The second edition of my book, Ruled IN: Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case is now available at the Amazon.com Kindle store. I'd been bothered for some time by passages where more or less the same material is unnecessarily repeated, as justly noted by some of the reviewers. I was also bothered by certain technical passages that went on for too long. And there were several passages that cried out for editing and/or refining or in some cases, outright cutting. Inspired by some recent discussions in the comments section of this blog, I also decided to add a chapter dealing with the vexing question of motive. Additionally, I moved certain long technical discussions to appendices, where they will be less obtrusive. An additional appendix is devoted to an alternative scenario based on the possibility of premeditation (as already discussed here at some length).
Overall my aim was to enhance readability, improve style, correct errors, provide some updates and air some new ideas. If you've already purchased the first edition, there's no compelling reason to get the new one -- but if you don't yet have a copy of the book, I can assure you that the new version reads more smoothly than the first, and with fewer redundancies. I also decided to lower the price to $3.49, which makes this an especially good deal.
If you've already been reading fairly heavily in this blog, there's probably no reason for you to buy the book, as the blog already contains just about everything essential, and the book is heavily based on blog posts in any case. However, if you're a newcomer, I'd suggest getting the book, as the argument is much easier to follow there than in this blog, which has become rather unwieldy. And the price is right! :-)
Oh and by the way: don't be put off by this being a Kindle book, because you don't need a Kindle Reader to read it. Free apps are available at the Kindle store for just about any device you might have, including an iPad, Android, laptop, desktop, PC or Mac.
I can't wait to read it, Doc! I did read your first book and I've read almost all of your blog, but I am always anxious to read more of what you have to say, even if it's redundant.
ReplyDeleteYou have convinced me --- almost 100% --- that JDI. But I find the pendulum swing every time I read specific articles, blogs, etc. having to do with Patsy writing the ransom note. That is the single thing that causes me to wonder about her involvement. I could care less that she wore the same outfit the next morning, that she invited a bunch of people over to the house, that she might have been furious over JonBenet's endless bedwetting problem, etc. The ONLY thing that draws me back to the PDI camp is that ransom note. And it's not because of any supposed similarities in handwriting, as many suggest. Rather, it's the content and writing style of the note that makes me think she wrote it. I'm sure you're seen this video, which is about Professor Donald Foster's (Vassar College) analysis of the note. Though he never says for sure who HE thinks wrote the note, it is clear to me that he believes Patsy did.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/9271998-experts-dissect-jonbenet-ramsey-ransom-note-29249678
Doc, how do you counter the claims made by so many that Patsy did, in fact, write that note? I know you've said she would never have made that 911 call if she wrote the note, but I respectfully disagree. I think she might have been just smart enough to go through the motions of an innocent mother, including making that call despite the fact that the body was still in the house. And as for the chronic molestation, I would not be surprised at all if that were done by Patsy, as horrible as that sounds. I've heard of mothers doing much worse and, like John, we don't know a whole lot about Patsy or her mental state.
I would love to hear your argument as to why you think she did not write that note.
And I will most definitely read the new version of your book!
Thank you.
Sara
Well, Sara, I'm really pleased to learn of your interest in both the blog and the book, thank you. As far as Patsy's involvement is concerned, that's covered very thoroughly in both the blog and the book. If you check out the blog post "Patsy's Role," you'll see many of the reasons, aside from the 911 call, why I feel sure Patsy was not involved. (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2014/09/patsys-role.html -- that's one of the things I added to the new version of the book as well)
DeleteThanks for the link to that video featuring Donald Foster, but there is nothing new there as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, Foster is a charlatan. What is said in that video about him initially contacting Patsy out of concern for her is misleading. What actually happened was that he was participating in an internet forum with Ramsey supporter "Jameson," who is a woman, and decided that Jameson must in reality be John's older son, John Jr. After that blew up in his face, he then wrote a letter to Patsy telling her he was convinced she was innocent and could prove she did NOT write the note. He was so sure, he said "I would stake my career on it." He was hoping to be hired by the Ramseys, but they ignored his letter. So later, when he came to the DA claiming he could prove she was the one who wrote the ransom note after all, the DA was understandably unwilling to work with him.
And by the way, his Shakespeare attribution turned out to be wrong. Real scholars who knew better rejected it, and he finally was forced to admit his error.
You can see from the video that, aside from the phrase "good southern common sense" Foster wasn't able to find any expression that could be linked to Patsy. Nor would he be able to explain why she would have wanted to include such an expression in a document that was intended to point away from her. The phrase "and hence" is known to have been used by John and probably got into the Xmas message via John and not Patsy. It's unlikely that Patsy would use such a formal expression, as her verbal style is distinctly informal.
As for those exclamation points, such an observation has nothing whatever to do with Foster's specialty, which is content analysis. There are, in fact, only three exclamation points in the entire 2 1/2 page note, and since a great many people use exclamation points (which is why they are present on all typewriter and computer keyboards) such an observation means little.
As for the 911 call, I find it impossible to believe Patsy would have gone to so much trouble to write a ransom note and then call the police knowing that the body of the victim was still in the house, meaning there had been no kidnapping. If she had second thoughts about the kidnapping scenario, she would never have shown anyone that note and just reported that her daughter was missing.
Thanks, Doc, for your reply, and especially for enlightening me as to facts about Donald Foster and his involvement in this case. It certainly sheds a new light on it for me.
DeleteI did go back and re-read your blog, "Patsy's Role". Being a devil's advocate at heart, I found I could come up with an explanation for almost all of the points you made supporting Patsy's innocence except one. You've got me on this one: the garrote. It does seem highly unlikely that she would have the knowledge of knot tying needed to tie that knot. Or, for that matter, that she would even WANT to tie such a sophisticated knot.
Your theory is very convincing. And so the pendulum swings back . . .
Sara
"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". "
ReplyDeleteJR's "original plan" was falling apart when it started. Perhaps he put them on her while the house was full of people, that morning, pondering the epiphany that her body will be found, with(his semen) stained panties. Can you imagine JR walking up the stairs with JBR in his arms, and the stained panties are in his pocket? Creepy.
Jon
Glad to read your latest post, Doc. I will have to buy your book. Even though I've enjoyed deeply reading your blog, I think your book sounds like a good read.
ReplyDeleteI have been watching bits and pieces of Perfect Murder, Perfect Town for the past few days, not for any particular reason. Mostly, because I realized I had not seen it, before. I am surprised at how much, in my opinion, the movie seems to focus on John as the perpetrator. Has anyone else noticed this? They certainly focus on Patsy, however John's dialogue is more contradictory and suspicious. Even the body language and the shifty eyes and odd requests, by John's character, give the general appearance of guilt. Perhaps, you and the faithful members of this blog are not the only ones who feel JR is guilty.
There comes a point when one must conclude that either the BPD was really, actually staffed with employees who had an IQ of 60, or they are playing a not so skillful game of cat and mouse. It doesn't make rational sense to select Mommy as your: most likely to construct a garrote, perform a violent, sexual assault and fracture a skull--prime suspect: Maybe, they found her to be more open, chatty, talkative, friendly, honest and emotionally vulnerable. Maybe, they focused the heat on her, thinking she would eventually crack if she knew anything at all or if JR told her anything at all. She would be considerably more likely to spill the beans than JR.
Either this was a terrible (and failed) strategy, or they just really are that...mindless, simple and dumb. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have money, power and connections. Has anyone researched JR's connections to the DA, state and local government officials? It wouldn't surprise me, one bit, if JR has much, much closer ties to the investigators and law makers, behind the scenes, in that county. This would be a good area to look for collusion.
-H
Just read an interesting article on Westward.com dated Dec. 17, 2014. I think it was entitled "How the Jonbenet murder case has been derailed". It basically hits on Fleet and Priscilla White's connections to the case, and some of their thoughts and correspondences with people involved. Good stuff. For me it refocuses the attention back where it should be, on the people in the house.
ReplyDeleteJay
Thank you for the recommendation, Jay. I enjoy reading your comments. You are well informed, and you are an intelligent person.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through the westword.com article, it dawned on me that it is possible that John had Fleet take Burke out of the house, to get Fleet out of the house. Fleet was actually doing what normal people do, when they are looking for something that is lost. They look for it.
Fleet and Priscilla sound like honest boy scouts. They earnestly wanted to help find a kidnapped JonBenet, and when the kidnapping turned into a homicide, they wanted to help the police find out who would do such a thing to The Ramsey Family.
Yep, those noble people were a total annoyance to the likes of that delusional ransom note writer and the elite's playground inside Hunter's office.
I now understand Det. Linda Arndt's response, when she was asked, "Do you think this case will ever be solved?" ::she let out a big sigh:: "No."
-H
I have just started reading Doc's new and improved version of his book. I am only on Chapter 2 and I can't stop reading. Doc has stayed true to his word in making this book easier to read, with less redundancies and appendices that are easy to refer to. He doesn't waste any time comparing JR's handwriting (from the only exemplar of JR that has surfaced) to the ransom note and refers to Italian writing examiner Fausto Brugnatelli's examination of specific letters from JR's exemplar and the ransom note. The similarities are uncanny!! I got chills looking at them.
ReplyDeleteReaders, I urge you to read Doc's new book. Especially if you are like me, occasionally swaying from the JDI belief. After reading just the first two chapters of this book, there is NO question in my mind who murdered JonBenet.
bb
Not that it's earth I shattering, but I always that it was unusual for the ransom note writer to have made their "d"'s with one stroke, ending on the upstroke. They look unusual and unnatural, as if they are incomplete. When I saw JR's exemplar, it made since. He makes his "d"'s with one stroke, but instead of ending on the upstroke, he brings it back down and creates a loop, finishing on a down stroke. Just thought it was interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't know where it fits with anything else, but I got to thinking about the opening of the ransom note. "Listen carefully" makes absolutely no sense. You can't listen to what you're reading. Again, it's not case-breaking, as far as helping to identify the author, it helps by showing that this person makes no sense at times. If somewhere down the line, a person remembers that particular phrase written on a note, or something similar, it could tip the scales toward an arrest. IMO.
Jay
"Listen carefully" seems to have been taken from the movie "Dirty Harry," where a kidnapper uses a similar phrase (over the phone, I believe). Other elements of the note are probably also drawn from movies or actual ransom notes of the past. I have a feeling John searched the internet for words and phrases that would make his kidnapper sound "authentic," and then cut and pasted them into the note. Whether any of it made sense didn't matter. What mattered was that it read like something a real kidnapper would say.
DeleteMakes sense that the ransom note writer heard or read about this line from a movie, and added it, not thinking that it is for an oral application (i.e. over the phone, video or audio recording). Just thought it was easily identifiable as a "red flag" indicating this wasn't a true ransom note, and thus not a true kidnapping. It would have made more sense if it was on their answering machine, but then again it probably would've stopped recording halfway through the note, due to the length. (wink)
DeleteJay
Did I hear you right, Jay? You're suggesting John wanted the authorities to believe this wasn't a true ransom note? Where is that coming from?
DeleteOr maybe I read you wrong and what you're saying is that you are the one who sees it as a "red flag." I can understand your feeling that way, but to me it's not a red flag. Anything like that, that's intended to deceive is very hard to puzzle out, because we can never be sure what contents are intended to be taken literally and what contents are deliberately misleading. If we take "listen carefully" literally, then it's an error. But if we take it as part of the deception, then it's more complicated than that.
DeleteYour second observation is the correct one. Hindsight is 20/20, but I see all kinds of problems/red flags with this ransom note being taken seriously, and I don't think I'm alone. LE was somewhat skeptical as well, but they treated it as legitimate, due to JB being missing. Someone had her, or did something with her and they weren't sure who it was, and when JR came up that staircase with her body, those hesitations had to have made their hair stand up on the back of their necks.
DeleteI see your point that the writer could've been trying to "establish" themselves as legitimate, but IMO, that ransom note is terribly constructed. "Listen carefully" is an audible command, what exactly is a "foreign faction", and why would they care anything about JR or his $118,000, if this "group of individuals" respected JR's business, but not the country it serves, how does that translate into "at this time we have your daughter"? The whole note is full of similar language. It doesn't make sense. There's no cohesive, concise message. Like you said, "cutting and pasting" does not a ransom note make. It borders on silly. Instead of red flags, it should've been sending off sirens and alarms. IMO, it was so poorly written, and hard to believe, that LE actually leaned toward PR being the author. Just my thoughts.
Jay
Yes, but an intruder is just as likely to write a nonsensical ransom note as someone staging a phony kidnapping. The odd and illogical elements in the note in themselves tell us nothing about whether it's authentic or not.
DeleteWhy would an intruder write a nonsensical ransom note, unless it was a game to them, like a riddle LE has to figure out? That's definitely not the case in this instance. If a real intruder actually kidnapped JB for ransom, the note would've made more sense. It wouldn't start out with an audible command. It would have a purposeful message, not "we don't like your country, oh by the way we have your daughter". The kidnapper wouldn't care if JR was rested or wore plum out, he/she wouldn't care what JR took to the bank to pick up the money. The kidnapper would be clear and specific with the day of the call, not "tomorrow" (is that today, or is that 24 hrs. from now?). The list goes on and on. The purpose of a ransom note is not to confuse the victim, but to inform them, and threaten them with very specific demands and instructions on how to get their loved one back.
DeleteJay
for me it's clear that the purpose of this letter was to get more time to finish the staging...so DocG is right ! ...i whould also say that the style of this letter was to convince or make a big impression on a naive person who can easily believe the content of this letter , very common behavior from a narcissistic husband to his (fan no1) his overly naive wife...
DeleteI heard somewhere that there was a book found in the Ramsey's bedroom which deals with a kidnapping and the words "Listen Carefully" are in the ransom note in this book. I am not sure if that is fact or rumor (book found in their bedroom or that those exact words are in the book). Even if it is true, either one of the Ramseys could have read that book. If this is not true, I believe those words "Listen Carefully" are not that uncommon in ransom notes or instructions given over the phone. The LENGTH of the note is what is very unusual.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I think the area of subtle linguistic clues and behavioral clues are of importance. It's difficult to prove or disprove anything within this realm, when you are just one of us, but I think this area of human connection is what probably separates a great investigator from a mediocre one.
ReplyDeleteListen carefully is a stress point. It generates unease and straddles the reader.
"Listen carefully" implicates that not all listening is created equal. Perhaps it is used when the listening/talking ratio is out of whack within a particular situation. Listening builds cooperative teamwork.
To me, this note is a "man in the middle" form of human communication.
Extended conversation is a strong indicator of interest. Unfortunately, the crux of this ransom note is JR and how the foreign faction perceived him and the way he was to report back to them, not JonBenet. Eerily similar to the central point of the Ramseys television appearances. They supplied more provision to the court of public opinion and attached more importance to how tabloid journalists perceived them and the way they reported on them, than the criminal investigation involving JonBenet.
-H
H, am I correct that you feel PR wrote the note, with a heavy emphasis on trying to get JR to "hear" her cry for help, or am I way out in left field?
ReplyDeleteJay
Jay- I feel that JR acted alone. I feel that he wrote the note to PR, which is why many people felt that PR wrote it. JR engineered it with nothing but PR on the brain, speaking directly to PR. I feel that he had no reason to believe that PR would stray for the instructions to the letter. He felt confident and comfortable enough to pull off a fake kidnapping for ransom when answering to PR. I feel that JR forgot to account for an emotional response and the power of a mother's love from PR, because JR is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. A narcissist *forgets* to account for an emotional response. I also suspect that PR had suffered from narcissistic abuse and gaslighting for many years at the hands of JR. He may have found her easy to manipulate, unfortunately.
DeletePatsy may have, herself, been a bit shallow or maybe even displayed some narcissistic tendencies, but she does not fit the profile of a personality disordered narcissist. I am not sure that JR had the ability to feel love, as you and I would. People were objects to him, and he lacks empathy and appropriate boundaries.
As I've told Doc before, I was not able to believe that The Ramseys were guilty, because I found Patsy to be sincere. I felt for many, many years that an intruder had gotten into that home. After following that trail as far as it could possibly take me, I had a sudden realization, last year, that I had never even thought about JR. I realized that I had not been given the opportunity to consider him. It was always either: Patsy did it, The Ramseys did it, or an Intruder did it. Once I literally removed PR from the equation, the entire puzzle came together. It all made excellent sense.
In my opinion, once this happens for you, you can't go back to seeing it any other way. You can't "unsee" it as JR acted alone, and this is a terribly sad and simple and pathetic case of a dysfunctional family dynamic--with deplorable elements of strong narcissistic abuse.
-H
H, I agree up to a point. I think certain aspects of the note were intended for PR, but not in the sense of a personal "message," but basically to convince her that JBR had been kidnapped, scare her into not calling the police and discourage her from searching the house. Maybe that's all you mean.
DeleteI'm pleased to learn that you finally considered John on his own as a possibility, as did I. And you are right when you say that you hadn't been given the opportunity to think like that. It's almost as though there has been a conspiracy to protect the obvious person, John Ramsey, from suspicion.
Doc, yes you are correct in assuming that's what I mean. The note was to establish a kidnapping and scare Patsy into complying with the instructions to the letter. It would have prevented her from searching any area of the home, too. There would have been no reason to look for her, since she was "kidnapped." The note had to just be believable to Patsy, and JR was home free. I am in total agreement with you. I saw that there in another "H" who posted on here, recently. We are two different H's. I have been a John acted alone advocate on this site, from day one. I started posting on here, last year. Should I change my -H? I'm hoping the other H will see this and change theirs, since they are new. lol!
DeleteThanks, Doc, and keep up the excellent work. You are doing a great job.
-H
Avinoam Sapir, who teaches FBI agents how to detect criminals from the words they speak, has analyzed the Jan. 1 interview John, 53, and Patsy Ramsey, 40, gave to CNN in Atlanta just six days after JonBenet's cruel killing.
ReplyDeleteHe told GLOBE that the Boulder businessman's choice of words show he is an abuser and knows who killed his daughter.
"The two major points that tell you most likely that John Ramsey did it are: Number one, he doesn't want to know what happened or who did it," says Sapir.
"Number two is switching from the word 'child' when JonBenet is alive in his mind to the word 'daughter' only when she's dead. This fits the profile of a child abuser."
Sapir pointed to the CNN interview, where Patsy said: "..if anyone knows anything, please, please help us. For the safety of all of the children.. we have to find out who did this."
And Ramsey said: "Because we've got to go on. And this, we can't go on until we know why. There is no answer as to why our daughter died."
Explains Sapir: "There is a major difference between the two parents. The mother said WHO and the father said WHY. The father doesn't need to know who did it - because he already knows. Why does he need to know 'why?' Well many people would like to be able to explain or know why they did harmful or bad things even though there's no doubt they have done them."
Ramsey reveals he's an abuser by the way he avoids referring to JonBenet as his "daughter," says Sapir, a criminologist and psychologist and head of the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation in Phoenix.
"Generally, abusive parents cannot use the proper title for a child because they cannot admit to themselves they would abuse their own 'son' or 'daughter.'
"The only two places this father uses the term are when he said, 'there is no answer to why our daughter died,' and 'we wanted to get our daughter buried.'
"Both times are when she's already dead. However, when he refers to JonBenet being alive, he says 'child.'"
Private Investigator and speech analysis expert Roy K. Dudley also finds Ramsey's statement about the police investigation into JonBenet's death revealing.
Ramsey said: "If we don't have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I'm going to be very upset."
Says Dudley: "If he truly wants all of law enforcement resources used, why are the Ramseys handicapping investigators by not providing evidence, and why are they not clearing themselves by submitting to a formal police interview or polygraph?
