Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Open Thread Part Three
My last post is being overwhelmed with comments and getting a bit difficult to navigate. Time to open up some new space. And hopefully consider some new topics.
We can only speculate on what happened that night in 1996 and why but we can as doc states come to conclusions based on certain behaviours and actions that were noted as odd I have been aware of this crime since it first occurred and have followed it on and off never fully being 100% certain of who I feel was guilty however there were certain things that stood out to me and have stayed with me these are as follows.
1.Both Ramseys stated that when they found the note they checked on Burke and found him thankfully asleep but don't you think it very strange that given their other child was missing and they by then knew someone had been in their home they wouldn't have woken Burke up and frantically questioned did he hear/see anything ?
2. When pasty was questioned by the police they told her they had fibre evidence and it was scientific her response was 'I don't give a flying flip go retest I didn't do it, my life has been he'll...' This is a natural response from someone who is innocent she didn't try to explain it away she was not afraid of what they might have because she knew she didn't do it this would be how I would respond.
3. When John was questioned and they stated fibres from his shirt were found in Jonbenet crotch his response was anger .. not disbelief he didn't say that's impossible how could that be just anger and cursing.. this seemed to me an unnatural response.
These are things that have stuck out to me and led me to believe there was certainly no intruder. What does anyone else think?.
1. No. No reason to wake him. He obviously didn't see anything, otherwise he'd be awake and telling his parents something happened. If he heard anything it wasn't something that alarmed him because again he'd be awake and telling JR/PR about it.
2. The fiber evidence is inconclusive. It could be there from secondary or tertiary... transfer.
3. The fiber evidence is inconclusive for JR too, and he may have thought that the police were making it up, hence the anger.
I don't agree there no need to awaken your other child when one child is missing presumed kidnapped even if not to question that child which is imo odd at the very least a parent would be so panicked and horrified that a precious child is missing that you would as a parent have inbuilt need to wake up the only child left to make absolutely sure he was unharmed .
You are of course free to disagree, but be careful not to assume everyone would act in the same manner under the same circumstances. Trying to solve the case by deciding how people should/shouldn't have acted is a trap to avoid.
Bottom line, they are lying about Burke not being woken. And, if they were covering up for him, why did one of them call the police before carrying out the "kidnapping"? LE
I have a knew element of the story to consider. The Maglite is thought to have been the weapon used to cause the blunt force trauma to JB's head, but I have two questions, first, why was the Maglite pulled out of the drawer to begin with? Both PR and JR claim it is rarely used. Second, why did the perp put the notepad and pen back, but not the Maglite? In fact, the same question applies to the bowl of pineapple and glass of tea, if they are truly connected somehow to the crime. Thoughts?
Good question, Jay. My best guess is, very simply: confusion on the part of the killer, who could have been pressed for time with too many loose ends to tie up.
It may suggest that the ransom note was more thought out than the rest of the crime. Having time to think about writing the note means you can factor in things like replacing the pad and pen to their original location.
I have another topic to discuss. From the autopsy report, we see that there was a considerable amount of blood cleaned up from JB's thighs, however several drops were found in her underwear. There are reports that indicate blood was also found on her blanket, nightgown, and night shirt. I have two questions, first, what did the perp use to clean her up with, and where did they dispose of it? From what I recall, the Police never discuss it with PR or JR. This location would help shed light on where she was sexually assaulted. Second, if there was considerable blood from digital penetration that night, wouldn't there have been considerable blood on previous occasions, if she was chronically abused. And if so, wouldn't someone have found evidence showing that prior to Dec. 26th? Thoughts?
I think John disposed of the cleaning items during that hour he disappeared on the 26th. He could have flushed them, for example. Had the police shown up to assist Linda Arndt, he might not have gotten away with all that he did during that hour. As far as the assault, I think he did the damage to try and cover up the chronic abuse. He somewhat succeeded in that, right? There are still those that argue there was no evidence of chronic abuse, just the traumatic abuse from that night. I think Doc has covered all this and I might have it wrong, but if John or Patsy was covering up for Burke, would Patsy, for example, even know about the need to cover up chronic abuse. None of the pieces of this puzzle fit together unless we go with the JDI theory. That's why I'm sort of done with this discussion and feel that our next move ought to be to get media attention on this. I know an investigative reporter (knew him in college) and would like to ask him if he wants to pick up this JDI story. LE
You ask an excellent question, Jay. Actually the most common source of blood when penetrating a virgin would be from breaking the hymen. However, if she had already been molested in a similar way in the past, her hymen would possibly have been broken already. Cleaning up the blood on an earlier occasion would not have been such a big problem, especially if the two of them were home alone at the time. The interesting question is: assuming her hymen had already been broken, then what would have been the source of blood after the murderous attack?
I think we have no choice but to rely on the autopsy report and its interpretation by Wecht and others, who never seemed to have a problem with the source of blood. I suppose it came from traumatic injury to the vagina itself. As for how it was cleaned up from her body, I'd assume by a towel of some sort, possibly a paper towel. The towel could then have been cut up into tiny pieces and flushed down the toilet.
Anything you can do to encourage an investigative reporter to dig into this would be welcome, LE. I'd think the first step would be to look into the circumstances under which John was ruled out as writer of the note. Imo that's the key obstacle to prosecution of this case.
Regarding the discussion of whether Burke was awake or not and the Ramseys statement that they chose not to wake him . . .
Wasn't it JR that went to check on Burke while Patsy made the 911 call? Perhaps JR found Burke asleep and it was HIS decision not to wake him. If I were the one who had been up that night molesting and then murdering my daughter, I think I would want a chance to talk to Burke alone first to determine if he heard or saw anything. This conversation would have to take place without Patsy, of course. So JR tells Patsy that it would be best if they don't wake him. Once he awoke, we don't know for sure who talked to him first, do we?
I found this discussion from James Kolar's book relevant to the discussion of whether or not Burke was awake...apparently others were worried about it that morning:
"Over the course of interview, conducted on January 1, 1997, Barb Fernie shared a concern that had raised a question for her. As things were developing in the house on the morning of December 26th, she had begun to ask if Burke had awakened yet. She was aware that like her son, Burke was an early riser and typically got up in the morning around 5:30 a.m. She and her husband had been at the house for a while, and like others, were beginning to wonder if Burke was sitting up in his bedroom, awake and alone, while all of the commotion was going on downstairs.
She pointed out a discrepancy that created some additional concern for her. She told the investigators that Patsy Ramsey had told her on the morning of December 26th that she had just “given the ransom note to John,” after finding it on the spiral staircase.
More importantly, however, Mrs. Fernie stated that she didn’t know Patsy had screamed out for her husband that morning. She apparently was under the impression, based on her conversation with Patsy on the morning of the kidnapping, that she had somehow just handed off the note to her husband. Several days later, it didn’t make sense to her that Burke would not have been awakened when Patsy screamed John’s name.
Mrs. Fernie had been pondering the question: If John Ramsey had been able to hear Patsy scream from his bathroom on the 3rd floor of the house, why not Burke? His bedroom was just down the hall."
Yes, I've thought about Patsy's scream to JR too. Certainly that would startle Burke awake. Whether he actually got up and left his room is debated. I would guess that he just laid there wondering what was going on until JR checked on him. JR says he was asleep, but if he wasn't, what would the purpose of lying about that be? Could he have had a quick conversation with Burke and then told him to stay in his room? I believe Patsy was calling 911 at this time.
If I recall correctly, years later the Ramseys stated that Burke was awake and lying in bed wondering what was going on. He had apparently testified so to grand jury, so they needed to change their story that he was asleep.
It continues to boggle my mind that neither parent woke him to speak to him or to check on his well being. For all they knew, he could have been drugged or knocked unconscious. I have not been a fan of the theory that they colluded that night, but I don't understand how the innocent parent would let him lie there alone that morning. MM
I agree that Burke should have immediately been awakened and questioned. However, the police also failed to question him that morning, and it was their responsibility to investigate the situation, not the Ramsey's. The Ramseys could always claim they were confused and too focused on JonBenet's kidnapping to pay attention to Burke, once they realized he was safe. Don't know what excuse the police had. Other than incompetence.
Just a passing thought, but given what's now coming out in the UK with regard to paedophiles and historic child abuse (Jimmy Savile, Lord Janner etc) do we think that Jon Benet was used in some sort of larger ring involving JR and / or PR?
Would that make more sense of the autopsy report and chronic abuse?
If that's the case then does it change the way the investigation can be viewed, i.e. not incompetence but perhaps more of a cover up or obfuscation from higher up or external pressure, perhaps taking advantage of the disarray of the initial few hours of police investigation?
The Ramsey case is exactly the sort of thing that would have blown such a ring wide open. To me its inconceivable that, had a pedophile ring existed, we'd would not have had some indication of that by now.
Fair point, however the cases I mention above have been hidden from the general public for 30 years or more, mostly with the help of people in positions of power able to provide aerial cover when needed.
Also the same could be said for the perpetrator of the murder, it's now nearly 20 years since Jon Benet died, surely someone should have been charged and put behind bars by now? But we're no closer to a conviction or even an arrest now than the day it happened.
However all that being said imo clearly someone in that house carried out the crime, with or without the help (including covering up) of other family members. Anything external to that is not directly related, except to possibly speak to motive.
I think most of the posters here agree with Doc that JR is guilty, including me. Though sometimes I have considered Patsy's involvement, I have always come back to the conclusion that she is completely innocent. I also firmly believe that Burke is innocent. And I strongly believe that there was no intruder that night, based on the fact that the police found no forced entry. Besides JR, Patsy, Burke or an intruder, the only other possibility in my mind would be someone with a key --- an acquaintance of the family. It seems entirely possible that someone could have taken a key from someone in the family and then made a copy of it. This would open up a wide field of possible suspects and I wonder if the police thoroughly checked out these people. Knowing that the police and detectives did such a sloppy job of investigating this crime, I can't help but wonder if they missed something important when it came to investigating possible "friendly intruders".
If there was, in fact, a friend or acquaintance of the family that had been molesting Jon Benet and she then told that person that she was going to tell, that person could have masterminded the un-forced entry into the house, the murder and the subsequent staging to throw the authorities off the track. I'm going to do some research on this and get back with my thoughts. It just seems like the primary suspects have always been someone in the family --- with the stranger intruder ruled out. But there hasn't been much discussion about someone who knew the family, someone who could have gained access into the house without a forced break-in.
I took the possibility of someone with a key into account on this blog and in my book. The absence of forced entry is only one of several reasons to reject the intruder theory.
DocG, the person who committed this crime, when all evidence is properly examined, including DNA evidence which could not have arrived in the places it did by any innocent means, leads any reasonable person to dismiss RDI theory and look into the fact that a Highly intellectually gifted, yet emotionally and mentally damaged sociopath committed these crimes. This was a thrill kill put on by a sophisticated criminal who preplanned this crime. Search histories were looked at. There is no evidence whatsoever, and trust me, the FBI is well aware that there are nuances within the notes of movie quotes, etc. that John Ramsey had either watched any of the movies quoted or was in any way shape or form the author of the note. Your theory is almost as ludicrous as the BDI crowd. This child was garroted with a noose, she was sexually violated with an object, her skull was bashed so hard that she would've eventually died from the wounds, she was fed her favorite food before all of this. There was too much evidence found on the scene, and everything pointed at the Ramsey's. A sophisticated cover of this magnitude would have required serious preplanning, and the fact that all fingers ended up pointing BACK at the family really, really removes any likelihood in logic that they are responsible.
A thrill killer planned the attack for what probably took at least months, and at least a week or so of staking out. The intruder could have easily gone through the window as observed by Smit. The fact that one tries to look at why and how with logic on a thrill kill shows to me you are very unfamiliar with the term and what it means. Thrill killers do not operate under logic or reasoning. Dennis Rader referred to this as "Factor X". They do it just for laughs. The whole thing was staged to make a fool of the police, the FBI, and all who took this case, the Ramsey's were not the real targets. They were in a sense because they probably represented something that the perpetrator didn't have. I suspect he is of low economic status, but exceptionally gifted. Probably has a history of sexual abuse to minors, and definitely gets more kicks off of murder than sexual abuse.
