Man: The ransom note said, speaking to anyone about your situation such as the police, FBI etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies.
Patsy - "I said, 'I'm going to call the police and he said OK. And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911."
In this interview Patsy presents a version of what happened just prior to the 911 call that completely contradicts the version presented in their book, where John, next to her on hands and knees reading the note, tells Patsy to call the police, the phone is just beside her so she lifts the receiver and calls.
In the A&E version it is Patsy who decided to call the police. She tells John she's going to make the call and he agrees. He then goes to check on Burke and she runs downstairs to make the call. At the time the call is made, according to this version, he is heading for Burke's room, no where near Patsy as she calls 911.
While I never saw any reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript I was never able to locate this particular interview segment on youtube or anywhere else. The problem, I now realize, is that I found the wrong video and assumed it was the A&E doc, which it wasn't. Not seeing it there, I just assumed it had been cut. It took me a long time to find the original documentary but when I did I found what I'd been looking for, and included a link in the revised version of my book. I'll now include it here as well, in case any of you might he in doubt as to exactly what was said:
If you skip to 17:47 you'll find it.
NB: John is sitting right next to her and doesn't blink an eye. If her version of what happened isn't accurate, he makes no attempt to correct it.
[Added 2 - 7 - 16: The video referenced above is no longer available on youtube, sorry. If anyone knows where to find another copy, please let me know. There's a video on youtube called the "A&E Documentary" but it's not exactly the same and doesn't seem to contain that scene. The transcript for the complete show, which does, can be found here.]
How accurate can you expect their memories to be after a traumatic event like that. It was probably chaotic as hell.
ReplyDeleteIn his police interviews, John is continually claiming memory problems. He "can't recall exactly, but . . ." he "thinks it might have happened" this way rather than that. "As he recalls," he did or did not do this or that. But there is no trace of any such thing in this interview, from either John or Patsy. She makes no mention of any memory problems and comes across as confident and composed.
DeleteIn the very different version presented in their book, the description of what happened is also presented in a very straightforward manner. No hemming and hawing, no mention of memory problems, but a simple straightforward narrative.
From "qq":
ReplyDeleteHello,
unfortunately i can not post my comment....
thank you DocG for your blog and your theory. I am convinced that john did it but i have to disagree on some points (englisch is not my mother tongue, so it´s not so easy for me to write that down...i hope that i can make my points clear).
Your premeditation theory
I have read your blog post in whicht you explain your premeditation theory. I don´t think it is very convincing. First of all - the ransom note. It makes no sense that he wrote the ransom note before murdering her. As you know the police found a practice (!) note at the crime scene. If he had written the ransom note before the murderer and thought about it - he certainly would not have left a practice note in the house ! He would have thrown it away. But he didn´t. IMO thats just a sign that he was in a rush.
Then the way of killing and the sexual abuse at the day of the murderer.
If it was just about killing JBR why sexual abuse her prior to the murder ? And why should he have used 2 different ways of hurting/killing her ? You said once that hitting the head of a child with a flashlight is a easy way of killing someone. if so - why did he not hit her again with the flashlight ? Instead he built a garotte to strangle her 1 hour or so later. Probably he built the garotte during this hour. That would be a stupid thing to do if it the murder was planned - because in this time patsy could have woken up. So he could have just bashed her with the flashligh several times or built a garotte and strangle her during her sleep. That would have been much, much quicker and less risky.
In addition to this he put duct- tape on her mouth etc. Why should he do that - if he had planned to dump the body somewhere else ?
(continued in following post:)
qq's comment continued:
DeleteMy assumption is the following:He sexually abused her during the night ( by the way it is not unusal that family members abuse children when other family members are in the house), she screamed and hit him or said she would tell her mother, he paniced and hit her with the flashlight or something else. He realised that she was unconscious. He waited and after a while she was still unconcious. He realisied that he needed to do something else to kill her. he built the garotte and strangeled her. Of course this situation put him under a lot of stress. He had to think very quicklich and clearly and this is not an easy thing to do in the middle of the night after just committing such a horrible crime. so he came up with this "kidnapping gone bad" idea. He wrote the ransom note, put tape over her mouth, put the suitecase under the window etc...
I don´t think that he really planned to dump the body somewhere. Because it would have been way to difficult (where should he dump it ? and when ? We shouldn´t forget that he had to carry the body out of the house. This would have been very risky. of course he could have said to patsy that he need to go and talk to the kidnappers. but how should he explain to her that he needed to take for example a huge suitcase (with the body in it) with him ? So i think that would have been too risky.
Now DocG you will probably say that this makes no sense and that he did not want the body to be found. And this is now the main point. We should not forget that he probebably was under tremendous stress. he did not have a lot of time - and because of that i don´t think that he had the mental capacitiy to think everthing trough and act 100 % logically !! People don´t act logically or rationally all the time. In fact many times they don´t act like that. If i put myself in his situation - staging the kidnapping would be the best idea in this situation. Of course you will say now " in order to make it look llike a kidnapping the body had to be out of the house "- but then again i will say: I dont think that he had the time and the mental state to think the whole situation through and it was just to difficult to get the body out of the house. it was a very scary situation - do you really think that he could think of all weak points in his story and in the setting ? I don´t think so . I would have not been able to think that through in this situation - and i would have thought that the ransom note was a good idea and that the body could be found in the house because the police would think that it was a kidnapping gone bad. And again - there would have been no need to stage the kidnapping, put tape over her mouth etc. if he wanted to dump her body somewhere.
And btw. everything worked out for him. The ransom note was enough - everybody ruled him out and nobody suspected him anymore.
qq: "It makes no sense that he wrote the ransom note before murdering her. As you know the police found a practice (!) note at the crime scene. If he had written the ransom note before the murderer and thought about it - he certainly would not have left a practice note in the house ! He would have thrown it away. But he didn´t. IMO thats just a sign that he was in a rush."
DeleteFirst of all, the "practice note" consisted of "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line, probably the start of the letter "R" for "Ramsey." That's it. It was found in the same notepad the note itself was written on. If the murder had been premeditated it's possible that John could have taken the notepad with him to the airport or some other place while claiming to have gone to the airport, and then traced or copied the text from his laptop. He would then have kept the pages in the notepad and returned with it to the house.
Why would he have done that? Well, it was Xmas, so the stores were probably closed and there was nowhere to buy paper. Not to worry, because there was plenty of paper in that notepad. But why return the pad to the house, you ask. Not only could it be matched to the note, as it eventually was, but as you say, the "practice note" was still there on one of the pages.
You are forgetting one thing: John's plan A. Which involved NOT calling the police until the body had been removed from the house. And when the body was removed, then all the evidence would also have been removed, and destroyed, including the notepad itself. So in John's mind at the time, the notepad and the practice note would not have been a problem as he was planning to dispose of the pad and all its contents, probably on the following night when he would have dumped the body.
(to be continued . . . )
As far as the garotte is concerned, my take is that this was not part of his planning, because the garotte was constructed right on top of her as she lay unconscious, rather than ahead of time. Why he chose that particular method is hard to explain regardless of what your scenario might be. My best guess is that after striking her over the head he must have assumed he'd killed her. And then realized only later that she was still breathing, so decided to finish her off by strangling her. It's possible he also decided on this method to make it look like the "kidnapper" was some kind of pervert.
DeleteAs for the possibility of Patsy awakening, assuming the murder was preplanned John could have had the opportunity during the party to spike Patsy and Burke's drinks with a drug that would keep them sleeping soundly all night.
The duct tape could have been applied after the police arrived, to make it look more like she'd been attacked by an intruder.
The scenario you present is similar to the one I initially came up with and it's very possible that this is, more or less, how things went. I'm not in love with the premeditation theory -- it's just a possibility that imo needs to be considered.
"I don´t think that he really planned to dump the body somewhere." Here I completely disagree. This is the whole point of the note, to buy time for him to get the body out of the house the following night, and if spotted by someone, claim he'd been delivering the ransom. The note shows no sign of confusion or panic at all (which is one reason I think it could have been written ahead of time.) Everything in the note is consistent with the plan I've outlined. And if there was no such plan then there was no point in writing it in the first place.
"First of all, the "practice note" consisted of "Mr. and Mrs." followed by a vertical line, probably the start of the letter "R" for "Ramsey." That's it. It was found in the same notepad the note itself was written on. If the murder had been premeditated it's possible that John could have taken the notepad with him to the airport or some other place while claiming to have gone to the airport, and then traced or copied the text from his laptop. He would then have kept the pages in the notepad and returned with it to the house."
DeleteOf course evertyhing is possible - but this scenario does not seem very likely to me. There would have been no reason to keep the practice note - and no reason to keep the pencil and the paper and especially put it BACK in its place !
He could have just thrown eveything back. Now you mention Johns supposed plan A - if he really planed to destroy all the things than there was no reason at All to put the notepad and the pan back in their original place. I think it´s just super unlikely that you put all the things back in their place if you want to destroy everything. He could have easily destroyed everything at the airport or somewhere else - but he didn´t. In my opinion it´s just more likely that he worte it at that night after the murder ( he had plenty of time for that). He just did not thought about the pen and the paper and that the police could find it - again he certainly was under a lot of stress and he have had no sleep.
(...to be continued)
qq
As far as the garotte is concerned, my take is that this was not part of his planning, because the garotte was constructed right on top of her as she lay unconscious, rather than ahead of time. Why he chose that particular method is hard to explain regardless of what your scenario might be. My best guess is that after striking her over the head he must have assumed he'd killed her. And then realized only later that she was still breathing, so decided to finish her off by strangling her. It's possible he also decided on this method to make it look like the "kidnapper" was some kind of pervert.
DeleteYes of course he decided the garotte afterwars. But if he had planned to kill her it is very unlikely that he would have done something like that. If you really plan a murder you usually kill someone at once. But he waited another 45 to 2 hours to kill her. That does not speak for a planned murder.
"As for the possibility of Patsy awakening, assuming the murder was preplanned John could have had the opportunity during the party to spike Patsy and Burke's drinks with a drug that would keep them sleeping soundly all night."
Of course this is possible - but it´s just pure speculation and again not very likely to me. Patsy woke up very early.
""I don´t think that he really planned to dump the body somewhere." Here I completely disagree. This is the whole point of the note, to buy time for him to get the body out of the house the following night, and if spotted by someone, claim he'd been delivering the ransom. The note shows no sign of confusion or panic at all."
Ok that is the important part. You think this is the whole point of the note - i don´t think so. We cannot be sure that john had the same mindset as you. For me the point of the note is just distraction and to make it seem like a kidnapping go wrong. This was the best option he had. Of course he could have taken the body out of the house and he probably thought about that. But that would have been very, very risky. You always say that he could say to patsy that he need to deliver the ransom - but this assmues that the kidnapper calls ! Should he say to patsy " no kidnapper called but im just going to drive around, find the kidnapper and want to deliver the ransom."
Add to this i do think the ransom note shows signs of confusion. First of all the lenght - thats completly "crazy". Than the mix between "me" and "we"... etc..
qq
"if he really planed to destroy all the things than there was no reason at All to put the notepad and the pan back in their original place. I think it´s just super unlikely that you put all the things back in their place if you want to destroy everything."
DeleteYou need to keep in mind the sequence of events, which includes the transition from plan A to plan B. If he'd been able to stick with plan A, then yes, there would have been no reason to replace the notepad in its original location. So you make a good point in that regard.
However we shouldn't forget that the situation became very different after Patsy's 911 call. Now we are dealing with plan B -- and it is no longer possible for John to ditch that notepad. He would have had no choice but to return both the pad and the pen to their original places and hope the police would never figure out that the pad was the source of the note.
To understand the logic of my scenario you need to spend some time reading on this blog. Here's a good place to begin: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-purpose-of-note.html
Delete"Now we are dealing with plan B -- and it is no longer possible for John to ditch that notepad. He would have had no choice but to return both the pad and the pen to their original places and hope the police would never figure out that the pad was the source of the note."
DeleteI have to disagree on this comment. Of course he would have had other choices. He could have put the pad at the crime scene - to me that would have made much more sense than a murderer who place the pad back at its original place. Or he could have destroyed the pad and especially the practice note (cut it into small pieces and flush them down the toilet). That he did nothing of that and just left the practice note behind is for me a sign of confusion and being in a hurry. If he had planned the murder it´s unlikely that that would have happened. As I said then he just could have thrown everything away at the airport or using letters from the newspaper etc....
I read your post about the ransom note. But again i have to disagree. You write: "This would represent the kidnapper's call. Assuming he had an answering machine, the machine would pick up the call to record the "message." Of course there wouldn't be any, but the call would now be registered in the phone companies records."
Ok let´s image that scenario. The call would be also recorded on the answering machine of the phone (mailbox) so when the police looked at the phone they could see and HEAR that there was a call, the mailbox answered and that the caller left no message. How would John then explain that the had talked with the kidnappers ??
"He'd tell the police that the kidnappers took the ransom and the note and left without returning JonBenet. Later her dead body would be found in that same area." Ok but then he had to lie a LOT. He had to lie about the call, the kidnappers and everything else. His car would have been searched and you know that for example dogs can smell the smell of a dead body a long time afterwards. IMO this would have been way more risky than leaving the body in the house.
The ransom note was just distraction like the duct tape - and everything worked out fine....
qq
It seems to me, qq, that you are assuming John would have had some sort of perfect plan, in which every single detail was thought through in advance. I don't see it that way at all. He was in a desperate situation (out of fear of exposure), came up with a plan that looked good, took a chance, and when necessary, improvised.
DeleteYou see dumping the body as risky and I agree. But leaving the body in the house was also risky. Moreover, leaving a phony ransom note for a victim that was never taken from the house is beyond risky: it's an invitation for the police to arrest you on the spot, which is what should have been done. It's one thing to stage a failed kidnapping, it's another to stage a failed kidnapping where the kidnapper is stupid enough to leave his hand printed ransom note behind anyhow, despite his failure to actually kidnap anyone.
In the abstract, one might think that leaving the body in the house is less risky than dumping it in the middle of the night. But when we consider the FACTS, we are forced to acknowledge the existence of that note because that is certainly a fact -- and if someone went to all the trouble to write that long and detailed note that person must have had a good reason for doing so. Staging a failed kidnapping where the kidnapper leaves his note behind anyhow is NOT much of a plan. It was evident to the police from the start that this was not a failed kidnapping, but a failed staging. And if it weren't for John's aggressive legal team and his ridiculous luck in being ruled out as writer of that note, he would have been tried and probably convicted years ago -- with the obviously phony ransom note as exhibit A.
As for the note pad, it's not all that easy to tear an entire notepad into tiny pieces, and John would probably have been distracted in any case, by all the other bits of evidence he'd have needed to get rid of. It's also possible it never occurred to him the note could be traced to that pad. As for the "practice note," it's just a couple words. We've never seen it so we can't compare it to the writing on the note, which it might or might not resemble. Sure, he could have torn that out, tore it to pieces and flushed it, but obviously he didn't. Seems to me he most likely just forgot about it. In any case, it has no bearing on whether or not the murder was preplanned, because assuming he saw it as a problem to begin with, it would have been problem whether or not he preplanned the crime. As I said, it's unrealistic to expect that he could have anticipated every single detail even if it was preplanned.