"Why are search warrants necessary for their homes in Boulder and Michigan? These actions don't fit in with this very definite statement."
Dudley told GLOBE he, too, found it disturbing in the interview how few times Ramsey referred to JonBenet as his "daughter".
http://www.lsiscan.com/id39.htm
Hi Doc,
DeleteI recently started reading your blog and I purchased your new Kindle book. As far as I am concerned you have solved this mystery and I commend you.
I found the above information. Sorry if it is dated.
Thanks, thinker. Usually I discount attempts to profile on the basis of statement analysis or behavior, because it's too easy to be guided by one's own prior bias. But I have to say that in this case the analysis does make sense. I wouldn't accuse anyone on such a basis, but these observations are perceptive and do appear to be meaningful. Very interesting.
DeleteSimilarly, I have found it very curious how many times JR talks about "carrying a burden" when referring to going through something horrible, like the death of a child. Once he says "everyone has a burden to carry." If my child died or was murdered, I wouldn't refer to that as a "burden." It's an odd choice of words unless, of course, he is actually referring to the "burden" he has to carry for killing his daughter.
Deletebb
DocG, your JDI conclusion, based on being led forensically, is excellent, IMO. Recent comments of -H and info posted by Thinker regarding opinions of respected professionals, allow us to see other aspects of the case which brings additional clarity to the JDI theory.
ReplyDeleteDocG, though you have been able to sift through the evidence and build a theory leading to JR's guilt, there are those among us who, without greater understanding of a motive connected to a behavioral disorder, could not accept the heinous outcome of JB's death at the hand of her father. Especially since JR, teamed with defense staff, has successfully deflected guilt away from himself.
Without some comprehension of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and the afflictions it imposes, it is impossible for many to accept the results of the disordered person's behavior. A non-NPD is easily convinced that they are the ones whose thinking is "crazy" or askew, since a normal sense of reason discounts most of the NPD's behavior.
Often, narcissists also become aware of their imperfections through unhealthy criticism by a parental figure in their early lives. IMO, we can look at what we know of JR's very exacting military father, and the attachment of JR's mother to one of JR's childhood male friends, whose death eventually eroded her belief in God and contradicted JR's upbringing in faith, and see that JR might have had reasons to develop a disordered personality.
Because JR's intellect can override his embedded personality traits, he wants to know "why" JB was killed and he was able to write his books. He knows what he is able to display publicly is convincing of his innocence, but his true inner self bears the "burden" of being incapable of understanding his own unacceptable imperfections and behaviors. He cannot otherwise emotionally survive. The narcissist perpetuates a personality that he perceives to be perfect as a survival mechanism against the emotional pain that is too unbearable if they acknowledge their own flaws.
As an aside here, I will disclose that my understanding of NPD comes from living through 25 years of abuse from a spouse, which eventually led me to a process of professional therapy and related educational endeavors to work on freeing myself from the toxic bond it created. Believe me when I say that JR had no doubt he would be able to pull off the charade on Patsy. As -H said, JR simply did not account for PR's emotional response. It's all part of the "forgot" syndrome that is the blocker when emotions have to become part of the equation. JR had the distinction of being known as the "Ice Man". Very aptly put.
>>>cont'd in next post due to length>>>
MWMM
>>>cont'd from previous post>>>
DeleteIMO, Patsy was the perfect accessory to JR's persona. The narcissist ONLY interacts with others if they possess traits and abilities to help supply his need of satisfaction....for whatever is his current or future want or desire. If the "supplier" no longer can co-operate, it is discarded. Consider all that we know about PR's marital contribution to JR's publicly perceived success over the years until she was stricken with sexual dysfunction due to cancer. The discard of PR began then, which included the escalation of behaviors with JB, IMO.
I suspect PR was highly suspicious, if not truly knowledgeable, of JR's behavior with JB. I believe PR was emotionally incapable of the type of confrontation necessary with JR to put an end to it. Instead, we know of her own change in behaviors in the months prior to JB's death....mood swings, private bathroom sessions with JB culminating in JB's misery, "tiffs" over what JB should wear. Control of JB was being displayed in ways other than removing her from her father's clutches, which is what JB had begun to expect from her mother.
I believe JR knew he should become very cautious in his use of JB. The NPD is adept at knowing when to "butter up and back off", and also at the additional baiting needed during a discard to keep his life orderly until the moment arrives he can finalize it and make it look like it's anyone else's fault but his.
He called Priscilla White and gave her carte blanche in arranging a birthday party for PR. He allowed PR to arrange a Disney cruise after Christmas. Along side this, JR went to work on harder on knocking PR off balance, IMO. He put extra pressure on her to host the party on Dec 23rd, then added that he wanted to entertain his kids at the Michigan house on the 26th. Creating chaos is a prime skill of the NPD when he is attempting to remove himself from suspicion or deflect adverse attention elsewhere. It all becomes part of the blame game.
This brings me to state that I once believed JB's death began accidentally. However, I am led to consider that JR decided within a very short time of that Christmas day that he would have to kill JB. Behaviors of JR on that Christmas day contribute to my belief: no video of their last celebration that morning (less happy memories), prolonged time spent at the airport prepping the plane (distancing from interaction with his family - less happy memories), denial of JB's wish to ride her bike further (distancing from JB), staying in the car while PR delivered gifts (more distancing).
I believe he had the kidnapping theory in mind to use as a ruse for PR, knew he could have access to JB for molestation, then proceeded to commit the crime thinking his plan would be perfect. Due to his high intellect and a great deal of luck, he was able to think quickly and begin the immediate deflection towards PR by handing over her notepad, when PR dialed 911. Implicating PR, much as I want to discount it, might also have been his backup plan, which is innate to every successful business man. However, it could become a perfect way to discard PR, if needed.
There is a reason why the FBI includes the successful Behavioral Analysis Unit in their organization. In some crimes, forensics (tangible evidence) is all that is needed to solve a crime. But in those cases that do not lead to a viable suspect by forensics, behavioral (intangible) evidence has to become integral in leading to the discovery of a person of interest.
If a unified probable cause can be produced and presented as a demand for the arrest of JR which leads to prosecution, it will, IMO, be based on circumstantial evidence supported by factual behavioral evidence displayed by JR, combined with the forensic evidence directly related to him.
MWMM
Very interesting posts, MWMM. Give me some time to go over what you've written in some detail and I'll get back with my response.
DeleteMWMM - Very interesting post indeed!! I don't recall anyone else delving into the mind of JR and his motive like you'd done in so much detail. Fascinating stuff. I, like Doc, need to read your post a few times to digest what you've said, but at first read, I believe you may be on to something.
Deletebb
Since I'm already convinced of John's guilt, it's not difficult for me to agree with MWMM's speculations regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Her ruminations do make a lot of sense in the light of what we now know (or at least what I believe we know) about John and Patsy's roles in this case. I think also that such an analysis could be useful for the prosecution if the case is ever brought to trial, as an aid in understanding John's motivation and Patsy's role in enabling him.
DeleteFor those who refuse to accept the possibility of John's guilt, however, it would not be at all clear that he "suffers" from NPD, since so much of the diagnosis depends on the assumption of his guilt. Aside from that, I'm afraid we don't have much to go on, as there is no history of known abuse on John's part toward any of his children or toward Patsy. There are plenty of reasons to suspect NPD, especially when we consider his failure to comfort Patsy on the morning after JBR's murder. But there is just not enough evidence of that sort to go on.
So, as far as those of us convinced of John's guilt are concerned, it's easy to see the signs. But for all the others, it wouldn't be so easy.
I added a chapter to the book that deals with the question of motive, by the way. What I learned was that there are no overt signs of any serious pathology in John's behavior aside from the murder itself -- just lots of question marks. Luckily it's not necessary to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt or else that could be tricky in a court of law. Fortunately the standard pertains to guilt, not motive, and the evidence for guilt is pretty convincing, even if we can't establish a rock solid motive.
MWMM- very glad to read your posts, and I am in agreement with you that this area of behavioral, psychological and personality assessment is of importance. I believe Det. Linda Arndt's assessment is the most vital piece of non-tangible evidence. She was the only law enforcement officer in the home when the body was found by JR, and she was present for the majority of the day. To discount her testimony, first-hand accounts and firm belief that JR was the killer and acted alone is inconceivable. She also fully grasped the concept of Patsy's agony. Patsy's grief and pain and worry and panic was clearly felt by Detective Arndt and understood to be genuine in nature. Again, this area of emotional recognition and feeling and human connection is deeply skewed in the Narcissist. Only through years of practice do they learn to mimic and mirror other's feelings, so as to appear socially appropriate, but they cannot make heads or tails of it. Feelings are not a part of the NPD. They are indifferent and cannot care. Only through practice, do they learn how to visually assess what makes other people happy with them. It's a selfish identity, and anything and everything that the narcissist does is to make himself look good to others, and in return receive praise. If you can try to remember your general thought process when you were probably around age 7. That's as deep as the narcissist runs. They are self-serving and shallow and do not possess the emotional capacity to care for others in a healthy, adult way. What separates the personality disordered narcissist from others who possess narcissistic qualities or tendencies is the very ugly side of the NPD. People are objects. They cannot separate their wants from other people's needs, and they do not care nor understand where their wants end and a separate human being begins. They have haughty attitudes, possess an enormous sense of entitlement, and are very high risk for sexually abusing their children, because what is the closest thing to cloning yourself? NPD are often not sex addicts. They are often lousy lovers and have sexless marriages, because they do not require intimacy. They are selfish. As I have stated before, JR did not protect his daughter in the sense that a father protects his daughter. He was indifferent to her toilet training and allowed her to have a teenage, male babysitter. He was indifferent to his male friends changing JB's clothing, and he allowed her to call out for bathroom help and to be wiped by anyone within an ear's length. He did not prioritize teaching his six year old daughter about privacy, and he did not teach her how to use her voice to speak up and demand her own privacy.
ReplyDeleteHe did prioritize his daughter's beauty.
I have really been thinking about PR picking up the phone and dialing 911, lately. She panicked. With her husband present in the home, she did not rely on her husband to figure something out. She called friends. She was not safe, and she did not take the ransom note seriously.
Something awful was going on in that home...probably for a very long time. Maybe PR couldn't quite put her finger quite on it, but instincts are an incredible survival skill.
Most men could only dream of marrying a former Miss West Virginia in their lifetime. What would you even have a beauty queen wife for, if you aren't even to console her when your beauty queen six year old is kidnapped for ransom? JR needed friends and a pastor to hold her. Narcissistic Personality Disorder
-H
-H: I appreciate your response to my post, because of your obvious knowledge of NPD, and ability to see it relating to JR. There has been so much printed over the years about JR that screams out this disorder, that I cannot possibly link everything to a source. My comments are based on statements I clearly recall having come from what most people would consider verifiable or credible.
DeleteYour opinion about PR's behavior during the call and that morning reflects the type of marriage dynamic typical between a narcissist and spouse; she would have become adept at taking care of things herself, and able to provide for her own emotional needs.
Spouses of N's learn how to stand up to public scrutiny, since they are usually the ones left in that position while the N is off on another tangent more important to his image, especially if he was at fault. If we look at the differences between her responses during interviews over the years as compared to JR's, it's obvious she never feared examination, while JR was always insulted at comments related to further examination of him. PR may have displayed frustrated aggression in her interview responses, but I do not recall a deliberate degradation of the person on the other end. The same cannot be said of JR. He usually included some form of degradation in his replies, very typical of a narcissist once backed into a corner.
Once again, I am splitting my response into two posts because it is so difficult to point out NPD traits without providing some explanation. I am grateful to all those reading for bearing with me through these, and hope that any future posts of mine can be more succinct.
>>>>cont'd>>>>>
MWMM
>>>>cont'd from above>>>>
DeleteI have to admit I waffle with regard to PR being involved in the crime when it comes to the ransom note, because of Ubowski's opinion. But, one of the reasons I believe JR capable of intentionally having PR in a backup plan, is because he would have needed to write the note so it led to her if it was ever to be "scurtinized". (one of the words not usually noticed as a misspelling in the RN) Doc G has done a remarkable job of showing the possibility of JR as the author of the note. There's also the similarity of the misspellings in JR's exemplar being the same type that are in the ransom note. Also, there is no doubt about some of the words used in the note being routinely connected to the tech industry, which offsets the claim that some of those same words relate to Patsy's cancer experience. And, IMO, the masculine sounding phrases aside, if you apply NPD to that attributed feminine phrase about being "well-rested", you easily notice that there is a desire to control the aspect of the method of delivery when the author of the note says "I advise you...". Not, "I suggest" or "you might want to be well-rested", etc.. "I advise you" is a command that would commonly be delivered by an NPD, so as to sound authoritative without sounding exacting. It removes responsibility of failure from the one offering the advice and places it on the receiver, ever the ploy of a narcissist who has to be able to shift blame.
Finally, since I have a shred of suspicion that PR might have authored the RN, I will say that, IMO, it would only have been under complete control by JR, due to her fear. I can't stress enough how manipulated spouses can be when they are conditioned to believe that everything in their marital lives that goes wrong has to be because of them. If PR discovered what had happened to JB very soon after the head bash, and assumed she was dead, JR would have been able to bring her into the crime as an accomplice both for the strangulation, re-dressing and note writing by using threats against her that she perceived would erode whatever bit of stability she was clinging to for her physical, emotional and spiritual stability in the midst of the chaos.
Rage has been connected to JB's murder, usually attributed to PR, due to bedwetting by JB. But NPD classically afflicts rage into it's bearers. Some narcissists are described as having a Jekyl and Hyde persona. Others are calculating, triggering others to "justify" them working into a rage. The explosions vary in rhyme, reason and intensity, but NEVER fall short of placing the victim into a frame of submission to avoid harm. Victims of narcissistic abuse are usually peace-keepers and/or makers by nature, or must very quickly learn how to respond that way if they value the importance of the relationship. Reflect a bit on public reports of PR's humanitarian endeavors, as opposed to reports about JR's unexpected public eruptions, then imagine what it might have been like behind closed doors. Yes, something awful was going on in that home...probably for a very long time, indeed. And I believe precious JB had begun to demonstrate that she was not going to be a peace-keeper any longer.
MWMM
MWMM- I think you are exactly right. What sets the Narcissistic Personality Disordered into a narcissistic rage? Two little letters: NO.
ReplyDeleteNot stress, not pressure, not fear. Just tell a narcissist that they can't do whatever they want. Tell them NO, and watch them wiggle into a blind rage.
-H
The question for all of us who are staunch JDI advocates is: can we convince LE to reassess JR's handwriting for similarity to the RN? It's that "ruled out" edict that placed him at arm's length.
ReplyDeleteOverall, we have to also swallow the fact that JR has probably suceeded in securing all the earthly support in any related fields of protection needed to keep him from arrest. You are exactly right about someone like JR being told "NO". IMO, the only chance for luring JR into a snare of arrest, is to publicly denounce him as being a loving father to JB. But, who could possibly substantiate that? And then go on to risk the vendetta to come!
Anyone who can put a case together to bring down JR would have to be able to risk everything forever and have no fear of what a loss of the case could do to them. If defeated in the process, they have to be able to walk away carrying every risk that if they live tomorrow, they will trust daily only what lies ahead and never look back. A daunting task.
I agree with Det. Arndt that there will never be an arrest, but I trust my God to impose the final judgement that prevents the perpetrator from getting away with murder.
Forgot to sign off in reply to you above, -H...
DeleteMWMM
The notion that anyone undertaking a prosecution of John Ramsey would have to take such huge risks with his career and personal life is extremely disturbing, but probably true. What does that tell us about the American justice system?
DeleteI'm still hoping that someone with that degree of integrity will eventually emerge. A prosecution might also be enabled by someone in the media willing to take up the case. However, almost all media sources are now terrified by the possibility of a Lin Wood lawsuit.
In any case, for anyone wanting to pursue justice for JonBenet, I agree that a reassessment of the decision to rule John out would be the logical starting point. An ambitious reporter would be in a position to pursue this by tracking down the various "experts" and subjecting them to some tough questioning, 60 Minutes style. If anyone out there knows of such a journalist, please direct him or her to this site.
The following is a copy of a post I made on another forum with regard to the number of handwriting samples given to BPD by JR and PR. It seems just unbelievable that there was not further pursuit of JR's samples, but likely because his paid examiners issued the edict that his were not a match to the RN.
Delete==========
"More Samples Requested?
Some interesting info from: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...rimer5_ce.html
Seems JR did not have to completely fulfill his role of supplying as many handwriting samples as were asked for from him:
There is some confusion about the total number of samples John provided. While the affidavit states he had already given three samples by early January, according to the 2/18/97 Denver Post, John was asked verbally by the BPD to submit a third handwriting sample in mid-February. According to the article, his attorneys said they needed something more substantial than a verbal request before they allowed him to oblige; it was apparently never pursued. To add to the confusion, John's attorney Bryan Morgan stated in the documentary that John gave two handwriting samples altogether, and Patsy, five.
It should be noted that Det. Linda Arndt reportedly handed over a copy of the ransom note to Lee Foreman of the Ramsey team the first week of January, so the Ramseys had access to the note prior to giving most of the handwriting samples.
Now, what does not make sense to me is why, once they had seen the ransom note, there are skids put on John giving extra samples requested by BPD, but Patsy went on to give more. And why, if Patsy had seen the writing, and had 'as many different writing styles as a sixth grader' (quoted elsewhere), would she have not tried her best for samples to appear completely different from resembling the note if she was concerned about trying to hide guilt?"
MWMM
I read somewhere recently that Priscilla white had stated that after jonbenet's death, all correspondence she received from Patsy was in a different style from what she had always used before. I find it strange that after all these years there is hardly any samples of John's handwriting available on the web.
DeleteThanks, MWMM, for reminding me of that detail. (And happy Mother's Day, by the way.) John certainly does seem to have resisted supplying the investigation with more samples. And the police seem to have obliged him. Moreover, I've never seen any evidence they ever went to any trouble to locate historic exemplars from John, as they did for Patsy. And according to PMPT, the "experts" hired by John studied the samples HE provided for just one or two hours before deciding to rule him out.
DeleteSo yes, there are several very questionable things about this decision to rule John out as writer of the note. Yet no one involved in the investigation ever seems to have looked critically into any of that.
AARGGHHHH!!!!
DeleteMWMM
What I find incredible is that there wasn't one single exemplar of JR's writing produced from his company. Certainly he would have had many documents hand written that could have been discovered by an employee. Now I'm not sure what the legalities are in submitting anything like that to the investigators, but I do know that many things slip out into the public, without consent. You would think there would be at least one employee who might have stumbled across something and passed it on to a private investigator or even a tabloid. But there was nothing. And what about bank documents? Same thing. If I worked at a bank and had access to something he wrote, I would certainly want to show it to the authorities. Do you suppose JR was smart enough to destroy anything and everything he ever wrote?
ReplyDeletebb
bb
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Doc is probably correct about tracing the computer font, therefore there is no need for JR to destroy everything in his own handwriting -a nearly impossible task as he certainly must have written personal letters to people as well as business related documents.
I don't think it would matter if exemplars were collected, "expert" doc. examiners wouldn't be able to say JR wrote the RN.
Just as there are both similarities and differences in PR's writing, there are also similarities and differences in JR's, when compared to the RN.
I think you're correct, there are people out there with documents in JR's writing. But it doesn't really matter.