The facts have been warped to fit RDI. The real evidence that everyone should be looking at is the DNA. There is no logical explanation for it. It was found in three spots, under the fingernails of JBR, and on two articles of clothing, one was found on the interior side of the panties. It was most likely sweat, seeing as during the garroting the perpetrator would have been exhibiting force, causing him perspiration.
This continuous badgering of the Ramsey's is nonsense. John Ramsey did not write the note. His wife is only kept on as a possible due to a few nuances, and because the detectives to this point have nothing else to go on. They cannot be completely ruled out as suspects simply because it is an active investigation, and although publicly cleared, they must remain suspects until all the details are sorted out, in case they are connected in any way shape or form. I find this to be very, very unrealistic.
Your lack of knowledge of thrill killing, of fake ransom notes, of trolling, leads me to believe you are very limited as to real criminology and profiling.
The "thrill killer" you are describing sounds like a monster. Do you really believe such a monster would have been able to wake JonBenet up, lead her downstairs and then feed her pineapple without her making a sound? Or that he would even DARE to feed her the pineapple with the risk that one of the parents would come downstairs??
The DNA is a total non-issue to me. It could have come from anyone prior to this murder. Read Kolar's book about this topic.
You suggest that this "thrill killer" could have entered through the broken basement window. Have you read John Ramsey's account for that broken window?? Now THAT is nonsense!
What would the purpose be of staging a fake kidnapping? Are you suggesting there was also thrill in that? If JonBenet was, indeed, killed by a thrill killer, his/her thrill would be over after the kill and he/she would get the hell out of that house. Not only would a RN be ridiculous at that point, but a RN that long is ludicrous in the scenario you suggest. And even if the RN was part of the plan to throw the police off, if this kill required "serious preplanning", as you suggest, don't you think this killer would have written the note ahead of time and brought it with him? The note was clearly written in the house that night. Sorry, this just does NOT add up.
I'm sure Doc can more articulately respond to all your comments, but I just had to point out the most ridiculous points.
With PR and JR not being completely honest, IMO, I don't know that JB ever made it bed. It's all speculation, but suppose JR actually did stay downstairs and help BR with a toy, but instead of carrying JB to her bed asleep, suppose she was awake (like BR said), and that she stayed downstairs with BR and JR, while PR went upstairs to bed. I could see JR telling PR, "I'll put the kids to bed in a little bit...". JB then could've had a pineapple snack, while JR and BR finished working on the toy. Once they were done, JR could've walked BR up to his bed and made his way back downstairs to JB. This would put JR and JB alone on the first floor, away from PR and BR earshot. It would mean PR and JR both lied about JB being asleep, carried upstairs by JR, and her clothes changed by PR, but they did the same thing with the broken window. If JR told PR that he swears he put both the kids down shortly after she went to bed, but that the Police will suspect him, because he was with her before her death, I can see PRbeing talked into covering for him. Just a thought.
Jay, I'm not sure Patsy would go along with JR's lie about putting JonBenet to bed. First of all, what difference would it make if he put her to bed immediately after arriving home or a short time later after playing with the kids? Everyone knows how much kids like to play with their new Christmas toys and JR could have simply said that they wanted just a few minutes to play before going to bed. In other words, I'm not sure Patsy would feel like telling this truth would automatically make a suspect of JR.
Now, going along with JR's broken window story is another thing. By that time both parents were suspects and JR could easily convince Patsy that they needed to explain that broken window or one of them, or both, would be charged with murder. Plus Patsy was highly medicated by that time.
But to both lie about when and how the kids were put to bed doesn't seem necessary. Sure, it means that JR was the last one with JonBenet that night, but he could just as easily crept into her room later.
Having said that, if you are right and JR did talk Patsy into going along with this lie, I would say the only reason she would do that is because she already suspected him herself and possibly feared him. I've always wondered about this because I've always felt that she must have known, or at least suspected, that he was fooling around with JonBenet but was afraid to confront him about it for fear of losing her opulent lifestyle and spotless reputation.
bb, thanks for the response. My thinking is two fold. First, JR seems overly responsible in his responses to questions about JB in Police interviews (i.e. only going to the talent part of her beauty contests, not sticking around when PR changed JB's clothes that night, ect.), which tells me he is either a man of extreme character and integrity, or he is making himself out to look that way. If it's the latter, then you question JR's description of events, when it comes to JB. That description starts with her being passed out, carrying her upstairs, and leaving when PR changed her clothes. Maybe he's being completely honest, but then again, BR did say she was awake and walked in by herself. Secondly, I still question the pineapple being left out and the flashlight. The pineapple would make sense, if JB stayed up and had a snack, but again, that bolsters the argument that JR and PR are not being honest. Likewise, the flashlight is peculiar. If it was the weapon used to strike JB, why was it out to begin with? It would make more sense, IMO, if it were used after the fact (i.e. knocked her out or choked her with scarf, then pulled out the flashlight to search for something, realized an intruder would have to bludgeon her to keep her quiet and whacked her on the head, not realizing her laying down and "dead weight" would require less force, therefore leaving an 8" crack in her skull). Just my thoughts.
Doc...you may have been asked this, but I havent been on here in a while. With the huge success of both Serial and Undisclosed and the attention it has brought to the Adnan Syed case, have you considered doing a podcast? If not, please do one.....I think this is a case that would garner a large audience
I noticed an inconsistency in the interview with Linda Arndt and when Larry King was John Ramsey. Linda states she was the first officer at the Ramsey house that morning and John Ramsey was not distraught but rather "cordial."
John Ramsey tells Larry King repeatedly that a male officer was the first to the house and uses the pronoun "he" a few times.
The interview with Ardnt was done in 99. The interview with the Ramsey's on Larry King is the one from 2000.
The discrepancy is odd unless another police officer was also there.
Barbara Walters asked John Ramsey about his response to Ardnt's ambiguous indictment and he said she wasn't in a position to judge his feelings at the time. That's really a side note though.
Why the difference in what officer came to the house?
The first officer to arrive that morning was Officer French, who arrived at approximately 5:55 a.m. Det. Arndt showed up later and there was a period of time when she was the only one there. I believe she was told to be there to wait for the ransom call, which of course never came.
Assuming JR did commit this crime, would someone help me understand what his motive was? I completely get why he would have been abusing her (unfortunately incestuous relationships occur way too often in these times we live in), but why kill her? I've read DocG's theory that it was to silence her. I don't buy that. At age 6 I think he could easily have controlled her silence, either by horrible threats or huge bribes. And even if he failed at this and she did tell someone, he could certainly deny it. Wouldn't that be better than killing his daughter, who I have to believe he still loved very much, despite his abusive relationship with her?
My theory is that he injured her that night while molesting her and she was screaming and looking for help. JR bashed her with the flashlight to silence her.
That's the scenario I'm leaning towards also. I don't believe he intended on killing her but rather lashed out in a fit of angry and/or panic and hit her with the flashlight, which I believe he used to take her down to the basement. I don't think he would have felt comfortable molesting her in her own room for fear that Patsy would awaken and come in. I believe I read somewhere that they have stored some additional Christmas presents in the basement to take with them on their trip and John may have lured JB down there to look at them.
I do not believe this was a premeditated crime. First of all, like I said above, I cannot believe John would actually choose to kill his daughter over any possible exposure. I just don't think he would let her threats of telling go that far. Also, if it were premeditated, he would have had much more of the staging set up ---- things the family would not have noticed.
But something happened that night that caused him to panic and I suspect JB started rejecting him or saying horrible things to him that caused him to snap.
One thing to note is that in one of the reddit ama's (I think it was Kolar's) it was stated that vaginal blood was found on the pillowcase in JonBenet's bedroom, which means some of the abuse happened there.
Good catch. I hadn't noticed that. There is other evidence suggesting the assault may have taken place in her bedroom: fibers from the cord used to strangle her were found in her bed. He could have attacked her there and only later carried the body into the basement in order to hide it in the windowless room. If he'd struck her over the head initially, she would not have made a sound while he then proceeded with his sexual assault.
Kolar's book Foreign Faction notes that red fibers from the jacket Patsy was wearing the night/morning of the murder were found not only on the tape that was on JB's mouth, but also in the paint tray and on the cord. This places Patsy at the crime scene. Police found it unlikely Patsy would be wearing the same red jacket to do painting in, so the appearance of its fibers in the tray cannot be easily explained. Thoughts?
I think Doc has addressed this -- fibers from inside a home can easily be found anywhere, via transfer. I agree that its suspicious, especially if there were a lot of fibers. But we don't know the quantity of fibers or how they got there. For instance, Pasty's fibers could have been all over JBR if she hugged her, put her to bed, etc. And John could have picked up those fibers from Patsy, from the bedroom, or indirectly from JBR. LE
It seems there are a lot of suspicious things that point to Patsy's guilt, and I've discovered --- primarily through this blog --- that most of these incriminating things can be explained. But what haunts me is the number of these things: fiber evidence, handwriting comparisons, appearing to have not slept that night (her side of bed was supposedly unslept in and she was wearing same outfit the following morning), fingerprints on pineapple bowl, her knowledge of JonBenet's favorite blanket and nightgown, her frustration with JonBenet's bedwetting, her not saying a word when 10:00 a.m. came and went that morning, her supposed silence when JonBenet was first found and FW yelled to call 911 . . . . these are the main ones. Maybe each and every one of these things can be explained, but what are the odds that so many would exist in the first place??
The odds are good because she lived in the house. Naturally her fingerprints would be on bowls, glasses, etc. as only she and LHP would have done any dish washing. Patsy's fibers would be everywhere in the house through transfer.
The odds are good, because PR isn't the only one who knows what time it is. JR didn't say anything either. And it's fairly clear that the call was to come the next day, not the 26th, so why say anything?
The odds are good because what response is appropriate when the body is found and there is a police detective in the house? Why would she need to say something?
The odds are good, because had she actually killed JBR, and orchestrated at least some, if not all, the staging, and written a RN, she surely would have had the presence of mind to changer her clothes.
The odds are good because the handwriting "analysis" isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Piling up irrelevancies doesn't increase the odds.
CH, thanks for your reply. Your points make sense, especially the one about her clothes. If she was involved, certainly she WOULD have changed her clothes.
Besides the terrible job the police and detectives did in this case, I think one of the sole reasons JR dodged a bullet in this case is because there is so many things that do point to Patsy. He really lucked out in this regard and he probably never expected it.
"If she was involved, certainly she WOULD have changed her clothes."
This was a clever and necessary maneuver on Patsy's part to dress herself in the same attire that morning. Why? She had to be in a position to explain how any of the fibers from her clothing were found on JonBenet's body. It is virtually impossible to wipe away every fiber so Patsy did what she had to do. Patsy redressed herself in the same outfit and awaited the discovery of JonBenet's body. When that time arrived, Patsy threw herself on the body as she wept. Now those fibers could be rationalized when it was time to collect evidence. We know, however, from the duct tape, which John removed from JonBenet's mouth in the cellar, those red fibers from Patsy's clothes could only have gotten there the first time she wore that outfit.
thanks for your response, Hercule. You've explained that point well. I keep forgetting about the fibers on the duct tape. I would be interested in hearing an explanation for that. If someone thinks those fibers from Patsy's clothes transferred to JonBenet before the tape was put on her, then we would have to assume the fibers were around her mouth area and that when the tape was applied, it picked up the fibers. So why would those fibers be around her mouth and wouldn't they have gotten brushed off? I'm not a forensic expert, but I would assume that fibers stick more readily to other fabrics (or clothes) but not so much on smooth skin.
The only problem is that JR altered the crime scene and evidence by ripping off the duct tape and discarding it. The defense can argue that is when it picked up the fibers from PR's clothes (off the blanket, floor, ect.)