(continued on my next comment)
"The call would be also recorded on the answering machine of the phone (mailbox) so when the police looked at the phone they could see and HEAR that there was a call, the mailbox answered and that the caller left no message. How would John then explain that the had talked with the kidnappers ??"
DeleteWhen he got home he would simply have erased that "message," just as you erase any message on such a machine after you've listened to it.
As for traces of the body left in his trunk, don't forget the body was found covered with a blanket. He could also have enclosed it in a large plastic trash bag. And sure, as I said, there would have been some risk in such a plan. But the note makes no sense unless he'd been planning to dump the body. Once Patsy made that call, his goose was cooked, thanks largely to that note. What saved him was the outrageous decision to rule him out, NOT the note itself, which is the principal reason so many both in and out of law enforcement feel sure this was an inside job.
When he got home he would simply have erased that "message," just as you erase any message on such a machine after you've listened to it.
Deletesure, but that would have been very, very suspicious...
The murder was premeditated but it was not planned. I think we wont agree on the purpose of the note..... to me it definitely makes sense and we don´t know the mindset of JR.
I think it is pretty obvious that he wrote after the murder - and he had a lot of time for that.
but one thing,...
"Seems to me he most likely just forgot about it. In any case, it has no bearing on whether or not the murder was preplanned, because assuming he saw it as a problem to begin with, it would have been problem whether or not he preplanned the crime."
Yes of course he forgot about it. But why ? Because he was under a lot of stress. A ransom note is crucial in a kidnapping and imo every kidnapper knows that a ransom note is dangerous because it can lead to you. So usually a kidnapper cuts out letters from a newspapper, keeps the message short etc. The ransom note is not a single, little detail - it is one of the most important details - so i think that JR would have thought about the note, practice note and the dispossal of everything involved in it very, very clearly in case of a planned murder. But he did nothing - but put it back in its original place. IMO its just impossible that this would have happened in case of a planned murder.
qq
"sure, but that would have been very, very suspicious..."
DeleteSomething that no longer exists can't be suspicious. Like the Cheshire cat, all that would have remained of that call would have been the "grin" (i.e., the record of a phone call at the time reported by John).
As for John's stress, sure he would have been stressed. But Patsy's call would have stressed him even more. That was not part of his plan, regardless of when the plan was conceived. If the plan involved getting rid of the notepad before the police had a chance to see it, then he would not have cared whether a "practice note" was still there (assuming he even remembered that), since the plan was to dump it or burn it while getting rid of his daughter's body. The real stress would have set in after Patsy called 911, and at that point there would have been a hundred things whirling around in his brain that needed to be taken care of.
Now as far as the risk is concerned, I'll admit it, John's plan to dump the body certainly sounds risky. Yet let me ask you. Where in the annals of crime can you find a single instance of someone deliberately staging a failed kidnapping, not to mention a failed kidnapping where a ransom note is left at the scene for no reason?
On the other hand, there are, as is well known, any number of cases where a murderer has dumped the body of his victim in some remote location, regardless of the risk that someone might spot him in the act. Clearly the risk of being caught while dumping the body is outweighed by the risk of the body being found where the murder took place.
I think we have to distignuish two points: a planned murder and the purpose of the ransom note. We should not mix these two together. For me this cleary was NOT a planned murder - i argued with the different aspects ( 45 min to 2 hours later, feeding pineaplle before , the way too long ransom note, practice note etc..). For me its very clear that this murder was premeditated but not planned.
DeleteThe other point is the purpose of the practice note. You write.
"
Something that no longer exists can't be suspicious. Like the Cheshire cat, all that would have remained of that call would have been the "grin" (i.e., the record of a phone call at the time reported by John).
Ok, you convinced me with that point....
"But a note pad isn't that easily disposed of. If he tried to flush it the toilet would probably have overflowed. "
I have to disagree. A notepad made of paper is very easy to destroy. You just take a scissor and cut it into little, little pieces and then you can flush them down the toilet.
You say it is easy to get rid of the broken glass - but think it is difficult to get rid of the notepad. I find that strange. IMO it would be way easier to get rid of the notepad.
"I find it truly beyond belief what I'm hearing from intelligent people regarding such a possibility." Ok this is really the main point and i tried to explain that several times. As you see not everybody sees the situation like you - how can you be so sure that John saw it the way you do ?? You dont know at all if he has the same way of thinking as you.
If i had killed JBR i would not want to remove the body from the house in my car, would not want to pretend to deliver a ransom note, fake a call and be entrapped in lies. In my opinion this alone is extremely risky - because he could not be sure at ALL that Patsy and Burke would go out of the house and would not call the police.
On the other hand, there are, as is well known, any number of cases where a murderer has dumped the body of his victim in some remote location, regardless of the risk that someone might spot him in the act. Clearly the risk of being caught while dumping the body is outweighed by the risk of the body being found where the murder took place.
But there are big diffreneces compared to this case. He murdered her in the house and his wife and son were there too - and he had written the ransom note. SO of course there was the possbility that pastey wanted to call the police, wanted to stay in the house etc. In this situation its just way more difficult to dump a body than when you murder someone in the night, being alone and dump the body afterwards.
He had to get the body out of the house where his wife was and because of the note there was the risk that patsy would call the police, wanted to stay in the house etc. And I Think it would have been really suspicious John would later say that he did not want to call the police because he was too afraid, talk to the kidnappers alone etc.... when you are going down this path you have to lie a lot.
Not the situation was very easy for him. He could easily explain his dna on her body and he just had to say that he was asleep. I just have one question: Why was it more risky for John to leave the body in the house ?
He could explain the dna, he did not have to lie a lot (only " i slept") , he stayed in the house with the police the whole time etc.....Sorry i just don´t see it - and as i mentioned his plan worked out.
qq
"I think we have to distignuish two points: a planned murder and the purpose of the ransom note. We should not mix these two together."
DeleteBut you are the one confusing them, not me.
"For me this cleary was NOT a planned murder - i argued with the different aspects ( 45 min to 2 hours later, feeding pineaplle before , the way too long ransom note, practice note etc..). For me its very clear that this murder was premeditated but not planned."
Good example of exactly that sort of confusion. None of these aspects has a bearing on whether the murder was preplanned or not. The time taken between the head blow and the strangulation is equally consistent with either scenario. Obviously the strangulation would not have been part of the planning, but must have been an afterthought, after he'd realized she was still breathing. The pineapple treat might well have been planned ahead of time, as a way of distracting her and getting her out of her room. The length of the ransom note argues for pre-planning, not against it. The "practice note" is just as much of an oversight under either scenario.
The one valid point you've made concerns the notepad. If the murder had been preplanned then one would assume he'd have gotten rid of the notepad before returning home. This is one of the main reasons why I am unwilling to fully accept that theory, because it's hard to explain why he would have taken the notepad home along with the note. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility the notepad was just a handy way of transporting the note, tucked neatly into that pad. Remember, the note had no folds or creases. It might not have mattered to him if his plan involved getting rid of all the evidence anyhow. But I'll admit, this is a weak point in the pre-planning scenario.
(continued . . . )
Delete"A notepad made of paper is very easy to destroy." I disagree -- because there's lots of paper in such a pad and even if you tear it into pieces it's still a lot of paper anyhow. Also, if that's a problem for you then how do YOU explain his failure to tear it into tiny pieces and flush it? If he wasn't planning on getting rid of it while dumping the body, then why wouldn't he have tried to get rid of it after Patsy called 911?
"As you see not everybody sees the situation like you - how can you be so sure that John saw it the way you do ??"
Because I can see no reason for anyone, John or anyone else, to go to all the trouble of writing a 2 1/2 page ransom note to stage a kidnapping that will never take place. The existence of that note in itself tells us nothing about whether or not an intruder was present. It's only if the victim has been removed from the house that the note is consistent with the presence of an intruder. Otherwise, it looks much more like the staging that it is and immediately casts suspicion on those living inside that house.
What's more, if John's intention was to call the police first thing in the morning, then why would he have included all those dire threats warning himself NOT to call or his daughter would be killed and even beheaded?
As far as risk is concerned, I agree that the presence of Patsy and Burke made his plan more risky, because there was no guarantee that Patsy would have been willing to leave. But that was a risk he was clearly prepared to take. You assume he had a perfect plan but he didn't. The whole plan was extremely risky from beginning to end, but he had no choice, he had to take such risks or spend the rest of his life in prison, labeled as a child molester and murderer. If he felt that staging a real kidnapping and dumping the body was too risky, he would not have written such a note in the first place, but simply reported a break in.
And yes the police would have been very suspicious, but if he followed his plan carefully enough, there would have been NO evidence against him. As it stands, the note became very strong evidence of an inside job, though most people suspect Patsy and not John of writing it. He got off not because the authorities accepted the note at face value but because he was ruled out and there was no case to be made against Patsy. And finally he got luck thanks to the highly questionable "touch DNA" evidence, which has nothing to do with the note.
I disagree with your conclusion. If his plan was as you say, he would have probably gotten caught had he managed to pull it off. He is actually quite lucky Patsy's 911 call interrupted his plan. Driving around with the body, poor alibi, not calling the police, the possibility of a witness seeing his car, are all significantly more problematic for him than what actually happened.
DeleteI don't think the case is solved though. I think you have a good working theory but there's no beyond reasonable doubt evidence to prove it and there's still plenty of possibility it was an intruder.
Ironically, the failure of his plan may have worked in his favor, as you suggest. Because the plan I've outlined WAS risky and something could certainly have gone wrong, yes. If someone had spotted him lifting the body out of the trunk and dumping it or burying it, then it would have been all over for him, certainly. But that's the case for any criminal dumping a body, there is always that risk -- which hasn't prevented so very many from taking the risk anyhow.
DeleteAt the time, John would have had no way of knowing he'd be ruled out as writer of the note -- which is what saved him. In his mind he'd have been suspect number one as soon as the body of his victim had been found in his own house. "What actually happened," as you say, was a fluke, something he could not have anticipated.
The plan I've outlined is a good one, and could certainly have worked. You say his alibi was poor, but in fact the note provided him with the perfect reason to delay calling the police. It also provided him with the perfect excuse if someone spotted him on the road the following night: "I was delivering the ransom according to the instructions provided by the kidnappers." Once the body was secure in the trunk, covered by a blanket and very likely also a plastic bag, he could be confident no one would see it there since no one would have had a reason to check. Don't forget, the police would not have been notified, and he would not have made his move until after dark. While it's true that Patsy might not have agreed to leave and stay with friends, there were other alternatives for getting the body out of the basement and into the trunk of the car without her knowing. Sure, there was a huge risk involved, but this was a desperate situation and John was obviously willing to take such a risk.
It's important also to factor in the note itself. If we agree John wrote it, then we have to acknowledge that this in itself would have been a huge risk. And this gives us an idea of the lengths John was prepared to go to, and the risks he was prepared to take, in order to cover his tracks. It would have been far less risky, it seems to me, if he had just reported an intruder break in and never even attempted to stage a kidnapping. But that's not a scenario open to us, because the note WAS written, it IS a fact of this case and we have no choice but to consider it.
As far as the intruder theory, I have to disagree completely. There is no such possibility because no intruder scenario makes sense. I've covered that very thoroughly on this blog and in my book. The great majority of people following this case have rejected that possibility and, as we now know, so did the Grand Jury. It would not be difficult to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no intruder. John's lies about breaking in through the basement window months earlier would be exhibit A, but there are many other excellent reasons to reject the intruder theory.
What i see in this discussion is that you are doing cherrypicking. In some points argue the purpose of the Note can ONLY be one etc, some points are likely for you some ar not....You said several times on that blog that everything is possible but that should not be the argument. and i want to remind you of that. Because to some points you just say "oh it would have been possible that John did XY" just because you want to justify your scenario. Its not about all possibilities - it is about what is likely and what is unlikely (and you use that argument in case of the ransom note).
DeleteSo i have the feeling that you are very, very convinced of your scenario and try to adamantly defend it.
For example :
"Obviously the strangulation would not have been part of the planning, but must have been an afterthought, after he'd realized she was still breathing. The pineapple treat might well have been planned ahead of time, as a way of distracting her and getting her out of her room. The length of the ransom note argues for pre-planning, not against it. The "practice note" is just as much of an oversight under either scenario."
This is what i mean - in case of the ransom note you think only YOUR scenario makes sense - in this point you argue like "everything is possible". But IMO it makes NO Sense at all to do things like that if you have planned a murder. First of all it makes no sense at all (like you say with the ransom note) to make everything so difficult. if you plan a murder you definitly would plan the way of killing . and most likely this would be a method with the least risk and you would kill the person in one moment. You would most likely not go with the victim in the kitchen to eat something because all that takes a lot of time (eating, two ways of killing etc...) and is therefore very risky.
Of course it is POSSIble but it just makes no sense to kill someone in the timespan of 2 hours or so while other persons are sleeping in the house.
Then it is unlikely - assumed it was planned - to kill her by hitting her with something. He did not knew that she wouldn´t bleed. and blood is never a good thing - so it would have been much easier, quieter and less bloodier to just use a garotte. if you plan to kill someone it is very likely that you make sure that you really killed the person - that means for example hearing if the person still breathes etc. Again - he could have hit her again with the flashlight right after the first blow.
And it would have been soooo much easier for him to kill her in her sleep (use a garotte and strangle her in her sleep - less noice, less time etc).
Of course it is PoSSIble that he wanted do distract her with a pineaplle and get her out of her room - but why ? there was no need for that in the case of a planned murder. (strangle her in her sleep, carry her downstairs...- less noice, less time, less risk).
"The length of the ransom note argues for pre-planning, not against it. "
No, because it shows that he did not edited the note. Somebody said that before but you just want to stick to your scenario.
""A notepad made of paper is very easy to destroy." I disagree -- because there's lots of paper in such a pad and even if you tear it into pieces it's still a lot of paper anyhow. Also, if that's a problem for you then how do YOU explain his failure to tear it into tiny pieces and flush it? "
qq
How do you know how many paper was in the notepad? I explain this failure with his stress and confusion - and this is a very clear sign that this was not planned.
Delete"What's more, if John's intention was to call the police first thing in the morning, then why would he have included all those dire threats warning himself NOT to call or his daughter would be killed and even beheaded?"
Because he thought that this is something u usually do in a ransom note. And to be honest i don´t know a ransom note without this warning.
I am sure that this murder was not planned but i am not 100 % sure what the purpose of the was. Perhaps it was like you said - but perhaps it was not.
"And yes the police would have been very suspicious, but if he followed his plan carefully enough, there would have been NO evidence against him. As it stands, the note became very strong evidence of an inside job, though most people suspect Patsy and not John of writing it"
Bute the note would have been a evidence in every scenario. Of course it would have been better to dump the body somewhre but at the same time it would be extremly risky. You just think patsy could have gone to friends - but she would have told them.....and than john would not have been as alone as you think. And he probably knew that.
He had not many possibilities, so staging a kidnapping was better than doint nothing at all....
qq
"What i see in this discussion is that you are doing cherrypicking."
DeleteNo. Cherrypicking is when you select only the evidence that supports your theory and completely neglect anything that doesn't support it. That's not what I've been doing, as should be obvious from the way this blog is being run. I do in fact consider evidence that doesn't (seem to) support my theory, and as you can see I've made no effort to censor anything you or anyone else has posted. What I HAVE been doing is disagreeing with your interpretation of that evidence, which I have every right to do.