CH
Actually, hand printed documents from John might have been extremely rare. As a CEO he would certainly have had a secretary to deal with day to day correspondence. And just about everything else might well have been done on a computer. I can't think of the last time I produced a hand-written letter -- though my notebooks are full of hand scripted reminders of all sorts.
DeleteJameson claimed to have samples of John's handwriting, and insisted they looked nothing like either the note or the legal document we've all seen. She offered to let me see them -- but only if I paid her a visit, which I wasn't about to do. No amount of cajoling would persuade her to make any of this available to the public.
My guess is that there may well in all likelihood be hardly any "historical exemplars" from John at all, other than the one we've seen -- which was probably never seen by the "experts" who ruled him out. I'd guess that what the "experts" saw, for the most part, would have been samples provided post facto, in a style tailored to look as different from the note as possible. John had a very high powered legal team who might well have pressured these "experts" to rule him out, since any other ruling would have made him the leading suspect for sure.
I made reference to a handwritten note to Hunter from JR that was read verbatim in the June '98 police interview. Ironically, Lou Smit asked JR to read it, because he didn't think he could read his handwriting. I would love to see that letter.
DeleteJay
I imagine there are personal letters from JR to - his Mom, his former wife, PR, the kids. (Women tend to keep letters) The Navy must have hundreds of documents with his signature on them. JR lived for decades in the non-computer age. Not in the most literal sense, but in the sense that home computers were not common until the '80s (More like '90s for most people). If I recall correctly he graduated from college in the mid 1960s. He was neither a CEO nor much involved with computers at that time.
DeleteTrue, any handwritten documents from JR would be fairly old - from his younger days. His handwriting may have changed over time. Such letters would be in possession of people unlikely to cooperate with the police.
He would have disguised his writing on the RN, so if we suddenly came into possession of dozens of examples of his handwriting it wouldn't make a difference. He could neither be identified as the writer, nor could he be ruled out.
CH
I was thinking that his first wife, as well as other women (women tend to keep letters) might have letters from JR. For what little his signature might be worth, the Navy must have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of exemplars.
DeleteJR came of age before computers were ubiquitous. So he must have had to write the old fashioned way for much of his early adulthood.
IMO it wouldn't matter if we found hundreds of exemplars, there would be enough similarities (as you say in your post about cherry-picking) and enough differences that one could make a case either way. It's a cinch JR took some trouble to disguise his hand, after all, the RN was primarily intended to fool PR.
CH
Yeah, you're right. There must be many examples of his writing from earlier years, even if he used the computer more recently. However: as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to have been much of an effort to locate historic exemplars from John. There was a warrant to search the Charlevoix house for "historic exemplars," but that applied only to Patsy, no reference to John. I have a feeling John just provided them with what he wanted them to see and for some reason that seems to have satisfied them. I could be wrong, but it does look like John was not investigated anywhere near as thoroughly as Patsy.
DeleteIt's been a while since I've posted. I've been going through all the JR/PR police interview transcripts. There is a world of difference between JR's interviews and PR's interviews. In fact, I don't even understand BPD's interest in PR as the killer at all. My favorite is in June '98, when Haney has been asking her for two days, question after question, poring over hundreds of photos, and she is poised as could be, helpful in describing each picture, never tiring of all the questions, never getting tripped up with the obvious tactic of "left field" questions, genuine in curiosity about objects out of place, and at the end of the interview, Haney basically says 'we know you did it, we have forensic evidence'. Huh? Did he not just sit there and listen to everything she had to say, and observe her behavior? I get that there is evidence the public is not privy to, but there obviously isn't 'concrete evidence', or they would've arrested her by then.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, JR in June '98 starts off his interview reading a letter that he wrote to Hunter, and in it, he says that he can no longer call the killer a person, but an "it". Huh? What is that? That doesn't even make sense. Reminds me of another hand written note, that doesn't make sense. Then he goes on to say that he has "rage", and he would love 5 min.'s alone with the killer, but that "would be succombing to the action of the killer". How does he know that the killer was driven by rage? Lastly, later in the interview, he discovers a huge mistake, when he recounts closing the broken window "before 10am", and later when he goes down at 1pm with FW, showing him (FW) the broken window and telling him about how he had broken it that summer, and how he had found it open that morning, and had closed it. What he didn't realize the whole time, was that wasn't FW's first time in the basement that morning. He went down almost immediately after arriving at 6am. And according to FW, he had noticed the broken window, but made no mention of it "being open". JR is completely caught off guard when Smit tells him that FW had been down in that basement before he closed the window. He was caught in a lie. But, instead pressing the issue as would be the case in a police interrogation, they just move on.
So here PR is helpful as could be and gets accused of killing JB, and JR is illogical, unnatural in his emotions, and caught in a lie, and when it's all said and done, "eh". Either I must be completely crazy, or someone is blind as a bat, because the one is not like the other. Your most logical suspect is right in front of you.
Jay
Yup. You got it. But John was "ruled out." THAT's what made ALL the difference. If John didn't write the note then only Patsy could have written it. What a colossal blunder!
DeleteI guess that's part of the confusion for me, if writing experts are not considered as a trusted professional opinion of the courts, then why listen to them? It seems like the BPD couldn't come up with a definitive idea of what they thought happened in that house. Was an accident? Was it rage? Was she previously molested? Was it JR? Was it PR? Was it BR? Was it a combination of two or more? I don't need to know who wrote the note in order to have a pretty good idea of who's involved, just follow the unnatural, illogical statements, behaviors, and inappropriate/unreal "spoken" emotions.
DeleteJay
http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0818/9699449.jpg
ReplyDeletePerhaps the page lines were added after the fact?
If you connect the page lines of third page of the ransom note, you will note that they do not run linear but are staggered, a result of cut and paste?
Sorry but I don't understand. What do you mean by "page lines"? The margins and guidelines were already printed on the paper ahead of time. Is that what you are referring to?
DeleteDoc, could you clarify --- or direct me to the blog post that explains --- JR's discrepancy of statements regarding him closing the basement window. Jay refers to it above, but I'm not sure what he's referring to. FW saw the window first that morning? Was it open or closed? When did JR say he shut the window? I'm foggy on this point and would appreciate a clear explanation.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
bb
John reported being in the basement that morning but he "could not recall" exactly when. So we have no reason to assume FW was the first one down there. That may be the "official" version accepted by the media, and possibly also by the BPD, but we have no reason to accept their timeline since no one knows exactly what John did and when.
DeleteLooks to me as though John must have been down there before anyone else. He would have scooped up as much glass as possible and closed the window. That would explain why Fleet noticed only a few stray pieces of glass and observed that the window was closed.
From the transcript of CNN's January 1, 1997 interview with John and Patsy Ramsey:
ReplyDeleteRAMSEY, J: " We learned when we lost our first child that people would come forward to us, that sooner or later everyone carries a very heavy burden in this life. And JonBenet didn't carry any burdens."
John likes the word "burden" and has used it in at least 2 or 3 interviews when describing the loss of a child and, specifically, the loss of JonBenet. In this interview, he also goes so far as to say JonBenet had no burdens. This is an interesting choice of words, imo. "Burden" is not a word most people would use to describe having to deal with a death of a loved one. Moreover, the fact that he states "JonBenet didn't carry any burdens" is very interesting. What is he talking about? Personally, I think when he talks about people carrying burdens in life, he is actually talking about HIS burden of carrying the guilt of killing his daughter. Why he says that JonBenet didn't carry any burdens is odd. Maybe, in fact, she DID carry a burden: the secret of what was happening between her and her father. For a six-year old, that is a burden, indeed. For JR to say she didn't have any burdens is his way of saying she had no secrets (or burdens). He knows damn well she had a huge burden to carry which, perhaps, she was ready to unload. But he wants the world to think she had nothing to hide, or "burden" to carry.
This case is filled with a plethora of clues. That's what makes it so fascinating. This is just one of many, many clues that points to the real killer, imo. Unfortunately, unless these clues lead to hard evidence, they really do nothing to bring this killer to justice.
bb
When asked what should happen to the killer if caught (6/98 police interview), JR replied with two peculiar thoughts, the first one was to hang him by his neck in the public square and the second was to put a tattoo on his forehead saying "I am a child killer", and let him go. When pushed on which one he preferred, he went with the tattoo, because his family has to deal with JB's death for the rest of their lives.
ReplyDeleteWe are all different, but having been accused of strangling his daughter, it's a little unsettling when the first response to what to do with the killer is, "asphyxiation" by rope. The second is even more telling, "let him go (with a tattoo, of course)". First of all, that is a completely unnatural response. Where is "lock him up for the rest of his life", "give him the death penalty", or "I hope he burns in hell". Secondly, that response is illogical. You don't set killers free (tattoo or not), you lock them up, so they can't kill again. Once again, JR struggles mightily when it comes to real emotions and authentic/honest/logical responses.
Jay
You said it, Jay! "JR struggles mightily when it comes to real emotions and authentic/honest/logical responses." I read a book on controlling people and came to understand what drives these people. Their own psyche is incomplete. They "complete" themselves by (usually) making their wife an extension of themselves. They often do it by gaslighting and other covert ways, but also overtly by verbal abuse. I think JR used Patsy in this way and later latched on to JBR to complete himself. It may be the reason why he can't and won't see himself as a child molester or pedophile. After all, you can't molest yourself.
DeleteRead "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout. You'll see JBR.
Deletehey! I'm new to your blog. I'm reading your book. I'm 3/4 of the way through.
ReplyDeleteI'm willing to concede that JBR most likely killed JonBenet. I think naming BR is beyond ridiculous and I agree with you, he had no part in his sisters murder. Where I have difficulty following your line of thinking, is with PR being innocent of lying to protect her husband. You call the little "white lies", but Doc, a lie is a lie. She hindered prosecution.
Yes, you're right. If the case had been solved when Patsy was still alive, she'd probably have been indicted for aiding and abetting or something like that. When I insist on her innocence, I'm referring to the murder and coverup. I feel sure she had nothing to do with any of that. But yes, she was guilty of willfully impeding an investigation when she falsely testified about cleaning up broken glass in the basement. I'm convinced she was being manipulated and possibly even gaslighted by John. But technically she was lying to the police, yes.
DeleteBy the way, we usually refer to John as JR. JBR usually stands for JonBenet Ramsey.
BTW, "Gaslight" is an excellent old movie with Ingrid Bergman.
DeleteThank you for the response. I will use JR from now on. Ive read so much nonsense about JAR, I wanted to make sure not to confuse which John I meant.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts follow yours to a point. While we will never know what happened that night, without a confession, we can speculate. I think during/after the attack, Patsy found out what happened. I think at that point, the coverup began. Why would PR cover up for JR? She was under the thumb of the sociopath JR and the fact that she had her whole life wrapped up in being Mrs JR. I think the plan fell apart when BR woke up. That was unplanned and they had to do something.
Don't you think it's odd that after calling LE, PR and JR called friends to the house? Not only in defiance of the so-called RN, but why call friends at all at that point? I think JR was contaminating the crime scene. Why did JR and PR stay apart while LE was there waiting? Wouldn't parents cling to each other and try to draw what strength they could from the other? Not when you KNOW there's no kidnapping and that JonBenet is dead.
The fact that they never cooperated with LE bothers me. LE had a crime scene and a RN that had never been seen before or since. They were inexperienced and they faced so many challenges with the family and crime scene, did they ever have a chance at solving JBRs murder? Only if they had separated the parents and pushed them. I think PR would have folded. But that's all lost now. I'm convinced JBR will never get justice in this world.
The 911 call tells us that John and Patsy could not have been conspiring in a coverup. Calling the police with the body of the victim in the basement is NOT something they'd have wanted to do if they were in it together. The warnings in the note would have given them the perfect excuse not to call the police -- and get rid of the body in the meantime under the pretext of delivering the ransom.
DeleteBut, Doc, don't you think it's possible that JR and PR wanted to make it look like a kidnapping gone bad? After all, she was already dead. And I cannot believe PR would be willing to let JR take the body out of the house and toss it or bury it somewhere. I think Verbal's theory, above, is quite possible. I do not believe PR killed JonBenet, but may very well have found out, somehow. Out of fear for her life and her sleeping son's life, she may have felt no choice but to go along with everything JR wanted, EXCEPT getting rid of the body. She could never do that to her precious daughter. So the only way to explain the body in the house would be a failed kidnapping. Why leave a RN at all then?? Because it's more believable that it was a kidnapping (the Ramseys were rich and probably many people disliked JR) than some random pedephile. What pedephile would sexually assault their daughter IN THE HOUSE? Rather, make it look like a kidnapping gone bad. That explains the body being hidden (the "kidnappers" would not want the Ramseys to know that their daughter was already dead). It would also explain why no call ever came the following morning.
DeleteSo then you ask, why all the warnings in the RN? I believe those were intentionally inserted solely to paint the "kidnappers" as ruthless and evil and able to kill easily. That way, when the body was found, a kidnapping gone bad is more easily believed.
With PR involved, it certainly explains away a lot of questions about things she did and said: staying away from JR that morning; peeking at the cops through her splayed fingers while waiting in the house that morning; making the comment, "we didn't mean this to happen", and, of course, the big one . . . lying about cleaning up the glass from the broken window. And as Verbal says above, it also explains why both PR and JR quickly invited all those people over to the house ---- to contaminate everything.
So, in sum, if PR discovered that JR had killed JonBenet, she might have felt she would be the next to die, and possibly BR too. So she tells JR that she will go along with a cover up; that she is willing to protect him. They write the RN together (a VERY popular theory amongst many) and believing that it would be strange for a pedephile to attack JonBenet while still in the house, they instead make it appear to be a kidnapping. But since the body is still in the house, they must make it look like a kidnapping gone bad. They fill the RN with horrible threats to make the kidnappers look like evil hit men -- men quite capable of killing her and then hiding her body in a remote closet. The ONLY problem with this theory is the question then of why the kidnappers would leave the RN behind. Simply, I don't believe JR or PR thought of that detail.
Summer
And why would a kidnapper leave the body at all? Even if it was a botched kidnapping, why risk leaving JonBenet, albeit, hidden in a remote area of the house, instead of simply taking her body with them to insure they can still get their money? If Patsy and John also failed to recognize that fact, then too much credit has been given to their intelligence.
DeleteGumshoe
Excellent point Gumshoe. What you're really talking about, Summer, is not a botched kidnapping but a botched staged kidnapping. That's how it appeared to the authorities at the time and that's how it appears to literally millions of people who've followed the case over the years. The staging of a botched kidnapping makes no sense, because it's just not believeable. If John and Patsy were in it together, the note gave them the perfect excuse to delay calling the cops until the body had been removed.
DeleteThe reason this case hasn't been solved is mainly because so many people can't fathom that Patsy Ramsey could've committed and orchestrated this type of murder. Once you finally accept that Patsy was indeed capable of the perverse acts in order to save herself from initial humiliation and eventually prison, then everything falls into place. I would be glad to answer any questions on the subject.
ReplyDeleteHercule
You haven't been following the case very carefully. Patsy emerged as suspect no. 1 soon after John was "ruled out." Every effort was made, by Steve Thomas and many others, to pin this crime on her but nothing worked, because there is no real evidence of her involvement.
DeleteOn the contrary, I am well versed on this case. The local authorities had solved this crime but failed to supersede the power of politics. And because of that failure, many have now looked elsewhere for their culprit. The most popular one being Burke as it stands now. Your blog is very convincing as it points squarely at John Ramsey. You make a solid thesis but have overlooked several discrepancies to fit your theory. You are an intelligent person no doubt. I should say that if John had committed this crime he would've indeed served himself best by following your itinerary. Patsy, ruthless and beguiled, succeeded with her plan because politicians and lawyers were not pleased with the facts that Steve Thomas and the like presented them. It was not the handwriting that ruled John out, it was the content of the ransom note.
DeleteHercule
I'd be very interested to learn more about the discrepancies you've found, so please continue.
DeleteThe "experts" who ruled John out were handwriting professionals with no experience in content analysis. For more on the content of the note, I urge you to read my blog post titled "Johnisms."
I'd wager that PDI is still by far the most popular theory, and one that the lead investigator believed in very strongly.
DeleteIt's not so much a question of whether or not PR could have done these things, it's a question of why would she have done them if she were guilty.
CH
The question of why is quite frankly inconsequential since there is enough clues without a motive to reveal Patsy as the killer. We may attempt to deduce which motive is most likely, as I have already done, but is it necessary? Not at all. There are clues that lead us to both Patsy planning this murder and it starting with an accident which ultimately lead to murder. Either way, it's clearly a murder.
DeleteHercule
Let me first start off by saying that I don't believe the handwriting experts Doc is referring to that ruled John out were ever taken very seriously since it is a flawed science. What isn't a flawed science is behavioral psychology which I have dedicated over three decades of my life mastering. The ransom note has its red flags, but the most telling evidence of all is Patsy's mannerisms and statements, both public and private, written and spoken. Steve Thomas is one of a very few who sat face to face with Patsy. His gut instincts are important but there are also clues that lead us to Patsy and only Patsy as the composer of this crime. I'll return later to go in depth about these clues. Until then, please feel free to ask whatever is on your mind.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Well the question foremost on my mind is: what are those clues? Without specifics we have no way to evaluate your claim.
Delete"What isn't a flawed science is behavioral psychology..."
ReplyDeleteThanks, you've saved me a lot of time.
CH
I was going over PR's April '97 police interview, and I did not realize, she claimed that she didn't even realize JR got a bonus, much less that it was $118,000. If she was telling the truth, that would virtually eliminate PR as the author of the ransom note.
ReplyDeletePR also contradicted JR's claim that he took presents up to the airport. She admitted that he went to the airport for 2 or 3 hrs., but she also claimed that was when she packed for the lake and the cruise, and also wrapped presents for MR, JAR, and MR's boyfriend.
Speaking of "behavior" that indicates guilt, how about JR admitting that he went straight to the train room with the broken window, spent less than one min. in there with FW, then went directly to the wine cellar, opened the door and "immediately" saw the blanket and knew it was JB. From the time Det. Arndt (might be misspelled) told him to go look throughout the house for anything suspicious to the time he found JB's body was less than 2 min.'s.
How about JR recounting how he didn't go outside at all on the morning of Dec. 26th, then later admitting that he did go outside to check the outside door to the garage to see if it was unlocked, because he couldn't get to it from inside the garage due to it being blocked by a stack of boxes. Huh? If it's blocked by boxes, then obviously it wouldn't matter if it was unlocked. Why go outside? And when did he do it? Before going into the train room and "closing the window"? or after? The door he would've gone out would've been right by the window well with the grate covering the broken window. Could he have been unstaging something outside? And to top it off, JR said he was only outside for "a minute", which is how long he said he was in the train room both times. Why the emphasis on such a small amount of time? To minimize attention on JR's behavior.
Jay
Jay, you have accurately pinpointed some inconsistencies in John's statements. There are, nonetheless, many more than you have mentioned here, but does this mean he murdered his daughter? Of course not. John and Patsy had some of the best lawyers that money could buy! Many of their statements are vague precisely because they were coached to answer any question in that manner which demanded specifics. Lawyers know better than anyone the disastrous and damning consequences of giving concrete statements to authorities. In my next comment, I will attempt to explain some of the discrepancies that Doc has chose to ignore for the sake of his impressive yet flawed theory.
DeleteHercule
First of all, Doc, I ask that you would forgive me for this tardy response to your queries. I had to attend to unforeseen personal responsibilities and I wanted to jot this down without being rushed. As you might have guessed, I have read your blog in its entirety as well as your ebook. I commend you and everyone on this blog for your quest for truth and justice. For this, you all have my deepest respect. We all have the same goal here.