Yes, unfortunately, because this was an inside job, much of the evidence can point at either JR or Patsy. Perhaps that's why the Grand Jury felt compelled to indict both of them because isolating just one of them was impossible. I don't believe the Grand Jury felt the Ramsey were protecting Burke. I think they had the sense to know that he could not have clubbed JonBenet over the head with that much force.
The only evidence that seems to point directly to JR is the alleged chronic vaginal abuse, although I read somewhere recently that even that evidence can point to someone (Patsy?) wiping JonBenet in a rough manner, which she very well may have done when she was feeling frustrated at JonBenet's bedwetting problem.
Having said that, at 6 years old one has to ask why JonBenet would still be experiencing bedwetting in the first place, at least at that frequency. I suggest that it was because of the molestation and her bedwetting was a sign of her emotional distress over the abuse.
Summer, a lot of children have bedwetting problems who are not being sexually molested or who do not have other emotional distress. My siblings had these problems and also a niece, who's problem was found to be related to her sleep patterns. She was medically treated and the problem was solved.
Oh, I completely agree with you. Bedwetting can have many causes and it is not uncommon. I just think that a very probable cause in JonBenet's case might be the abuse by her father, or having a very overbearing mother who constantly expected perfection, or both. It doesn't take a psychologist to say that both of these things could very well cause emotional distress and emotional distress can manifest itself in other types of behavior, or bedwetting in this case. Just my opinion.
Yes, I believe Patsy had a side to her that none of us are fully aware of. Without having fully researched her childhood or young adult life, I would say that being raised in the south, being involved in beauty pageants herself, then marrying a rich man and living an opulent lifestyle, only to later find out she had cancer, may very well have brought about some significant emotional changes. On the surface, she appeared to be a woman who is very dramatic. The RN seems to be written in a very dramatic style. Many suggest that the words used in the RN would typically only be used by men, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Patsy was a very intelligent woman and could very easily have chosen those particular words or phrases. In fact, when watching her in the video of her interrogation with Tom Haney and listening to the way she talks and the words she uses, I am always reminded of the ransom note. Putting all the handwriting analysis aside, I think the experts also weighed heavily on the style of the RN. I think it is very, very possible that Patsy wrote it.
Seriously, this is when the conversation on this blog no longer interests me. You are saying that women raised in the south, who were in pageants, who marry well (her lifestyle may seem opulent to you, but it was similar to that of many executives, CEOs, and investment bankers in the Northeast, California, Texas, DC, .....) and then at some point in their lives face illness and possible death, are poised to be child abusers and killers. Give me a break. I guess I have a handful of friends and even their daughters who I need to worry about now. Go back and read Doc's handwriting analysis and the theory about tracing the font off of the computer screen. Did the drama queen think of that, and being so overwrought and dramatic, did she have the wherewithal to concentrate on composing such a note and THEN tracing it so well? Drama queens, if you've ever met any, can't stay on task when their emotions are peaking, no matter how intelligent they are. I'm southern, I'm female, and I've heard a lot of females speak. Nothing in Patsy's speech patterns is out of the ordinary. For that matter, southern men speak similarly, and John had lived in the south long enough to pick up expressions himself. Not to mention, the person who wrote the note would have been trying to disguise their identity. Here we go again, back to talking about all the possibilities when the focus needs to be on just the facts and probabilities that stem from those facts. We can wonder "until the cows come home" - a southern expression - but the facts are stacked up against John. He needs to answer to those. Geez, is it just southern women like me who want to know why men get a pass in crimes just because of what they do in their day job? Good grief. John got caught in a big fat lie, he behaved like a narcissist, he was an adulterer in his previous marriage, he lost a daughter which may a caused a loose screw in psyche (since you think past events could have done so to Patsy, lets go there with John!), he was conniving, he wanted to fly out of town HOURS after he found his baby dead, he lawyered up so fast it was unbelievable, he refused to listen to advice from friends who wanted him to cooperate with the police, the list goes on. I wonder about John. Did he have a cold, abusive father and a neglectful mother or a mother who crossed boundaries? Why didn't he know how to have a normal, loving relationship with adult women? Why were his business trips to the Netherlands, which is not exactly the tech capital of Europe? Why were their rumors of girlfriends who say he made them dress up in pageant clothes, and then said girlfriend was silenced? (probs with money), why is he now married to a woman he hotly pursued who designs pageant costumes? Ugh, I think he's a sick perv. I bumped into him once in public in Atlanta, and just being near him gave me the creeps. As for Patsy: someone I know who met her in a Bible study said that she is a down to earth W. Virginia girl who says what she thinks, was funny, self-deprecating, and generous. Loved fixing up her house as a hobby, but mainly because it gave her something creative to do. Loved her kids and her step-kids equally and wanted the best for all of them. So, you can wonder about Patsy, but what do you wonder about John, the man who didn't play ball with his son, didn't go to soccer games or scout functions, etc, didn't act like a much of a real dad to me at all?
Well said. I have taken your comment (and obvious theory JDI) into consideration. It sounds like I offended you because you are from the south. Well guess what? So am I. No offense intended. I'm just trying to look at everything about the character of BOTH Patsy and John. Though it's not hard evidence, I still feel it's worth looking at. Why is it wrong of me to suggest that an opulent woman, raised in the south, who has an obsession with beauty pageants, and who is facing death by cancer, might have some emotional issues going on? It is no different than looking at John's behavior and what he might or might not have been doing when he traveled to Europe. Or that he appeared not be very attentive to his children. Or that he hired lawyers right away (which, by the way, was suggested to him by a friend). Or that he was a quiet man who didn't show much emotion? I'm not an expert, but I believe this is all part of profiling and understanding different personality types and behaviors when trying to solve a case.
For years I have been riding the fence on this case, waffling between JDI, PDI or both. I think cases can be made for all three. That is exactly why there remains so many theories about this case and why it will probably never be solved. But as to the PDI theory, you can't ignore all the things that point to her, just like you can't ignore all the things that point to JDI. There are many for both.
No, I have not ruled out John, as the experts did, but I have also not ruled out Patsy. I invite you to read the "Ramseys Did It Theories" in this Wiki link:
Yes, the theory against John is powerful too. But I'm just not ready to give Patsy a pass. And it's not solely because of the RN, although I still feel the style of writing is very similar to hers.
Both parents lied, yes. Why did they lie? Excellent question, one of the key questions of the case.
If we stick with the facts, we see that only two of Patsy's alleged lies can be objectively corroborated. Please correct me if you find any others. We know she lied about what happened prior to the 911 call because she provided two contradictory versions of what happened. And we know she lied about cleaning up the glass from the basement window with the help of her housekeeper because 1. John's story about breaking the glass earlier is on its face a complete sham; 2. she could not recall if the window had ever been repaired, which is not credible; 3. the housekeeper, who was thoroughly investigated and cleared, denied it and actually accused her of lying.
What do these two lies have in common? They are attempts to corroborate John's version of what happened. Implying that John was manipulating her. If she'd contradicted him on either of these points, he would have looked very suspicious indeed.
John on the other hand, lied on numerous occasions and not one of his lies supported anything Patsy ever claimed. He was clearly the one in charge. His lies have a completely different meaning than hers.
Speaking of losing interest in this blog . . . . there hasn't been much word from Doc lately. I am worried he has lost interest too, having said everything there is to say. Personally, I find the banter here much more boring without his occasional input.
No, I haven't lost interest in this blog. I've been out of town and without access to my computer. I was able to read the comments but didn't have a decent keyboard so didn't respond.
Doc said earlier that he wouldn't be commenting much unless someone posts some new ground to cover. To the above person: John said that a friend told him to hire a lawyer, but who is to believe that...which friend really owns up to saying that? Besides, if I were a friend I would have told him the same because he did look to be in trouble by his own behavior -- trying to book a flight and get the hell out of dodge when your little 6 year our baby girl is dead and still at the morgue? Who does that? Yes, its not evidence, but it sure does look back to your friends and to the cops. Now, I put little to no stock in profiling, and you can be sure that I'm offended when people suggest that women (or men) can become murderous just because they have emotional issues (assuming Patsy had emotional issues). Think about it, don't all murderers have some kind of mental issue, while all people with issues are not murderers? So it doesn't tell us much, and its certainly not a reason to discount the factual case that Doc has put together on this blog. She was recovering from cancer, you know. She was doing well at that point; had a new lease on life. Had her hair back, was going to parties, throwing parties, spending time with her kids again. I don't think Doc's theory gives Patsy a pass, rather I think it fully vets the possibility of her being involved and rules it out for a number of reasons. But, like he said, if she helped John, let him have his day in court and explain that. Patsy's lies, by the way, were only to help corroborate John's big fat stupid story about the window. That window was staged and everyone knew it. He had to cover up for why it was broken. As Doc explained, she was sort of in a bind there, being forced to support that story given the the pressure that was on her, and probably her disbelief at this point that her husband could have done this. I've read all the other theories out there and the problem with them is that they don't link together just the facts, and reasonable conclusions based solely on facts. This case won't be solved by asking thousands of people what they think "could" have happened.
"I don't think Doc's theory gives Patsy a pass, rather I think it fully vets the possibility of her being involved and rules it out for a number of reasons. But, like he said, if she helped John, let him have his day in court and explain that."
The problem with suspecting PR, based on the words chosen in the RN, or the fact that she wore the same clothes, etc. etc., is this - if you suspect PR, then you must accept the larger implications of her involvement.
Specifically, if you want to entertain the idea that maybe PR wrote the RN, then the implication, which you must also accept, is that she staged a "kidnapping gone wrong" scene and expected the police detectives to believe it.
If PR killed JBR and wrote the RN then called the police virtually guaranteeing that the police would find both a RN and a body, then clearly she was hoping the police would buy the intruder theory. (Hey, we have a body, hidden, and a RN. Gee, must have been an intruder, no reason to suspect a family member)
But it's hard to see why an intruder would redress the body or wrap it or place in in the WC. It's hard to see why the kidnapping "went wrong" when the kidnapper had already taken the child from her bed and brought her downstairs. Why then go to the basement? Why not just leave with the girl?
To suspect PR is to view the "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario as realistic and believable, or at least you must accept that PR thought it would be believable. But PR is no dummy. And no amount of narcissism would make either of the adult Rs think the police would find that scenario convincing. (They didn't build a successful computer business by not knowing what other people will or will not believe)
So, if you suspect PR, you are essentially accepting the very real possibility of IDI. If you reject IDI, as I see it, you must also reject the notion that PR (or JR for that matter) was stupid enough to think the kidnapping gone wrong scene was convincing. You must reject that PR (and/or JR) staged a kidnapping gone wrong.
In short you must believe PR is incredibly stupid, or you must accept that IDI is a real possibility.
There is a danger in trying to come up with a unified field theory of the case, one which incorporates every doubt and every unexplained act or statement. You end up allowing small things to make you suspicious and ignore the larger implications, which simply can't be true.
It simply can't be true that PR wrote a RN, then turned around and called police so they'd find the RN and a dead body, cleaned, redressed, wrapped, and hidden if she wanted the police to believe IDI. It can't be true that PR wrote the RN then ignored all the warnings she herself put in the RN by calling friends over, and calling 911 w/o asking them to send unmarked cars. It can't be true that PR wrote the RN in conjunction with a "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario because that is either unbelievable, or makes IDI completely plausible.
It's these larger implications that guide the logic, not every little doubt you have.
Thank you CH for your response. You put much clarity in your explanation of why PR couldn't have written the RN.