What YOU are doing, on the other hand, is what is called "nitpicking," the evil twin of cherry picking (actually both are evil). I.e., you are looking around for any piece of evidence that might possibly undermine my theory, and ignoring (or at least minimizing) all the evidence in support of it. I'm not insisting I have to be right, by the way. But I do believe I've made a case that cannot simply be dismissed or ignored.
"In some points argue the purpose of the Note can ONLY be one etc, some points are likely for you some ar not...." etc.
Yes. It's called making an argument. If I say something is likely and something else is unlikely it's because that's how it seems to me. Nothing to do with cherry picking. What would you have me do, just agree with everything you say?
"This is what i mean - in case of the ransom note you think only YOUR scenario makes sense"
If you're referring to the notion that John could have written the note to stage a kidnapping gone wrong, then yes, I confess. Imo that makes no sense. Why would you expect me to accept a theory that makes no sense to me? In order to be fair? To someone who is making no sense? Sorry, but we're trying to solve a crime here, we're not in some kindergarten contest where everyone gets a prize.
As I've said many times already, the note could have worked for John ONLY if the body hadn't been found in the house. If that were the case, it would have been possible to at least consider it as a legitimate ransom note. With the body of the victim found in the house, then such a note does NOTHING for the person who wrote it-- except to cast suspicion in his direction. John was the CEO of a billion dollar company, a navy vet with a college education. Surely he was intelligent enough to understand that the police weren't going to accept such a note as genuine just because the Ramseys claimed they found it on their staircase.
"First of all it makes no sense at all (like you say with the ransom note) to make everything so difficult."
DeleteIt makes sense to assume that John would have been in an agitated state regardless of whether or not he'd pre-planned the murder, and therefor it makes sense to assume that things might not have gone like clockwork either way. Yes, the murder was messy and the time between the blow and the strangulation was longer than one might think. But that's hard to explain regardless of whether the murder had been pre-planned or not.
And yes, the simplest way to kill her would have been to place a pillow over her face or strangle her "while she was sleeping." But that isn't what was done, was it? Does that mean the head blow could not have been pre-planned? Not necessarily, no. Because if she'd been suffocated she'd have immediately awakened, and been terrified and in great distress for several minutes, and if he'd wanted to spare her that horror, then the least traumatic way to kill would be with a head blow.
It's true that the head blow might have led to bleeding, that's an excellent point. But not a deal breaker, because of the weapon he (most likely) chose: a maglite with a rubber tip, i.e., a weapon not likely to break the skin. Also even if there were some blood spilled on the floor, it wouldn't be hard to argue that she'd been struck by her kidnapper as he was forcing her out of the house.
You make several very reasonable sounding points regarding the problems associated with a pre-planned murder and, as I've "confessed" many times, I'm not sold on this theory myself. But none of your points tells us that such a theory has to be rejected, so I'll insist: it may not have happened that way, but it's a possibility that can't be dismissed either.
When you say certain things seem unlikely to you, all I can say is that they don't seem all that unlikely to me, so much of our argument boils down to a difference of opinion. I respect just about every opinion you've expressed even when we disagree -- but NOT the one about staging a kidnapping-gone-wrong. That one just doesn't make any sense at all to me, sorry.
I've said in the past that if John was lying about the window, then absolutely he's guilty. But his crazy story might just be true and his wife backs him up on it, so we can't use it against him. I think that there are so many stochastic factors involved in any given stretch of time that trying to say something definitely didn't happen is nearly impossible unless there was a video camera documenting the entire thing. The house is ridiculously large. There are so many potential ways for an intruder to have gotten in and out. I recently read a news story about an intruder who hid in a guest bedroom undetected for 3 days, while the family was home.
DeleteIt's like the handwriting experts. Now here we agree. They say there's no way John wrote the note. There's simply no way on earth they could know that for sure. How could they possibly know every possible movement his hands could make forming letters? And know them well enough to know he couldn't have made the letters on the note? it's absurd.
I understand what you are saying about John's window story, Mark. And I'll admit it, there is no way to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that it's a lie. The standard, however, is reasonable doubt, NOT any doubt at all, and I do believe one can make a reasonable case that his story is nothing more than a lame alibi, intended to direct attention away from his staging of a break-in on the night of the crime.
DeleteThe prosecuting attorney would need to take the jury step by step through John's story, as presented in the transcripts, noting, as I have noted, all the many instances where John is unable to recall even the simplest elements, such as why he didn't have his keys, whether or not he took a cab, why he could not have used the neighbor's key, why he could not have broken in through a much more easily accessible ground floor window, why he would not have been concerned that a neighbor might spot him breaking into his own home in his underwear, how he could have seen where to break the window in the pitch dark at 11 PM without a flashlight, and why he is so indecisive about so many details of this story, including the question of whether the window had ever been repaired. And why wouldn't that window have been repaired? Or at least covered by a piece of wood or cardboard so cold air wouldn't get into the house at the height of a Colorado winter.
Add to that the housekeeper's denial of any knowledge of any broken window and her insistence that Patsy was lying about cleaning up the glass with her assistance. Taken together, as I see it, all this tells us, beyond reasonable doubt, that John was lying. Which also tells us there could have been no intruder. His lies are already sufficient proof that he was involved in a cover up. And if he wants then to point the finger at Patsy or Burke, fine -- let him, and let the jury decide who did what.
As far as the "intruder evidence" is concerned, the lack of any sign of forced entry is only one reason out of many for rejecting that theory. Sure, someone with a key could have gotten into the house. But for what reason? A pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. A kidnapper would have brought his own note with him. Someone trying to frame John would have forged his hand on the note. A drugged out nut case with no particular plan in mind would not have crafted such a long, detailed and well organized note, dotting every i and crossing every t, adhering to the margin, leaving a consistently wide space between words, etc.
When we combine the complete absurdity of any intruder scenario with John's patently absurd break-in story, then obviously we are dealing with an inside job -- and since JonBenet was the victim of a sexual assault, the only mature male in the house at the time is more likely by far to have been her attacker. I think a good prosecutor could get a jury to accept such a scenario beyond a reasonable doubt, yes.
The housekeeper's testimony is definitely interesting. The police should have spent more time with Patsy on that story instead of harassing her about bedwetting, but they seemed pretty incompetent.
DeleteI think it's wishful thinking to think you could get a conviction on the current flimsiest of evidence when you could raise doubts with the jury a hundred different ways (Patsy did it, Burke did it, the double DNA intruder did it, etc).
There's two ends to this case as I see it. They match the DNA to a sex predator, or it remains unsolved.
The police wanted to believe that story because it confirmed their conclusion that no one had entered or left the house via that window on the night of the crime. Pathetic incompetence, yes. If they'd seen through the misdirection they'd have solved the case then and there.
DeleteThe evidence is not flimsy. I've outlined the case against John on this blog, and it's pretty strong. See http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-case-against-john-ramsey.html
The real problem is not the case per se but the thick fog of obfuscation that's settled around it over the years, due to a long series of errors, false leads and misdirections.
Fortunately it would be possible to select a young jury consisting of people with no prior knowledge of the case, thus not influenced by all the many red herrings and misconceptions.
As far as "Patsy did it" or "Burke did it," neither of these scenarios would be of any use to John. If his lawyers attempted to even suggest such a possibility his credibility would be fatally undermined and no one would believe anything he (or his lawyers) said.
What's needed in this case is not evidence, but a prosecuting attorney with guts.
I think you strongly underestimate how great the "CSI Effect" is on juries and the court in general. They have two matching pairs of unknown male DNA, one in a very incriminating location. A jury is going to have a hard time dismissing that as anything less than reasonable doubt.
DeleteAmanda Knox nearly spent her life in prison over significantly less LCN DNA, that collected by the sloppy Italian police, and that was even after they had already arrested the real killer. For many people DNA might as well be a signed confession, even if it's not that simple in reality.
As for me, if I were on the jury I would need strong proof of previous sexual abuse, or I would need Patsy to deny the broken window story. Without those elements no way would I personally convict.
The DNA evidence is extremely shaky. From what I've read, most law enforcement people aren't buying it, and DA Lacy was severally criticized by many for "exonerating" the Ramseys on that basis. All the prosecution would need would be a credible expert witness testifying on how easy it is for DNA to be innocently transferred. An expert witness could also be called to explain how there is no way John should have been ruled out as writer of the note.
DeleteSomeone like you, who requires a smoking gun to convict, would not make it to a jury in a case like this, because you'd be very quickly "excused" by the prosecution once they got wind of your attitude. A great many cases have been decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. I have a feeling most cases are tried on that basis, since an open and shut case usually results in a confession and some sort of plea deal.
Imo it would not be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no intruder, and also that John's story about breaking the window at an earlier date was a lie, contrived to point away from the clear evidence that he himself broke it on the night of the murder. Once the jury accepted those two key elements, John would be in very deep trouble. His only recourse would be to try to pin the murder on Patsy or Burke but that would almost certainly backfire on him, since by then his credibility would have been shattered.
So yes, there is no smoking gun, but there is an extremely powerful circumstantial case to be made against John. Could he get off anyhow? Yes, of course, because there is no way to predict what anyone on a jury would think. But there's no question in my mind that he should be brought to trial.
A circumstantial case is fine if you have a good motive. There is none. You have a working theory which ties the known evidence together. It's possible to build fantasy theories that accomplish the same thing. It proves nothing.
DeleteThere is a possible motive, a murder to mask sexual abuse. But without strong evidence such abuse occurred, and in the face of counter evidence to the contrary from the family doctor, there isn't much there.
It doesn't really matter to me if John goes to court or not. It's just the chance of a conviction would rest entirely on getting a jury that would convict anyone for anything, which is always possible. I do know that no DA office in the universe would arrest a rich well connected man publicly "exonerated" with only the existing evidence, so it's kind of moot isn't it?
If he is guilty, and I think there is a chance he is, his wife helped him get away with the murder of their daughter. It's a tough break for justice, but not an unexpected result when parents don't care about the lives of their children.
As for me not sitting on a jury, well that's good new for me, I would hate to be stuck on a long boring trial :P But i'm not so sure. They managed to find 12 imbeciles in Florida to acquit Casey Anthony, and compared to the Ramsey case the evidence against her was astronomical.
Oh, there is a very good motive. And persuasive evidence to support it, though not a smoking gun, no. There's a long list of forensic scientists, not only Dr. Wecht, convinced there was prior sexual abuse, based on the autopsy. Since John was by far the most likely to have abused her in the past, then fear of exposure is a very likely motive.
DeleteIt's important to understand that it's not necessary to prove motive -- what's required is proof of guilt, a very different thing. In many cases motive can never be proven. How could it, since it's something going on in someone's head. All you really need is evidence consistent with a certain motive, and that evidence IS apparent, from the autopsy.
Could there have been some other motive? Hard to say what it could have been, but it's certainly possible for a prosecutor to argue for a motive related to incest and child molestation for sure. No need to prove it. You just need to persuade the jury that it's consistent with the evidence, which it is.
And the family doctor testified that he never gave JonBenet a vaginal exam, which he regarded as inappropriate. His defense of John was purely on the basis of his assumption that John was a loving father, in other words on the basis of friendship, NOT professional opinion. So his testimony would have no bearing on the possibility that John was molesting his daughter.
I don't see how you can come up with this notion of "convicting anyone for anything." If you actually read my book or read carefully enough in this blog you'll see plenty of evidence pointing to John and John alone. Once you demonstrate the absurdity of the intruder theory and expose John's many lies and misdirections, the case against him becomes very strong indeed.
I think John's idea was to put her body in the suitcase. That way if Patsy or anyone else saw him putting the suitcase in the car, he could say it was the attache case (conveniently mentioned in the ransom note) for the money pick up.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the scenario that makes most sense to me, John would have used the note as an excuse to get Patsy and Burke out of the house to stay with friends, "for their own safety." Don't forget the note was addressed to him and stressed that "it is up to you John." Once he was home alone there would have been no need to place the body in that suitcase (where it probably wouldn't fit anyhow). He'd have placed it in the trunk of his car. No one would have seen that as the garage was attached to the house.
Delete
Delete"If you're referring to the notion that John could have written the note to stage a kidnapping gone wrong, then yes, I confess. Imo that makes no sense. Why would you expect me to accept a theory that makes no sense to me? In order to be fair? To someone who is making no sense? Sorry, but we're trying to solve a crime here, we're not in some kindergarten contest where everyone gets a prize. "
we are just going in circles right now...
What i mean is that you are 100 % convinced of the purpose of the note and I am 100 % convinced of a not planned murder. You think my arguments regarding the ransom note make no sense and i think your arguments regarding the planned murder make no sense.
And regarding the purpose of the note you argue with "makes no sense, that is completely unlikely...." - regarding the planned note you don´t use the same "common sense" but defend the theory with IMO completely unlikely scenarios.
qq
DocG "As for the possibility of Patsy awakening, assuming the murder was preplanned John could have had the opportunity during the party to spike Patsy and Burke's drinks with a drug that would keep them sleeping soundly all night."
ReplyDeleteDid LE ever get the Ramsey's medical records? I now they were very adamant about not releasing them. "Island of privacy" or something.
It would be interesting if John had sleeping pill prescriptions or something else he could use to spike Patsy's drink.
As I understand it, the police were never able to access those medical records, as incredible as it might sound. From what we know about what Patsy went through during chemotherapy it wouldn't surprise me if there were sleeping pills in the house.
DeleteDOC, you say, that if Patsy hadn't called the police, John would have disposed of evidence when he went out to supposedly collect the ransom money and dump the body. However, at some point during the night of the murder, he managed to dispose of the cord and duct tape, why not all the evidence?. And if you think he did not dispose of evidence till the morning Patsy called police, when he realised evidence was still in the house and his plan had gone wrong, why did he not remove the pad and pen also?.I know we've been over this before, but the comment above about John wanting the body found in the house, i have to agree with.The implications of police finding out he had been seen somewhere even nearbye where the body was found, cadaver dogs sniffing in boot, regardless of having access to garage without being seen putting the body in the boot, I believe is more risky than having a kidnapping gone wrong scenario. And i think that is why the suitcase was placed under that window to add to the staging.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the cord and duct tape, my suspicion is that these were items that happened to be in the house and he probably used up all there was. The cord could have been originally used to tie a present and the tape might have been just a short length of tape left in the basement by a workman.
DeleteHe must have gotten rid of the broken glass in the basement, but that would have been easy: just place it in a paper bag, stomp on it until it's reduced to dust and then flush it.
But a note pad isn't that easily disposed of. If he tried to flush it the toilet would probably have overflowed. Also I really doubt it ever even occurred to him that the note could be traced to that pad. And as far as the "practice note" is concerned, he probably just forgot about it. That would have been a serious error, because it was the practice note that tipped the forensics people off to the possibility the note paper could have come from that pad. But the practice note is neither here nor there if we are in agreement that this was an inside job. Somebody got careless, that's for sure. End of story.
As for the relative risk involved in dumping the body, I'm sorry but I can't accept the notion that John (or Patsy either) would have deliberately staged a failed kidnapping attempt. The note would have worked for the person who wrote it, ONLY if the body had been found somewhere outside the house. As both the body and the note were found in the house together, all it accomplished was to cast suspicion on John and Patsy, since a real kidnapper would have entered the house with a note already prepared AND a real kidnapper would have actually kidnapped his victim AND a real kidnapper who could not kidnap his victim would not have left his note anyhow.