ReplyDeleteDoc, your theory is clever and quite persuasive, but I'd like to point out a few clues and facts that beg to be revisited. To make this discussion more productive I have chosen to cover these one at a time:
1. Patsy had a nightly routine of inspecting JonBenet and her bed in the late hours of the night to clean up any mess that might have been made. Interestingly, Patsy states that she didn't bother doing this routine the night of the murder. There were obvious signs that there were attempts made to not only change JonBenet's sheets, but to undress JonBenet from her soiled clothes. I won't go over the details, but this information isn't difficult to find. If Patsy is telling the truth, how can we then explain the clues that lead to a series of events involving a nightly ritual of stripping soiled sheets and clothing?
Hercule
I was just rereading the ransom note, and had an epiphany. If the RN was left by an intruder who also left JB's body, then what was it that spooked him/her off? According to JR and PR, they were sound asleep and never woke up. Also, according to JR and PR, they believe the perp was comfortable enough to be in the house for hours while they were away and didn't flee when they arrived home, but instead waited until everybody was in bed, snuck upstairs and took JB, then somehow was composed enough and comfortable enough to write out a three page RN, all the while keeping an eye on JB, and yet something "terrible", something "sudden" must've spooked them and they flew out out of the house leaving the body unwrapped, splayed out on the floor somewhere in the house, doors flung open, broken window thrown wide open, grate thrown off... Wait, that's not how everything was found. In fact, it's the complete opposite, JB's body was wrapped, the cellar door was closed and latched, the train room door was closed with a chair outside the room blocking it, the broken window was open only an 1/8", and the grate was in it's normal place on the window well. Doesn't sound like a botched/interrupted kidnapping to me, where the victim is dropped and the perp makes off like a bandit. So the question begs, if the "intruder" wasn't spooked out of the house, then why not carry out the kidnapping? Maybe they had a change of heart, maybe they changed their mind, then why leave the ransom note? Probably a good reason as to why this is the only case, according to the FBI, where the victim and the ransom note were found in the home.
ReplyDeleteNow why again weren't the Ramsey's arrested?
Jay
Yes. All very astute points, Jay. We know there could not have been an intruder. Thomas knew it, as well as Kolar, the FBI, and even Hunter who often professed his opinion that Patsy was the culprit. Rest assured, Jay, your points were not lost on those individuals. Why were the Ramseys not arrested? They wasted no time hiding behind their lawyers, who did everything they had to do to make sure they said nothing incriminating. Was there enough circumstantial evidence to arrest Patsy and put her on trial? You bet there was. I believe wholeheartedly if this would've happened she would've cracked under the pressure. Unfortunately, Hunter and the rest of his minions were too concerned about their own political careers and did not have the guts to pull the trigger.
DeleteHercule
Excellent point, Jay. Two things you've said in particular stand out to me. First, if it were a botched kidnapping resulting in JBR's death, why DIDN'T they still take the body and try to get the ransom? After all, they left the note behind.
DeleteSecond, JBR's body was neatly wrapped in her favorite blanket. Most of us have probably seen this short video of JR describing how he found JBR in that cellar, wrapped in that blanket.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SwkXfkdyWc
IMO, he's not describing how he found her, but rather how HE wrapped that blanket around her and "tucked her in."
I would now like to address my second point regarding Patsy Ramsey as the murderer:
ReplyDelete2. The placement of the ransom note has been debated ad nauseam with regard to its importance. JDI theorists argue that John selected the spiral kitchen staircase as the location, knowing ahead of time that Patsy would discover it in the midst of her early morning routine. PDI theorists argue (as do I) that Patsy's intention was to be the first to discover the note, thus giving her the power to dictate and control the ensuing pandemonium. Patsy, however, committed a glaring mistake. Let's pause for a moment to examine an important behavioral clue. I want everyone to imagine that you are, in this case, an innocent parent descending a TIGHT spiral staircase in the early morning hours. As you near the end of your descent, your eyes make out in the dim light three pieces of paper aligned on one of the steps near the bottom. Without reading my diatribe any further, please imagine now what your initial reaction would be. After you've selected your course of action let us continue. My wager is that the majority of you would have immediately picked up the papers and promptly began reading. The simplest and safest way to accomplish this would be to first step on the note or sweep it to the side en route to the kitchen floor. It is of course human nature to behave in this way. Granted, some of you would have first attempted to step over the note before picking it up and reading it. This, however, would've been too difficult to accomplish since we know as a fact that several members of law enforcement attempted to step over the note while descending this TIGHT spiral staircase and could not accomplish the feat without falling. Could it have been done? Of course. But with the degree of difficulty that presented itself, Patsy would've indeed changed her mind about stepping over it and instead chosen to step on it before reaching the bottom and commencing to inspect the note. Are we to believe that Patsy had the wherewithal to read part of the note upside down, in dim lighting? Then after grasping the magnitude of the situation, still not pick up the note and veraciously read more of the note to ensure her eyes hadn't played tricks on her? Instead Patsy asserts that she hightailed it back up the stairs exclaiming to John that JonBenet was gone.This is not the behavior of an innocent woman.
Hercule
Until that last sentence I was about to respond: what's your point? If it's not the behavior of an innocent woman then why would a guilty woman trying to seem innocent act that way? There are a great many details of this case that seem puzzling and many people who want to see Patsy as the guilty party associate them with her guilt, as though they were clues. I have no idea exactly what happened as Patsy descended that staircase. But I can tell you one thing: she lied about what happened prior to the 911 call. Why do I believe she lied? Not because of some assumptions based on my insight into her psychology. But on the basis of facts that can't possibly be disputed. For the details please consult my third blog post.
DeleteI don't think a case like this can be decided on the basis of assumptions, no matter how logical or well informed they might seem. Which is why I chose to focus on the facts.
Hello Doc. I was grateful to see that you responded. I agree that we will never know exactly what happened but that doesn't mean we can't figure out who was the killer. Forgive me, but I'm afraid you have repeatedly made assumptions about this case. The most crucial assumption of all being your claim that JonBenet was a victim of prior sexual abuse. There is absolutely NO unrefutable evidence that JonBenet was ever previously molested. Only theories. In other words, this is not a FACT. Now that we have that established, your assertion of John Ramsey being the killer has lost a considerable amount of credence. Your contention was that John's motive was to murder JonBenet to prevent her from reporting his atrocities. If you only focus on facts, what is John's motive now if he is still your killer?
DeleteHercule
You've misread me, Hercule. I've never presented prior sexual abuse as a fact. That would violate a basic principle of my method, which is to treat as fact only that which is accepted by all and is not disputed. Since prior sexual abuse has been contested, then it's not a fact -- not, at least, as I've defined it for my purposes in this case.
DeleteI have nevertheless presented the likelihood of prior abuse as an important element in assessing the nature of this crime and speculating meaningfully on motive. According to Cyril Wecht, one of the leading forensic pathologists in the world, the coroner's report is fully consistent with prior abuse. His assessment is good enough for us to at the very least take such a possibility very seriously. Nevertheless, my conviction that John is the murderer is not based on the theory of prior abuse, but on factual evidence as presented in the first two posts.
Returning to the night of the crime, what IS a fact under the criterion I've adopted is the fact that JonBenet was sexually assaulted on the night of her murder. And if you agree that there was no intruder, then it becomes very difficult to see the sexual assault as committed by anyone other than a mature male -- i.e. John. Once again my case against John does not depend on this likelihood either, but it is certainly consistent with his direct involvement in this crime.
Since the sexual assault did not fit Steve Thomas' theory as to who perpetrated this crime, he came up with the very strange notion that Patsy must have penetrated her dead daughter's vagina in a desperate attempt to stage a sexual assault. Since there is no evidence to back up such a bizarre theory, I doubt it would hold up in a court of law. It's impossible for me to believe that a mother who accidentally kills her daughter would even think of performing such an act. An accident can be reported as such, though without every detail being revealed. In any case, I've heard of murder being staged as an accident, but I've never heard of an accident being staged as murder.
Hello Doc. Once again I thank you for your prompt response and rebuttal. I find it interesting that you have written about "cherry picking" as it relates to certain penned letters in the ransom note and how this sort of practice could mistakenly rule in someone as a suspect in this case. Perhaps you too are guilty of cherry picking, in this instance, subscribing to an expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht, who in one instance, fits your theory that John was the killer since he was the most likely culprit being that he was the only sexually active adult male in the house on the night of the crime. I also find it interesting that you hold Dr. Wecht's opinion on this matter in such high regard, yet you disagree with him on other points. For example, you deny Dr. Wecht's assertion that the garrote was used as a tool for sexual gratification by impeding the amount of oxygen JonBenet received. Your contention, and I agree with you, is that this sort of erotic asphyxiation would only serve to benefit the person being choked. You also disagree with Dr. Wecht on the order of the head wound and asphyxiation. He contends that there was a sex game first followed by the head blow. You, like I, see that the head blow came first then strangulation. So Doc, why do you find Dr. Cyril Wecht's opinion so viable in one area and not in others? You have made the mistake of tailoring certain pieces of information to conjoin to your theory. Your contention that prior abuse is an important element to this case can only mean that you believe it to be true despite it not being a fact. I am simply requesting that you should remove prior sexual abuse from your theory altogether. If, as you say, the facts of the case still point to John Ramsey then my request should not be an issue. It is my opinion, that without proof and the unlikelihood there was prior abuse, your theory has lost its motive.
DeleteAs to your comment about there being no evidence to back up the penetration of JonBenet's vagina: That is incorrect. JonBenet's hymen was disrupted and torn with something consistent with the size of the paintbrush that was used to strangle her. Not only that, as you know, there were cellulose particles consistent with the paintbrush handle, yet no discernible DNA that would indicate rape. If she had been truly attacked sexually by John Ramsey and he cleaned her up I would expect those particles along with DNA to have been exfoliated as well.
You find it impossible to believe that a mother could kill her daughter after an accident? Improbable yes, but not impossible. This is a unique case so the improbable looms frequently at every turn. Don't make the mistake of placing Patsy Ramsey's psyche in the realm of predictable and normal. I will dissect her psychological detriments at a later time. Hopefully, my forthcoming dissertation will shed some light on Patsy's mentality and subsequent actions.
Hercule
Hercule, I enjoy reading about the PDI "clues" you've written about. Anxious to hear more.
ReplyDeleteI am not a PDI theoriest. Not because I don't believe these clues mean anything; they might very well. The single thing that stops me from swaying to the PDI camp, is the sexual molestation. Is it your opinion that Patsy was capable of doing that? I know some mothers may be. But based on what we all know about Patsy -- reading about her, seeing her in videos, etc. -- do you really think she molested her own daughter?
No matter how convincing these little PDI "clues" are, I just can't commit to PDI because of this one thing.
I can understand your apprehensiveness. Allow me to attempt to remove this obstacle. I do not believe that JonBenet was sexually molested. There were some experts that concluded that there were signs of chronic sexual abuse, however, there were also other experts who disagreed. The fact is this: There is no unrefutable evidence that JonBenet was ever sexually molested prior to her attack and murder. JonBenet reportedly made over thirty visits to see her pediatrician in the span of a year. JonBenet had a bed soiling problem (not just urine) and she was prone to vaginal infections. Because JonBenet's body was staged to be a sexual assault, I believe this prompted some examiners to look for prior sexual abuse. When they discovered the chronic irritation, they haphazardly attributed it to prior sexual abuse instead of paying closer attention to her history of vaginal infections relating to bed soiling. So as far as I'm concerned the prior molestation claim doesn't hold much water.
DeleteHercule
6 year old girls don't get vaginal infections. Even if they did, the infections are easily treatable and wound not require many, many visits to the doctor. I think she had irritation from the abuse and the doctor wrote it off as coming from the bed wetting. And speaking of human behavior, why would a little girl of that age ask other people besides her mother to wipe her?
ReplyDeleteYou have been either misinformed or have a lack of medical knowledge I am afraid. Not only can six-year-old girls have infections in the vaginal region, but so too can the smallest of infants. Why would a six-year-old girl, who at that age does not yet have an impressive immune system, be any less prone to infections than an adolescent or adult female? I think if you do a little bit of research you will come across a myriad of cases that you did not think were possible. For example, there are girls younger than JonBenet who suffered from yeast infections.
DeleteAs for your query of why JonBenet would ask other people to wipe her? I could easily ask: Why wouldn't a very socially adept child with an innocent and gregarious personality ask for some assistance when she needed it the most? My point is, your type of upbringing may have considered such behavior as abnormal whereas the family next door might have perceived it as perfectly normal. We cannot, however, judge this matter based on our own philosophies.
Hercule
"why would a little girls of that age ask other people besides her mother to wipe her ?"
ReplyDeleteIs this a fact? I've never heard this before. Are you suggesting that Patsy was molesting her?
Hercule, thanks for your response above. You are a very good writer and I have to say you make some strong points. I have always wondered why, after so many visits to her pediatrician, her doctor/nurse wouldn't report the abuse if they actually believed it was happening.
But here's another obstacle I have about PDI: the garrote. Do you believe she tied that complex knot, or do you think John did that in the staging? Not only do I find it hard to believe that Patsy had the knowledge to tie that knot, I also don't believe she would even want to put that garrote on her daughter, no matter what transpired beforehand.
I'll sign off this time so as not to confuse which "anonymous" you're replying to.
emma
Emma, nothing in my comment suggested that I think Patsy molested JB; in fact I do not think Patsy is guilty. Hercules you are using human behavior to support your theory but discount it when it doesn't support it, so I tend to follow Doc who has done very well to stick to the facts. I have yet to hear your facts but will consider them equally when you post. My sister is a pediatric nurse and says vaginal infections are not seen in her practice but what they do see is heat rashes, diaper rashes, and soap irritations. Regardless, it has not been the practice of the smart, nice people on this blog to question the general knowledge of readers. We are an educated bunch and can certainly consider that which is possible vs. that which is probable.
DeleteI re-read your statement and I see how I thought you were suspecting Patsy of the abuse, and after reading your comment again, I see there may be another reason Jon Benet would not want her mother to wipe her, that being she would be afraid of her mother seeing her sore, irritated vagina, either because of the bedwetting problem or because she didn't want her mother to see signs of the abuse.
DeleteBut I still wonder if that (not wanting her mother to wipe her) is a fact or just another myth in this murder mystery.
emma
Thanks Emma. What I meant to suggest is that most little girls do not let just anyone assist them in the bathroom; at age 6 they have been socialized enough to know something about modesty. I meant that she might only let her mother assist her but not other adults and especially not those outside the family. At least one of her friends moms was reported to have said that JB did request help in the toilet. Unlike Hercule, I do not think this is my peculiar philosophy to think this behavior to be odd. Patsy is from the south where well heeled people teach modesty. Not all, but many do.
DeleteWe are all knowledgable but not equally knowledgable in all areas. I apologize since you took offense to my statement, but indeed I meant no harm. I respect you and everyone else who seeks the truth and justice for JonBonet. The fact, nonetheless, remains: Six-year-old girls or at any age can have vaginal infections! This is a FACT. Perhaps as of yet your sister may not have come across this where she is employed. Now, if you would like me to supply proof of my claim that can easily be accomplished but I fear that would offend you yet again.
DeleteAs for your claim that I deny human behavior as it relates to this case when it does not support my theory, as to what you are referring to I would like to know.
You stated that you have yet to "hear" my facts. I have stated several already. Please scroll back or forward and you shall see.
Hercule
Hercule, whether or not JB had a yeast infection proves nothing to me ... It does not refute what some experts found which was evidence of sexual abuse. As Doc has said, anything is possible. Patsy took JB to the doctor. He would have prescribed the treatment for an infection and she would not have had to return numerous times. The dr. would have told Patsy to keep JB's panties dry and not put tight pants on her. So what? She still could have been abused and in fact John may have given her the infection.
DeleteI never said JonBenet had a yeast infection so I am baffled by that comment. At any rate, your conjecture is full of "some" and "could haves" so I do not see any validity to any point you have tried to make nor do I think you have grasped my points. Please continue to read and hopefully when I have covered everything you will have a better understanding.
DeleteHercule
I grasp your points but you have not made a case for me. Nothing you have written so far has provided a cohesive case. I have read this blog for over a year, re-read it, and read Doc's book twice. I totally "grasp" what he has written and find him to be thorough in covering facts, likelihoods vs that which is not probable, that which can only be assumed, and that which will never be known. No matter what arguments have been presented, I cannot find a case for Patsy being the murderer. It's not Burke either as most can agree, and it's not an intruder. John Ramsey, in my view, cannot be ruled out as a pervert with anger issues who had a lot to lose if his abuse of his daughter was found out. The rest of Doc's case ties it up for me. I have an advanced degree in engineering and am more than capable of using the principles of logic and understanding how it differs from behavioral clues. I"m also a female from the south and know lots of stage moms like Patsy. I don't think your behavioral clues are convincing at all. I"m sorry because if you had a case I would listen -- just haven't seen a full case from you yet.
DeleteStay tuned. I have only just begun.
DeleteHercule
Thank you Emma for your kind words. You have asked a question that has puzzled many bloggers. It was my intention to cover the garrote query at a later time but since you ask, I will now address one important element. I am not sure why but there seems to be a growing number of people who profess that the garrote was constructed in a sophisticated manner. That is a myth. To the contrary, one could say that it was crudely constructed. So once again I am not sure how this rumor prevailed but I would venture to say that the collaboration of IDIs, JDIs, and even some BDIs examined the photos for themselves and made their own assumptions. The IDI theorists attempted to persuade others into thinking that the garrote was devised by an experienced sexual sadist. JDI theorists placed their chips on John's knowledge of knot constructing whilst in the Navy. BDI theorists lean heavily on Burke's knowledge of knots from his boy scout membership. The truth is that just about anyone could have constructed this particular garrote.
ReplyDeleteAs to your query about it being hard to believe that Patsy could even put the garrote around JonBenet's neck: Of course it is hard to believe. Like me and most others you are not mentally ill. It is hard to conceive how such an act could transpire. I promise you that I will address this issue and the psychology behind it in a more organized and sequential manner when the time arrives.
Hercule
But if you're saying Patsy killed JBR accidentally,why the need to hit her over the head with the torch/magnalite, then stage with a garotte.Come to think of it,why would Patsy even be using a torch to routinely get up and change bedding etc during the night?
ReplyDeleteThe head injury was the result of the accident. There is no proof that the Maglite was ever used to strike JonBenet's head. It has been a popular theory that this flashlight was used to either subdue JonBenet or finish her off, but like many other aspects of this case, repetitious rumor has eventually been accepted by many as fact. I do not believe the flashlight was the source of the head wound. The corner end of the flashlight that fit into the triangular hole in JonBenet's skull was the end that contained the bulb. After numerous tests with an identical flashlight, no one could strike an object similar to JonBenet's skull without damaging the bulb. The Maglite found in the Ramsey home was free of damage. So as you can see, the facts do not support the flashlight theory.
DeleteHercule
Hercule, can you post the source that talks about impact testing similar flashlights, damages resulting from said impacts, and that all similar impacts resulted in damaging the bulb?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree that even infant girls can have vaginal infections (family history), but JB's infections may or may not have been connected to prior sexual abuse. We don't know. However, JB's vaginal opening being twice the size of an average 6 yr. old girl is much harder to explain (autopsy report).
Jay
Hello Jay. The information I gathered was directly from the case files. There is, however, a reputable website that presents many facts of the case. Here is a link to the page that discusses your particular inquiry. Scroll down to the "Werner Spitz Account."