But here's what I don't get. If JR is guilty and he is the one who wrote the ransom note, then why on earth did he allow Patsy to call the police? I understand what you're saying: that both Ramseys were too smart to expect the police to buy into a kidnapping gone bad scenario. But if that is true, then by allowing Patsy to call the police, JR is immediately banking that the police will accept IDI and that the "kidnapping" went bad. After all, that is what the Ramseys have all along contended; that there was an intent to kidnap and get ransom money, but somehow JonBenet was murdered before that could happen. If JR went to all that trouble to stage the basement and write that 'War and Peace' of ransom notes, why would be EVER allow Patsy to phone the police? Certainly if he had the power to manipulate Patsy so much AFTER the discovery of the body, then why wouldn't he have done it that morning, to prevent Patsy from calling 911? He could have simply reminded her that they would risk JonBenet's life if they alerted the police. He could have convinced Patsy that he could get the money and they would at least have a chance at getting JonBenet back. I think Patsy would have listened to him and agreed.
Doc is correct about the 911 call. That is a pivotal moment in this case. If she had not made that call, this case would likely have ended much differently. But she did. Why would John ever allow her to do that???
Thanks again CH for your thoughtful response (unlike others I have encountered)
I read one of the statements about Burke Ramsey being interviewed after he admitted to being awake that morning he said he heard his parents voices and heard his dad tell his mum to call the police why would he lie about that? Anyone else remember reading that? If he indeed was being truthful then docs theory cannot make sense for the option of JR did it .
Doc has written quite a bit about your question, so I'll just touch on it briefly.
Why didn't JR stop Patsy from making the 911 call?
My theory is that Patsy probably only read the fist few lines of the RN, just enough to know he daughter was kidnapped. She may have made the call when JR was in another room or on the other side of the room. Once the final "1" is punched, the call is made. It takes what, 2 seconds to "dial" 911? Before JR can do anything she's already talking to the operator.
JR would have to be within arms length of PR at all times to prevent a call. That would be suspicious. So, at least imo, JR simply could not have prevented the call. Unless he were going to hold her wrists or rip the phones out of the wall, there is simply no way to prevent punching 3 numbers. It can't be done w/o giving away that he's trying to hide something.
To be fair, he could have held her to prevent the call, at least long enough to explain that the note has repeated threats and that JBR might be killed. But he can't hold her all day long, and if she doesn't believe the threats .....
To me the more interesting question is why did PR make the call?
One reason of course is that it was her role in the coverup JR and PR cooked up, but then we are right back to the "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario which I think we both agree is not very plausible. So basically, PR can't have been involved in a coverup, just as Doc has repeatedly said. If she were, she'd never have made that call at that time.
Another reason is that she may simply have read only a few lines of the RN, enough to realize that her daughter had been kidnapped, and she wanted the police to help get her back.
Still another possibility is that she read the entire note and simply didn't believe the threats. Though repeated, they do "sound" like someone trying to convey a tough-guy image, but end up "sounding" like a bad movie script (and of course we know some lines were lifted right out of a few movies). She may have felt it was more important to get the police involved since they were probably better off with the police than trying to handle the situation themselves (seen from PR's POV and believing the RN to be real)
In short there is no way for JR to prevent a 911 call. Even if he stopped her initially, if she want's to make the call, she's making the call.
You're correct in thinking that it's absolutely crucial to JR's plan that Patsy not make that call. But when you consider how easy the call can be made, and how drastic JR would have to act to prevent a call, you realize that he couldn't stop it.
JMO, but I think the way the RN is written - with a warning in the first paragraph that if they want to see JBR alive in '97 all instructions have to be followed to the letter - JR assumed that PR (or anyone) would read the entire letter, wanting to know what the instructions were. He did not bank on her reading only a few lines, or if she read further, disbelieving the threats.
Also jmo, but I think the reason for the "small foreign faction" was to make PR believe the kidnappers were an organization that actually had the willingness and ability to kill JBR, and the ability to use "electronic countermeasures" to keep the Rs under surveillance. To me she either didn't read that far, or felt the threats and claims were so over the top she dismissed them as BS.
Sorry, that was more long-winded than I had intended.
CH, thanks for your reply. Your explanation is, once again,well thought out. I just have two comments:
Being a mother myself, if I had found that note and realized my daughter was, in fact, gone (I believe Patsy says she read just the first couple lines of the RN and then raced upstairs to check JonBenet's bedroom), I would have gone back to the note and read it thoroughly before doing anything. Who wouldn't?? At that point, that RN was the only thing she had giving her any information about where her daughter was. So I find it unbelievable that she did not read the whole note.
Second, based on the JDI theory that Doc and so many others have talked about in this blog, JR had everything riding on that note preventing the police from being involved so that he could get the body out of the house. Everything depended on Patsy NOT calling the police, so I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have stayed close to the phone while reading the note and then telling Patsy that they absolutely could not call the police. He wouldn't have to strong-arm her; he simply needed to stay by that phone. If she tried to pick up the receiver, he could have easily told her that JonBenet would be killed if she called anyone. But as I understand it, after Patsy screamed out to John and he saw the note, he raced upstairs to check on Burke. Why on earth would he leave that phone to do that? He could have told Patsy to check on Burke. For that matter, he could have cut the phone line to prevent any calls, although I know I'm going out on a limb here.
So based on the prevailing theory in this blog, John took a HUGE risk leaving that phone area that morning. The note was just a few feet away from the phone so it would have been very easy for him to stay there while reading the note. And if he is as narcissistic as many believe he is, he would not jeopardize that body being found in the house.
For some reason, certain comments never seem to show up in the comments section. Fortunately all turn up in my email, so I can usually catch the lost ones and post them myself. Here's my latest "find," by our old friend "Anonymous":
I read one of the statements about Burke Ramsey being interviewed after he admitted to being awake that morning he said he heard his parents voices and heard his dad tell his mum to call the police why would he lie about that? Anyone else remember reading that? If he indeed was being truthful then docs theory cannot make sense for the option of JR did it .
Yet another reason why it's important to focus on the facts and avoid making assumptions. The story about Burke hearing John tell Patsy to call the police originated, as far as I can tell, with Steve Thomas's book. Since Thomas was eager to point the finger at Patsy and give John "a pass," it's possible he heard what he wanted to hear when he questioned Burke, and that might not have been what Burke actually said. I'm wondering whether anyone can find a transcript of that interview so we can verify it. I'm not saying Thomas lied, but it's possible he didn't hear Burke clearly or misinterpreted what he'd said.
It's also important not to assume that Burke actually heard what he claimed to have heard, even if Thomas's report is accurate. Burke's room was some distance from the room where John claimed (in their book) to have told Patsy to call the police. It seems likely to me that Burke had been prompted to make a statement to that effect.
The bottom line is that Patsy's version of what happened, as documented in the A&E interview, is very different from what Burke is alleged to have said, and also what is alleged to have taken place according to what John said in their first CNN interview and also their book. In the documentary, she states very clearly that she told John she was going to make that call and then went downstairs to make it. Nothing there about John telling her to make the call. John is sitting next to her as she says this and makes no effort to correct her. I just now posted a link to the A&E documentary (see the following blog post) so everyone can see for himself what she said and how John reacted.
The report regarding what Burke said is not a fact, but merely a report. What Patsy said, on the other hand, IS a fact, as documented in living color via A&E, assisted by youtube -- and she speaks very clearly and decisively.
The other relevant fact of this matter is the fact that Patsy is the one who made that call, a call she would not have made if she were involved in the staging of a kidnapping. Putting the facts together it seems clear the call was Patsy's idea, not John's. In view of the facts it looks to me as though Thomas either misinterpreted Burke or Burke had been prompted to lie for the same reason Patsy eventually lied: to support John's version of what happened.
If jdi he didn't have to leave the note where he knew patsy walked down before him in the morning she was alone at first with him taking a shower he was really taking a huge risk which to me didn't make sense if everything hinged on pasty not calling the police he could have made sure he was first to find the note and take charge of it all from there .
Doesn't add up does it? Clearly we have a ransom note addressed to John but it is placed in a spot where Patsy would find it first. Why was it so important for Patsy to find the note first? She wanted to make sure the 911 call was made. Why? The same reason that she called her friends and demanded that they come to her side. To contaminate the crime scene.
If she wanted to contaminate the crime scene, she would have called her friends over without also calling the police. Don't forget, she called 911 first, the police arrived first, and if they'd been on the ball, would not have allowed anyone else to enter the house. No need to call in the cops at that point. The friends could then have been sworn to secrecy and asked to leave, probably taking Burke with them. The body could then have been removed in secret (via the car trunk I'd imagine) the following night. Only then would the police have been called.
You are assuming that Patsy not only would have the gumption to take charge of this kidnapping, but also take it upon herself to dump JonBenet's body en route to the bank without John going with her? Patsy knew she would never get the opportunity to remove the body from the basement without John knowing about it. She did what she was comfortable doing: being a dramatic victim for not only her friends to see but also law enforcement. There really was no other choice for her.
There are three missing pieces of evidence: whatever was used to wipe down the body, the roll of duct tape, and any remaining cord. There is one piece of evidence that SHOULD be missing: the note pad.
Doc has suggested the first three items were cut up and flushed, which begs the question - why was not the note pad as well?
Imagine how much more persuasive the IDI theory would be had the note pad disappeared as well!
This suggests to me two thought processes, two perpetrators working in concert, one in the basement with the body (likely JR), the second on the first floor with the note and note pad, quite literally distancing herself from JB's body.
(Cont.) JR comes up after staging the body to review PR's note, and in his stress and panic does not consider the note pad, because PR has put it away, just as she did the sharpie and, to some extent, the flashlight, which was wiped down inside and out.
As Doc frequently says, we must consider only facts. Surely a consideration of an absence/presence of evidence is also a fact.
(Further continued) This joint participation also explains why PR was wearing same clothes as night before. I have never believed someone as fastidious about her appearance as PR would do that willingly.
This leaves only motive, about which we can only speculate in any scenario. I think it likeliest PR struck her, JR delivered the coup de grace via garotte.
We've gone over all this stuff time and time again. I refuse to spend more time on such questions. If you want my opinion, do a blog search for "notepad."
I legit could not sleep last night.. my heart was hurting for this little girl. Ive allways believed the burke theory but reading these comments have made me lean towards john. But one thing that doesn't make sense is why take this extra time and strangle her if she was dead or dying . Brutley strangle her which is such a personal crime. Have the heart to look and what done you done to her. Just doesnt make any sense . Why take this extra time to make a garrote and strangle her ?
One theory which I doubt happened is what if this ex girlfriend which he cheated on with his first wife did it? I thought I read somewhere I could be wrong that when he was dating patsy she showed up on his door step and she answered the door. Jr probably told patsy she was a crazy old girlfriend. What if she snuck into the house maybe to take out pasty . She seen all the pictures of john and jb happy . Maybe that enraged her? She wasn't prepared for a ransom . That is why she wrote the rn on the r amseys home paper. The purpose of the ransom note was to make john blame himself and to point fingers away from her as a suspect. Tryed to make it seem work related . She knew of johns older daughter dieing . Maybe she wanted him to blame himself. That it was because of his money his daughter is in danger . She left the body there because she wanted him to find her like that. It could explain why she went to the extent to strangle her .
Hello all
ReplyDeleteWe can only speculate on what happened that night in 1996 and why but we can as doc states come to conclusions based on certain behaviours and actions that were noted as odd I have been aware of this crime since it first occurred and have followed it on and off never fully being 100% certain of who I feel was guilty however there were certain things that stood out to me and have stayed with me these are as follows.
1.Both Ramseys stated that when they found the note they checked on Burke and found him thankfully asleep but don't you think it very strange that given their other child was missing and they by then knew someone had been in their home they wouldn't have woken Burke up and frantically questioned did he hear/see anything ?
2. When pasty was questioned by the police they told her they had fibre evidence and it was scientific her response was 'I don't give a flying flip go retest I didn't do it, my life has been he'll...' This is a natural response from someone who is innocent she didn't try to explain it away she was not afraid of what they might have because she knew she didn't do it this would be how I would respond.
3. When John was questioned and they stated fibres from his shirt were found in Jonbenet crotch his response was anger .. not disbelief he didn't say that's impossible how could that be just anger and cursing.. this seemed to me an unnatural response.