I find it truly beyond belief what I'm hearing from intelligent people regarding such a possibility. If you can accept such a bizarre scenario then why not accept the intruder theory also while you're at it?
" I find it truly beyond belief what I'm hearing from intelligent people regarding such a possibility. If you can accept such a bizarre scenario then why not accept the intruder theory also while you're at it?"
DeleteI've been saying the same for years. The fishy RN coupled with the body in the basement, along with little to nothing in the way of intruder evidence is what convinces RDI folks that a family member murdered JBR. To expect the police to believe it was an intruder is to say that IDI theory is quite believable. Somehow the internet sleuths are too smart to fall for it, but the police detectives are supposed to swallow it whole.
If IDI is unlikely, then staging a failed kidnapping is unlikely.
CH
Thank you, CH.
DeleteI apologize for getting so miffed, but I went to a lot of trouble to track down that video of Patsy saying very clearly that SHE told John she was going to call the police and then going downstairs while John went to check on his son -- with John just sitting there next to her without batting an eyelash. Clearly there is something wrong with the story presented in their book, with John on his hands and knees telling her to call, and Pasty sitting right beside the phone, picking it up and dialing 911.
Part of my reason for getting so miffed is that NONE of the people actually investigating this crime bothered to pick up on that obvious contradiction while at the same time making a big deal of some enhanced recording where Burke's voice can (supposedly) be heard -- so what???
There has to be a reason why there are two versions of that call and there has to be a reason why one of them is a lie. And the only reason I can think of is that John wanted the world to think the call was HIS idea, and he managed to convince Patsy to go along with that when the book was being prepared. If the reason for the note was to stage a failed kidnapping, and John actually expected the investigators to buy such a scenario, then why would it matter to him whose idea it was to call?
It mattered because he knew very well that no one was going to buy a ransom note left in spite of a failed kidnapping -- but if he could convince the authorities that the call was his idea, then maybe they might possibly accept the failed kidnapping scenario after all. That scenario was clearly a joke from the start, but he got away with it because the handwriting "experts" were idiots and ruled him out.
To repeat: in all the annals of crime I defy you to find one single case where someone deliberately staged a kidnapping gone wrong, complete with ransom note that the "kidnapper" just happened to leave for no good reason. And on the other hand, I call on you to remember all the many cases where a murderer went to considerable risk to dump the body of his victim in some remote place.
Maybe some of you might not have wanted to risk dumping a body like that, but I can assure you many others have done exactly that. And for good reason.
Doc, first of all, thank you for posting this video. Ever since I started reading your blog, I have been looking for that A & E transcript wherein Patsy states that she is the one who decided to call 911, to no avail. So to have the pleasure of seeing the actual video, is enlightening. And I know how hard those "gems" are to find. There is NO doubt in my mind that it was Patsy's decision, and her decision alone, to dial 911, and for whatever reason John did not prevent it. He probably just panicked and quickly decided he could not prevent it and that Patsy would become suspicious of him if he tried to stop her. Ironically, because she did make that call, things played out to John's advantage and he is still walking free. Like another poster stated above, if she did NOT call 911 and he then had to carry out his "plan" to get rid of the body, many things could have gone wrong and he might have been caught. In this video it is obvious to me that he quickly validates making that 911 call despite the RN threats saying things like "I wanted to call the Army, National Guard . . . .close the airports . . . . cordon off the city" --- all to establish that he was NOT against calling the police. He's definitely a smart cookie.
ReplyDeleteLove your blog. Your posts are always so easy to read and understand and, most importantly, make perfect sense.
bb
Thanks, bb.
DeleteNote, by the way, that Patsy says she "ran downstairs" to make the call. This is significant. There was a phone on every floor. No need to run downstairs to call 911 -- unless you are running from your husband because you're afraid he might try to stop you.
Another thought to consider. If the two of them agreed to call the police, then why would they not have agreed to be together when making that call? Patsy was just blurting out whatever came to mind. If John had been beside her, he'd have taken the phone to clarify the situation -- making sure, for example, that the police wouldn't be arriving in a marked car and in uniform. Instead, she ran away from him to make the call.
Good point. I didn't realize Patsy was upstairs. I think it's very possible she was trying to separate herself from John by using the phone downstairs. She may have even known about his secret meetings with JonBenet and she may have quickly realized that something happened with the two of them that night. Someone posted that that may be why she invited so many people over so quickly . . . feeling nervous about her own safety. I mean, if Det. Arndt picked up on that (in her interview she says she counted her bullets because she didn't know if they were all going to make it out of that house alive), certainly John's wife would pick up on it. This would also explain why she was separate from John all that morning.
DeleteI bet while John was checking on Burke, his mind was racing, knowing he had to change his plan somehow and figuring out how he would do it. Disappearing from Det. Arndt for 50 minutes or so would certainly help him clean up some of the evidence that he would otherwise have done later in the day.
bb
i've just read some things that i missed before. Please let me know your thoughts on these. Jonbenet was garotted before the head injury, backed up by her fingernail marks on her neck and her skin cells underneath.This would mean she was concious enough to try to pull the cord away, suggesting the strength of the head blow came second. In johns "97 interview when asked how many times he visited the cellar that morning, he says (here we go again) he thinks he remembers telling Det Arndt that morning about the window and being down there. Did they check this with her?
ReplyDeleteExpert opinion is divided on whether the head blow or the strangulation came first. However, as I understand it, the consensus is that the blow came first. This is reinforced, as far as I'm concerned, by the fact that strands of her hair were found in the knotting on the garotte handle, which means it must have been assembled right on top of her, which would not have been possible if she'd been conscious. She'd have been screaming and struggling at that time if she were, but the knots were neatly tied.
DeleteThe "fingernail marks" on her neck are a Lou Smit fantasy. The autopsy mentions petechial hemorrhages, caused by the pressure of the strangulation. No neck scratches were reported.
And I have no idea whether anyone checked with Arndt, but it doesn't matter, because none of the police reports refer to John saying anything to Arndt or anyone else about finding that window open. If he had, Arndt would have investigated as it would have been an important clue. When first questioned about it he says he "can't recall" if he reported it and then offers some lame excuse about it sometimes being left open to let out the heat. It was only years later, when being interviewed on TV that he claimed to have reported it to Arndt, an obvious lie as far as I'm concerned.
I contend that Patsy separated herself from John to make the 911 call for a different reason. Not because she feared him but because she wanted to make sure he didn't stop her. The 911 call was an important element to Patsy's plan. If John decided it was best not to call 911 and insisted that they follow the ransom note's instructions then that would have meant no opportunity to call friends and ask them to come over which would have contaminated the scene.
ReplyDeleteHercule
No need to call 911 if you want your friends over to contaminate the crime scene. Just call your friends and tell them what's happened and that you need their support. Swear them to secrecy while you deal with the "kidnappers." Then get the body out of the house the following night, while claiming you're delivering the ransom. After you've then called the police, you can tell them about the friends that came over and let them deal with the contamination of the scene.
DeleteRemember also, Hercule, that the police were called first, they arrived first, and if they had done their job correctly, would never have allowed any of the friends inside the house.
Welcome back Hercule.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think Patsy's plan was? Did she intend on somebody finding the body? Why even write those threats in the RN if she was planning on calling the police and her friends? You've hinted in the past that there is reason Patsy purposely called 911. despite the contents of the note. Can you explain?
bb
Like I have said: Patsy was in no position 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.
ReplyDeleteHercule
I agree. Patsy was not in a position to dump the body without John's cooperation. Which tells us she would have had no reason to stage a kidnapping. Thus she would have had no reason to write a phony ransom note, filled with threats about what would happen to her daughter if the police were called.
ReplyDeleteIf she had accidentally killed her daughter, the last thing that would have been on her mind would be to sit down and write a fictitious 2 1/2 page ransom note for no good reason. She'd have called the police immediately and reported it as an accident.
But as we know, she did not kill her daughter. She was totally innocent.
Ahhhh yes...but you are assuming that Patsy was a typical "put your child before yourself" kind of person. Patsy was a pageant mom. Most people do not understand what some of these women are like. The psychology behind it is very complex and disturbing. I will address that in my next post.
ReplyDeleteAfter I was able to eliminate an intruder, there were only three suspects remaining. It did not take me long to eliminate Burke. John was a little trickier, but I am confident that if he was the murderer, the evidence would have looked more like this:
1. By this time, there would be evidence of John being a pedophile or sadist. This information cannot be hidden forever and certainly a pedophile cannot simply stop himself from being a pedophile. Furthermore, pedophiles do not cheat on their wives with other women as John did during his first marriage. Pedophiles are typically not murderers. They use clever manipulation to keep their victims quiet.
2. John would have left the ransom note in a place where HE would have discovered it - ensuring that no 911 call was made. If his intention was for Patsy to find the note, why wait until page two to make threats concerning JonBenet's life if anyone else were involved? That does not make ANY sense.
3. Opportunity. Police thoroughly investigated John's daily routine and typical work schedule. John did not get to spend a lot of time with JonBenet and alone time with her was almost nonexistent due to work and travel. In the middle of the night would have been tricky since it was PATSY who made a routine of waking JonBenet to insist that she use the toilet if she had not already wet or soiled herself.
4. Choice of victim. If John were a pedophile why would he choose JonBenet as his victim? Seldomly getting a minute alone with her would have been too frustrating. Of course being away from JonBenet for long periods of time and not being able to reiterate his manipulative mind games or threats would have been extremely risky. John would be under constant stress that JonBenet would tell on him while he was away. Doesn't add up. Of course we know who spent by FAR the most time with JonBenet...Patsy.
Hercule
Hercule, but how do you explain the sexual abuse? I know there are some who contend there was only external redness and irritation to her vagina possibly caused by rough wiping by Patsy when she was frustrated with JonBenet. However, I believe the autopsy found INTERNAL irritation and, in fact, Dr. Cyril Wecht says this internal irritation is even located in the same spot, suggesting chronic digital penetration.
ReplyDeleteIs it your contention that Patsy is responsible for this abuse? Even if she exploded in a fit of rage that night over bedwetting and accidentally killed JonBenet, it does not explain the CHRONIC (previous) abuse evidence. My feeling is this sexual abuse clearly points to John.
I have already pointed how it was almost impossible for John to have had the opportunity to sexually abuse JonBenet. There is absolutely zero evidence of John being a pedophile and trust me if there was something, at least a minute shred of evidence, it would have eventually surfaced. Pedophiles always leave a trail of evidence, some more than others. These type of people never stop being pedophiles. It is a life-long psychological abnormality that they cannot control. In general, people cannot control as to what they are attracted.
DeleteAs for the chronic vaginal irritation, JonBenet visited her pediatrician over 30 times in the span of a year. She suffered from yeast infections and other internal infections due to soiling her bed. I contend that there were times in the middle of the night while Patsy aggressively wiped JonBenet that she failed to clean her efficiently due to her tired and frustrated state of mind.
When a child is being diagnosed as a victim of chronic sexual abuse there are many factors to consider. Unquestionably, JonBenet was sexually violated the night she was killed. Before that, there is absolutely NO evidence that JonBenet exhibited any behavioral patterns associated with a sexually abused child. If you want to use bedwetting and bedsoiling as proof that JonBenet was sexually abused then you would be implying that most children suffering from the same issues are also sexually abused. The opposite is true. It is not uncommon and Burke too had the same problem.
I think it is absurd that because John was the adult male in the house that night then he must also be a pedophile and child molester. The fact is: the cause of the chronic irritation has not and cannot be attributed to sexual abuse. There is no indisputable evidence. When you consider all of the other factors and behaviors of pedophiles and sexually abused children we can only conclude that JonBenet was sexually assaulted the night of her death and nothing more. The chronic irritation in her vagina must therefore be attributed to either infections, aggressive wiping, or a combination of the two.
Hercule
Let's run with the theory that JBR was sexually abused only on the night of her death. What was the purpose of the abuse that night? Since JR isn't an abuser (in your theory) he didn't do it for fun, so to what purpose? And why the killing?
DeleteIt doesn't appear as a sex killing, because a sex killer wouldn't (likely) bother to redress her, wrap her in a blanket, and hide her in the WC. A sex killer would clean any evidence of himself, then leave the premises. There is also no reason to leave a RN in a sex killing.
In addition, it's only at autopsy that there is any evidence of sexual abuse on the night of her death. So, one or both Rs had to have decided it would be a good idea to call the police, virtually guaranteeing the body would be discovered in the house, w/o any pre-autopsy evidence of sexual abuse, and little to nothing in the way of IDI evidence.
To me this does not make sense.
CH
there is an interview with jbr's doctor who says of those visits, that they were a combination of yeast infections along with all manners of other conditions such as influenza etc.
DeleteSome of you are puzzled as to how I could conclude that Patsy was guilty of killing JonBenet. I will do my best to make sense out of this confusing case by presenting the most likely scenario based on deductive reasoning of facts and clues - and suspect elimination.
ReplyDeleteThe following theory contends that Patsy Ramsey must have been the murderer because there was no evidence of an intruder and John and Burke can satisfactorily be eliminated. That only leaves Patsy.
Why and how could this happen? Based on what I know about Patsy in conjunction with her relationship with JonBenet and the clues that were left behind, I feel that there is only one way this murder could have unfolded.
Let us start from the moment the Ramseys returned home from a long day of Christmas activities. It was estimated that the Ramseys arrived somewhere between 9:00 and 10:00pm. Depending on what version you believe, JonBenet was either still asleep and carried to her room or she was awakened upon arrival and lead herself to bed.
Because Patsy made a habit of insisting that JonBenet use the toilet before going to bed, I suspect JonBenet stated that she did not have to use the toilet and instead asked for a snack. Patsy was not in favor of this request. Her primary goal was to get the kids in bed ASAP because of the early morning wake time. After a disagreeable exchange between the two, Patsy soon relented. After descending the staircase and entering the kitchen, JonBenet received a bowl of pineapple. While Patsy rummaged around the house (possibly cleaning the mess from that morning), JonBenet prepared a glass of sweet tea. Since there was no tea left in the pitcher, JonBenet improvised by dropping a tea bag into a glass of water and stirred it with sugar. Upon returning to the kitchen, Patsy was furious to discover that JonBenet was drinking a beverage right before bedtime. This unforeseen maneuver improved the chances that she would wet the bed. Before JonBenet could finish her snack, Patsy ordered her back upstairs. At this time, John and Burke had exited the basement and entered the kitchen. Burke watched his sister ascend the staircase one last time (this is perhaps why Burke told law enforcement that he saw JonBenet walk up the stairs).
Part two coming later...
Hercule
"At this time, John and Burke had exited the basement . . . "
ReplyDeleteWhat do you contend they were doing in the basement?
Also, Patsy denied knowing anything about the pineapple and sweet tea. Why would she lie about this? If JonBenet was later accidentally killed, how could admitting to feeding JonBenet a snack make her guilty of covering up an accidental death?
You are correct about the number of visits JonBenet had to her pediatrician and that many of these visits were because of yeast infections. In an interview with forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, he talks about the autopsy report and states a "good part of JonBenet's hymen was absent", she had "erosion of the vaginal wall" and "chronic inflammation" --- having been there for awhile. These are not things you would see with yeast infections, no matter how many she had. These are things that point to previous sexual abuse. So if you contend that Patsy accidentally killed JonBenet that night and staged the sexual abuse, how do you explain the signs of previous sexual abuse?