Deletehttp://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682481/Interpreting%20the%20Evidence
Hercule
As someone who use to believe in the Steve Thomas theory when I first read about the case I see where you are coming from. However I still always had these questions and confusions that could not be answered with this theory. Which have only been answered in any logical way of thinking by docs theory. I also believe if patsy was as mentally ill as you claim she would have cracked eventually and no amount of protection from John would have stopped it from coming out. I also think that John was protecting himself with the experts and private investigators. Also I'm a nanny and having looked after many children. It is NOT normal in my experience for a child over 5 asking for assistance in the bathroom. I really believe the bed wetting is a red flag. I do think the occasional accident is normal and when I was younger I didn't question why she was always wetting the bed, maybe just pressure like Steve Thomas said. Now having looked after so many children and knowing more about sexual abuse I believe the bed wetting is a huge red flag that something was going on with her.
ReplyDelete-SM
There is no doubt that Doc's theory is a brilliant one. If John Ramsey was the killer, I would wager that the events and circumstances that unfolded would be very accurate to Doc's depiction. All I ask is for everyone to keep an open mind until I have completely express my own thoughts. You may indeed come to understand aspects of the case you have not yet considered.
DeleteBed soiling is not uncommon among children of JonBenet's age. Many children have soiled their beds for reasons that have nothing at all to do with sexual abuse. I could just as easily attest that the inordinate amount of stress that JonBenet received from Patsy whilst preparing and performing in pageants was just as likely the cause of her bed soiling issues. Keep in mind also that Burke experienced the same issues. Ironically, those issues disappeared shortly after Patsy redirected her focus to JonBenet. So please do not etch your opinion in stone. I think you will find that when I have presented all of the facts, evidence, and clues, these pieces will only fit together one verifiable way.
Hercule
One purpose of this blog is to elicit different views of this case and discuss them. So, Hercule, any ideas you have are welcome here. I'm especially looking forward to reading your content analysis of the note.
DeleteI found the following comment by Hercule in my email, but am not seeing it show up here, why I can't say. Here it is, in its entirety. My response will follow:
ReplyDeleteHello Doc. Once again I thank you for your prompt response and rebuttal. I find it interesting that you have written about "cherry picking" as it relates to certain penned letters in the ransom note and how this sort of practice could mistakenly rule in someone as a suspect in this case. Perhaps you too are guilty of cherry picking, in this instance, subscribing to an expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht, who in one instance, fits your theory that John was the killer since he was the most likely culprit being that he was the only sexually active adult male in the house on the night of the crime. I also find it interesting that you hold Dr. Wecht's opinion on this matter in such high regard, yet you disagree with him on other points. For example, you deny Dr. Wecht's assertion that the garrote was used as a tool for sexual gratification by impeding the amount of oxygen JonBenet received. Your contention, and I agree with you, is that this sort of erotic asphyxiation would only serve to benefit the person being choked. You also disagree with Dr. Wecht on the order of the head wound and asphyxiation. He contends that there was a sex game first followed by the head blow. You, like I, see that the head blow came first then strangulation. So Doc, why do you find Dr. Cyril Wecht's opinion so viable in one area and not in others? You have made the mistake of tailoring certain pieces of information to conjoin to your theory. Your contention that prior abuse is an important element to this case can only mean that you believe it to be true despite it not being a fact. I am simply requesting that you should remove prior sexual abuse from your theory altogether. If, as you say, the facts of the case still point to John Ramsey then my request should not be an issue. It is my opinion, that without proof and the unlikelihood there was prior abuse, your theory has lost its motive.
As to your comment about there being no evidence to back up the penetration of JonBenet's vagina: That is incorrect. JonBenet's hymen was disrupted and torn with something consistent with the size of the paintbrush that was used to strangle her. Not only that, as you know, there were cellulose particles consistent with the paintbrush handle, yet no discernible DNA that would indicate rape. If she had been truly attacked sexually by John Ramsey and he cleaned her up I would expect those particles along with DNA to have been exfoliated as well.
You find it impossible to believe that a mother could kill her daughter after an accident? Improbable yes, but not impossible. This is a unique case so the improbable looms frequently at every turn. Don't make the mistake of placing Patsy Ramsey's psyche in the realm of predictable and normal. I will dissect her psychological detriments at a later time. Hopefully, my forthcoming dissertation will shed some light on Patsy's mentality and subsequent actions.
Hercule
I happen to have great respect for Dr. Wecht. His specialty, however, is forensic pathology, not erotic strangulation. He has done post mortems on thousands of bodies and no doubt studied many thousands of autopsy reports. I defer to his expertise regarding the likelihood of prior molestation based on his ability to understand the autopsy and the meaning of the term "chronic abrasion," an opinion which was, by the way, seconded by four other doctors who investigated this aspect of the case (http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682469/Evidence%20of%20Prior%20Sexual%20Abuse).
DeleteI recognize also that other specialists suggested other possibilities, so there is certainly room for a reasonable doubt defense should this ever come up in a trial. It is NOT a reason for ignoring such compelling evidence just because some other explanation might be possible. While prior molestation may not be an uncontested fact, the opinion of Wecht and the others must be taken very seriously. I certainly see no reason to "drop prior sexual abuse from my theory altogether" simply because some other explanation might be possible. Prior abuse, as I see it, is the most likely explanation for the chronic abrasion and distention of the vagina, and is an important clue as far as motive is concerned, so why would anyone want to ignore it?
As far as the strangulation is concerned, as I said, Wecht is not an expert on erotic strangulation -- and what is more, his theory, unlike prior molestation, makes little sense. The cord was too thin and would have inflicted serious pain on a conscious victim. Moreover, tufts of her hair were entwined in the knotting, making it unlikely she was conscious at the time. This has nothing to do with cherry picking and everything to do with logical analysis of the crime scene.
And by the way, if Wecht were right about the erotic strangulation that would have actually made my case against John simpler, as her death could be seen as an accident and no specific motive for murder would have been necessary.
"As to your comment about there being no evidence to back up the penetration of JonBenet's vagina:"
When did I ever say that? Of course she was penetrated.
"JonBenet's hymen was disrupted and torn with something consistent with the size of the paintbrush that was used to strangle her."
No, that's a myth. If the paintbrush handle was used, there would have been much more bleeding and other signs of such an acute injury. The autopsy says "digital penetration," which makes sense. The cellulose particles would have been indirectly transferred from the brush handle via the attacker's finger or glove, if he'd been wearing one. While no semen was found, she had been thoroughly washed clean, and I can think of no motive for washing her aside from an attempt to remove semen. I can certainly think of no motive for Patsy to wash her like that.
"You find it impossible to believe that a mother could kill her daughter after an accident?"
I find it improbable in the extreme that Patsy or anyone else would want to stage a murder to cover up an accident. It would have been all too easy for her to report a fall down the stairs or accidental fall backward against the tub or some other hard object. I find it improbable in the extreme that someone with no history of mental illness either prior to or after the crime would want to penetrate her dying daughter's vagina for any reason. And equally improbable that she would then go on to strangle her in such a vile manner. I also find it improbable that the killer would feel the need to stage both a kidnapping and a sexual assault. Either one would have been enough, why both?
Hello Doc. Let me first address the misunderstanding of my earlier statement: "As to your comment about there being no evidence to back up the penetration of JonBenet's vagina:"
DeleteI was referring to the penetration of the paintbrush handle. You said there was no evidence. My stance is that despite it not being classified as a fact, there is still scientific evidence of paintbrush handle penetration. Digital penetration was certainly just as likely, and cannot be ruled out. In either scenario, this rules out no one in the Ramsey house that night but it is important, nevertheless, to make the habit of always separating evidence from fact.
I find that your assessment and explanation of Dr. Wecht to be fair, however, you cannot convince me that you have not subscribed to the theory of prior sexual abuse as a fact. You may word it any way you wish, but the way in which you utilize it to support the magnitude of your theory is quite obvious to me. I suppose we could incessantly banter about this topic but it is not necessary. We shall leave it to the readers to decide.
Hercule
My theory does not depend on prior sexual abuse, which admittedly is not a fact as I've defined it for my purposes here. It does, however, make it possible to speculate meaningfully regarding motive. But this can only be speculation.
DeleteMy reason for identifying John as the sole perpetrator is drawn from the facts and logical inferences drawn from those facts, not speculation. That Patsy called 911 and not John is a fact. That the Ramseys have presented two contradictory versions of what happened prior to that call is a fact. That JonBenet's vagina was digitally penetrated, drawing blood, is a fact.
Since calling 911 with the body in the house is inconsistent with the staging of a kidnapping, we can rule out Patsy's involvement. Since they presented contradictory versions of what happened we can conclude that an innocent Patsy must have been manipulated into going along with John's version in their book, despite presenting a very different version in the A&E documentary. This tells us that John may well have manipulated Patsy in other ways as well, which would account for some of her "suspicious" behavior.
Finally the clear evidence of sexual abuse on the night of the crime strongly suggests a mature male rather than a woman or 9 year old child. Put it all together and you have: John Ramsey.
I do not recall the autopsy report specifically endorsing digital penetration. You claim it is a fact so I would appreciate you directing me to your source.
Delete"Since calling 911 with the body in the house is inconsistent with the staging of a kidnapping, we can rule out Patsy's involvement."
Doc, I understand that Patsy being the one who called 911 is an important element to your theory. I contest that Patsy wanted to be the caller because this was an opportunity for her to use one of her strengths (performing/acting) to convince the police that she was innocent. Why would she want the police to discover the body inside the house instead of following the instructions of the ransom note and dump the body in a remote area while pretending to drop off the ransom money? An experienced killer with a painstaking plan would have possibly engineered such a plot. This crime, however, was not planned, hurried by a limited window of time, and orchestrated by a mother who could not even conceive the notion of discarding her daughter as if she were trash. I will go into more detail about this point on my next post.
Hercule
It doesn't matter if JR abused JBR or not. It is a very plausible motive but still hypothetical. The relevant fact is that PR called 911 with the body in the house, and there is no reasonable explanation for both her call and her involvement in the crime. She could reasonably do one or the other, but not both, as Doc so clearly points out. MM
ReplyDelete"...there is no reasonable explanation for both her call and her involvement in the crime."
DeleteOh but there is, MM. Please continue to read each day. Patsy's behavioral clues in accordance with her maternal instincts explain her decision to call 911 with the body in the house.
Hercule
It would of course be easier if you were to simply disclose what your theories are, but I will try to continue to check back to read your daily updates. MM
DeleteHercule, I am so anxious to hear all that you have to say. And I am appreciative that you answer everyone's comments, rather quickly I might say.
ReplyDeleteI just want to throw one comment out regarding Dr. Wecht's theory about strangulation for sexual gratification. Many people have tossed this theory out because the pleasure received from this deprivation of oxygen is intended for the one being strangled and, therefore, it makes no sense that this sex game was used in this situation. Has anyone ever thought that the perpetrator MIGHT actually get pleasure from this, either for sadistic reasons or because it actually arouses them to see the person being strangled gasping for air? Think about it. When a person (or in this case a child) is being strangled, I would imagine they make many noises and facial expressions, which might easily mimic the same noises and facial expressions one makes during sex. This could have sexually aroused John. I know, I know --- this is sick stuff. But, frankly, killing your daughter is sick stuff, imo.
Looking forward to more from you Hercule.
emma
emma, your theory about the oxygen deprivation is something I've wondered for a long time, but I just can't commit wholeheartedly to it. In one sense, I can see the noose already around JB's neck, when something goes wrong and JR hits her over the head. It wouldn't be too hard to imagine JR then carrying her body down to the cellar, where he catches sight of the paintbrush tray, and has an "aha" moment of using a garrote to finish her off, while at the same time making it look like a sadistic killer perpetrated the crime. On the other hand, I see her hair caught in the noose, and wonder if JB would have patiently waited while JR tied the noose around her neck, catching some of her hair in it.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I do think it is far more likely that JR made the noose around her neck and the nooses around her wrists, than PR. I've recreated those nooses (three different ones) based on the autopsy photos, and the average housewife/husband is not gonna know how to make them, however a sailor wouldn't have any problem with them, IMO.
Jay
Hi Emma. Thank you again. Yes there are people afflicted with sexual sadism disorder. These people typically have difficulty being aroused unless they can inflict pain or harm on others. These abnormal practices have been known to lead to death in some cases. This particular disorder, however, does not fit John Ramsey's history. There is absolutely no proof that John ever exhibited any sort of sadistic behavior towards anyone. It would be highly unusual that someone by this time would not have come forward to unveil John's darker half if he did have this disorder.
ReplyDeleteHercule
The reason I keep coming back to the strangulation for sexual gratification theory is because Dr. Wecht's opinion, which I find very convincing, is that the strangulation had to have come first, based on the minuscule amount of blood found under the head blow. You can't argue with science. As for JonBenet's hair being caught up in the cord and how it would have been painful for her when this happened, I look to the neighbor's statement that she heard a scream around 2 am that morning. That might have been when this was occurring.
ReplyDeleteIf JonBenet was hit over the head first -- no matter who did it -- I cannot see the purpose for then constructing the garrote and incorporating it as part of staging. Why? If she was already dead, what possible purpose could there be to then stage the strangulation? Some have suggested the strangulation was to "finish her off" when it was unclear if she was dead or not. That could easily have been done by simply smothering her.
emma
Hello Emma. Let me start by saying that it is not uncommon for a head wound similar to JonBenet's to produce little bleeding despite the victim having a strong or normal heartbeat. When you pair that knowledge with the evidence that the condition of JonBenet's body was not consistent with someone who is conscious while being strangled, you must therefore concede that the head blow came first.
ReplyDeleteThe neighbor who reported hearing a scream also recanted that claim, stating she was not certain because it could have been a dream. The reported scream, therefore, must not be deemed credible.
"If JonBenet was hit over the head first -- no matter who did it -- I cannot see the purpose for then constructing the garrote and incorporating it as part of staging. Why? If she was already dead, what possible purpose could there be to then stage the strangulation? Some have suggested the strangulation was to "finish her off" when it was unclear if she was dead or not. That could easily have been done by simply smothering her."
JonBenet did not die from the head blow. The killer chose strangulation to not only murder JonBenet, but to also stage the crime to appear as if it was committed by a psychopathic sexual sadist. The killer knew that by using a pillow or something similar to smother JonBenet to death, the police would be more likely to believe a parent was involved.
Hercule
Hercule, thank you again for your reply. As with your other posts, you make good points that cause me to re-think some of my own beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMight I ask how long you have been interested this case and how you acquired so much knowledge about it? I am envious of those who have the time to do a great deal of research about this case. My research has been minimal and I suppose that's why I often change my theories about the case. It's an incredible mystery --- one that rivals some of the most famous mysteries of all time. I am so anxious to hear more of your "clues" leading to your theory of PDI. You obviously have your mind made up about what happened that night and I find that intriguing.
emma
Yes, I have spent years with my nose buried in the case files. Reading and rereading much like Doc and many others. After organizing all of the pieces of the case, the most crucial element, in my opinion, was immersing myself into the histories of John and Patsy Ramsey until I was able to understand their world and the process behind it.
DeleteMy next post will cover why Patsy decided to make the 911 call and why it does not mean she should be eliminated as the killer.
Hercule
I argued the same thing two years ago, very eloquently I might add. I think there is a sliver of room for the argument that PR called 911 knowing her daughter was in the house, her maternal instincts kicking in and not wanting to toss her baby's body into an icy ditch. But that does not explain JR apparently agreeing with the call, unless you think she went rogue? MM
DeleteHi MM. I am grateful for your response. I would be most appreciative if you shared your eloquent ideas again.
ReplyDelete"But that does not explain JR apparently agreeing with the call, unless you think she went rogue?"
Based on my knowledge of Patsy, she was not only an extreme extrovert, but also a decisive woman whose role in the Ramsey household might be best described as "General". Patsy, without question, was the decision maker, planner, orchestrator, and irrevocably the dynamic personality in relation to John Ramsey, who much preferred this less complicate and benign role. Many people, however, pegged Patsy as a fragile southern belle who depended and leaned heavily on her much stronger husband for guidance and security. This was the image portrayed by Patsy in front of media, police, and the general public. So it is my opinion that Patsy's plan was to make the call and do it in a hurry, amidst the breaking hysteria that she created and before John could interject a plan of action.
Hercule
Hercule, If you really want to read my first arguments, I posted starting on December 30 2013 at 10:38 pm and ended my posts on January 7 2014 at 12:38 pm on this thread :
Deletehttp://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2013/12/traffic-jam.html
Mine are most, if not all, of the Anonymous posts between those dates. Only signed a few MM, sorry to confuse. I started posting BDI with PR and JR colluding in a coverup. I am mostly now convinced by Doc against my initial posts, but still harbor doubts. Hope this helps, look forward to your thoughts. MM
I've lived in the south my whole life. I am a career woman with a major IT company and my husband is an IT exec as well. I am also the "general" of my house in many ways. I am a decision maker, planner, orchestrator, and some might say I have a dynamic personality (whatever that means). My husband is smart and quiet, though he makes major decisions, too. I don't know any fragile southern belles who depend and lean heavily on their much stronger husbands for guidance and security. Have not met one such fragile woman yet, in my almost 60 years of life down here. So its your opinion that Patsy could have orchestrated something? Of course she could have, so could I have done. So could have John. Anyone, male or female, with above average intelligence could have orchestrated a coverup. I hope there are some facts to your theory, because profiling Patsy's personality is not something that as a jury member, I would give any consideration to. Proof of abusing her daughter physically or mentally? I would listen to that. For me, this case comes down to the known facts. Don't Kolar and Steve Thomas both believe that there were signs of prior sexual trauma? If so, does being a strong southern "general" type of woman make us all capable of sexually abusing little girls? Almost every day in the news, you can find stories about girls being abused by a male relative or some male who got close to them. It is my opinion that John was more than capable of abusing his daughter. Just like Jerry Sandusky, he easily could have been a wolf in sheep's clothing. But, going back to the facts, the 911 call, the handwriting that looks like John's handwriting, and the content of the note, along with John being the one who went into the basement that morning and also got caught in lies about the basement, in fact all of Doc's case leads me to believe that John is the murderer. The one thing that I've struggled with is how much did Patsy find out during that night. I've concluded that she did not find out, but later started questioning, and then John gaslighted her.
DeleteOnce again we have come to an impasse. Let me clarify something: I do not subscribe to stereotypes of any kind and that includes the idea that most southern women are fragile and dependent, however, there is such a stigma. Perhaps we can blame Hollywood for this portrayal. At any rate, this stereotype is precisely the one Patsy chose to embody whenever she interacted with police or was interviewed on television. Her persona was completely inconsistent with her past behaviors. In Steve Thomas's book, he recalls some of Patsy's unusal behaviors and mannerisms when he sat face to face with her.
DeleteAs you can see, my point was to convey Patsy's suspicious behavior when she changed her personality in an attempt deceive police, media, and the general public. It was not my intention to suggest that by being the "general" of a household, Patsy must have been the killer. I am simply pointing out the inconsistencies of her personality and behaviors. After JonBenet's murder, what became of the fiery, dynamic, headstrong Patsy? That Patsy, if she truly were innocent, would have charged into the police station from the very beginning and done everything she could to find her daughter's killer. She would have been outspoken and aggressive when looking into a television camera. With Patsy's personality type I would have expected to see anger and determination. Instead, we see Patsy lethargic, passive, and uncooperative.