These are things that have stuck out to me and led me to believe there was certainly no intruder. What does anyone else think?.
1. No. No reason to wake him. He obviously didn't see anything, otherwise he'd be awake and telling his parents something happened. If he heard anything it wasn't something that alarmed him because again he'd be awake and telling JR/PR about it.
ReplyDelete2. The fiber evidence is inconclusive. It could be there from secondary or tertiary... transfer.
3. The fiber evidence is inconclusive for JR too, and he may have thought that the police were making it up, hence the anger.
CH
That's not to say I think JR is innocent, but w/o deciding who did it, one reasonable explanation for JR's anger is he doesn't believe the cops.
DeleteAnother explanation of course is the one you suggest.
CH
I don't agree there no need to awaken your other child when one child is missing presumed kidnapped even if not to question that child which is imo odd at the very least a parent would be so panicked and horrified that a precious child is missing that you would as a parent have inbuilt need to wake up the only child left to make absolutely sure he was unharmed .
ReplyDeleteYou are of course free to disagree, but be careful not to assume everyone would act in the same manner under the same circumstances. Trying to solve the case by deciding how people should/shouldn't have acted is a trap to avoid.
DeleteCH
Bottom line, they are lying about Burke not being woken. And, if they were covering up for him, why did one of them call the police before carrying out the "kidnapping"? LE
ReplyDeleteI have a knew element of the story to consider. The Maglite is thought to have been the weapon used to cause the blunt force trauma to JB's head, but I have two questions, first, why was the Maglite pulled out of the drawer to begin with? Both PR and JR claim it is rarely used. Second, why did the perp put the notepad and pen back, but not the Maglite? In fact, the same question applies to the bowl of pineapple and glass of tea, if they are truly connected somehow to the crime. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteJay
Good question, Jay. My best guess is, very simply: confusion on the part of the killer, who could have been pressed for time with too many loose ends to tie up.
DeleteIt may suggest that the ransom note was more thought out than the rest of the crime. Having time to think about writing the note means you can factor in things like replacing the pad and pen to their original location.
DeleteAl.
I have another topic to discuss. From the autopsy report, we see that there was a considerable amount of blood cleaned up from JB's thighs, however several drops were found in her underwear. There are reports that indicate blood was also found on her blanket, nightgown, and night shirt. I have two questions, first, what did the perp use to clean her up with, and where did they dispose of it? From what I recall, the Police never discuss it with PR or JR. This location would help shed light on where she was sexually assaulted. Second, if there was considerable blood from digital penetration that night, wouldn't there have been considerable blood on previous occasions, if she was chronically abused. And if so, wouldn't someone have found evidence showing that prior to Dec. 26th? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteJay
I think John disposed of the cleaning items during that hour he disappeared on the 26th. He could have flushed them, for example. Had the police shown up to assist Linda Arndt, he might not have gotten away with all that he did during that hour. As far as the assault, I think he did the damage to try and cover up the chronic abuse. He somewhat succeeded in that, right? There are still those that argue there was no evidence of chronic abuse, just the traumatic abuse from that night. I think Doc has covered all this and I might have it wrong, but if John or Patsy was covering up for Burke, would Patsy, for example, even know about the need to cover up chronic abuse. None of the pieces of this puzzle fit together unless we go with the JDI theory. That's why I'm sort of done with this discussion and feel that our next move ought to be to get media attention on this. I know an investigative reporter (knew him in college) and would like to ask him if he wants to pick up this JDI story. LE
DeleteYou ask an excellent question, Jay. Actually the most common source of blood when penetrating a virgin would be from breaking the hymen. However, if she had already been molested in a similar way in the past, her hymen would possibly have been broken already. Cleaning up the blood on an earlier occasion would not have been such a big problem, especially if the two of them were home alone at the time. The interesting question is: assuming her hymen had already been broken, then what would have been the source of blood after the murderous attack?
DeleteI think we have no choice but to rely on the autopsy report and its interpretation by Wecht and others, who never seemed to have a problem with the source of blood. I suppose it came from traumatic injury to the vagina itself. As for how it was cleaned up from her body, I'd assume by a towel of some sort, possibly a paper towel. The towel could then have been cut up into tiny pieces and flushed down the toilet.
Anything you can do to encourage an investigative reporter to dig into this would be welcome, LE. I'd think the first step would be to look into the circumstances under which John was ruled out as writer of the note. Imo that's the key obstacle to prosecution of this case.
DeleteRegarding the discussion of whether Burke was awake or not and the Ramseys statement that they chose not to wake him . . .
ReplyDeleteWasn't it JR that went to check on Burke while Patsy made the 911 call? Perhaps JR found Burke asleep and it was HIS decision not to wake him. If I were the one who had been up that night molesting and then murdering my daughter, I think I would want a chance to talk to Burke alone first to determine if he heard or saw anything. This conversation would have to take place without Patsy, of course. So JR tells Patsy that it would be best if they don't wake him. Once he awoke, we don't know for sure who talked to him first, do we?
Just a thought. And just more speculation.
bb
Hi bb,
DeleteI found this discussion from James Kolar's book relevant to the discussion of whether or not Burke was awake...apparently others were worried about it that morning:
"Over the course of interview, conducted on January 1, 1997, Barb Fernie shared a concern that had raised a question for her.
As things were developing in the house on the morning of December 26th, she had begun to ask if Burke had awakened yet. She was aware that like her son, Burke was an early riser and typically got up in the morning around 5:30 a.m. She and her husband had been at the house for a while, and like others, were beginning to wonder if Burke was sitting up in his bedroom,
awake and alone, while all of the commotion was going on downstairs.
She pointed out a discrepancy that created some additional concern for her. She told the investigators that Patsy Ramsey had told her on the morning of December 26th that she had just “given the ransom note to John,” after finding it on the spiral staircase.
More importantly, however, Mrs. Fernie stated that she didn’t know Patsy had screamed out for her husband that morning. She apparently was under the impression, based on her conversation with Patsy on the morning of the kidnapping, that she had somehow just handed off the note to her husband. Several days later, it didn’t make sense to her that Burke would not have been awakened when Patsy screamed John’s name.
Mrs. Fernie had been pondering the question: If John Ramsey had been able to hear Patsy scream from his bathroom on the 3rd floor of the house, why not Burke? His bedroom was just down the hall."
Yes, I've thought about Patsy's scream to JR too. Certainly that would startle Burke awake. Whether he actually got up and left his room is debated. I would guess that he just laid there wondering what was going on until JR checked on him. JR says he was asleep, but if he wasn't, what would the purpose of lying about that be? Could he have had a quick conversation with Burke and then told him to stay in his room? I believe Patsy was calling 911 at this time.
Deletebb
If I recall correctly, years later the Ramseys stated that Burke was awake and lying in bed wondering what was going on. He had apparently testified so to grand jury, so they needed to change their story that he was asleep.
DeleteIt continues to boggle my mind that neither parent woke him to speak to him or to check on his well being. For all they knew, he could have been drugged or knocked unconscious. I have not been a fan of the theory that they colluded that night, but I don't understand how the innocent parent would let him lie there alone that morning. MM
I agree that Burke should have immediately been awakened and questioned. However, the police also failed to question him that morning, and it was their responsibility to investigate the situation, not the Ramsey's. The Ramseys could always claim they were confused and too focused on JonBenet's kidnapping to pay attention to Burke, once they realized he was safe. Don't know what excuse the police had. Other than incompetence.
DeleteJust a passing thought, but given what's now coming out in the UK with regard to paedophiles and historic child abuse (Jimmy Savile, Lord Janner etc) do we think that Jon Benet was used in some sort of larger ring involving JR and / or PR?
ReplyDeleteWould that make more sense of the autopsy report and chronic abuse?
If that's the case then does it change the way the investigation can be viewed, i.e. not incompetence but perhaps more of a cover up or obfuscation from higher up or external pressure, perhaps taking advantage of the disarray of the initial few hours of police investigation?
Al.
The Ramsey case is exactly the sort of thing that would have blown such a ring wide open. To me its inconceivable that, had a pedophile ring existed, we'd would not have had some indication of that by now.
DeleteFair point, however the cases I mention above have been hidden from the general public for 30 years or more, mostly with the help of people in positions of power able to provide aerial cover when needed.
DeleteAlso the same could be said for the perpetrator of the murder, it's now nearly 20 years since Jon Benet died, surely someone should have been charged and put behind bars by now? But we're no closer to a conviction or even an arrest now than the day it happened.
However all that being said imo clearly someone in that house carried out the crime, with or without the help (including covering up) of other family members. Anything external to that is not directly related, except to possibly speak to motive.
Al.
I think most of the posters here agree with Doc that JR is guilty, including me. Though sometimes I have considered Patsy's involvement, I have always come back to the conclusion that she is completely innocent. I also firmly believe that Burke is innocent. And I strongly believe that there was no intruder that night, based on the fact that the police found no forced entry. Besides JR, Patsy, Burke or an intruder, the only other possibility in my mind would be someone with a key --- an acquaintance of the family. It seems entirely possible that someone could have taken a key from someone in the family and then made a copy of it. This would open up a wide field of possible suspects and I wonder if the police thoroughly checked out these people. Knowing that the police and detectives did such a sloppy job of investigating this crime, I can't help but wonder if they missed something important when it came to investigating possible "friendly intruders".
ReplyDeleteIf there was, in fact, a friend or acquaintance of the family that had been molesting Jon Benet and she then told that person that she was going to tell, that person could have masterminded the un-forced entry into the house, the murder and the subsequent staging to throw the authorities off the track. I'm going to do some research on this and get back with my thoughts. It just seems like the primary suspects have always been someone in the family --- with the stranger intruder ruled out. But there hasn't been much discussion about someone who knew the family, someone who could have gained access into the house without a forced break-in.
bb
I took the possibility of someone with a key into account on this blog and in my book. The absence of forced entry is only one of several reasons to reject the intruder theory.
DeleteDocG, the person who committed this crime, when all evidence is properly examined, including DNA evidence which could not have arrived in the places it did by any innocent means, leads any reasonable person to dismiss RDI theory and look into the fact that a Highly intellectually gifted, yet emotionally and mentally damaged sociopath committed these crimes. This was a thrill kill put on by a sophisticated criminal who preplanned this crime. Search histories were looked at. There is no evidence whatsoever, and trust me, the FBI is well aware that there are nuances within the notes of movie quotes, etc. that John Ramsey had either watched any of the movies quoted or was in any way shape or form the author of the note. Your theory is almost as ludicrous as the BDI crowd. This child was garroted with a noose, she was sexually violated with an object, her skull was bashed so hard that she would've eventually died from the wounds, she was fed her favorite food before all of this. There was too much evidence found on the scene, and everything pointed at the Ramsey's. A sophisticated cover of this magnitude would have required serious preplanning, and the fact that all fingers ended up pointing BACK at the family really, really removes any likelihood in logic that they are responsible.
ReplyDeleteA thrill killer planned the attack for what probably took at least months, and at least a week or so of staking out. The intruder could have easily gone through the window as observed by Smit. The fact that one tries to look at why and how with logic on a thrill kill shows to me you are very unfamiliar with the term and what it means. Thrill killers do not operate under logic or reasoning. Dennis Rader referred to this as "Factor X". They do it just for laughs. The whole thing was staged to make a fool of the police, the FBI, and all who took this case, the Ramsey's were not the real targets. They were in a sense because they probably represented something that the perpetrator didn't have. I suspect he is of low economic status, but exceptionally gifted. Probably has a history of sexual abuse to minors, and definitely gets more kicks off of murder than sexual abuse.
The facts have been warped to fit RDI. The real evidence that everyone should be looking at is the DNA. There is no logical explanation for it. It was found in three spots, under the fingernails of JBR, and on two articles of clothing, one was found on the interior side of the panties. It was most likely sweat, seeing as during the garroting the perpetrator would have been exhibiting force, causing him perspiration.