In the scenario you describe, JonBenet was awake after returning home. Why would John lie about that? Are you also contending that he was part of the coverup? And why even lie about this fact in the first place? Why would admitting that JonBenet was awake after returning home implicate either Patsy or John?
I find your comments interesting, but I wish you would just give us your whole theory in one post. Why the constant cliff hangers? Just tell us once and for all what your theory is and tell us how you think happened that night.
Hercule you say "I have already pointed how it was almost impossible for John to have had the opportunity to sexually abuse JonBenet. There is absolutely zero evidence of John being a pedophile and trust me if there was something, at least a minute shred of evidence, it would have eventually surfaced. Pedophiles always leave a trail of evidence, some more than others. These type of people never stop being pedophiles."
ReplyDeleteThis is your biggest misconception.Studies have showed that only half of offenders who sexually assault chilren are pedophile !!! So the other half is not pedophile but easily sexually agitable (right word in englisch ?) and have a low impulse control.
So for pedophile it is very difficult to stop (but possible) but for other offenders it is not difficult, because they are not usually atracted to children.
So it is quite possible that john is not a pedophile but sexually assaulted her just because of the oportunity ( and he was there at night and therefore had a lot of opportunities !) and dont forget that JBR was often dressed up as an adult ....
qq
Yes, thank you qq. Many child abusers have been regarded as model citizens for most or even all their lives. It isn't until one of their children finally decides to accuse them that the truth is revealed. And in many cases this happens only after the offender's death.
Delete"There is absolutely zero evidence of John being a pedophile and trust me if there was something, at least a minute shred of evidence, it would have eventually surfaced."
It did surface. From the second edition of my book: "In April of 1997, a woman appeared out of nowhere, claiming she’d had an affair with John Ramsey, that he desired her because of her blonde hair and childlike appearance, and dressed her in pageant costumes like those worn by JonBenet." This woman, Kimberly Ballard, was interviewed on the Geraldo Rivera show, and confirmed her accusations there and elsewhere. Ultimately, however, she retracted everything and refused any other interviews, never offering an adequate explanation of why she made these accusations or why she backed off. Looks very much to me as though she were either threatened or paid off, though she vigorously denied that. While it's impossible to verify either her story or her denial, you can't claim there was never a "shred of evidence" that John Ramsey had inclinations of this sort.
We have to remember also, that JonBenet was a very unusual child, whose dress, makeup and behavior were highly sexualized. With his wife incapacitated by cancer treatments, and his daughter dressing like a Vegas showgirl, John would not have to have been a habitual pedophile to be tempted. For one single impulsive moment he may have crossed some line, and from then on regretted it. From then on, JonBenet might have represented an insurmountable obstacle to what looked to be a very bright future -- if not for his fatal mistake.
Hercule, you make some interesting points, but in every case they are based on assumptions that don't hold up. And your confirmation bias is showing. You argue that John never showed any sign of being a child abuser, yet Patsy never showed any such sign either. What you forget is that we know a great deal about Patsy, as she lived her life in a goldfish bowl. Same with Burke, by the way, who was always surrounded by aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents and teachers. But we know very little about John, who was out of town most of the time, on mysterious "business trips." We do know that he habitually lied to his former wife about his mistress. So why hand him a "pass" and focus exclusively on Patsy?
Yes, I agree with qq and Doc. I believe John was molesting his daughter, but I have never thought of him as a pedophile. I think most pedophiles are strangers to their victims and they often have more than one victim. Incestuous relationships are quite different. I think research would show that incest often involves just one member of the family being molested and it often goes on for years without being discovered. While John may not have ever had the inclination to molest anyone else, an opportunity may have presented itself and he took advantage of it. Then, after realizing he enjoyed it, he may have continued the abuse. John was a very intelligent man and could have easily found time to be with JonBenet alone. I don't know if Patsy or Burke ever suspected it but, again, research would probably tell us that even when another family member suspects the abuse or finds out about it, they often don't say anything, especially if the perpetrator is a controlling individual, which I believe John was.
DeleteI see John as an opportunist who, after seeing JonBenet dressed up in Vegas costumes many times, realized his attraction to her and then, when an opportunity presented itself, he took advantage. I have never felt he victimized anyone else, or even ventured into the Internet or porn shops to satisfy his desire. His desire was for JonBenet and JonBenet alone. And, as I said above, this is often the case in incest situations. Many times it is just one member of the family who is molested as the perpetrator becomes almost fixated with that person.
I posted this in another older blog, so I'll repost here:
ReplyDeleteWell, I realise I'm a bit late to this particular blog, but thought I'd have my say.
I agree with DocG for 90% of his theory.
I certainly agree that we can safetly say "there was NO intruder", due to evidence and John's lies (in particular about the window). I also agree that John was the culprit, most likely due to sexual abuse.
However, I do disagree with one part. I think Patsy was involved in the staging and wrote the Ransom Note. I certainly believe John verbally assisted with large parts of the note, but I think Patsy wrote it.
So why did Patsy phone 911 then? Doesn't make sense, right?
Well, I think neither John or Patsy slept that night and spent the majority of the night completing the "kidnapping staging" and writing the ransom note. Somwhere in the early morning, one or both (probably John) changed his mind. You see, if they were to remove the body from the house the following night, place it in their car, drive it to some remote area, dump or bury the body and ensure no evidence was left anywhere...this was EXTREMELY risky and if they did this they probably would have eventually got caught. Remember, they also had to withdraw $118,000 from the bank (some in 100 dollar notes and some in 50s as per the RN) which would have looked suspect and was just another risky element to it.
Plus, remember they were due somewhere that day and people were expecting them. If they didn't phone 911 and didn't show up, people would have questioned their whereabouts and people may have come looking to see if they were ok. This trip probably didn't register until early in the morning because they had their hands full with so much else!
So, they decided it was less risky if they kept the body where it was. They had already staged a kidnapping so now it just become staging a "failed" kidnapping...there wasn't much they had to change.
I also believe that John was the only one handling and moving JB's body. So he was forced to have a shower and Patsy wore the same clothes on purpose because a guilty person would surely not do this.
The only thing to then do was ring 911 and Patsy was the obvious choice and did a pretty good job of faking that call. Over the course of the years, both John and Patsy have lied many, many times and if Patsy was innocent, she always would have possibly suspected John in the back of her mind and their relationship would have unraveled.
I firmly believe that John was the aggressor but both of them staged this and are guilty as sin.
ZJ
So you're saying John was sexually abusing his daughter that night and in the course of this killed her, Patsy somehow found out, they perhaps discussed it and then she decided to protect her husband and stage a (failed) kidnapping? REALLY??? Even if she was fearful for her own life and felt she HAD to go along with John's plan, certainly she would eventually tell someone and get away from him. They stuck together until her death. Why would she agree to protect him so much after discovering he was abusing her beloved JonBenet and then ultimately violently killed her?
ReplyDeleteI never said Patsy found out about the sexual abuse...in fact, I believe she knew nothing of it. I just said that night John had sexually abused JB in some way.
ReplyDeleteHe ended up hitting her over the head and Patsy came downstairs and probably found John in hysteria and crying. Or maybe Patsy saw John hit JB and he quickly wished he hadn't. I don't know and no one will really know.
However your sentence "they stuck together until her death" to me, means she was more than likely involved in the cover up, not the other way around. Plus there is a reason there is so much evidence pointing to John and Patsy. Plus based on reading a lot of articles on the RN, I believe she wrote this.
ZJ
"I believe John was molesting his daughter, but I have never thought of him as a pedophile."
ReplyDeleteIf John was having a sexual relationship with a six-year-old JonBenet, it would be classified as incest, however, John would still be defined as a pedophile since his victim is of course a child. Is it possible that John could have sexually abused JonBenet and no one else? It is possible. On the average, approximately one third of fathers who sexually abuse their child will also abuse other children. The problem is: There is no evidence of John Ramsey, physical or psychological, being incestuous or being a pedophile. Likewise, JonBenet displayed no symptoms of being a sexually abused victim. Furthermore, the opportunity for John to sexually abuse her was not there. On the other hand, John has been known to have adulterous relationships with WOMEN. The opportunity to indulge in those types of affairs would be numerous, especially considering how many times John was away on business trips. Having affairs with both women and children does not add up.
I ask that everyone remain patient. It has been a busy week for me thus far. It is my aim, in the next day or two, to conclude my thesis concerning why I think Patsy is the killer.
Hercule
"Likewise, JonBenet displayed no symptoms of being a sexually abused victim"
ReplyDeleteAlthough not 100%, haven't experts agreed that JB has received trauma to the vagina for a considerable time before the murder?
Yes, John was away on a lot of business trips and wasn't home all the time. But I'm sure there was opportunity to indulge in this..after all, it was his daughter and he did live with her. He would only need 5min alone...I think he would have had 5min alone time with JB plenty of times.
But that's the other reason I think Patsy was involved in the staging. If she didn't know about the sexual abuse, she would have heard about the above report regarding the ongoing sexual trauma to JB. Even if the experts were wrong and this was due to something else (yeast infection), surely Patsy would be thinking "what the hell is going on, why are the doctors saying this". If she wasn't involved in the staging I would just think there would be too many unknowns and suspicions and she wouldn't be able to stay with John "to the end". However, if she was involved in the staging, even if her head was exploding with suspicion she would likely keep her act going because otherwise the truth may come out that she helped cover up the murder.
ZJ
All the back and forth about child abuse, and whether John could or could not be classified as an abuser, whether or not he would have had the opportunity to abuse his daughter, all the various reasons why Patsy might or might not have been involved in the staging, and how she might have felt about John both before and after the murder, etc., not to mention all the possible intruder scenarios one might be able to concoct -- all this brings home to me the importance of sticking with the known facts and not allowing oneself to get distracted by all the many other aspects of this crime that we have no way of knowing and no means of properly investigating.
DeleteAll the various possibilities, and unknowns, have truly turned this case into a morass, and attempting to slog through all the many obstacles presented by this morass is imo one of the reasons the investigation bogged down so badly.
So -- once more returning to the FACTS:
In light of the FACT that the note was written on a pad found in the house, using a pen found in the house, NO intruder theory makes sense. A sexual predator would have had no reason to write a note in the first place; a kidnapper would have prepared a note in advance; someone out to frame John or Patsy would not have written a note in his or her own hand.
That's it. NO intruder. Does this mean someone could not concoct some incredibly bizarre intruder theory that might appear to account for all the various odd elements of this case? No, because it's always possible to come up with some sort of scenario to support just about any theory. (Readers of Kolar's book know what I mean, as he begins by outlining such an unlikely scenario.) Which is why the legal system distinguishes between "reasonable doubt" and any doubt whatsoever. Based on the facts I believe it possible to prove that there was no intruder, beyond REASONABLE doubt.
FACT: Patsy is the one who called the police, not John. And if one might want to argue that John is the one who told Patsy to make that call, as was claimed in their book, then I'll direct you to another FACT, clearly evident in the above video, where Patsy says she told John she was going to call the police, and John says nothing to correct her.
(continued . . . )
Now if we ask ourselves why Patsy would have called 911 there is imo only one reasonable conclusion: she could not have been involved in staging a kidnapping and consequently could have known nothing about the phony ransom note. And yes, people have come up with all sorts of reasons why someone would have wanted to make that call anyhow, as part of some plan, and so if the plan did not involve dumping the body before calling the police then it must have involved staging a failed kidnapping, because after all dumping the body would have been too risky, or calling the police as a means of contaminating the crime scene by calling all their friends to come over, etc.
DeleteBut none of these unreasonable "reasons" make much sense. The note was written by someone who went to a great deal of trouble to stage a kidnapping, NOT a failed kidnapping. There is nothing in the note to suggest a failed kidnapping and no reason to stage a failed kidnapping, because a failed kidnapping could just as easily be seen as a failed staging of a real kidnapping, which is of course what it looks like to anyone with an open mind and eyes to see.
And yes, dumping the body would have been extremely risky -- but if one were afraid to take such a risk one would not have written such a note in the first place -- and writing that note was also risky. And if they'd changed their minds they never would have used the note, because with the body found in the house, the note backfired on the person who wrote it -- who would certainly have been arrested had he not been "ruled out" by incompetent handwriting "experts."
The notion that the police were called so friends could also be called to contaminate the scene is hardly worth considering. If they needed people to contaminate the scene they could have invited them in without calling the police -- there is no meaningful connection between the two.
So I'm sorry, but if we stick with the facts, and logical inferences based on those facts, without making unwarranted assumptions too often based on biased pre-judgements, then as I see it, we have some hope of arriving at the truth.
Thus: once we realize that there could have been no intruder; and once we realize that Patsy would not have called 911 if she had any knowledge of any attempt to stage a phony kidnapping; then we can arrive at only one conclusion: John must have written the note on his own, as part of a plan to delay calling the police and dumping the body the following night -- making HIM by far the most likely one to have murdered his daughter (though we have no way of totally ruling out the very remote possibility he could have been covering for Burke).
DeleteWhy he committed such an act, what his motive might have been, whether or not he'd been abusing his daughter in the past, how he did it, whether the blow or the strangulation came first, etc. we have no way of knowing for sure and can only speculate. But if we concentrate on the facts, I see no other solution to this case. To me, John, for whatever reason, is by far the most likely to have killed JonBenet, and there is certainly more than enough probable cause to arrest and indict him.
On the other hand, there was never any real evidence pointing to Patsy, which is why the case was never brought to trial, despite the fact that so many of the investigators suspected her. John was given a "pass" solely based on the decision of those who ruled him out. Once he is ruled back in, it becomes clear that he and only he is the one who should have been indicted.
Thanks Doc for once again directing al of us to just the FACTS. This case is definitely a morass and I, too, am guilty of going off into tangents regarding the sexual abuse, the reasons for killing JonBenet, the way she was killed, etc., only to find myself going in circles.
DeleteLooking at just the facts, as you have done, makes this case a rather simple one except, of course, that John was ruled out. That error caused a "detour" in many directions for those trying to solve this case and most people have found themselves lost in all the details of the case, often coming up with their own custom theory on what happened. I am at fault for doing this myself. That's why I love this blog. It causes me to question my own theories and start seeing the case from a simpler point of view.
And sorry for the double post, but for me, I just keep coming back to the suitcase (even more so than the window).
ReplyDeleteThe police were obviously expecting John to say that he DIDN'T break the window (which would back up his staging). I think ultimately, he confused the heck out of police when he said he broke it because why would he go against his own staging? I honestly think police were confused and in the end the window was forgotten...which is a disgrace really.
But as I was saying, the suitcase has me more intrigued. John has said on numerous occasions that the suitcase was NOT THERE previously and they NEVER kept the suitcase against the window like that. He even explained in an interview with Smit that it was a "hard" Samsonite suitcase and looked like it was placed under the window as a "step".
There's two things that have me scratching my head:
1) If John lied about the window (and basically went against his own staging), why wouldn't he lie about the suitcase as well and say it was always kept there?
2) If an intruder did NOT go through that basement window (proven by dirt, cobwebs etc.) and John is sayings someone definitely moved the suitcase there, isn't he also shooting himself in the foot with that comment? Why would an intruder place JB's body in the basement in the first place and then place a suitcase under the window but never use it?