"Don't Kolar and Steve Thomas both believe that there were signs of prior sexual trauma?"
Steve Thomas believed, as well as the FBI, that there was no prior sexual abuse and that the sexual assault on JonBenet was done so for the sole purpose to stage that the murder was committed by a sexual predator. Kolar, on the other hand, insinuated that Burke was responsible for the chronic abrasions on JonBenet's vagina, suggesting that his curiosity of the female anatomy might have fueled him to repeatedly violate his sister.
Please continue to read. I apologize for not revealing my theory in its entirety but I thought it would be more constructive to address my claims piece by piece and in the process connect those pieces to the puzzle together allowing us to see the identity of the killer: Patsy Ramsey.
Hercule
I personally, from watching Patsy on TV, did not find her to appear as fragile. I thought she seemed alternatively drugged/depressed or defensive, almost belligerent toward insinuations that she murdered her daughter. I found her believable. I found John to be shifty, evasive, and conveniently having memory lapses.
DeleteYes. Patsy, to her credit, fooled many of her observers with her performances, but not everyone. You are indeed correct about John being shifty. He was coached very well by his astute team of lawyers on how to be as vague as possible when asked direct questions. This strategy, however, was used by Patsy as well and she too often had "memory lapses." An important point to consider is that despite John's highly criticized, cold stoicism and apparent lack of emotion, his behavior before and after the murder was consistent. He was not trying to put on a performance. If he had tried to alter his personality he would have appeared more suspicious because he was not a performer.
DeleteHercule
Just curious, what is the source on the info about Patsy's personality? I am from Atlanta and know people who knew her. Are her friends/acquaintances the ones who have spoken about what she is like?
ReplyDeleteThere are bits of information and clues in several books, interviews, etc. As for the detailed transcripts from police interviews of family and friends you would have to be granted access to the case files. Through my connections in my career field I have been fortunate to get my hands on copies from those transcripts.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am currently working on my next entry and I apologize to everyone for the delay. My intention is to have it posted by tomorrow evening.
Hercule
Hercule, your explanation of JR's behavior (that he was well coached) doesn't apply to his behavior on Dec. 26th. When told to go look throughout the house for anything unusual, he made a b-line for the broken window (with someone he could sell his theory to - FW), stayed less than one minute and went directly to the cellar where he "instantly" (his words) knew it was JB, when he opened the door. Then, again suspiciously, he runs to her body, rips the tape off her mouth, removes the rope from one hand, picks her up and carries her upstairs and lays her down at the top of the stairs. And the kicker, within half an hour, with his murdered daughter's body still on the floor, he's on the phone preparing to fly out of town that afternoon. Nothing coached, nothing orchestrated by PR, before lawyering up, all JR.
ReplyDeleteJay
I would now like to continue my discussion that I began a few days ago regarding my theory that Patsy Ramsey murdered JonBenet based on facts, evidence, and most importantly, clues associated with behavioral traits in accordance with consistencies related to past history and personality characteristics.
ReplyDelete3. There have been questions lately pertaining to the fact that Patsy was the one who called 911 and why she would do this if she was the killer, inviting police to her home to discover the body instead of disposing it en route to a bogus ransom drop as directed by the ransom note. There are a chain of questions to be asked. If Patsy was the killer, how would it be possible for her to dispose of the body without the assistance of John Ramsey? First of all, the note was addressed to John. This gave John control of arranging the money for him to pick up at the bank and later drop off for the kidnappers. This of course was never intended to happen. Why address the note to anyone in particular? To establish a motive. Patsy's idea initially was for the kidnappers to have a personal grudge against John. Why have a ransom note at all? To create a tangible criminal in the minds of law enforcement and to devise a setting that would be primed for contamination. Immediately after calling 911, Patsy invited friends over. The more people she could include inside the house, the more compromised the crime scene would be. My contention is that Patsy acted alone in the killing and staging. If this is correct, the instructions in Patsy's ransom note were never intended to be played out. Simply put: Patsy created an early morning commotion about discovering a ransom note; using her performing prowess, Patsy makes the 911 call before John can fully assess the situation; Patsy invites friends over to create confusion and contamination for police until the body is later found. In my next entry I'll discuss Patsy's performance in her 911 call and the important clues that her words provide.
Hercule
Hello Jay. You are right. The coaching provided by John's lawyers does not explain any of his behaviors on December 26. There are, however, viable explanations for his questionable behavior. It is my belief that John found JonBenet's body during the timeframe that Arndt reported him missing. When he did finally reappear his "cordial" and calm manner all but evaporated. Arndt described him as being visibly stressed and restless. My contention is that John's earlier suspicions of Patsy's involvement were confirmed upon discovery of the body. I think John had to have recognized identifiers from the ransom note earlier that morning that pointed to Patsy's personality. After spending about an hour mourning with JonBenet in the cellar, John made the decision to stand by his wife's plan, believing that she would have never intentionally harmed JonBenet. He refused to believe otherwise. John knew he had to return upstairs because he had already been missing for a long period of time. After stressing about which actions to take next, John waited for another excuse to return to basement to make the official discovery. Fortunately for him, Arndt suggested that he take another look around the house for anything suspicious. That is why he "made a b-line" to the basement and quickly discovered JonBenet.
ReplyDelete"And the kicker, within half an hour, with his murdered daughter's body still on the floor, he's on the phone preparing to fly out of town that afternoon."
John was smart enough to realize that before he talked to police he needed to figure out from Patsy exactly what happened. His instincts were to remove himself and Patsy away from police interrogation. John's attempt to fly out of town was thwarted so he did the next best thing. He hired a lawyer that afternoon and told police they needed time to grieve.
Hercule
Hercule, your theory is fascinating! I have to admit, my belief that JDI is wavering a bit now.
DeleteRegarding John finding Jon Benet's body during the time Arndt reported he was missing, why do you think he would assume his wife was responsible, especially finding the body in that horrific state with the garrote around her neck? I'm not convinced that John would suspect his wife of this heinous act. What happened that morning that would lead John to this conclusion?
emma
If IDI can be ruled out based on many facts including amount of time spent in the home, i'm now staring to feel that if either JR or PR committed the murder, they then collaborated together in the cover up. Even with sleeping tablets, how could one parent have spent time alone with their child, hit them accidently or deliberately, wait 45min to two hours to decide what to do, write a ransom note, which i would think would take a long time, painstakingly, go over and over the note checking it sounds right, and stage the scene, without the other parent waking up at some point during the night and wondering where there partner was?. JR and PR had inconsitencies in their statements to LE, coupled with their distance to each other while waiting for the call, Patsy peering through splaid fingers, possibly same outfit on from the night before and JR getting ready to take off to meet the family. He found JB as soon as he was asked to look, and det arndt was counting her bullets. I don't think Patsy calling 911 makes any difference, she would have wanted this over. I just can't fathom why either would cover for the other,to me JDI seems more plausible than PDI, unless they acted together.
ReplyDeleteJDI is way more plausible. All the stuff about Patsy's personality, splayed fingers, clothes, someone theorizing that she is a good performer means nothing to me as convicting evidence. As Doc has addressed, they could have worked together, but had they done so, there are a lot of unnecessary steps they jointly decided to do that do not make sense. 1. Why make an accident look like a murder? Upstanding citizens call 911 and get help for the child, explaining that she threw a tantrum and bonked her head. 2. Why sexually abuse a child that was being taken for ransom? 2a. If the sexual abuse was to cover up prior abuse, why would Patsy join in with John upon finding out that he had been molesting her child? 2b. Why would John assist Patsy in such a heinous act when there was a much simpler solution - call 911 and report an accident. 3. Why make the ransom note point at John and not both of them? 4. Why would Patsy not shower and change clothes before calling the police? 5. Patsy may have wanted this over, had she been involved, but she is not stupid. If they were in it together, I trust that John would have emphasized to her that they had to get the body out of the house and he would have promised to put her in a place where she would be found. There is more, but I feel like Doc has covered all of this very well. Why are are we rehashing the same old ground just because someone has a theory about Patsy's personality or behavioral traits? Geez, its that theory that the Boulder police have been unable to build a case on. None of us know what Patsy was really like, nor do we know John. In fact, John's life and personality is very much an unknown. Patsy having the capacity to "perform" is not a reason to point the finger at her. I don't buy it as a thing to build a case on.
DeleteI want to thank everyone who responded to my last entry.
DeleteRegarding the coverup: To me, if John was the killer as outlined by Doc, it does not make sense for Patsy to cover for him. I do not subscribe to "gaslighting" in this case since Patsy's personality type would highly unlikely fall prey to such tactics.
I realize that most of you are still not buying what I am selling. I do not expect you to. I have only grazed the surface of this case. Doc has done an excellent job of presenting the facts (although some of those facts are questionable) and logic. This case, however, cannot be accurately solved by ignoring the puzzling statements and behaviors of the Ramseys. It is easy for people to lie, cry, or express false emotions but it is almost impossible for them to hide the truth with the words they choose. I urge you to be patient and keep an open mind.
Hercule
Regarding gaslighting, I don't know what it has to do with personality type. I think anyone, of any personality type, can be gaslit if he trusts and/or depends upon the person who is feeding him false information. Mickey Rooney was likely gaslit by his stepson as one scenario that I can think of. Gaslighting is a very sophisticated form of manipulation; insidious and devious by definition. Hercule, I don't think you have to find an explanation for many of the puzzling statements. I also disagree with you that its impossible to hide the truth. The Ramseys have indeed already shown that they can hide the truth, as many criminals do every day before the law. The key to this case is to lay out first the undisputed facts. Piece them together and find the most logical conclusions.. Then look for behaviors, statements, actions that might lend weight to the conclusions or not lend weight. Only make assumptions where you have no facts to go on but are reasonable and needed to connect facts. I feel that you are starting with a personal suspicion about Patsy, her personality, her statements, her behaviors. Yet you aren't applying the same standard to John, who from my point of view has been smarmy, unemotional, crafty, evasive, untruthful -- all things that don't prove guilt by themselves either, but make him no more or less believable than Patsy. Opinions alone just simply do no matter! I personally think Patsy came across as someone who dearly loved her child and almost could not go on without her. John never acted like a part of his heart was ripped out. He acted like he had his favorite car stolen from him! So there you go...maybe he was torn up, but didn't show it. Maybe Patsy was acting. So what, neither proves anything. The content of the note, the content/handwriting analysis that Doc did (very convicting...especially John's use of the word "that" and other phrasing that was clearly John's), the lies told by John, the 911 call that more likely was NOT meant to happen that early (though you think Patsy designed it that way, being certain that pandemonium would ensue), the fact that Cyril Wecht is an expert in medical forensics, my belief that JB exhibited behaviors of a troubled child, the fact that men abuse little girls, not women, and many of those men are relatives...well it all stacks up to make Doc's case the ONLY case that has been presented in a cohesive, well documented, thoroughly vetted, and logical way. On the other hand, you have fed bits and pieces of your opinions about Patsy's behavior. You keep saying to be patient and open minded to these readers, many of whom have been on this blog for 2 years, and you haven't laid out an end to end case. I really don't mean to sound inconsiderate of your input, but honestly you should start your own blog and lay out your full case. I say that because it seems to me that you want to discount the case laid out here in very broad strokes, and the support you provide is just declarative statements. I have been patient, but am not interested in reading the same old stuff about Patsy and what an awful lady she supposedly was.
DeleteIf there is one thing that I have learned in the many presentations that I conducted is that the closer I get to the truth, the more opposition I receive.
Delete"...honestly you should start your own blog and lay out your full case."
I have considered this, yes. It's obvious to me you feel threatened. No one likes to be proven wrong, but there are some who refuse to be educated. With this sort of approach, law enforcement would have a most difficult time solving any case. You do not seem to hold behavioral science in high regard. I suppose you think the FBI should discontinue their Behavioral Science Unit despite the millions of cases that have been solved due to the application of their methods. I am not sure why you continue to read this blog unless you have subconscious doubts about your convictions of this case. Unlike you, Doc is very confident about his theory and encourages anyone to share their ideas. Why? Because Doc understands that only progress can be made from everyone having the freedom to share and question ideas, facts, evidence, and clues. Why do you think this blog exists? I found your comment to be archaic and obstinate. I was taught from an early age to always keep an open mind because to do otherwise would only serve to disrupt the acquisition of knowledge.
Hercule
Well Hercule, you have made a lot of assumptions about me. My education has nothing to do with me asking you to provide a cohesive case, because asking us to be "be patient" and that you will have more is not furthering my understanding of the case that you're trying to make. I have been reading this blog, and will continue to do so, for two reasons: out of sheer curiosity, and also to read the questions that people pose to Doc because I find his answers to continually provide food for thought and oftentimes provide more clarity to his theory. I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I have absolutely no reason to feel threatened. I'm not law enforcement or a member of the FBI for Pete's sake. I'm just a reader, but I'm finding your responses to be obstinate, really. Because when folks respond to you, you seem dismissive and repeat something about Patsy's behavior that you believe but can't really substantiate. I also can't tell you what I believe about the FBI's behavioral science unit because I don't know anything about it and don't really have a need to know. I think this case can be solved without the FBI, actually. I think the case can be solved with facts and reasonable conclusions, that John could now be foreced to explain himself under oath, and then we would then be that much closer to the truth. I do know why this blog exists, because Doc explained at the outset why he created it. I think very highly of the way he has laid out the case and addressed the comments and feedback. I personally wish that you would address his case rather than use this blog to start over on a different case that you seem to want to make, that is all. Or...post your full case so that it can be digested. If me asking you to lay out your case is archaic...hmm, I don't know what to say to that. Reread what I posted -- I said that I didn't agree with you about gaslighting and personalities, because there are public examples of people with differing personalities and intelligence who have been manipulated in such a way. The second thing I didn't agree on was that all the puzzling statements can be explained. Doc has said the same about not being able to explain all the statements that have been documented. It would be nice if we could get in the head of those making the statements, but we can't and will never be able to explain all of them. What I said was, the behaviors can be used to lend weight to conclusions made about the available facts.
DeleteRegarding Patsy's "personality type" -- Hercule, I am reprinting comments below from an interview with Linda Hoffman Pugh, the housekeeper, from Schiller's book. The whole interview is on the CandyRose website, this blog would not take the whole thing. There is very little here that corresponds to your descriptions of PR's personality, and Linda knew Patsy well. If you are going to argue that Patsy was "fiery, dynamic and headstrong, " and that this is critical to the case, please cite some evidence. Even then, it is not logical to claim that a mother's personality change after the murder of her daughter means she is the murderer; not when grief and depression are a far more common cause of such a change. By the way, if there was a "general" in the house, from Linda's account it sounds like it was Nedra. MM
ReplyDelete"Patsy was warm and kind. Just a sweet person. But she had a hard time keeping up the laundry. She was doing lots of charity work and was involved with her children's schooling."
"Patsy was afraid she wasn't going to live, that her cancer would come back and she'd never live to see the children grow up. She read a lot about illness and healing. Every three months she had a checkup. She believed if she prayed, everything would be all right. Patsy admired John. He accomplished a lot."
"I think the problem with the children was they didn't have any responsibility. They were spoiled.
Burke had this red Scout knife and always whittled. He'd never use a bag or paper to catch the shavings. He'd whittle all over the place. I asked Patsy to have a talk with him. She answered, "Well I don't know what to do other than take the knife away from him." After Thanksgiving I took that knife away from him and hid it in the cupboard just outside JonBenet's room. That's how that problem was solved."
"Just go away and leave me alone," JonBenet said when I tried to help her with her boots. Sometimes she acted like a spoiled brat.
"No, don't you answer the door," she'd say when someone went to open it at a luncheon Patsy gave. "I'm answering the door."
JonBenet spent a lot of her time sitting on her bed watching Shirley Temple movies on her VCR. She loved them all.
She also loved being in pageants. If she didn't want to go, Patsy didn't make her."
Yes I have read these comments from Linda before. I have also read statements from Linda that clearly describe Patsy much the same way I have. Keep in mind also that it is Linda's strong belief that Patsy killed JonBenet. In the early timeframe of the investigation, Linda did what most employees would do for their employer in this situation; support their innocence. Linda certainly did not want to say anything to the police that would get her fired, especially when her financial situation was dire. It wasn't until Linda was informed that the Ramseys initially suspected her as the killer that she was more forthcoming about what she had observed in the Ramsey household.
DeleteHercule
I think I've read before on this blog that Linda should be discounted because she flip-flopped on Patsy's innocence after the Ramsey's made statements that pointed suspicion at her, and that could have made her feel angry and vindictive. I also think (but am not positive) that the reason the Ramsey's left a large check for LHP was because they were ending her services and had generously paid her a sort of bonus. If that is correct, then she wasn't initially saying nice things about Patsy to keep her job. I have never read about her saying Patsy punished JB in the bathroom, though I think a lawyer would say that the bathroom is where you take your child when they are wet and have messed up their bedclothes, because you would want to wash them off. Anyway, we need evidence that Patsy harmed JB that night, and there just isn't any. There is a head wound that was done with great force, strangling, and a a damaged vagina. Not red marks from being spanked for wetting the bed, which seems like behaviorly what some angry parent might do when a child has been continually wetting the bed. The mystery is, who inflicted the head wound? It had to have been John or Patsy. If it was Patsy, I think John would have woken up and would have convinced her to call for medical help. I don't think he would have orchestrated or gone along with the rest of the coverup when it was easier to say they both were dealing with a child throwing a tantrum and she bonked her head on the bathroom counter in the throes of said tantrum.
DeletePatsy had agreed to loan Linda $2,000 and Linda was going to pay her back. The money had nothing to do with paying Linda a bonus or severance. Linda recently had a fight with her sister about paying rent and needed the money quickly.
Delete"Not red marks from being spanked for wetting the bed, which seems like behaviorly what some angry parent might do when a child has been continually wetting the bed."
My theory is that the punishment Patsy inflicted had more to with how rough she cleaned JonBenet's vagina. This was a routine issue that obviously frustrated Patsy. Linda witnessed this frustration first hand. We are not just discussing bedwetting. Bedsoiling. In a frustrated state of mind, I think Patsy hastily scrubbed away the urine and feces off JonBenet, but not always sufficiently, which lead to chronic irritation and infections.
Hercule
1) She already lost her job. The Ramsey's never returned to that house.
ReplyDelete2) Linda was not supporting their innocence in this interview. At the end of it she said "The more I think about it, JonBenet could not have been killed by a stranger. I didn't even know THAT ROOM was there. How could a stranger know to go there? How in the world did this happen?"
3) She later disclosed her belief that PR accidentally killed JB and covered it up, and that she told the grand jury the same.
4) If you claim as an counter argument that you have read statements from Linda that "clearly" describe Patsy as you have, then please cite your sources. If your sources are documents that you are privvy to and no one else is, then please accept my skepticism. MM
Yes I know the Ramseys did not return to their house but how was Linda to know for certain that they would not return? - or not retain Linda's services wherever they decided to live?
ReplyDeleteJust because Linda stated the killer could not have been a stranger does not mean she was referring to Patsy. The Ramseys had lots of friends.
"If your sources are documents that you are privvy to and no one else is, then please accept my skepticism."
Linda was very outspoken. It is not difficult to find television interviews, transcripts, and samples of the book she began writing. For example, in one interview by Denver Post staff writer Mike McPhee, Linda stated, "At first, I didn't want to believe that Patsy could do such a thing. I loved her. But as time went on, things came to me that made me think she did it. I want Patsy Ramsey tomorrow to look in the mirror and say to herself, "I killed JonBenet."