This continuous badgering of the Ramsey's is nonsense. John Ramsey did not write the note. His wife is only kept on as a possible due to a few nuances, and because the detectives to this point have nothing else to go on. They cannot be completely ruled out as suspects simply because it is an active investigation, and although publicly cleared, they must remain suspects until all the details are sorted out, in case they are connected in any way shape or form. I find this to be very, very unrealistic.
Your lack of knowledge of thrill killing, of fake ransom notes, of trolling, leads me to believe you are very limited as to real criminology and profiling.
The "thrill killer" you are describing sounds like a monster. Do you really believe such a monster would have been able to wake JonBenet up, lead her downstairs and then feed her pineapple without her making a sound? Or that he would even DARE to feed her the pineapple with the risk that one of the parents would come downstairs??
DeleteThe DNA is a total non-issue to me. It could have come from anyone prior to this murder. Read Kolar's book about this topic.
You suggest that this "thrill killer" could have entered through the broken basement window. Have you read John Ramsey's account for that broken window?? Now THAT is nonsense!
What would the purpose be of staging a fake kidnapping? Are you suggesting there was also thrill in that? If JonBenet was, indeed, killed by a thrill killer, his/her thrill would be over after the kill and he/she would get the hell out of that house. Not only would a RN be ridiculous at that point, but a RN that long is ludicrous in the scenario you suggest. And even if the RN was part of the plan to throw the police off, if this kill required "serious preplanning", as you suggest, don't you think this killer would have written the note ahead of time and brought it with him? The note was clearly written in the house that night. Sorry, this just does NOT add up.
I'm sure Doc can more articulately respond to all your comments, but I just had to point out the most ridiculous points.
bb
With PR and JR not being completely honest, IMO, I don't know that JB ever made it bed. It's all speculation, but suppose JR actually did stay downstairs and help BR with a toy, but instead of carrying JB to her bed asleep, suppose she was awake (like BR said), and that she stayed downstairs with BR and JR, while PR went upstairs to bed. I could see JR telling PR, "I'll put the kids to bed in a little bit...". JB then could've had a pineapple snack, while JR and BR finished working on the toy. Once they were done, JR could've walked BR up to his bed and made his way back downstairs to JB. This would put JR and JB alone on the first floor, away from PR and BR earshot.
ReplyDeleteIt would mean PR and JR both lied about JB being asleep, carried upstairs by JR, and her clothes changed by PR, but they did the same thing with the broken window. If JR told PR that he swears he put both the kids down shortly after she went to bed, but that the Police will suspect him, because he was with her before her death, I can see PRbeing talked into covering for him. Just a thought.
Jay
Jay, I'm not sure Patsy would go along with JR's lie about putting JonBenet to bed. First of all, what difference would it make if he put her to bed immediately after arriving home or a short time later after playing with the kids? Everyone knows how much kids like to play with their new Christmas toys and JR could have simply said that they wanted just a few minutes to play before going to bed. In other words, I'm not sure Patsy would feel like telling this truth would automatically make a suspect of JR.
DeleteNow, going along with JR's broken window story is another thing. By that time both parents were suspects and JR could easily convince Patsy that they needed to explain that broken window or one of them, or both, would be charged with murder. Plus Patsy was highly medicated by that time.
But to both lie about when and how the kids were put to bed doesn't seem necessary. Sure, it means that JR was the last one with JonBenet that night, but he could just as easily crept into her room later.
Having said that, if you are right and JR did talk Patsy into going along with this lie, I would say the only reason she would do that is because she already suspected him herself and possibly feared him. I've always wondered about this because I've always felt that she must have known, or at least suspected, that he was fooling around with JonBenet but was afraid to confront him about it for fear of losing her opulent lifestyle and spotless reputation.
bb
bb, thanks for the response. My thinking is two fold. First, JR seems overly responsible in his responses to questions about JB in Police interviews (i.e. only going to the talent part of her beauty contests, not sticking around when PR changed JB's clothes that night, ect.), which tells me he is either a man of extreme character and integrity, or he is making himself out to look that way. If it's the latter, then you question JR's description of events, when it comes to JB. That description starts with her being passed out, carrying her upstairs, and leaving when PR changed her clothes. Maybe he's being completely honest, but then again, BR did say she was awake and walked in by herself.
DeleteSecondly, I still question the pineapple being left out and the flashlight. The pineapple would make sense, if JB stayed up and had a snack, but again, that bolsters the argument that JR and PR are not being honest. Likewise, the flashlight is peculiar. If it was the weapon used to strike JB, why was it out to begin with? It would make more sense, IMO, if it were used after the fact (i.e. knocked her out or choked her with scarf, then pulled out the flashlight to search for something, realized an intruder would have to bludgeon her to keep her quiet and whacked her on the head, not realizing her laying down and "dead weight" would require less force, therefore leaving an 8" crack in her skull). Just my thoughts.
Jay
Doc...you may have been asked this, but I havent been on here in a while. With the huge success of both Serial and Undisclosed and the attention it has brought to the Adnan Syed case, have you considered doing a podcast? If not, please do one.....I think this is a case that would garner a large audience
ReplyDelete-J
I just stumbled on this short video clip. It echoes much of what Doc has said already about this case, specifically the ransom note.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVGC0CDVq6s
I noticed an inconsistency in the interview with Linda Arndt and when Larry King was John Ramsey. Linda states she was the first officer at the Ramsey house that morning and John Ramsey was not distraught but rather "cordial."
ReplyDeleteJohn Ramsey tells Larry King repeatedly that a male officer was the first to the house and uses the pronoun "he" a few times.
The interview with Ardnt was done in 99. The interview with the Ramsey's on Larry King is the one from 2000.
The discrepancy is odd unless another police officer was also there.
Barbara Walters asked John Ramsey about his response to Ardnt's ambiguous indictment and he said she wasn't in a position to judge his feelings at the time. That's really a side note though.
Why the difference in what officer came to the house?
The first officer to arrive that morning was Officer French, who arrived at approximately 5:55 a.m. Det. Arndt showed up later and there was a period of time when she was the only one there. I believe she was told to be there to wait for the ransom call, which of course never came.
DeleteThanks. Sorry for my mistake.
DeleteAssuming JR did commit this crime, would someone help me understand what his motive was? I completely get why he would have been abusing her (unfortunately incestuous relationships occur way too often in these times we live in), but why kill her? I've read DocG's theory that it was to silence her. I don't buy that. At age 6 I think he could easily have controlled her silence, either by horrible threats or huge bribes. And even if he failed at this and she did tell someone, he could certainly deny it. Wouldn't that be better than killing his daughter, who I have to believe he still loved very much, despite his abusive relationship with her?
ReplyDeletecj
My theory is that he injured her that night while molesting her and she was screaming and looking for help. JR bashed her with the flashlight to silence her.
DeleteThat's the scenario I'm leaning towards also. I don't believe he intended on killing her but rather lashed out in a fit of angry and/or panic and hit her with the flashlight, which I believe he used to take her down to the basement. I don't think he would have felt comfortable molesting her in her own room for fear that Patsy would awaken and come in. I believe I read somewhere that they have stored some additional Christmas presents in the basement to take with them on their trip and John may have lured JB down there to look at them.
DeleteI do not believe this was a premeditated crime. First of all, like I said above, I cannot believe John would actually choose to kill his daughter over any possible exposure. I just don't think he would let her threats of telling go that far. Also, if it were premeditated, he would have had much more of the staging set up ---- things the family would not have noticed.
But something happened that night that caused him to panic and I suspect JB started rejecting him or saying horrible things to him that caused him to snap.
cj
One thing to note is that in one of the reddit ama's (I think it was Kolar's) it was stated that vaginal blood was found on the pillowcase in JonBenet's bedroom, which means some of the abuse happened there.
DeleteGood catch. I hadn't noticed that. There is other evidence suggesting the assault may have taken place in her bedroom: fibers from the cord used to strangle her were found in her bed. He could have attacked her there and only later carried the body into the basement in order to hide it in the windowless room. If he'd struck her over the head initially, she would not have made a sound while he then proceeded with his sexual assault.
DeleteKolar's book Foreign Faction notes that red fibers from the jacket Patsy was wearing the night/morning of the murder were found not only on the tape that was on JB's mouth, but also in the paint tray and on the cord. This places Patsy at the crime scene. Police found it unlikely Patsy would be wearing the same red jacket to do painting in, so the appearance of its fibers in the tray cannot be easily explained. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteI think Doc has addressed this -- fibers from inside a home can easily be found anywhere, via transfer. I agree that its suspicious, especially if there were a lot of fibers. But we don't know the quantity of fibers or how they got there. For instance, Pasty's fibers could have been all over JBR if she hugged her, put her to bed, etc. And John could have picked up those fibers from Patsy, from the bedroom, or indirectly from JBR. LE
ReplyDeleteIt seems there are a lot of suspicious things that point to Patsy's guilt, and I've discovered --- primarily through this blog --- that most of these incriminating things can be explained. But what haunts me is the number of these things: fiber evidence, handwriting comparisons, appearing to have not slept that night (her side of bed was supposedly unslept in and she was wearing same outfit the following morning), fingerprints on pineapple bowl, her knowledge of JonBenet's favorite blanket and nightgown, her frustration with JonBenet's bedwetting, her not saying a word when 10:00 a.m. came and went that morning, her supposed silence when JonBenet was first found and FW yelled to call 911 . . . . these are the main ones. Maybe each and every one of these things can be explained, but what are the odds that so many would exist in the first place??
ReplyDeletestill wondering if PDI
The odds are good because she lived in the house. Naturally her fingerprints would be on bowls, glasses, etc. as only she and LHP would have done any dish washing. Patsy's fibers would be everywhere in the house through transfer.
DeleteThe odds are good, because PR isn't the only one who knows what time it is. JR didn't say anything either. And it's fairly clear that the call was to come the next day, not the 26th, so why say anything?
The odds are good because what response is appropriate when the body is found and there is a police detective in the house? Why would she need to say something?
The odds are good, because had she actually killed JBR, and orchestrated at least some, if not all, the staging, and written a RN, she surely would have had the presence of mind to changer her clothes.
The odds are good because the handwriting "analysis" isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Piling up irrelevancies doesn't increase the odds.
CH
CH, thanks for your reply. Your points make sense, especially the one about her clothes. If she was involved, certainly she WOULD have changed her clothes.
DeleteBesides the terrible job the police and detectives did in this case, I think one of the sole reasons JR dodged a bullet in this case is because there is so many things that do point to Patsy. He really lucked out in this regard and he probably never expected it.
"If she was involved, certainly she WOULD have changed her clothes."
ReplyDeleteThis was a clever and necessary maneuver on Patsy's part to dress herself in the same attire that morning. Why? She had to be in a position to explain how any of the fibers from her clothing were found on JonBenet's body. It is virtually impossible to wipe away every fiber so Patsy did what she had to do. Patsy redressed herself in the same outfit and awaited the discovery of JonBenet's body. When that time arrived, Patsy threw herself on the body as she wept. Now those fibers could be rationalized when it was time to collect evidence. We know, however, from the duct tape, which John removed from JonBenet's mouth in the cellar, those red fibers from Patsy's clothes could only have gotten there the first time she wore that outfit.
Hercule
thanks for your response, Hercule. You've explained that point well. I keep forgetting about the fibers on the duct tape. I would be interested in hearing an explanation for that. If someone thinks those fibers from Patsy's clothes transferred to JonBenet before the tape was put on her, then we would have to assume the fibers were around her mouth area and that when the tape was applied, it picked up the fibers. So why would those fibers be around her mouth and wouldn't they have gotten brushed off? I'm not a forensic expert, but I would assume that fibers stick more readily to other fabrics (or clothes) but not so much on smooth skin.
Deletestill wondering if PDI
The only problem is that JR altered the crime scene and evidence by ripping off the duct tape and discarding it. The defense can argue that is when it picked up the fibers from PR's clothes (off the blanket, floor, ect.)