The suitcase just has me really puzzled and John either made a blunder saying it was never there (and then couldn't retract this) or it was put there by the maid without John or Patsy knowing (which is doubtful). Or an intruder did put it there and used it as a step to "look" out the window but decided it was too difficult leaving that way so never went through with it. I think the IDI is a load of bollocks as they could have just left with JB through any door and why would they have to go in the basement at all? The only possible explanation for this would be that they didn't think the Ramsey's would find JB's body down there and they wounldn't call 911 and they would possibly get $118,000 out of them without actually kidnapping her at all....
I don't believe IDI though but that suitcase really has me baffled...thoughts?
ZJ
A thought or two on the suitcase.
DeleteFirst, for years we puzzled over the suitcase. Then, a few years ago, The Daily Beast showed a video of the room taken by police after the body had been "found" and the house sealed off. In the video we can see there is a chair nearby (something LS never bothered to mention) Assuming there is nothing wrong with the chair it's a much better choice for staging an exit through the basement window. Standing on a suitcase is likely to cause it to tip over. With a chair nearby, it's unlikely that the chair would not be selected instead of the suitcase. The video makes it clear that if someone were staging an exit through the window, the suitcase would not have been chosen, but rather the chair.
However, it's unlikely JR was planning to stage an exit through the basement window at all. He is trying to engineer a kidnapping (successful kidnapping) and no intruder would have bothered going down the basement once he had possession of JBR.
My feeling is that the suitcase means absolutely nada. It's just there. . Since it had apparently been in possession of JAR my thought is JAR put it there and it never got opened (thus the semen stained blanky never got washed) and never got put away in it's proper place. (if there even was a proper place since orderliness didn't appear to be a big concern in that household)
You can speculate on the role of the suitcase until the cows come home but it will not get you one step closer to solving the crime.
CH
We usually agree, CH, but in this case I must beg to differ. The suitcase was reportedly positioned directly beneath the broken window. When White first saw it, it was flush against the wall. Then, very unfortunately, he decided to move it, so we don't have a photo of its original position.
DeleteI realize that a chair would be a more stable item to use than that suitcase. But the suitcase was what was actually there at the scene, under the window, NOT the chair. And for the life of me I can't think of any reason for it to be there other than to stage an exit by a phantom intruder. To me, the suitcase is a very strong piece of evidence because as we know, no one went through that window in either direction. As I see it, this is just one more piece of evidence consistent with staging, and that's all it could be, there is no innocent explanation for it. According to my theory, John's plan would have given him an additional day to complete his staging so obviously he just left it there with the intention of returning the following day to finish the job. And when he unstaged the following morning, he was obviously in a panic and either forgot to move it or was pressed for time. Shortly thereafter, Fleet entered the area and saw it, so John had no choice but to report seeing it when he was finally being questioned months later.
As for the chair, you are assuming it was sturdy, which may not have been the case. It might have been in the basement because it was unstable. It doesn't really matter though, because the suitcase is what was under the window and there is no innocent reason for it to be in that precise spot.
We don't know the reason (if any) for the suitcase being under the window. There could very well be an innocent explanation. The kids could have been playing with it. JAR may have set it there for no particular reason and it was just there for weeks. The fact that the semen stained blanket is still in it is indication that it was never put away properly in the first place, and therefore never got out specifically to stage an exit.
DeleteYes, I'm assuming the chair was sturdy, a very reasonable assumption in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Any 4 year old trying to boost himself up would instinctively choose the chair, not the suitcase. Same is true for an intruder - a real one, or one being staged. JR would have known that no one in their right mind would have tried to stand on a suitcase.
To me it seems likely JR was staging the window as an entry, not an exit. He said all the doors were locked when the police arrived. The window would be a place the intruder could get in even with the doors locked. There would be no reason for an intruder to go back into the basement. And, if the intruder was supposed to have had JBR with him, and was trying to remove her from the house, then he'd have to boost himself up, while dealing with a body (live, dead, or unconscious) and then we are back to using the much more stable chair rather than trying to deal with a body while standing on a teetering suitcase.
The fact that the suitcase had a piece of glass on it suggests it was there when JR broke the window. The window would have to have been broken on entry by the "intruder", not on exit. If JR had moved it from some other location to stage an exit, then he did it in the wrong order. He staged the exit before he even staged the entry. Seems unlikely to me.
There is no value speculating on the suitcase. It can't help. It can only mislead.
CH
I'm sorry, CH, but I see no innocent explanation for the placement of that suitcase. You tend to go off on tangents based on even the remotest of remote possibilities. And sure, anything is possible, but c'mon. The suitcase was found directly beneath the window in question. How could it possibly have just been left there by coincidence? And if John happened to find it there when he was staging the breakin, he would certainly have moved it -- unless it suited his purpose. Whether a chair would have worked better is beside the point, as it was the suitcase that was found there, not the chair. We can argue forever about why John would choose the one over the other, but we'll get nowhere. He obviously chose the suitcase. It was a hard suitcase and would certainly have enabled "the intruder" to crawl out that window if there actually was an intruder.
DeleteI simply can't imagine any other reason for that suitcase to be there other than as part of the staging. And in fact Lou Smit presented this as a key piece of evidence when putting together his Power Point presentation.
What is remote about the possibility that the suitcase was "just there"? It has to be somewhere. It still had JAR's semen stained blanket inside, suggesting it had never been put away properly - and therefore never gotten out specifically to stage an exit.
DeleteWhy would JR be staging an exit through the window anyway? Why wouldn't his mythical intruder have exited through a door on the main floor? It seems more logical to me that JR was staging an entry at the basement window, not an entry/exit.
The chair isn't beside the point, the chair is the point. It's 10 times better to use the chair to stand on than a suitcase. Any child would instinctively select the chair as something the stand on. If there were nothing else in the room to choose from then JR might have chosen the suitcase. With a chair a few feet away there's no chance at all that an intruder (or JR staging an intruder) would select the suitcase as something to stand on.
Again, why would the "intruder" be exiting the basement window (where he came in) and trying to move a body through the window well instead of exiting a door? And if he were doing that, why stand on a teetering suitcase (yes, it's a hard suitcase, but that doesn't make it stable) rather than a stable chair, close at hand?
You're trying too hard to provide answers to small questions that don't really matter. If JR selected the suitcase to stage an exit, it's JDI. If the suitcase was just there, it's JDI.
CH
I have always thought that John put that suitcase there as part of the staging. Later, when he realized the police had determined there was no forced entry -- especially through that window --- he had to unstage that area. He probably returned to the basement in a panic -- possibly when he disappeared while Det. Arndt was there -- and had to quickly pick up the broken glass and any debris (packing peanuts) he had previously scattered from the window sill to the floor. Why did he leave the suitcase there? I have a feeling he just forgot to move it back. That's why he made such a big deal telling Fleet White (I believe it was FW) that that suitcase was not normally there. By noticing it and making a comment about it himself, he is removing himself from being in that basement anytime earlier. He used reverse psychology by being the one questioning it. It seems obvious that it had been placed in such a position that someone would think it was used to step up to the window. When he went down to the basement with Fleet White, he probably realized he forgot to move it back to it's original spot and then had to say something about it to establish that he knew it was out of place.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I think anyway. I would be interested in hearing Doc's thoughts about it.
bb
I basically agree, bb. I think he probably was in a huge rush and either forgot about it or didn't have time to deal with it. Patsy would certainly have testified that this is not where it belonged, so he didn't have much choice but to give the impression it must have been put there by "the intruder." It's easy to forget how much John improvised and how many things he said contradicted themselves or else made no sense at all. He told the police he checked all the outside doors and they were all locked, but he later claimed he never checked the "Butler door," which is nonsense. He also made a big deal about some alleged report concerning "seven open doors and windows" found in the house, which is also complete nonsense. And it's easy to spot all the obvious hedging and lies in his window breakin story.
DeleteYet he was given a pass, mainly because he'd been "ruled out."
What a joke!
"The notion that the police were called so friends could also be called to contaminate the scene is hardly worth considering. If they needed people to contaminate the scene they could have invited them in without calling the police -- there is no meaningful connection between the two."
ReplyDeleteDoc, I understand your feelings but you have to be able to think like someone who has committed an atrocious crime. Patsy knew all too well that by ONLY calling her friends this would prompt investigators to wonder, "If you are bold enough to risk having your friends come to your house despite the warnings of the note, why not also call 911?" Calling friends over and not the police would have been a monumental error.
Hercule
Well then why would she have placed all those warnings in the note in the first place? Sure such warnings are expected in a ransom note, but this one contains some pretty scary warnings that did not have to be there. I can't imagine why she'd have included them if the plan was to call the police anyhow. As far as the rest, it's all based on assumptions and imo very unlikely assumptions. I see no reason for anyone to write such a note, and then call the police on herself so they can find the body and figure out that the note is staging. NOT difficult to do, and that in fact is what they concluded. And if it's so obvious she wrote that note, then what possible reason would she have had to present it to the police as evidence pointing to HER?
DeleteAgain we need to differentiate between reasonable doubt and any doubt at all. Sure, anything is possible, but writing such a note to stage a failed kidnapping and provide some sort of excuse for inviting your friends over, sorry but that does not compute. Not in my computer anyhow.
I agree that the Police and friends were not called over to contaminate the crime scene, seeing that both a Policeman (French) and a friend (FW) were within a breath of discovering JB's body minutes after showing up that morning. At that point, there were only a few people in the house, and had they'd discovered her body, the entire house and yard would've been cordoned off immediately.
DeleteJay
Before I can FULLY commit to believing that John was definitely involved in this, I have one plausible IDI theory (that I'm sure Doc will find many holes in :)
ReplyDeleteI posted it on this blog:http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-scene-at-window.html?m=1
(it's the last two posts).
Please let me know what you think.
ZJ
First of all, I urge you, along with everyone else, to post comments only after the most recent blog post, where everyone following the discussion can easily find them.
DeleteNow, in response to your theory: it's not all that difficult to come up with some very complicated intruder scenario that somehow "explains" all the evidence, regardless of how contrived it may sound. And yes it's always possible that something of the sort MIGHT have happened. This is the sort of thing defense lawyers are paid to do, in order to muddy the waters and plead for "reasonable doubt." But your scenario, even if it were technically possible, which it isn't, isn't reasonable and would produce reasonable doubt only in the mind of someone already convinced neither of the Ramseys could be guilty.
For one thing, NO intruder scenario makes sense, as I believe I've demonstrated several times on this blog. I've already examined the possibility of a "kidnapper" deliberately hiding the body in the hope of getting the ransom without actually having to kidnap JonBenet. (see my blog post "New Improved Intruder Theory".) That won't wash because there is still no reason for the "kidnapper" to write his note while in the house instead of preparing it in advance. Also, the note says the call will come "tomorrow," which gives the Ramseys a full day to find the body and realize there was no kidnapping after all. Under such circumstances a real kidnapper would want to get his money as soon as possible, especially since the body would begin to smell pretty badly after several hours. When we add to that John's many obvious lies, and the gaping holes in his window break-in story, it's pretty clear there was no intruder.
Also, if the motive was sex driven as you suggest, there would be no need for a ransom note at all. And if the note was an after thought, it would have been brief and to the point, not 2 1/2 pages long. Of course it's always possible to argue that we have no way of knowing what was going on in this person's mind, etc., but that sort of "defense" could be mounted on behalf of anyone accused of murder. Again we are talking "reasonable" doubt, not just any doubt at all based on a clearly contrived scenario tailored to explain away evidence that clearly points to an inside job.
Hi Doc, I apologise on the posting protocol. I'll be sure to post in the most recent blog from now on :)
DeleteA few items in your reply stand out to me though....as I've listed below.
Doc: "That won't wash because there is still no reason for the "kidnapper" to write his note while in the house instead of preparing it in advance."
ZJ: I disagree. If the intruder was a friend, he would have know the Ramsey's wouldn't be home to late that night. He had ample time to write a Ransom Note in the house.
Doc: "Also, the note says the call will come "tomorrow," which gives the Ramseys a full day to find the body and realize there was no kidnapping after all. Under such circumstances a real kidnapper would want to get his money as soon as possible"
ZJ: I disagree on this point also. When the intruder possibly wrote the note it was christmas so it WAS "tomorrow". So I believe the phone call was supposed to happen on the 27th so money could be collected asap. But obviously the 911 call put this to a stop.
Doc: "When we add to that John's many obvious lies, and the gaping holes in his window break-in story, it's pretty clear there was no intruder."
ZJ: I agree John told lies. However, I don't know how we can be "clear" when we can't prove a key could have been used.
Doc: "Also, if the motive was sex driven as you suggest, there would be no need for a ransom note at all."
ZJ: I didn't suggest this was the only reason. It was a combination of sex driven AND money driven. This isn't unreasonable to beleive in my opinion.
ZJ
"If the intruder was a friend, he would have know the Ramsey's wouldn't be home to late that night. He had ample time to write a Ransom Note in the house."
DeleteEven if he had the time, what is his motive? If he entered the house with the intent to kidnap JonBenet then I see no reason why he would not have prepared a note in advance. And if, as you suggest, this was a family friend, then that "'friend" would certainly realize his handwriting would later be examined, so why hand print a note that would serve as evidence against him? Why not come prepared with a printed note?
"When the intruder possibly wrote the note it was christmas so it WAS "tomorrow"."
No, he clearly meant "tomorrow" to be the following day, because it was impossible for John to raise the ransom from the bank as instructed prior to 8AM, when he would have to be waiting for the call. No banks open before 8AM, most open a 9 or 10. So "tomorrow" literally meant tomorrow, giving the Ramseys plenty of time to discover the body.
And, yes, a key could have been used. But a real intruder would have left conclusive evidence of his presence and no such conclusive evidence was ever found. The DNA is certainly not conclusive given how easy it is for DNA to be transferred innocently. What else is there?
Also, I find it impossible to believe an intelligent girl like JonBenet would sit down to eat some pineapple with anyone who did not belong in that house. Even if some "friend" suddenly appeared, I can't believe she would not have awakened her parents first before joining this person in a snack.
You're reply didn't offer me any good reason why this couldn't have happened. There was a motive (which I explained several times).
DeleteIn regards to intruder leaving evidence, maybe he didn't. Or if he did maybe it was never found given the crime scene and house was full of people the next morning. It was a contaminated crime scene so that explains that.
In regards to tomorrow being "tomorrow", ok you may be right but this is still the quickest possible time for the intruder to get his money so that doesn't really change anything.
I also don't think handwriting would be easily recognised just because it was a friend. I mean you think JR wrote it and he was ruled out.
You also agree that a key could have been used so it's a real possibility.
JBR was 6, if a family friend was speaking to her I don't necessarily think she would yell for her parents. If she did, maybe the pineapple was a piece offering to calm her down.
At the end of the day, JR is my number one suspect and I like your theory. I just don't see any reason to rule out an intruder with a key either...
ZJ
"I see no reason for anyone to write such a note, and then call the police on herself so they can find the body and figure out that the note is staging."