Linda eleborated in her attempt to write a book, "You took her to the bathroom. It was the same destination you always took JonBenet when it was time to punish her for bedwetting. You forget that I saw you take her there so many times before, shutting the door tightly behind you, so her screams could not be heard."
I find that quote to be very telling. Linda witnessed JonBenet being "punished" by Patsy for having a bedwetting accident. Is it out of the realm of possibility that Patsy also could have "punished" JonBenet the night she was murdered?
Hercule
Hercule: first, the above quote is fictional. LHP is imagining what happened the night JB died. Her claim that Patsy used to take JB into the bathroom and scold or punish her for wetting or soiling, eliciting screams, is unsubstantiated by everyone else in their lives.
DeleteYou claim that LHP statements that Patsy was nice and caring were made because she was in fear for her job. I claim that her subsequent statements about Patsy as cruel were triggered by her anger at being accused of murder. How about we hear from people who no longer worked for the Ramseys, like Susanne, the nanny? She worked there from 1991-1993, during PRs bout with cancer. Linda Wilcox was a housekeeper during that period who quit because the house was too much work and the Ramseys did not pay well. I think her description of Patsy as the peacekeeper fits with what LHP (initially)and Susanne describe.
"Patsy was open with everyone. Even if you just worked for her, she treated you like a friend. She made you feel comfortable. "
Susanne Savage, former nanny
"Patsy's major job was to make sure nobody annoyed John. One of the things that really annoyed him was lots of noises, you know, (couldn't understand) noises, things like that. One day, I was there, it was during the summer, so Patsy and the kids were in Michigan, it was the summer of '95, probably June or July, I was in the master bedroom, upstairs, on the 3rd floor, vacuuming the floor, which was my job. I was finishing up. John Ramsey had come in during that time, probably through the garage, went up the stairs, turned off the vacuum, turned around and walked away."
Linda Wilcox, former housekeeper
Sorry about not signing the above post. MM
DeleteYou are only half correct about Linda's statement being fictional. Yes she was outlining a hypothetical situation but also included: "You forget that I saw you take her there so many times before..." That was the part that intrigued me.
DeleteI am not sure what point you are trying to make in regards to former housekeepers. I have no doubt that Patsy was friendly and amiable to just about everyone she knew. That is consistent with her being an extrovert and her personality type. What I am interested in is the side of Patsy that most people did NOT see.
Hercule
Hercule: I believe I dealt with the alleged factual part of LHP's quote when I wrote "Her claim that Patsy used to take JB into the bathroom and scold or punish her for wetting or soiling, eliciting screams, is unsubstantiated by everyone else in their lives. ". MM
DeleteYes I now see your intention. It was a bit confusing since you began your statement by saying "the above quote is fictional" instead of perhaps saying "the above quote is part of a hypothetical scenario...".
DeleteHercule
You're right, that would have been much more clear to the reader. Apologies! MM
DeleteHercule, this may be something you will address later concerning Patsy's behavior and, more specifically, the things she said. In one of their interviews (the one where Patsy holds up the reward poster, I believe) she says,
ReplyDelete"We feel that there are at least 2 people on the face of this earth that know who did this, and that is the killer and someone that that person may have confided in."
Interesting that she would assume the "killer" would confide in someone. Also interesting that she talks about TWO people knowing who the killer is. If the "killer" did confess, why would his/her confession be limited to just 1 other person? I caught this the very first time I heard it and wondered why she would say this.
emma
Hi Emma. Thank you for this contribution. There is some irony to Patsy's statement, but I have always considered it to be something that was scripted for her by an attorney or law enforcement. Reaching out to someone who knows the identity of the killer with promises of a reward is a fundamental strategy so I do not suspect that Patsy or John came up with the idea.
ReplyDelete"If the "killer" did confess, why would his/her confession be limited to just 1 other person?"
In the statement, Patsy does say "at least two" so there could be others.
Hercule
I am starting to wonder if Hercule is DocG...spicing up the conversation!
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think so! Doc has stated his theory, time and time again, and I think he's just taking a break with his other projects. Both Hercule and Doc are very, very intelligent and are excellent writers, so the temptation to think they are one in the same is there.
DeleteI have a feeling Doc is just sitting this one out until Hercule has concluded his theory with the clues he's been giving us and then he'lll post his rebuttal. I can't speak for others, but I'm sure I will then be TOTALLY undecided as to who the real murderer is in this case.
Hercule, thank you for your comment above. I believe you're right. I viewed this video clip of Patsy again and what she says does appear to be scripted, especially since the comment is given during their announcement of a reward. Again, I appreciate your reply. I suppose this was a bit of "cherry picking", as Doc often refers too, on my part: putting my own spin on something I've heard to have it fit a theory.
emma
LOL. I have been wondering if Hercule is JR and Emma is his current wife.
DeleteI can assure you that I am NOT JR's current wife!! Actually, until Hercule started posting here, I have been convinced of JR's guilt, based on Doc's blog. Doc has done an incredible job analyzing every aspect of this case and he has convinced me that JR is the murderer. But Hercule makes some good points and I am always one to listen to all theories. Plus I have always had a tiny suspicion about Patsy's involvement.
DeleteOne thing I know for sure: this was an inside job committed by someone in that family that night. And since I don't buy Kolar's theory of BDI, that leaves either JR or Pasty. JR is the most probable suspect, but I still want to know everything Hercule has to say to support his PDI theory.
No, I am not JR's current wife. That lip-licker creeps me out. LOL
emma
Agree, add the lip-licking to the list of behavioral issues for John (just joking). This whole subject of behavioral patterns is highly disturbing to me. Having a certain personality type does not make one a suspect for murder. It has to combined with facts/evidence/circumstances. I don't understand why Patsy is being subjected to this microscope, without putting John under the same microscope. In my view, he seems narcissistic, dishonest, prone to anger easily, was a detached husband and father, committed adultery, was unemotional, and other things that have been pointed out on this blog. I think that Steve Thomas is biased against women, or does not understand the female gender very well. As a policeman he did not ensure that due diligence was done to properly analyze John's handwriting or his investigate his background. If we put Thomas under the microscope, I'm sure we would find that he was grossly unqualified to conduct a murder investigation. For the sake of Boulder, I'm glad he has happily found a new career.
DeleteHercule, I am not sure why I am spending so much time rebutting your assessment of PR's personality, except that it seems so utterly wrong. She is described as weepy over not pleasing JR sexually; a messy, disorganized housekeeper; a mother who struggled to correct her children; a subservient wife to JR, and completely dependent on him financially. In other words, the opposite of a general. I can imagine that she got tired of changing JB's sheets and probably hollered about that from time to time. JB was strong-willed and her mother was heard on occasion to argue with her about her choice in outfits. But a pattern of strict, rigid, controlling behavior? No evidence. I am not convinced by one line from an angry former housekeeper pushing a book. MM
ReplyDeleteNor should you be. I had to do a lot of digging to unearth a lot of the information I aquired and I feel VERY comfortable with my assessment of Patsy. Linda Hoffmann-Pugh is merely one of many that paints a picture of her. The police did an excellent job of questioning, researching, documenting key events in Patsy's life, and from that, I can clearly see what fits quite nicely to the rest of the puzzle.
DeleteHercule
Agree with MM. Also, if you have ever been seriously ill, like Patsy was, and are a mother who is faced with dying before you see your children grow up, anger and abuse are something that is hard to muster when you feel so weak, tired, and afraid. The police did NOT do an excellent job of questioning, researching, documenting key events in John's life. Why didn't they do so? What was he doing in Holland, for example? Why did his family have to tip-toe around him to prevent angering him? None of this makes either of them an automatic suspect for murder, I would add. I just want to know why John is not being thoroughly investigated. I'm sure if someone came into our homes and watched us for a while, they might have some conclusions about our behavior, our family dynamic that you would object to as being conclusive about who you are as a person and whether you are capable of murdering or harming a child. As for Patsy, I know people who knew her. Not close friends, but acquainted through school and church activities. Their observations is that she was sweet, giving, humble, and seemed somewhat fearful of her husband. I would have been afraid of him, too!
DeleteHercule, sorry this is out of order, I was unable to post a direct reply. I see from your last post that you are continuing to claim access to special knowledge of PR's character that was not observed by others, even by people who spent all day with her for months and, in some cases, years. Until you choose to reveal the evidence you obtained by "digging," I will try to stay quiet. Just saying you have it, however, doesn't count :)
ReplyDeleteMM
As Emma has surmised, I've been sitting this one out, yes, waiting patiently for the original theory promised by Hercule to finally emerge. I've enjoyed the conversation thus far and seen several valid points made on both sides. What I have not seen, however, is Hercule's theory. What he has so far proposed is the theory offered by Steve Thomas, a theory I've addressed here, both directly and indirectly, for example, in this post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-deux.html
ReplyDeleteSince Patsy dunnit is without question the most widely accepted theory of the case, I fail to see what Hercule feels he is contributing that hasn't already been argued literally thousands of times. He initially referred to his content analysis of the note, and I'm still looking forward to reading that. As for the rest, I see nothing new.
Doc, it is good to have you back. I was beginning to worry about your health. You make a fair comment, however, I have went into more of the psychological aspects of the case to supplement Steve's theory since he did not venture far into that territory. It is also a good refresher and educates the readers, some of whom may not be familiar with the details of Steve's theory. There is much more to be covered. I was never one to put the cart before the horse. As long as you can remain patient and have no reservation about my presence here then I shall continue my efforts.
DeleteHercule
Hercules we all await your theory .....
ReplyDeleteIt is not so much a theory as it is an attempt to clearly demonstrate why Steve's theory should be considered the prevailing one. It is true that I will supplement his theory with thoughts and findings of my own, but I cannot accept credit for the foundation. I can, however, show everyone why we should eliminate John Ramsey as the killer.
DeleteI have learned that many people who think Steve's theory is ridiculous failed to understand the basis of it. I intend to prove he was correct by interjecting my expertise and a few of my own theories.
Hercule
Someone above (anonymous) stated to Hercule:
ReplyDelete"...honestly you should start your own blog and lay out your full case."
NO!! Hercule has managed to liven up the discussion on this blog, and I agree with him that people need to "share and question ideas, facts, evidence, and clues" in this case in order to move forward. I am not disputing Doc's theory at all. I am just always open to hear other theories, and Hercules has a theory that he feels certain about and is willing to share his reasons for it. Many posters here have different theories, but few are willing to explain their reasons for their theories, as Hercule is doing.
I am confident that Doc will reply once Hercule has concluded giving us all his "clues" and then we can all compare and come to our own conclusions.
emma
Thank you Emma. Well said. I do not expect that Doc will change his mind about his own theory once I have concluded my discussion, but I look forward to the impending debate that looms on the horizon, along with everyone else's thoughts.
DeleteHercule
At this time I would like to direct everyone to a link where you will find a page dedicated to statement analysis of Patsy's 911 call. The results of this particular analysis echo my own thoughts: The use of pronouns is a very powerful clue. I contend that Patsy exhibited deception and guilt by often avoiding the pronouns "I" and "My" instead choosing to use "We" and "Our". I encourage everyone to read this page in its entirety and later we can discuss the importance of this analysis.
Deletehttp://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/02/understanding-analysis-of-911-call-by.html?m=1
Hercule
Hercule, no offense but I feel like I'm watching the end of "A Few Good Men", when Colonel Jessop (might be spelled wrong) counters with, "You brought me all the way over here to discuss foot lockers and phone records? I hope you have more, tell me Danny, you do have more...?", except in this case it's Steve Thomas' borrowed theory and someone else's "I's" and "My's". You've lead us to believe something big is coming, but again, no offense, nothing so far, but fizzle.
DeleteBTW, I would describe my daughter the same way if my wife were nearby (our daughter). Interestingly enough, my wife uses the word "my" a lot when talking to someone else and I'm around. I tend to communicate shared ownership or responsibility. My wife tends to communicate her individual perspective or individual responsibility. I honestly don't see anything wrong with either, therefore I don't see anything wrong with the 911 call.
I've pointed the same thing out about JR in their shared interviews, where he uses a lot of "I's" and "my's" with PR sitting right next to him, though it doesn't make him guilty.
Jay
Hercule, I visited the page, though I didn't find the credentials of the person who wrote it. It was not well organized and I didn't finish reading all of it, but I got far enough to see that like Jay, it didn't resonate with me because I know plenty of people, myself included, with the speaking patterns of Patsy. Plus, she just woke up, was in fear, and possibly even feeling threatened by John (who had told her not to call), so I don't put much stock in this analysis other than if it were to lend support to a theory that is based on facts. If I were on a jury, I would not convict Patsy based on this. In fact, if the case were based on speech patterns, John sticks out like a sore thumb. Everything he said screamed "I am lying" to me!
ReplyDeleteHercule, the "statement analysis" you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme.
ReplyDelete"Statement Analysis, under various names, is the scientific study of words we use."
If statement analysis is indeed a subject of scientific study, then one ought to be able to cite specific studies that bolster one's interpretation of Patsy's 911 call. Yet nowhere do I see any reference to any such research. Deciding for oneself that such and such a term or such and such a phrase tells us something about the veracity of the speaker is the exact opposite of science. What we need to know is, for example, the percentage of such a usage as found in known examples of deceptive statements. I wonder whether research of that sort has ever been done, but I see no such references in this particular analysis.
It's all very subjective and looks to me as though it's based on little more than the author's prior conviction that Patsy must be guilty. Once you become convinced that someone must by lying the naturally everything they say (or do) becomes an object for suspicion.
There are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
ReplyDelete"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
There are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
ReplyDelete"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
There are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
ReplyDelete"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
There are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
ReplyDelete"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
There are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
ReplyDelete"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
Once again, a post by Hercule seems to have gotten lost. Luckily it arrived in my email -- but has failed to appear on this page. Not sure why this is happening, but whenever it does I'll repost it:
ReplyDeleteThere are some, including Doc, who do not feel that statement analysis should be seriously considered when determining the identity of the person responsible for a crime.
"Hercule, the 'statement analysis' you directed us to strikes me as amateurish in the extreme."
Interesting choice of words, Doc. I would venture to say that you and the majority of your blog readers would also be labeled as amateurish when comes to crime solving but that doesn't mean you can't make valid points or construct astute theories. Let me asure you, the author of that blog page was skilled in statement analysis. He didn't leave his name. So what? He chose to remain anonymous like most of us here. Statement analysis has proven to be consistently accurate. It is routinely used by law enforcement and the F.B.I. teaches this skill at their academy. I will now refer you to an article published by the F.B.I. that will concur the validity of the last link I posted.
http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct964.txt
Hercule
OK, Hercule, thanks for your reasonable response, and also for the very interesting link to the report by the FBI agent.
DeleteI need to clarify my use of the term "amateurish," which has a somewhat different meaning for me than the strict dictionary definition. Yes, we are all (or at least most of us) "amateurs," including myself. But you'll notice that I rarely use that term here, even when responding to posters whose analyses I have problems with. What makes something amateurish as far as I'm concerned, is not the fact that it was produced by a non-professional, but the sense I have that someone presenting himself as a professional is operating well below what I would regard as professional standards.
I have a feeling, for example, that both Thomas and Kolar regarded Lou Smit's analysis of the window and "stun gun" evidence as amateurish, despite the fact that Lou was, technically speaking, a professional. Perhaps you would agree. Similarly I regard the attempts by various questioned document "professionals," who claim to have proven Patsy wrote the note, as amateurish.
Whether the person who wrote the "statement analysis" of Patsy's 911 call is a "professional" or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned. Ditto with the presentation by the FBI agent, who does seem to be a "professional" of sorts -- though there is a huge difference between being a law enforcement professional and a trained psychologist.
Both presentations are seriously deficient as far as professional standards are concerned. If you are going to make a scientific claim you need to back it up with scientific evidence, not just hearsay. In neither presentation do I see specific references to specific research that could substantiate the claims being made, which in many cases strike me as absurd.
I can imagine the response in a courtroom to an attorney claiming an alleged rape victim was being deceptive because she used "we" when she should have used "I." Given the extreme sensitivity to the issue of rape that we see in the media these days, almost on a daily basis, I have a feeling that a "statement analysis" of that sort could end an attorney's career very abruptly.
While guidelines of the sort outlined by the FBI agent might be of some use as vague rules of thumb while investigating a case or conducting an interrogation, the idea that they can actually tell us whether or not someone is lying represents a huge leap that could never hold up in any court of law, outside of Iran, perhaps. To make such a claim one would need to back it up with tons of very serious and extensive research and even then it would be meaningful only on a statistical basis -- e.g., "according to research conducted by so and so, someone using such and such a pronoun in such and such a context is 65% likely to be lying."
Regardless of whether statement analysis has validity or not, the person who wrote this one failed to connect any dots for me. If there is science to this type of analysis, then how has it been applied, what are the credentials of the person applying the method, and what is the standard against which the conclusions were drawn. This particular analysis was very poorly written, and the conclusions left me saying "so what, lots of people talk the way Patsy does." If presented to a jury, one would have to be able to demonstrate why they should believe such an analysis, for one thing. As a jury member, I would want a statement analysis on all suspects who were investigated and interviewed, especially the father of the victim.
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading the Statement Analysis. Although I feel it was a bit of an over analysis, I do think it raised some interesting points. Doc is right: it's not scientific. However, much of the analysis of JR's behavior done in this blog is not scientific either. In fact, very little in this case is based on scientific evidence. That's why this case has never been solved. So many of us have speculated on who we believe the murderer is based on the behaviors and statements made by JR or Patsy (and if you're Kolar, Burke too).
ReplyDeleteDid JR write the RN because of his use of percentages and words typically used by men or business people? OR did Patsy write it because of the use of so many exclamation points and the words "and hence?" Did JR write it because of all the threats in it to keep the authorities away and give him time to dispose of the body OR did Patsy write those threats to convince us that the note had to be written by some vicious, violent criminals? The RN can point to either JR or Patsy.
Regarding the 911 call, I agree with the posters above that the language Patsy used cannot definitively point to her as the murderer. Just like the RN cannot definitively point to either JR or Patsy as the writers. However, I have to admit that the first time I heard the 911 call, I did think some of her choices of words and information she gave were odd. Odd enough that it caught my attention: "WE have a kidnapping" "She's six years old and she's BLONDE" "I'm THE mother" And she never mentions JonBenet's name. Very odd.
My point is, I think we can all analyze both the RN and the 911 call and find oddities in both that can point to either JR or Patsy. None of these oddities are conclusive. They are just observations. Just like the observations that Det. Linda Arndt made of JR. As she stated, they can only be noted.
I'm beginning to think the Grand Jury got it right --- that BOTH parents were responsible to some degree or another. BOTH parents said things that were odd and had behaviors that were suspicious. BOTH parents lawyered up. BOTH parents have continually defended each other. I'm not completely convinced who killed JonBenet, or why, but I am pretty certain they BOTH knew about it and covered it up.
I can hear Doc now asking, why, then, would they call 911 only to invite all the authorities over and risk having them find the body? Well, first of all, they also invited a bunch of other people over too. And I don't think that was because Patsy needed the comfort of her friends there, even though she probably wanted it to appear that way. I believe they made the 911 call because it fit the behavior that would be expected of parents who have just discovered their daughter missing, despite the warnings in the RN.