DeleteJay
Yes, unfortunately, because this was an inside job, much of the evidence can point at either JR or Patsy. Perhaps that's why the Grand Jury felt compelled to indict both of them because isolating just one of them was impossible. I don't believe the Grand Jury felt the Ramsey were protecting Burke. I think they had the sense to know that he could not have clubbed JonBenet over the head with that much force.
DeleteThe only evidence that seems to point directly to JR is the alleged chronic vaginal abuse, although I read somewhere recently that even that evidence can point to someone (Patsy?) wiping JonBenet in a rough manner, which she very well may have done when she was feeling frustrated at JonBenet's bedwetting problem.
Having said that, at 6 years old one has to ask why JonBenet would still be experiencing bedwetting in the first place, at least at that frequency. I suggest that it was because of the molestation and her bedwetting was a sign of her emotional distress over the abuse.
summer
Summer, a lot of children have bedwetting problems who are not being sexually molested or who do not have other emotional distress. My siblings had these problems and also a niece, who's problem was found to be related to her sleep patterns. She was medically treated and the problem was solved.
ReplyDeleteOh, I completely agree with you. Bedwetting can have many causes and it is not uncommon. I just think that a very probable cause in JonBenet's case might be the abuse by her father, or having a very overbearing mother who constantly expected perfection, or both. It doesn't take a psychologist to say that both of these things could very well cause emotional distress and emotional distress can manifest itself in other types of behavior, or bedwetting in this case. Just my opinion.
Deletesummer
summer
Also keep in mind that Burke also experienced the same problems until Patsy's attention turned toward JonBenet and the pageant circuit.
DeleteHercule
Yes, I believe Patsy had a side to her that none of us are fully aware of. Without having fully researched her childhood or young adult life, I would say that being raised in the south, being involved in beauty pageants herself, then marrying a rich man and living an opulent lifestyle, only to later find out she had cancer, may very well have brought about some significant emotional changes. On the surface, she appeared to be a woman who is very dramatic. The RN seems to be written in a very dramatic style. Many suggest that the words used in the RN would typically only be used by men, but I wholeheartedly disagree. I think Patsy was a very intelligent woman and could very easily have chosen those particular words or phrases. In fact, when watching her in the video of her interrogation with Tom Haney and listening to the way she talks and the words she uses, I am always reminded of the ransom note. Putting all the handwriting analysis aside, I think the experts also weighed heavily on the style of the RN. I think it is very, very possible that Patsy wrote it.
Deletestill wondering if PDI
Seriously, this is when the conversation on this blog no longer interests me. You are saying that women raised in the south, who were in pageants, who marry well (her lifestyle may seem opulent to you, but it was similar to that of many executives, CEOs, and investment bankers in the Northeast, California, Texas, DC, .....) and then at some point in their lives face illness and possible death, are poised to be child abusers and killers. Give me a break. I guess I have a handful of friends and even their daughters who I need to worry about now. Go back and read Doc's handwriting analysis and the theory about tracing the font off of the computer screen. Did the drama queen think of that, and being so overwrought and dramatic, did she have the wherewithal to concentrate on composing such a note and THEN tracing it so well? Drama queens, if you've ever met any, can't stay on task when their emotions are peaking, no matter how intelligent they are. I'm southern, I'm female, and I've heard a lot of females speak. Nothing in Patsy's speech patterns is out of the ordinary. For that matter, southern men speak similarly, and John had lived in the south long enough to pick up expressions himself. Not to mention, the person who wrote the note would have been trying to disguise their identity. Here we go again, back to talking about all the possibilities when the focus needs to be on just the facts and probabilities that stem from those facts. We can wonder "until the cows come home" - a southern expression - but the facts are stacked up against John. He needs to answer to those. Geez, is it just southern women like me who want to know why men get a pass in crimes just because of what they do in their day job? Good grief. John got caught in a big fat lie, he behaved like a narcissist, he was an adulterer in his previous marriage, he lost a daughter which may a caused a loose screw in psyche (since you think past events could have done so to Patsy, lets go there with John!), he was conniving, he wanted to fly out of town HOURS after he found his baby dead, he lawyered up so fast it was unbelievable, he refused to listen to advice from friends who wanted him to cooperate with the police, the list goes on. I wonder about John. Did he have a cold, abusive father and a neglectful mother or a mother who crossed boundaries? Why didn't he know how to have a normal, loving relationship with adult women? Why were his business trips to the Netherlands, which is not exactly the tech capital of Europe? Why were their rumors of girlfriends who say he made them dress up in pageant clothes, and then said girlfriend was silenced? (probs with money), why is he now married to a woman he hotly pursued who designs pageant costumes? Ugh, I think he's a sick perv. I bumped into him once in public in Atlanta, and just being near him gave me the creeps. As for Patsy: someone I know who met her in a Bible study said that she is a down to earth W. Virginia girl who says what she thinks, was funny, self-deprecating, and generous. Loved fixing up her house as a hobby, but mainly because it gave her something creative to do. Loved her kids and her step-kids equally and wanted the best for all of them. So, you can wonder about Patsy, but what do you wonder about John, the man who didn't play ball with his son, didn't go to soccer games or scout functions, etc, didn't act like a much of a real dad to me at all?
ReplyDeleteWell said. I have taken your comment (and obvious theory JDI) into consideration. It sounds like I offended you because you are from the south. Well guess what? So am I. No offense intended. I'm just trying to look at everything about the character of BOTH Patsy and John. Though it's not hard evidence, I still feel it's worth looking at. Why is it wrong of me to suggest that an opulent woman, raised in the south, who has an obsession with beauty pageants, and who is facing death by cancer, might have some emotional issues going on? It is no different than looking at John's behavior and what he might or might not have been doing when he traveled to Europe. Or that he appeared not be very attentive to his children. Or that he hired lawyers right away (which, by the way, was suggested to him by a friend). Or that he was a quiet man who didn't show much emotion? I'm not an expert, but I believe this is all part of profiling and understanding different personality types and behaviors when trying to solve a case.
DeleteFor years I have been riding the fence on this case, waffling between JDI, PDI or both. I think cases can be made for all three. That is exactly why there remains so many theories about this case and why it will probably never be solved. But as to the PDI theory, you can't ignore all the things that point to her, just like you can't ignore all the things that point to JDI. There are many for both.
No, I have not ruled out John, as the experts did, but I have also not ruled out Patsy. I invite you to read the "Ramseys Did It Theories" in this Wiki link:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682477/FrontPage
Yes, the theory against John is powerful too. But I'm just not ready to give Patsy a pass. And it's not solely because of the RN, although I still feel the style of writing is very similar to hers.
still wondering if PDI
Some people still have a view of southern women as Scarlett O'Hara having "the vapors".
DeleteBoth parents lied. Why?
Both parents lied, yes. Why did they lie? Excellent question, one of the key questions of the case.
DeleteIf we stick with the facts, we see that only two of Patsy's alleged lies can be objectively corroborated. Please correct me if you find any others. We know she lied about what happened prior to the 911 call because she provided two contradictory versions of what happened. And we know she lied about cleaning up the glass from the basement window with the help of her housekeeper because 1. John's story about breaking the glass earlier is on its face a complete sham; 2. she could not recall if the window had ever been repaired, which is not credible; 3. the housekeeper, who was thoroughly investigated and cleared, denied it and actually accused her of lying.
What do these two lies have in common? They are attempts to corroborate John's version of what happened. Implying that John was manipulating her. If she'd contradicted him on either of these points, he would have looked very suspicious indeed.
John on the other hand, lied on numerous occasions and not one of his lies supported anything Patsy ever claimed. He was clearly the one in charge. His lies have a completely different meaning than hers.
Speaking of losing interest in this blog . . . . there hasn't been much word from Doc lately. I am worried he has lost interest too, having said everything there is to say. Personally, I find the banter here much more boring without his occasional input.
ReplyDeleteHoping Doc is still interested in this case.
No, I haven't lost interest in this blog. I've been out of town and without access to my computer. I was able to read the comments but didn't have a decent keyboard so didn't respond.
DeleteDoc said earlier that he wouldn't be commenting much unless someone posts some new ground to cover. To the above person: John said that a friend told him to hire a lawyer, but who is to believe that...which friend really owns up to saying that? Besides, if I were a friend I would have told him the same because he did look to be in trouble by his own behavior -- trying to book a flight and get the hell out of dodge when your little 6 year our baby girl is dead and still at the morgue? Who does that? Yes, its not evidence, but it sure does look back to your friends and to the cops. Now, I put little to no stock in profiling, and you can be sure that I'm offended when people suggest that women (or men) can become murderous just because they have emotional issues (assuming Patsy had emotional issues). Think about it, don't all murderers have some kind of mental issue, while all people with issues are not murderers? So it doesn't tell us much, and its certainly not a reason to discount the factual case that Doc has put together on this blog. She was recovering from cancer, you know. She was doing well at that point; had a new lease on life. Had her hair back, was going to parties, throwing parties, spending time with her kids again. I don't think Doc's theory gives Patsy a pass, rather I think it fully vets the possibility of her being involved and rules it out for a number of reasons. But, like he said, if she helped John, let him have his day in court and explain that. Patsy's lies, by the way, were only to help corroborate John's big fat stupid story about the window. That window was staged and everyone knew it. He had to cover up for why it was broken. As Doc explained, she was sort of in a bind there, being forced to support that story given the the pressure that was on her, and probably her disbelief at this point that her husband could have done this. I've read all the other theories out there and the problem with them is that they don't link together just the facts, and reasonable conclusions based solely on facts. This case won't be solved by asking thousands of people what they think "could" have happened.
ReplyDelete"I don't think Doc's theory gives Patsy a pass, rather I think it fully vets the possibility of her being involved and rules it out for a number of reasons. But, like he said, if she helped John, let him have his day in court and explain that."
DeleteYes. Thank you.
The problem with suspecting PR, based on the words chosen in the RN, or the fact that she wore the same clothes, etc. etc., is this - if you suspect PR, then you must accept the larger implications of her involvement.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, if you want to entertain the idea that maybe PR wrote the RN, then the implication, which you must also accept, is that she staged a "kidnapping gone wrong" scene and expected the police detectives to believe it.
If PR killed JBR and wrote the RN then called the police virtually guaranteeing that the police would find both a RN and a body, then clearly she was hoping the police would buy the intruder theory. (Hey, we have a body, hidden, and a RN. Gee, must have been an intruder, no reason to suspect a family member)
But it's hard to see why an intruder would redress the body or wrap it or place in in the WC. It's hard to see why the kidnapping "went wrong" when the kidnapper had already taken the child from her bed and brought her downstairs. Why then go to the basement? Why not just leave with the girl?
To suspect PR is to view the "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario as realistic and believable, or at least you must accept that PR thought it would be believable. But PR is no dummy. And no amount of narcissism would make either of the adult Rs think the police would find that scenario convincing. (They didn't build a successful computer business by not knowing what other people will or will not believe)
So, if you suspect PR, you are essentially accepting the very real possibility of IDI. If you reject IDI, as I see it, you must also reject the notion that PR (or JR for that matter) was stupid enough to think the kidnapping gone wrong scene was convincing. You must reject that PR (and/or JR) staged a kidnapping gone wrong.
In short you must believe PR is incredibly stupid, or you must accept that IDI is a real possibility.
There is a danger in trying to come up with a unified field theory of the case, one which incorporates every doubt and every unexplained act or statement. You end up allowing small things to make you suspicious and ignore the larger implications, which simply can't be true.
It simply can't be true that PR wrote a RN, then turned around and called police so they'd find the RN and a dead body, cleaned, redressed, wrapped, and hidden if she wanted the police to believe IDI. It can't be true that PR wrote the RN then ignored all the warnings she herself put in the RN by calling friends over, and calling 911 w/o asking them to send unmarked cars. It can't be true that PR wrote the RN in conjunction with a "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario because that is either unbelievable, or makes IDI completely plausible.
