D.) Subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage…bleeding should
have been external.
E.) Small contusions, tips of the temporal lobes.
You don’t think the detectives and other investigators didn’t look at the Christmas packages to see if there was this specific rope used. Try flushing rope and duct tape down the toilet…its easily retrievable by detectives and the crime scene units. I really think you need to look into your information a little more thoroughly. JB’s pediatrician was even interviewed and stated that JB had never shown any signs of abuse…Past behavior determines future behavior, neither Patsy or John ever showed any signs of child abusive behavior in the past….So out of some fit of unrecognizable rage, John or Patsy flew into a frenzy of anger and killed JB by either strangulation or bashing her head in???
She was not strangled or tied with a rope. She was tied with "cord." (see http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682514/The%20Cords). And yes, I've seen it described, in Steve Thomas's book, as “White Stansport” 32” strand 3/16” but whether or not it's used by contractors I can't say. I've seen several photos from the crime scene and it's definitely a fairly thin cord, resembling a shoelace, NOT rope. That type of cord could easily have been used to wrap a present or possibly used by one of the workers who'd been in the home recently. John could have used up all the cord he found, certainly. No need to presume it came from a roll that somehow vanished. And if John had cut the remaining cord and tape into little pieces it would have flushed very easily.
DeleteAnd yes, I've read the police reports and the police interviews and the autopsy, of course. And I fail to understand your insistence that she must have bled externally, since it's contrary to the autopsy report and all other descriptions of the crime scene. I don't care if "the bleeding should have been external." It wasn't. Period. End of story.
Signs of prior abuse were found by the medical examiner, who reported "chronic damage" to the inner wall of the vagina. According to Cyril Wecht and other forensic pathologists who examined that report, it was consistent with prior abuse. That doesn't constitute 100% proof, admittedly, and other interpretations have been offered, but it certainly is cause for suspicion. And it enables us to posit a motive for murder on John's part.
I don't think she was murdered in an act of rage. I think the killing was calculated and the motive was to prevent her from reporting the abuse. Patsy had nothing to do with it, imo. If you read further in this blog you'll learn more about my analysis of this case.
The pictures in these photos are not cords....it is rope. I am not attempting to be condescending, but a cord is made of elastic, vinyl material, rubber or some type of plastic material.
Deletehttp://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm
Mervin Pugh transcript upon being interviewed; "How did she die? Was it strangulation." How would this be someones first guess, unless they had specific knowledge.
There was no and was never any evidence of any sexual abuse to JB...that was purely media hype...The original autopsy though not flawed "missed" several key points that two other Medical Examiners had agreed upon. The chronic damage to the inner wall of the vagina by the original Corner was later redacted as a misinterpretation.
How could JB have been continually abused, sexually or otherwise and her pediatrician never reported this fact.
Any case that requires a subject to beat a person tell their skull is cracked or suffers a severe subdural hematoma, no matter what the age....requires some significant rage or anger....you do not do this, just because you think it's a good idea...
Also the ingested pineapple was eaten after the Christmas dinner (crab). Therefore, someone either fed JB the pineapple prior to her death. She got up sometime prior to the assailant causing her great bodily harm and death and fed herself pineapple (this is not even remotely likely)...and the butler door that led into the kitchen was left open...
The only thing I can agree with you in this blog, is that Patsy did not kill JB....and I firmly believe the John did not kill her either.
You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Baker. But you make many assumptions and easily jump to conclusions -- and, as I must insist, are misinformed. You also provide no references and until you do I won't respond to any specifics, sorry.
DeleteDocG.
DeleteDo you actually work in law enforcement or just blog about absurdities...all my information is backed by books, research, autopsy reports, and information retrieved from the case files of the people that were actually there.
If you are actually a doctor or a forensic specialist I will accept your ideas as being "plausible."
I don't base my information on my opinion or feelings only the facts presented to me...that's why I like doing what I do professionally.
This is getting tiresome. If you supply specific references to the books, research, etc. to which you refer, I will be happy to respond.
DeleteHowdy would you mind letting me know which hosting company you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog in 3 completely different browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you recommend a good internet hosting provider at a reasonable price? Cheers, I appreciate it! Hope you love my site สล็อ
ReplyDeleteJust reading through this blog. Apparently "Unknown" failed to read the URL he posted as "evidence" rope was used, not "cord." The URL says "evidence-CORD" (emphasis mine). CORD.
ReplyDeleteUnknown May 24, 2016 at 9:33 PM
The pictures in these photos are not cords....it is rope. I am not attempting to be condescending, but a cord is made of elastic, vinyl material, rubber or some type of plastic material.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-cord-garrote.htm