So why even bother putting so many threats in the RN? I believe there are 2 reasons. One, it made it look like the note was really written by violent kidnappers. And, two, it made it look like the kidnappers would stop at nothing to kill JonBenet. After all, the Ramseys knew her body would ultimately be found. Again, I can hear Doc asking, then why would the "kidnappers" leave an incriminating RN behind if they had already killed her? I don't think the Ramseys thought about that when writing the note. They just knew they had to leave a RN to make it look like there was someone else in the house that night and they had to make the note threatening enough so that when her body was found, the authorities would believe the kidnappers killed her.
Doc has done an excellent job of convincing me that JR is responsible for JonBenet's death, but I have always felt a bit haunted by my suspicions of Patsy. Now, after Hercule has caused me to look once again at Patsy, I think it's likely they both were involved. It's the only way to explain the behaviors, statements and actions exhibited by each of them.
emma
Thanks, emma, for your very thoughtful post. You make some excellent points. However:
Delete"Doc is right: it's not scientific. However, much of the analysis of JR's behavior done in this blog is not scientific either. In fact, very little in this case is based on scientific evidence."
The "statement analysis" claims to be scientific when it is not. Neither I nor just about anyone posting here has ever claimed that our take on this case was scientific. Unless we have invoked the work of actual scientists, such as Dr. Wecht, for example. My reasoning is based not on science, but on certain undisputed facts, plus logical inferences based on those facts. I make no claim to being an expert on forensic science. And as we know very well, many who have made such claims have failed miserably to come up with a reasonable theory that resolves all the many contradictions presented by this case.
"I believe they made the 911 call because it fit the behavior that would be expected of parents who have just discovered their daughter missing, despite the warnings in the RN." But not calling 911 would also have fit the behavior of innocent parents. They could certainly have claimed they were afraid to call the police because of the threats in the note. And delaying that call would have given them the opportunity to get the body out of the house first.
If they were reluctant to take such a risk, then there was no point in them writing that note in the first place, which also represented a risk. A huge risk, as it meant handing over evidence that could be used against them. These were not a couple of blithering idiots on drugs, but educated, successful people who would have thought through every ramification of what they were doing (assuming they were working together on a coverup). The note itself is not the rambling incoherent product of someone acting in a total panic. It's well constructed and meaningful, with careful attention paid to margins, dotted i's, grammar, etc.
I must repeat that I find it impossible to believe that someone who had gone to all that trouble to compose a long "ransom" note that could easily have explained a delay in calling the police, would want to undercut the effect of that note by calling 911 with the body of her victim still in the house. The notion that the presence of such note would somehow lead the police to accept a failed kidnapping attempt strikes me as incredibly naive. Patsy was no ditz and neither was John. Such a "plan" makes no sense and they would certainly have seen that. And if they had second thoughts about dumping the body, they would certainly have not handed over that note, which did them no good and to this day has convinced millions around the world that this was an inside job and that the note was faked.
Thanks for your reply, Doc. As always, I enjoy your comments and respect your opinions.
Delete"But not calling 911 would also have fit the behavior of innocent parents. They could certainly have claimed they were afraid to call the police because of the threats in the note. And delaying that call would have given them the opportunity to get the body out of the house first."
I do not believe that delaying the 911 call also fits the behavior of innocent parents. Even JR stated in one of his interviews that the parents are often the first to be suspected (I believe he used a percentage!). If there had been such a delay in notifying the police, I think that would be a red flag for the police and the police would then want to know what the Ramseys did during this time period, and the Ramseys would then have to construct a new set of lies to explain everything that happened. They could easily get tripped up in their story. Further, I don't believe people question why they called the police under the veil of the RN threats because anyone (especially parents) can imagine the panic and hopelessness they themselves would feel if their child was suddenly missing. You call 911 to get help. For all your know, the "kidnappers" are going to kill your child anyway.
Additionally, I don't believe they wanted to dispose of the body. Certainly not Patsy. JonBenet's body was carefully wrapped in her favorite blanket and hidden. If they wanted to dispose of the body, why not put it in the trunk of the car ready to go? I assume their car was in the garage and no one would see them doing this.
"If they were reluctant to take such a risk, then there was no point in them writing that note in the first place, which also represented a risk."
I don't believe the body was left in the house because of any risk of being seen if they dumped it. Rather, I believe it was left in the house because one, or both, of the Ramseys could not bring themselves to dump their daughter's body in some ditch or wooded area. Regardless of why she was killed, I have to suspect that whoever killed her was feeling great guilt and possibly remorse over it. Dumping the body would only magnify those feelings.
"I must repeat that I find it impossible to believe that someone who had gone to all that trouble to compose a long "ransom" note that could easily have explained a delay in calling the police, would want to undercut the effect of that note by calling 911 with the body of her victim still in the house."
Yes, the note was very thoughtfully composed and written. And whoever wrote the note took great lengths to disguise their handwriting --- perhaps even copying the Courier font on a computer, as you have so brilliantly suggested. There would still remain some risk of being linked to writing the note -- a huge risk indeed -- however, having the body in the house WITHOUT a RN is a much greater risk, imo. My belief is that the RN was a planted red herring leading police to suspect an intruder, not a device to create additional time to dispose of the body.
forgot to sign . . .
Deleteemma
Doc, I agree with the logical flow of your analysis, and I hope that everyone wants to see this case go to court. You have put together the best case by far, and as you have said, its up to John now to explain himself, at which time he can say that he colluded with Patsy in some way on this crime, he can try to blame it all on her, or he could (thought I doubt he would), bring in Burke as part of the blame. Like you said, we just need to see this thing go to trial and get some answers. I do not think they were in it together, because I think they would have argued all night and into the morning about the best way to go. There was no reason to call the police that early in the morning if both were scheming together.
ReplyDeleteYes, and thank you. The bottom line on all this endless to-do over this case is: 1. there obviously was no intruder; 2. whether Patsy or John killed JonBenet and regardless of who wrote the ransom note, John unquestionably was involved in a big way and has been lying; 3. as I've demonstrated over and over, there is more than enough probable cause to indict John Ramsey for the murder of his daughter, even if there remains some very remote possibility that either Patsy or Burke could have done it. So why not, very simply: indict him!
DeleteOnce he's been charged, he'll be in a position to plea bargain with the authorities, and if he wants to finger either Patsy or Burke that will be his chance. And if he refuses to cooperate then he'll be tried and likely convicted, because it will not be difficult to prove there was no intruder. And if it turns out that he isn't the murderer after all (which I don't buy for a minute, but some here do), let him rot in jail after all. He would certainly deserve it regardless.
Until the DNA is identified, especially the sample that was entered into CODIS, JR will remain "untouchable". The odds of that happening (identifying the dna) are astronomical... But it's still fun to slueth.
ReplyDeleteJay
As I see it, all it would take would be a new DA with a real commitment to solving this case and some real guts. And/or an aggressive reporter willing to dig into the methods and motives of the handwriting "experts" who ruled John out. To me it's that decision that's sent the case into limbo and the ONLY way to resolve it is to expose their incompetence and rule John back IN.
DeleteImo the DNA is a non-issue, because it wouldn't be difficult to find experts to testify regarding the likelihood of secondary (and tertiary) transfer from an innocent source.
Hi there, I'm an interested reader and lurker on this great blog, and feel compelled to add my thoughts, for what it's worth- my first post! Firstly, full credit to docG for having the courage to go against the majority opinion and show John Ramsey's guilt, and the evidence of his full involvement in this terrible crime. Shocking that poor little Jon Benet could be killed so brutally her own parent(s) and never have any justice.
ReplyDeleteWhile docG has done a great job of exposing JR's lies, deceit and involvement up to his neck in the murder of his own daughter (unbelievable how he has been given a pass by so many!), I personally cannot see Patsy as being innocent and not involved as well. In my opinion, she was at least involved in the coverup. For me, both parents had guilty knowledge and conspired to cover up this crime, although I don't feel 100 per cent sure who the actual murderer is/was. I don't believe anyone will ever know for sure now, unless people who knew the Ramseys begin to talk once JR dies. He will never admit anything, and I don't believe any family members, including Burke, will ever speak of what they know.
My gut instinct is that JR probably molested and killed Jon Benet, and that Patsy knew about both things, and had her own reasons for helping to cover it up. I don't agree with docG that she would never do such a thing to her 'beloved' daughter, because awful though it is, such things do happen. I think Patsy loved Jon Benet conditionally, as an object, but might have also been very unloving and cold towards her daughter when she wanted to be.
After reading an old thread called Lawyering Jon Benet on Forums for Justice, I feel convinced that Patsy being the one to call 911 does not necessarily mean she couldn't have been the killer. I believe that she wrote the ransom note, telling John to use his money, power and influence to keep the police off their backs, and that that's exactly what he did.
I believe that John called his attorney Mike Bynum on the night of the murder, before the 911 call was made, and that Patsy made the call with both parents knowing that a fix was already in place at that time. This had gone over the heads of the Boulder Police, to higher powers above them, and the Ramsey's knew that they would be protected, and that the 'kidnapping' would not be investigated too thoroughly. I think that's why Linda Arndt had to wait so long for back up to arrive, etc.
For me, either the parents couldn't get rid of the body themselves for some reason (possibly because Burke woke up and foiled the plan or something), or they simply couldn't bear to dump it. They then decided that Patsy would make the 911 call knowing they would be 'safe' . I think that the Boulder Police were out of their depth on the night of the murder, but had honourable intentions, but that Alex Hunter was possibly corrupt, as well as incompetent. He, Mike Bynum and others had business links to John Ramsey, and therefore possible financial motives of their own to protect him. JR has been protected ever since. I think Patsy was protected as a by-product if that, but only because she was John's wife.
Of course, all of this is only my opinion, and like everyone else who comments on this case, I might be completely wrong. So sorry for such a marathon post! There is just so much to cover in this perplexing case.
Well, first of all, thanks for your kind words. I’m really pleased to learn that so many reading here find it a meaningful experience – regardless of whether or not they agree with me. And of course anyone has a perfect right to disagree.
DeleteNevertheless, I must say it gets a bit tiring to hear the same old arguments regarding Patsy’s involvement in either the murder or the staging. This is, of course, THE most popular take on the case by far, and yes, I must admit, there are, as you say, some good reasons for suspecting her. However, at the risk of repeating myself, let me stress the following points:
1. Yes, it’s hard to believe that John, if acting alone, would have been so confident that Patsy (or Burke) wouldn’t have awaked and caught him in the act. This is an example of what could be called an “assumption made in hindsight.” In other words, it’s easy to assume on the basis of what we know from hindsight that we actually know what would have happened during the event as it took place in real time. In fact, we don’t.
We assume that, had Patsy awakened, and discovered John in the basement with JonBenet, that she would have foiled his plan and called the police – or else decided (for some unfathomable reason) to act as his accomplice. And we therefore assume that John would not have dared assault JonBenet knowing that he could be discovered by an innocent Patsy. We forget that someone who had just murdered his own daughter in cold blood to keep her quiet would have had very little problem silencing anyone else who might have gotten in his way during that same episode. In other words, if Patsy had discovered what was going on, she too would have been murdered, and the case would now look very different. That contingency may well have been part of John’s planning from the start.
We also need to consider the possibility that John could have drugged Patsy and Burke earlier that evening, to make sure they would sleep soundly. Why not? If he’d been contemplating any sort of liaison with his daughter that night, to either have sex with her or murder her, he would not have wanted to be discovered in the act.
2. Assuming there was no intruder, the only explanation for the ransom note is that it was part of a plan designed to stage a kidnapping. And the plan is clearly evident in the note itself. If the purpose was simply to confuse the police, then why all the detail regarding the “foreign faction,” the exact amount of the ransom, the use of an "attache" and a paper bag, the exact timing of the phone call (that would never come in any case), the emphasis on John as the designated ransom deliverer, the many dire warnings about not calling the police, etc.? It’s clear to me at least that the purpose of the note was to provide a rationale for John to dump the body the following night while claiming to have been delivering the ransom. Everything in the note is consistent with such a plan.
The idea that the Ramseys would be going to all this trouble to stage a failed kidnapping, is simply beyond belief. What it looked like from the beginning was not a failed kidnapping but a failed staging. And I’m convinced that’s exactly what it was. And if it failed, it could only have been because Patsy made that call. To assume that the existence of a ransom note for a kidnapping that never took place could have been part of their plan from the start strikes me as absurd.
More presently . . .
3. The idea that Patsy could have been reluctant to dump her child's body in the woods somewhere would make sense if she hadn't already dumped the body in the filthiest corner of the basement. I'm sorry but I'm not buying "parental concern" for the body of a child they'd just bludgeoned, sexually violated, strangled for good measure, and then hidden away in that cold, dirty windowless room. And what would have been the point of hiding the body in the first place if the plan was to call the police before removing it? Obviously it was going to be found and obviously that was going to look very suspicious indeed -- which is what it did look like and which is why so many remain convinced this was an inside job.
Delete4. Assuming JonBenet was killed by either her father or mother, it's very difficult to understand why the other spouse would go to such trouble and take such a huge risk to cover for the guilty party. It's been said that Patsy was used to their luxurious lifestyle and supported John for fear she'd lose everything. However, if John had been convicted of murder, his millions would probably have wound up in her hands. She would certainly have had grounds for divorce and as his spouse would have wound up with at least half of their marital property, if not the entire wad. The issue of "family honour" has been raised and I'm sorry but I don't see that as a motive for risking life imprisonment.
5. If they'd been in it together, there would have been no reason to delay questioning by the police. They would have agreed on a story and then "fully cooperated." Instead, they stalled for months, which made them look even more suspicious. As I see it, John (and his legal team) would have needed time to work on Patsy and make sure she didn't contradict his version of what happened. I can see no other reason for that long delay.
6. Same with the pineapple evidence. If they'd been working together they'd have had no problem reporting that, yes, JonBenet had had some pineapple before going to bed. However, if John had fed her that pineapple and Patsy knew nothing about it, then it would have been necessary for John to also deny any knowledge of it.
If you read enough in this blog (or the book) you'll find many other reasons to focus on John and not Patsy. But as I wrote in my post entitled "Desperately Seeking Patsy," the decision to rule out John convinced a great many that Patsy must "be the one," and once such a meme becomes entrenched it's almost impossible to refute it.
With regard to item #1, as you say, JR may have had to kill twice (or thrice) if the others had woke up. But, it's also possible that he would not have gone that far, and that he simply would have given up at that point. We really don't know whether the murder was premeditated or not, so we really don't know if JR had already formed a plan that including killing PR/BR if necessary. That there was only one murder, and that JR didn't go to jail is a pretty good indicator that no one woke up before JR had set the stage for PR to find the RN. Of course it all went pear shaped at that point because PR apparently didn't read the RN fully, or didn't take the warnings seriously. I would have dismissed the warnings as hyperbole and called 911. I can fully understand PR doing the same.
DeleteWith regard to item #4, not only was life in prison being risked, but quite possibly the death penalty.
With respect to other posters, the idea that PR was involved just doesn't add up, for exactly the reasons Doc lists. It would have gone down very differently if Patsy was in on it.
CH
Hi docG, thanks for your prompt response to my post above (sorry I forgot to sign my initials LC), and for rebutting all of my points in such a respectful way! I knew you would rebut them, of course, and you do always make perfect sense.
DeleteI agree with pretty much everything you have shown about the evidence that John Ramsey was the killer (apart from not being sure he wrote the ransom note), and I do get your logical arguments that Patsy couldn't have been involved. I wish I could take that aspect on board fully, but I really truly feel stuck on the issue of Patsy's involvement. (As do many others, as you say). Sorry, it must be very irritating when you feel sure otherwise.
It might totally be the case that John would have had no problem also killing Patsy or Burke if they had discovered him "in the act", and following on from this, can also take your point that it's hard to believe that any parent who had done such awful things to their own child, would then suddenly become too sentimental to consider dumping the body. You have to wonder, though, if the body was cruelly hidden in a filthy basement, why take such care to wrap it up and show signs of "caring" or "undoing" the crime afterwards? For whose benefit, and who exactly was the body hidde from? Purely the police, or from a spouse as well?
I also completely see the what you feel is the obvious message in the ransom note, too, and can see why it can seem obviously written by John. My problem is that I also can't help interpreting the ransom note from a different perspective. To me, it seems to be a message from Patsy to John, warning him that he must do all he can to use his influence and contacts to "make this go away, or else". It almost reads to me like blackmail- as if Patsy had knowledge about John she could use if she needed to. I wondered if maybe she might take part in the cover up, because she was guilty in a lesser way, of possibly knowing beforehand of John's abuse of Jon Benet, but not doing anything to protect her.
I realise as I'm typing this, that this is all getting into speculation without hard facts. I suppose the bottom line is that, like so many others, I can't shake my suspicions about Patsy very easily. I think this is just down to instinct and interpretation rather than hard facts, whereas you for example don't see the same things in her words and behaviour. To me, when I hear the 911 call or watch any of the TV interviews, both Patsy and John seem equally "off" and "not right" to me.
Sorry for rambling on, and I'll disappear back to reading and lurking again now! I'll continue to watch and read everyone's posts with interest. Sadly, I don't think there will ever be any justice for Jon Benet, but we would wish that perhaps one day the real truth of what happened to her that night will filter out. Here's hoping, anyway.
Oh, I nearly forgot to mention also- in relation to my suspicions about how much the lawyers were all involved in possibly 'fixing' this case, I've always wondered (maybe I'm a bit dense), what it could mean that although John, Patsy and Burke all had separate lawyers, only John had lawyers for other extended members of his side of the family, not Patsy? I suppose that would back up DocG's argument that it was John who possibly had much more to hide? Sorry again for another long post.
LC
Had a thought about the befringement material. Whether or not the paintbrush was used or a finger, in either case, the question begs, "Why stage a sexual assault if JB had already been penetrated that night?" Could it be that she wasn't molested that night, at least not until the staging? Another observation that dawned on me is if the befringement material from the paintbrush came from the perp's finger, then it looks as though the perp broke the paintbrush first, likely assembling the garotte, and then staging the sexual assault with his/her finger.
ReplyDeleteThe befringement material could likely indicate that the murder was not connected to JB being molested, at least not that particular night. Just my thoughts.
Jay
When I first started following this case, years ago, I always said the pineapple evidence was powerful evidence. Then, after researching and reading about this case all these years, I became aware of all the other bits and pieces that are equally important to this case.
ReplyDeleteBut after reading Doc's post above -- specifically #6 -- I am once again convinced how important that pineapple is. We know that pineapple was found in JonBenet's stomach and that no pineapple was served at the White's dinner that night. That means she had to have eaten it that night. And I would venture to say that someone fed it to her; that it is unlikely she wandered downstairs by herself to eat it. I have raised two children of my own and they never woke in the middle of the night and helped themselves to a snack. In fact, the only thing that would ever even wake them would be nightmares, someone waking them, or feeling sick.
So let's assume someone did feed her that pineapple. Why lie about it? Doc's point is right on here. If Patsy had done it, she could have easily said she did so after cleaning up after JonBenet's bedwetting episode, which she claims she did nightly (the cleaning up after bedwetting). John was never involved getting up when JonBenet wet the bed. So what excuse could he possibly give for offering her this snack?
Both Patsy and JR claim they know nothing about the pineapple. Isn't that odd?? Moreover, isn't it odd that THEY didn't wonder about this? Do they honestly think an intruder fed her the pineapple?? Certainly an intruder could have not lured JonBenet downstairs without her calling out to her parents. It HAD to be either JR or Patsy. Think about it. Now ask yourself why each says they didn't know anything about it. Because Patsy didn't. And because JR couldn't admit he did or else he'd have to explain what he was doing up with JonBenet. Doc is absolutely correct on this point.
So once again, I believe that pineapple speaks volumes.
bb