It's these larger implications that guide the logic, not every little doubt you have.
CH
Thank you CH for your response. You put much clarity in your explanation of why PR couldn't have written the RN.
DeleteBut here's what I don't get. If JR is guilty and he is the one who wrote the ransom note, then why on earth did he allow Patsy to call the police? I understand what you're saying: that both Ramseys were too smart to expect the police to buy into a kidnapping gone bad scenario. But if that is true, then by allowing Patsy to call the police, JR is immediately banking that the police will accept IDI and that the "kidnapping" went bad. After all, that is what the Ramseys have all along contended; that there was an intent to kidnap and get ransom money, but somehow JonBenet was murdered before that could happen. If JR went to all that trouble to stage the basement and write that 'War and Peace' of ransom notes, why would be EVER allow Patsy to phone the police? Certainly if he had the power to manipulate Patsy so much AFTER the discovery of the body, then why wouldn't he have done it that morning, to prevent Patsy from calling 911? He could have simply reminded her that they would risk JonBenet's life if they alerted the police. He could have convinced Patsy that he could get the money and they would at least have a chance at getting JonBenet back. I think Patsy would have listened to him and agreed.
Doc is correct about the 911 call. That is a pivotal moment in this case. If she had not made that call, this case would likely have ended much differently. But she did. Why would John ever allow her to do that???
Thanks again CH for your thoughtful response (unlike others I have encountered)
still wondering if PDI
I read one of the statements about Burke Ramsey being interviewed after he admitted to being awake that morning he said he heard his parents voices and heard his dad tell his mum to call the police why would he lie about that? Anyone else remember reading that? If he indeed was being truthful then docs theory cannot make sense for the option of JR did it .
ReplyDelete@still wondering if PDI
ReplyDeleteDoc has written quite a bit about your question, so I'll just touch on it briefly.
Why didn't JR stop Patsy from making the 911 call?
My theory is that Patsy probably only read the fist few lines of the RN, just enough to know he daughter was kidnapped. She may have made the call when JR was in another room or on the other side of the room. Once the final "1" is punched, the call is made. It takes what, 2 seconds to "dial" 911? Before JR can do anything she's already talking to the operator.
JR would have to be within arms length of PR at all times to prevent a call. That would be suspicious. So, at least imo, JR simply could not have prevented the call. Unless he were going to hold her wrists or rip the phones out of the wall, there is simply no way to prevent punching 3 numbers. It can't be done w/o giving away that he's trying to hide something.
To be fair, he could have held her to prevent the call, at least long enough to explain that the note has repeated threats and that JBR might be killed. But he can't hold her all day long, and if she doesn't believe the threats .....
To me the more interesting question is why did PR make the call?
One reason of course is that it was her role in the coverup JR and PR cooked up, but then we are right back to the "kidnapping gone wrong" scenario which I think we both agree is not very plausible. So basically, PR can't have been involved in a coverup, just as Doc has repeatedly said. If she were, she'd never have made that call at that time.
Another reason is that she may simply have read only a few lines of the RN, enough to realize that her daughter had been kidnapped, and she wanted the police to help get her back.
Still another possibility is that she read the entire note and simply didn't believe the threats. Though repeated, they do "sound" like someone trying to convey a tough-guy image, but end up "sounding" like a bad movie script (and of course we know some lines were lifted right out of a few movies). She may have felt it was more important to get the police involved since they were probably better off with the police than trying to handle the situation themselves (seen from PR's POV and believing the RN to be real)
In short there is no way for JR to prevent a 911 call. Even if he stopped her initially, if she want's to make the call, she's making the call.
You're correct in thinking that it's absolutely crucial to JR's plan that Patsy not make that call. But when you consider how easy the call can be made, and how drastic JR would have to act to prevent a call, you realize that he couldn't stop it.
JMO, but I think the way the RN is written - with a warning in the first paragraph that if they want to see JBR alive in '97 all instructions have to be followed to the letter - JR assumed that PR (or anyone) would read the entire letter, wanting to know what the instructions were. He did not bank on her reading only a few lines, or if she read further, disbelieving the threats.
Also jmo, but I think the reason for the "small foreign faction" was to make PR believe the kidnappers were an organization that actually had the willingness and ability to kill JBR, and the ability to use "electronic countermeasures" to keep the Rs under surveillance. To me she either didn't read that far, or felt the threats and claims were so over the top she dismissed them as BS.
Sorry, that was more long-winded than I had intended.
CH
CH, thanks for your reply. Your explanation is, once again,well thought out. I just have two comments:
DeleteBeing a mother myself, if I had found that note and realized my daughter was, in fact, gone (I believe Patsy says she read just the first couple lines of the RN and then raced upstairs to check JonBenet's bedroom), I would have gone back to the note and read it thoroughly before doing anything. Who wouldn't?? At that point, that RN was the only thing she had giving her any information about where her daughter was. So I find it unbelievable that she did not read the whole note.
Second, based on the JDI theory that Doc and so many others have talked about in this blog, JR had everything riding on that note preventing the police from being involved so that he could get the body out of the house. Everything depended on Patsy NOT calling the police, so I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have stayed close to the phone while reading the note and then telling Patsy that they absolutely could not call the police. He wouldn't have to strong-arm her; he simply needed to stay by that phone. If she tried to pick up the receiver, he could have easily told her that JonBenet would be killed if she called anyone. But as I understand it, after Patsy screamed out to John and he saw the note, he raced upstairs to check on Burke. Why on earth would he leave that phone to do that? He could have told Patsy to check on Burke. For that matter, he could have cut the phone line to prevent any calls, although I know I'm going out on a limb here.
So based on the prevailing theory in this blog, John took a HUGE risk leaving that phone area that morning. The note was just a few feet away from the phone so it would have been very easy for him to stay there while reading the note. And if he is as narcissistic as many believe he is, he would not jeopardize that body being found in the house.
There was a phone on each floor of the house.
DeleteFor some reason, certain comments never seem to show up in the comments section. Fortunately all turn up in my email, so I can usually catch the lost ones and post them myself. Here's my latest "find," by our old friend "Anonymous":
ReplyDeleteI read one of the statements about Burke Ramsey being interviewed after he admitted to being awake that morning he said he heard his parents voices and heard his dad tell his mum to call the police why would he lie about that? Anyone else remember reading that? If he indeed was being truthful then docs theory cannot make sense for the option of JR did it .
Yet another reason why it's important to focus on the facts and avoid making assumptions. The story about Burke hearing John tell Patsy to call the police originated, as far as I can tell, with Steve Thomas's book. Since Thomas was eager to point the finger at Patsy and give John "a pass," it's possible he heard what he wanted to hear when he questioned Burke, and that might not have been what Burke actually said. I'm wondering whether anyone can find a transcript of that interview so we can verify it. I'm not saying Thomas lied, but it's possible he didn't hear Burke clearly or misinterpreted what he'd said.
DeleteIt's also important not to assume that Burke actually heard what he claimed to have heard, even if Thomas's report is accurate. Burke's room was some distance from the room where John claimed (in their book) to have told Patsy to call the police. It seems likely to me that Burke had been prompted to make a statement to that effect.
The bottom line is that Patsy's version of what happened, as documented in the A&E interview, is very different from what Burke is alleged to have said, and also what is alleged to have taken place according to what John said in their first CNN interview and also their book. In the documentary, she states very clearly that she told John she was going to make that call and then went downstairs to make it. Nothing there about John telling her to make the call. John is sitting next to her as she says this and makes no effort to correct her. I just now posted a link to the A&E documentary (see the following blog post) so everyone can see for himself what she said and how John reacted.
The report regarding what Burke said is not a fact, but merely a report. What Patsy said, on the other hand, IS a fact, as documented in living color via A&E, assisted by youtube -- and she speaks very clearly and decisively.
The other relevant fact of this matter is the fact that Patsy is the one who made that call, a call she would not have made if she were involved in the staging of a kidnapping. Putting the facts together it seems clear the call was Patsy's idea, not John's. In view of the facts it looks to me as though Thomas either misinterpreted Burke or Burke had been prompted to lie for the same reason Patsy eventually lied: to support John's version of what happened.
If jdi he didn't have to leave the note where he knew patsy walked down before him in the morning she was alone at first with him taking a shower he was really taking a huge risk which to me didn't make sense if everything hinged on pasty not calling the police he could have made sure he was first to find the note and take charge of it all from there .
ReplyDeleteDoesn't add up does it? Clearly we have a ransom note addressed to John but it is placed in a spot where Patsy would find it first. Why was it so important for Patsy to find the note first? She wanted to make sure the 911 call was made. Why? The same reason that she called her friends and demanded that they come to her side. To contaminate the crime scene.
DeleteHercule
If she wanted to contaminate the crime scene, she would have called her friends over without also calling the police. Don't forget, she called 911 first, the police arrived first, and if they'd been on the ball, would not have allowed anyone else to enter the house. No need to call in the cops at that point. The friends could then have been sworn to secrecy and asked to leave, probably taking Burke with them. The body could then have been removed in secret (via the car trunk I'd imagine) the following night. Only then would the police have been called.
DeleteYou are assuming that Patsy not only would have the gumption to take charge of this kidnapping, but also take it upon herself to dump JonBenet's body en route to the bank without John going with her? Patsy knew she would never get the opportunity to remove the body from the basement without John knowing about it. She did what she was comfortable doing: being a dramatic victim for not only her friends to see but also law enforcement. There really was no other choice for her.
DeleteHercule
There are three missing pieces of evidence: whatever was used to wipe down the body, the roll of duct tape, and any remaining cord. There is one piece of evidence that SHOULD be missing: the note pad.
ReplyDeleteDoc has suggested the first three items were cut up and flushed, which begs the question - why was not the note pad as well?
Imagine how much more persuasive the IDI theory would be had the note pad disappeared as well!
This suggests to me two thought processes, two perpetrators working in concert, one in the basement with the body (likely JR), the second on the first floor with the note and note pad, quite literally distancing herself from JB's body.
(Cont.) JR comes up after staging the body to review PR's note, and in his stress and panic does not consider the note pad, because PR has put it away, just as she did the sharpie and, to some extent, the flashlight, which was wiped down inside and out.
ReplyDeleteAs Doc frequently says, we must consider only facts. Surely a consideration of an absence/presence of evidence is also a fact.
(Further continued) This joint participation also explains why PR was wearing same clothes as night before. I have never believed someone as fastidious about her appearance as PR would do that willingly.
ReplyDeleteThis leaves only motive, about which we can only speculate in any scenario. I think it likeliest PR struck her, JR delivered the coup de grace via garotte.
We've gone over all this stuff time and time again. I refuse to spend more time on such questions. If you want my opinion, do a blog search for "notepad."
DeleteI legit could not sleep last night.. my heart was hurting for this little girl. Ive allways believed the burke theory but reading these comments have made me lean towards john. But one thing that doesn't make sense is why take this extra time and strangle her if she was dead or dying . Brutley strangle her which is such a personal crime. Have the heart to look and what done you done to her. Just doesnt make any sense . Why take this extra time to make a garrote and strangle her ?
ReplyDeleteOne theory which I doubt happened is what if this ex girlfriend which he cheated on with his first wife did it? I thought I read somewhere I could be wrong that when he was dating patsy she showed up on his door step and she answered the door. Jr probably told patsy she was a crazy old girlfriend. What if she snuck into the house maybe to take out pasty . She seen all the pictures of john and jb happy . Maybe that enraged her? She wasn't prepared for a ransom . That is why she wrote the rn on the r amseys home paper. The purpose of the ransom note was to make john blame himself and to point fingers away from her as a suspect. Tryed to make it seem work related . She knew of johns older daughter dieing . Maybe she wanted him to blame himself. That it was because of his money his daughter is in danger . She left the body there because she wanted him to find her like that. It could explain why she went to the extent to strangle her .
ReplyDeleteDid they ever even find a fingerprint on jb? Was there any suspicious finger prints ?
ReplyDelete