ReplyDeleteI am glad you said that, Doc. Keep in mind, Patsy was in a very compromised position. First, she had to stage the body in such a way that investigators would have a difficult time believing that the murderer not only could be a female, but the victim's mother. The binding and garrote strangulation worked nicely to divert suspicion away from Patsy, however, when she realized that John would certainly be a suspect, she desperately tried to create a fictional criminal for police to pursue. After all, Patsy was creative and might have recalled (through her academic journalism background) similar scenarios such as the infamous murdering duo of Leopold and Loeb, who by the way wrote a ransom note with no motive whatsoever in collecting the money. The murder took place as soon as they got their hands on the victim. Furthermore, I would be shocked if Patsy did not recall the most well known of kidnapping cases - The Lindbergh baby kidnapping. Yes there was a ransom note and the victim's body was found on the Lindbergh property. Charles of course being a much celebrated hero, ironically shared the distinction of being a pilot with John Ramsey, who also had a passion for flying and possessed a pilot's license. A connection perhaps?
In conclusion, it was critical for Patsy to not only draw suspicion away from her but also away from John. She certainly did not want her poor husband to take the wrap on her behalf. Patsy would stand by her husband and in return he would stand by her.
Hercule
If Patsy Ramsey was trying to draw attention away from herself, she sure did a lousy job of it. If this woman (God rest her soul) had the wherewithal to be controlled and focused enough to sit down and write a detailed, lengthy ransom note in order to create a fictional criminal, then I see no reason why she also didn't have the focus and determination to get rid of the notepad, pen, paintbrush and garrote, bowl of pineapple, over-sized underwear, Burke's whittling knife, etc. as each of these items would incriminate her. I mean, if she was cognizant enough to dispose of the broken glass, duct tape role, extra rope, towels to wipe up fluid and so on, why not ensure it was all gotten rid of?
DeletePatsy Ramsey was invested in her children. They gave her purpose. Being a mother was her main role. She was invested in their health (taking her daughter to the pediatrician to try and determine why she was having so many vaginal infections is hardly the work of an abuser trying to cover her tracks), she was invested in their future. She has been characterized by those who knew her best as an emotional and panicky woman when things were stressful. John, on the other hand, was more invested in his business and building his status. He didn't spend that much time with his kids. He has been described as controlled, focused and somewhat distant if not cold. He is also a known liar.
Which of these two would be more likely to be guilty of this crime? I can't see a woman who was as invested in her child as PR was being cold and callous enough to strangle Jon Benet (and may God rest her soul, too) and sexually abuse her just to throw off investigators from realizing that she accidentally killed her. It doesn't make sense. John on the other hand....
By the way, part of the narcissistic dysfunction is sexual abuse of the individuals own children. If Patsy was the abuser, I doubt she would be so eager to figure out a way to help Jonbenet get rid of her vaginal issues (how many times did Patsy take her to the doctor?) Narcissists do not look at their children as beloved humans that need their protection, they look at them as an extension of themselves. And the narcissist loves nothing more than themselves. The more successful, popular, outgoing and lovely that child is, the more desirable the narcissist finds them, because to them, it is a reflection of themselves. After watching JR give interview after interview, reading through his interrogation and books, I have little doubt that man is a narcissist and a tremendously good liar. AKA guilty.
Intresting comments, having said my piece on here many times, and having listened to responses, i still go round in circles and end up with the housekeeper. Not LHP herself alone, perhaps a close friend even that we know nothing of. All responses so far, have not convinced me otherwise.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the JDI or PDI, I really can't see any possiblity of PDI. Any accident on her part would result in her calling in police job done. What mother who has no history of anything but love for her children would garotte to cover an accident.
As for JDI, I can see this scenario way more plausible than PDI, for all the reasons Doc explains. Yet these facts still do not entirely convince me. He has lied, was he feeling the pressure of becoming a suspect, who knows. Does he look guilty, yes no emotion shown. Then i ask myself, why hasn't he done this before?, If JDI, i don't know how without PR covering. And why would she?. The RN seems too long for someone on their own, with the chance of Patsy or Burke waking up. Seems far fetched they were drugged. I agree the whole thing looks like an inside job, but a long RN doesn't work with someone acting alone unless it was pre written, and garroting to cover up by a parent, i don't think so, unless it was a sexually motivated act committed by John alone.
In response to Hercule:
ReplyDeleteAll that effort and all that risk just to divert attention from what could easily have been reported as a fall in the bathroom or a fall down the stairs? Plus you have to assume John would have been willing to go along with the charade. Risk life in prison to protect his "family name"? Was he really so madly in love with his wife as to take such a huge risk to cover for her?
Sorry, but if a loving mother "accidentally" knocks her daughter out with a blow to the head, she is going to call 911 for help at once. The only reason you or anyone takes such a bizarre scenario seriously is because of what I call the "folklore" of this case, driven by desperation on the part of investigators such as Steve Thomas, unable to see any path through the maze they themselves created (by blindly accepting the decision to rule John out and naively accepting his window breakin fable). So over time the outrageous notion that Patsy would go to such lengths to stage a failed kidnapping by some depraved monster became more and more acceptable, since no other scenario seemed to make any sense. But that scenario makes no sense either. No matter -- it's become part of the folklore of the case, it's a familiar scenario and people now have no problem taking it seriously.
I keep coming back to that pineapple. It had to have been eaten that night since partially digested pineapple was found in JonBenet's stomach and it was not served at the Fleet's dinner that night. So who fed her the pineapple??
ReplyDeleteDid JonBenet wander downstairs alone to make herself a snack? Possible, I guess, but doubtful. If she was hungry, I believe she would have asked her mother for a snack, as her mother doted on her for everything. Plus, I think most children that age would automatically go to mommy if they needed something.
Did Burke feed it to her? This, too, is possible, although I think Burke would have told the police about it. As I do not believe for a minute that Burke is responsible for her death, I cannot see any reason he would not mention this to the police.
Did Patsy feed it to her? Very possible, especially after what I've said above about JonBenet asking her for it. But there's one problem. Patsy said she knew nothing about it. Why would she lie about this? It is reported that Patsy would routinely take JonBenet to use the bathroom before she went to bed, so it could easily have been explained in that scenario: She could have simply said she took JonBenet to go use the potty and then JonBenet asked for a snack. So, again, why lie??? So what if she was up with JonBenet that night? It sounds like she was up quite often with her.
Did a friend (intruder) feed it to her? VERY doubtful. Not only would the intruder realize there would be great risk doing this, I think JonBenet would have woken her parents to have them come join them -- or at least tell them that this "friend" was there.
Did a stranger (intruder) do it? This is the least possible scenario. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is ludicrous. There is no way JonBenet would have trotted downstairs with a complete stranger, without waking her parents or Burke, and then sit in the kitchen with them and eat a snack. And the intruder would NEVER risk this.
That leaves John. Would he have fed her the pineapple? Absolutely. And I don't think she even asked for it (again, if she asked for it, she most likely would have asked her mommy). I believe John offered it to her to get her downstairs. And the fact that he, too, said he knew nothing about it tells me that he did it without Patsy or Burke knowing. Why would he do it secretly? Because he wanted the time alone with JonBenet. If he had INNOCENTLY fed her that pineapple that night, he would have no reason to lie about it, especially if she were the one who had asked for it. But if he had an ulterior motive (to be with JonBenet alone), he most definitely wouldn't disclose it for fear that people would then wonder about it. Guilty people worry about being discovered. Innocent people have nothing to hide.
That pineapple is a huge clue. I can't believe more people don't see that.
bb
I agree. The pineapple evidence is yet another piece of puzzle, pointing strongly away from an intruder. No way she would accept food from a stranger or even a friend in the middle of the night without alerting her parents.
DeleteAs with the suitcase, the pineapple is a source of endless speculation. My feeling is that the Pineapple "evidence" is good for one thing only - eliminating the possibility of co-conspiracy between JR and PR. If they had been co-conspirators in the coverup they'd simply have said JBR had some pineapple before going to bed. It wouldn't interfere with the
Deletebogey-man did it while we were asleep theory they wanted to sell to the police.
At most, only one parent could know about the pineapple. But there are reasonable scenarios in which neither parent may have known. So this "evidence" just serves to encourage groundless speculation and lead us to question the logic presented here on this blog. Once it's accepted that the pineapple "evidence" doesn't get us anywhere (except eliminating a JR/PR co-conspiracy) we can quit returning to it.
CH
Here again, CH, I must respectfully disagree. I don't see a reasonable alternative explanation to John feeding her some pineapple that night. Sure, it's possible she coincidentally got up in the middle of the night to have a pineapple snack on the very same night she was attacked. But that sounds like quite a coincidence to me. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Also, as I understand it, she was too small to reach the pineapple on her own and would have needed someone there to get it for her. So maybe she boosted herself up on a stool to get it, yes I suppose that's possible. Realistically, however, it looks very much like she had her snack in the presence of her killer. Not iron clad evidence, no. But it's not necessary for every detail to be iron clad. It's just one more good reason to doubt the intruder theory. Not that it would be needed.
DeleteWe are agreed that no actual intruder fed her pineapple. I think we both dismissed IDI long before considering the pineapple.
DeleteA reasonable alternate explanation to JR feeding her, is that one or both kids got up in the night to have a snack. The tea bag in a glass and the big spoon, and only one spoon as I recall, all suggest that an adult didn't set this up.
Most kids can boost themselves up on a stool, (not a suitcase ) and most start that around age 3 or 4, if not sooner.
IIRC, JR's prints are not on the bowl, the glass, or the spoon, so to me it looks very much like JR had no part in it. Of course it's possible he simply didn't leave prints. Sometimes things can be handled w/o leaving prints. But the lack of JR's prints certainly makes your take on the snack much weaker. PR's prints are on the items, but that isn't surprising since she'd do the washing up (her and LHP). BR's prints are on the items as well.
JBR's prints were not present either, IIRC. Yet we know she ate pineapple. Was JR feeding her, spooning it into her mouth? Seems unlikely for a 6 year old.
I would suggest JBR ate with her fingers, and that seems unlikely in the presence of an adult.
The main point is that there is simply no way to know about the pineapple snack. IDI isn't the answer, but beyond that anything goes. Burke prepared the snack, JR prepared the snack (w/o leaving prints) JBR got up and fixed herself the snack. It dose not really matter, as none of these scenarios tell us who the killer is. It's not at all necessary for JR to have fed her pineapple in order for him to be the killer.
We can be sure PR didn't feed JBR the snack.
Since you seem to feel sure JR prepared the snack let me ask why? What was the purpose of a pineapple snack an hour or two after going to bed? Why would JR forget about the snack and not take care of the items, at least putting them in the sink? Did he actually think this contributed to his intruder staging?
CH
I think you tend to be overly literal in your interpretation of this case, CH. If something is even remotely possible you insist on its importance. As for me, I draw my conclusions strictly from the facts, and the rest is, admittedly, speculation. But when I speculate, I speculate on the basis of what seems most likely, not what's extremely unlikely but nevertheless possible.
DeleteAs I see it, the notion that JonBenet woke up in the middle of the night to have a pineapple snack on the same night she would later be the victim of an attack strikes me as a hugely unlikely coincidence. It seems much more likely to me that the two are related, i.e., that her attacker fed her the snack to distract her prior to the assault. John probably saw no need to clean up afterward since he rightly assumed some stray pineapple wouldn't mean much to Patsy when preoccupied with the kidnapping of her child. And in fact it didn't. She obviously didn't notice it at all.
But I could be wrong. You are entitled to your own take on this case, obviously.
I'm not insisting on anything, other than the fact that we cannot determine who prepared the pineapple snack. My point is that it simply doesn't matter who, or even why, the case turns out to be JDI anyway.
DeleteIf BR prepared the snack, JR isn't exonerated, and this does not become a BDI case. If JR prepared the snack, that by itself doesn't make him the killer. If JBR fed herself the pineapple, she's just as dead at someone else's hands. Aside from telling us that JR/PR could not have been co-conspirators in a cover up, the pineapple has no evidentiary value at all.
There is absolutely no reason at all the pineapple snack has to be related to the murder, and that's true even if JR prepared it. We don't know if this was a premeditated murder or not, and we don't know at what point JR decided to kill JBR. It's quite possible JBR simply woke up, while JR was still up, and asked for a snack. The intent to molest and/or murder may not have been formed until after the snack. IOWs, the snack may not have been part of any plan.
The one thing that weighs heavily against JR being the one who prepared the snack is that he forgot to clean up. Sure, ok, he's human. People forget. But this is a serious matter that potentially ties someone to feeding JBR pineapple (if in fact she didn't help herself). To me this is much more of a "coincidence" than a child waking up in the night wanting something to eat.
I suggest that the main reason for choosing JR (as the person who prepared the snack) is not facts or logic, but confirmation bias. The unfortunate aspect is that the case against JR is strong enough w/o having to link him to the snack.
If we stick to the facts then we must admit we really don't know who prepared the snack. All we can do is speculate, but the speculation is useless as it does not matter who. Regardless of how JBR came to eat pineapple, this is still a JDI case.
In other posts you have said that you think the glass with the tea bag may have been placed there by one of the helpers. This is w/o any evidence at all and not even remotely based on fact or logic. We simply don't know how/why/when the glass with the tea bag appeared on the table. It could be a "helper" put it there. It could be left out form earlier in the day (the day of the party) . It could have been placed there by the person preparing the snack. I see no factual or logic basis for the conclusion that it was the work of a "helper". There is simply no way to know. If the glass with the tea bag could be placed there by a "helper" why couldn't the bowl of pineapple have been placed there by a helper too?
It bothers me that you've been rigorously logical throughout your blog but now you are suggesting JR must have prepared the snack, with no evidence (and some evidence to the contrary) and that you are now speculating -wildly I think- that the tea glass was placed there by a "helper". It isn't necessary to provide an answer to every question in order to solve the case. You've built a strong case for JDI. I see no advantage in speculating on things w/o a basis in either fact or logic. It simply doesn't matter -as far as solving the case- who, if anyone, prepared the snack.
CH
"That pineapple is a huge clue. I can't believe more people don't see that."
DeleteIt really isn't. The pineapple tells us that JR and PR could not be collaborating in a cover up, because they'd have simply said JBR had some pineapple before going to bed.
Beyond that, there is nothing to do but speculate, w/o any real basis. In the end it doesn't matter who prepared the snack, it's still a JDI case.
I agree with you that JR is the one who'd have a reason to lie about it, if he did it. But aside from selection bias I can see no strong evidence that JR prepared the snack. Possible? certainly. But then, there are other possibilities too. It isn't necessary to link JR to the snack in order to have a strong JDI case. Nor does it harm the JDI case to find out that someone else prepared the snack, or that JBR simply got up and helped herself. Sometimes it's necessary to speculate, sometimes it's not. This is a time when it's not.
CH
Pondering Pineapple
ReplyDeleteI just re-read the Lou Smit/Mike Kane interview of John Ramsey regarding the pineapple, June 1998.
http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-pineapple.htm
I would agree that the pineapple evidence is crucial. It is some of the only factual case evidence we have. It establishes, as CH points out, that JR and PR did not collaborate. It establishes, as DocG AND John Ramsey (in the interview above) point out, that a murderous intruder did not somehow manage to feed JB pineapple in the night. However, it also begs the question: why did John and Patsy Ramsey not have an intelligent answer - or ANY answer - to the pineapple question 18 months after their daughter died?
For me, there can be only one answer to this question. The reason they did not have an answer to the pineapple question is that they did not know enough about it to lie. Otherwise, if guilty, one or both would have created a back story for it, knowing how damning and concrete the evidence was. But they could not and did not. So, logically, we must conclude that the only person who knew about the pineapple was BR, and that he was the person who fed it to her. To move the argument further, his fingerprint was on the pineapple bowl.
I have outlined my BDI theory before, and it aligns with the Grand Jury indictments. The pineapple is just one more piece of the puzzle that fits with BDI. MM
The grand jury indictments make it clear that Burke was not regarded by them as a suspect. The indictments referred to "murder in the first degree." Burke could not have been accused of that, as he was only 9 years old. Also the Ramseys would have been indicted for conspiracy if the GJ thought they conspired to cover for Burke.
DeleteColorado case law would indicate that a child under the age of ten can indeed commit murder in the first degree:
Delete"Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts." People v Miller (1991)
Conspiracy to commit murder is vastly different from accessory after the fact, and there was apparently not enough evidence for a conspiracy charge. There was evidence of both parents hiding the criminal acts of another person, a person who was not charged. MM
This is getting tedious. As a child under the age of ten, Burke would not have been deemed capable of formulating intent, and could therefor not have committed murder in the first degree, which requires intent. Committing the act and committing murder in the first degree are two very different things. Also John and Patsy would have been indicted for conspiracy to aid and abet, not conspiracy to commit murder.
DeleteIt's beyond belief that people would continue to harp on this absurd interpretation of the GJ indictment. Burke had already been ruled out as a suspect, there would have been no one arguing for his involvement and there would have been no possible basis for concluding that he committed this crime. It's just a possibility fueled by speculation, no more than that.
The indictment clearly reflects the fact that the GJ rejected the intruder theory but were unable to decide whether Patsy or John was the guilty party. The best they could come up with was the conclusion that one of them did it and the other aided and abetted.
Doc, as I imagine you already know, "Intent" is only one of several ways to get a charge of first degree murder in Colorado. Another would be causing the death of anyone while committing, attempting, or fleeing the scene of a sexual assault (see below). No intent.
DeleteI know you are irritated that these questions continue. I certainly wish that the case did not seem to implicate a child. Among other things, it means that the case is over, and there are no charges to be brought. However, James Kolar is presumably well-versed in both Colorado law in general and the JonBenet Ramsey case in particular. To dismiss Kolar out of hand (and Beckner, who supports Kolar), and then to dismiss all the possible implications of the Grand Jury's True Bills, well, it strikes me as curious. Frankly, I don't understand it.
"Colorado prohibits murder in the first degree, which is any of the following types of killings:
-A deliberate, intentional killing of another
-Causing a death of anyone (besides a criminal participant) while committing, attempting, or fleeing the scene of arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, or escape from lawful custody (sometimes called felony murder)
-By causing an innocent person to be convicted and executed due to perjury or persuading another to perjure
-Causing someone’s death by knowingly engaging in conduct that creates a serious risk of death, because of an attitude of malice and extreme indifference to the value of human life (sometimes called depraved heart murder)
-Causing a child under 18 to die from drug use after illegally selling or dispensing a controlled substance to him or her on school grounds (see special offender statute)
-Killing a child under 12 years old when the person was in a position of trust with the victim (abusing a child to death)
-First degree murder of a police officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services provider in the performance of his or her official duty is a distinct offense.
- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/colorado-law/colorado-first-degree-murder.html#sthash.VU6ev4BO.dpuf"
MM
The elements of the crime of murder in the first
Deletedegree are:
1. That the defendant,
2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and
place charged,
3. after deliberation, and with intent
a. to cause the death of a person other than
himself,
b. caused the death of __________________.
From https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/CHAPTER_3HomicideandRelatedOffenses.pdf
". . . in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent." From James Kolar, "Foreign Faction," p. 428.
Doc, you just quoted the first choice and left off the subtitle, "after deliberation" then ignored the second choice, "felony murder," the one that proved my point.
Deletehttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/CHAPTER_3HomicideandRelatedOffenses.pdf
I do not dispute the lack of criminal intent in a child age nine. I dispute your argument that the GJ could not return a charge of PR and JR assisting a person who committed murder in the first degree if the person was BR. A child under ten CAN commit first degree felony murder in Colorado (lacks intent to kill, person dies in the commission of a felony) and not be legally responsible by virtue of age.
If you can find an instance where the Grand Jury specified Murder in the First Degree "after deliberation" and not another subtype that precludes intent, then I will concede the point. Otherwise, I call cherry-picking. MM
If you read the description carefully you will see that "felony murder" is murder committed in the course of committing a felony. So what felony do you have in mind that Burke would have committed while he was bludgeoning his sister?
DeleteI'm sorry to be so blunt, but this nonsense is wearing me down. Not only is the indictment inconsistent with the conclusion that Burke committed murder one and his parents aided and abetted, but there is also not one bit of actual evidence pointing to Burke as the murderer. You can't indict on the basis of speculation alone, there has to be real evidence, either direct or circumstantial, and I'm sorry but some fingerprints on a bowl in the same house where Burke lived isn't nearly enough. Kolar has some interesting ideas pertaining to Burke, but in his entire book he was able to find nothing more than speculations regarding the POSSIBILITY of a nine year old sexually abusing his sister. Combined with his certainty (again based on nothing substantial) that either parent could not have done it.
If in fact there were a real case to be made against Burke, based on actual evidence, we'd certainly have heard about it by now. There is no such case. On the other hand, evidence that at least one of the Ramseys was involved in the murder of their daughter is all over the place. It's just that the GJ was unable to decide who did what. How hard is that to understand?
The felony committed when JonBenet died was sexual assault. MM
DeleteHah! Ok, MM, ya got me. Touché. :-)
DeleteSexual assault is a felony, JonBenet was sexually assaulted, thus her murder could be characterized as "felony murder," which, apparently, according to your interpretation of the document in question, does not require intent. However: if felony murder did not require intent, and the GJ saw probable cause that Burke killed his sister, they would have indicted him for murder one. Lack of ability to formulate intent would not have mattered, because, according to your take on the law, intent would be beside the point in such a case.
Here's the full quote from Kolar, on p. 428: "Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been prosecuted for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent."
What part of "any crime" don't you understand?
DocG: "Sexual assault is a felony, JonBenet was sexually assaulted, thus her murder could be characterized as "felony murder," which, apparently, according to your interpretation of the document in question, does not require intent. However: if felony murder did not require intent, and the GJ saw probable cause that Burke killed his sister, they would have indicted him for murder one."
DeleteNo, they would not because they could not. Under Colorado law a child under ten can commit a crime, but cannot be charged with any crime or punished for any crime.
DocG: "Lack of ability to formulate intent would not have mattered, because, according to your take on the law, intent would be beside the point in such a case."
Right. Felony murder in Colorado is considered a subtype of first degree murder when an innocent person dies during the commission of a dangerous or enumerated felony (sexual assault is both). A rapist may have only intended to rape, not kill, but if his victim somehow dies during the attack, then he can be charged with first degree murder. This is a pretty standard charge in most states, 46, to be exact, and not just my "take."
DocG: "Here's the full quote from Kolar, on p. 428: "Burke, only nine years old at the time, could not have been PROSECUTED for any crime because, in Colorado, a child under ten years of age is presumed incapable of forming criminal intent."
What part of "any crime" don't you understand?"
Hmmm. What part of the word "prosecuted" (caps mine in the quote above) do you not understand? True. A child under ten in Colorado cannot be charged with "any crime." None. Zero. Ever. But that does not mean that such a child cannot COMMIT a crime. Colorado case law supports this because in some cases adults may be held liable for crimes committed by their underage children. In the case I cited in a post above, a parent once argued that her eight-year-old did not commit the crime the parent was accused of abetting because he was only eight. The Colorado Supreme Court rightly asserted that although the child could not be charged with or held responsible for the crime, he did, in fact, commit it. The parent was tried on the facts related to aiding the child who committed the crime, although the actual "criminal" could not be charged.
In the case of the Ramseys, if their son killed their daughter, they could be charged as accessories to the crime even if the person who committed the crime could never be charged. Which, as a matter of fact, was exactly what happened. The GJ returned indictments on both parents for protecting a third person who is never named or indicted. There can be only one reason for that person to go unnamed: he could not legally be charged.
This aspect of the case has not been discussed over the years because of the legal jihad launched again those who do so. In fact, I will add a caveat to my posts here: I am just playing detective and I do not know who killed JonBenet.
MM
"No, they would not because they could not. Under Colorado law a child under ten can commit a crime, but cannot be charged with any crime or punished for any crime."
DeleteYes. Exactly. Because, as Kolar stated, a child that young is incapable of formulating intent. And intent is a necessary ingredient in first degree murder or any other crime -- splitting hairs over the difference between that and felony murder doesn't change anything. A murder committed by someone incapable of formulating intent is not murder in the first degree. Nor would it have been characterized as such in the indictment.
If the GJ had Burke in mind as the murderer when handing down that indictment, the entire case would have been treated differently. Alex Hunter would have breathed a huge sigh of relief, because such an indictment meant he wouldn't have had to prove that either Patsy or John killed their daughter beyond reasonable doubt. He'd have offered them some sort of plea deal, where they could admit to aiding and abetting and get probation or something like that, and of course Burke would not be charged with any crime, and that would be the end of that. Very convenient for all parties.
But of course in order for things to play out that way, there would have to be some evidence that Burke actually committed this crime. So please share with me what you think that evidence would have been. And if you believe the GJ might have stumbled on such evidence or that Burke might have confessed, then explain why the Ramseys wouldn't have made some sort of plea deal with Hunter and gotten off the hook. Do you actually believe the case was solved all those many years ago, but the solution remained a deep dark secret because Burke could not be charged? If that's what you think, I'd love to see those words from you in black and white, that would explain a lot.
No. But I believe the True Bills were worded in such a way to include the possibility that the person who killed JBR was her brother. I don't see them as evidence that he was eliminated, which is a claim you have made.
DeleteI also think that there is a vast misunderstanding of court-related information regarding children, and the high level of confidentiality required by courts and journalists when it comes to young children and court. If you add the specter of a sex crime to the mix, the civil liability for breaking confidentiality skyrockets. The affidavit edited by Alex Hunter and reprinted by James Kolar shows the tightrope Hunter walked. You will note that he refused to give a blanket reprieve to Burke.
Regarding evidence, BR's fingerprint on the bowl of pineapple is a small thing, perhaps, but it is a thing. I know you think that John handled that bowl and somehow 1) failed to leave a fingerprint of his own 2) failed to clean up the snack or wipe the bowl and 3) though he murdered his daughter after feeding her pineapple, over the course of 18 months he failed to create any possible back story to explain the pineapple snack.
I don't.
MM
Well, this certainly makes for an interesting discussion, I'll give you that much, MM.
DeleteHowever: as I understand it, Burke was eliminated as a suspect prior to the convening of the GJ. I can't find the exact reference at the moment, but I feel sure that was the case. And you don't hand down an indictment based on the possibility that someone MAY have committed a crime, you indict on probable cause -- the operant term being "probable," not just possible. Since nothing other than some fingerprints on a bowl has ever linked Burke to this crime, either then or now, I just don't see any reason why they'd have assumed he committed "murder in the first degree" even if he was older.
As far as those prints are concerned, it's been reported that one of Burke's jobs was helping Patsy when she emptied the dishwasher, which would account for both their prints being on that bowl. As far as John is concerned, we might want to call him "the man who wasn't there." His prints never appeared on the ransom note, despite the fact that he must have handled it; his DNA was never reported as being on any of JonBenet's clothing, despite the fact that he carried her into the house that evening (reportedly) and, of course, retrieved her body from the basement. And nothing belonging to him was used in the commission of the crime. So he MUST be innocent, right?
And as far as John leaving the bowl in place, I'd think that after clobbering his daughter over the head, he'd have had more important things on his mind than cleaning up the kitchen. And don't forget -- if he'd been able to carry out his plan, he'd have had another 24 hours to get rid of anything that might be incriminating. Patsy would certainly have seen nothing suspicious in a bowl containing some pineapple. There's no evidence she even noticed it.
DeletePatsy certainly might have become suspicious. After all, if she knew the kitchen was clean before the party (and she may or may not have known) then she'd know the snack materialized in the night. To me this seems like a pretty big oversight to dismiss casually.
DeleteCH
I have never read this interview before and it is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteMM, you say:
"For me, there can be only one answer to this question. The reason they did not have an answer to the pineapple question is that they did not know enough about it to lie. Otherwise, if guilty, one or both would have created a back story for it, knowing how damning and concrete the evidence was. But they could not and did not."
I have to disagree on that one. The easiest story would be " i Don´t know who fed it to her. i slept". If JR said " yes, she got up in the middle of the night, was hungry and i fed it to her..." - this would have arose a lot more questions.It is never a good idea to lie a lot, because than you contradict yourself very easily.
But there was one thing that really caught my attention: THE EMPTY Glass WITH THE TEA BAG - (and burkes fingerprints on ?)
It stands next to the bowl of pineapple. Why is it there ? Who drank this kind of tea ? It looks like JBR and the offender sat there in the middle of the night, drinking tea and eating a little bit of pineaplle. JR Fingerprints were not on this glass....
I don´t know, this new information is very confusing to me....
qq
Fingerprints don't come with a date attached. Burke could have handled those items the previous day or any time in the recent past. So could Patsy. Fingerprints from someone already living in the house mean nothing. On the other hand, the notion that anyone handling something will invariably leave prints is a myth. Most of the time prints can't be lifted even when the object is known to have been handled.
DeleteAs for the glass with tea, I have a feeling this was something left over by the various "helpers" invited to the house that morning, who sort of took over and tried to feed everyone.
Hi qq,
DeleteYou wrote "I have to disagree on that one. The easiest story would be " i Don´t know who fed it to her. i slept". If JR said " yes, she got up in the middle of the night, was hungry and i fed it to her..." - this would have arose a lot more questions.It is never a good idea to lie a lot, because than you contradict yourself very easily. "
In my mind, if JDI, then the easiest path would have been for JR to completely clean up the snack and claim ignorance of any pineapple. Lacking that, he might have indicated that sometimes JBR did get up in the night, and now that she was six she might have been able to reach the refrigerator door. The bowl and spoon are odd, as he exclaims several times, so he could imply that perhaps she got hungry in the night and took what dishes she could reach.
What is most odd about the interview is he leaves zero room for a normal household explanation (she got up and ate her favorite fruit- she is six, after all, not a toddler) and zero room for an intruder explanation (until the next day, when he says he was prompted by his lawyer to consider Santa).
I don't know why he answered the way he did, except to note that he seems to be avoiding any answer at all, even the reasonable guesses an innocent father might make. I have concluded that he could be trying to protect his son without incurring any liability on his own part, i.e. without obstructing justice or lying. Thus, he pleads complete ignorance. MM
Hi Doc,
DeleteI agree that fingerprints are not dated. Fingerprints are best gathered from smooth surfaces, like metal, porcelain, and glass. It would be very difficult to handle a bowl and a glass and not leave a print. Even more difficult to wipe your prints from those items and leave the prints of others intact. So it is a curious scene, if JonBenet indeed ate pineapple with her killer.
One assumes that law enforcement included questions about the glass of tea when they interviewed volunteers who were in the house on 12/26/96. It was a very odd way to make tea. Quite literal, as if a child imagined this is how sweet tea is made. MM
"As for the glass with tea, I have a feeling this was something left over by the various "helpers" invited to the house that morning, who sort of took over and tried to feed everyone."
DeleteI see no basis for such a "feeling". We simply don't know how, why, or when the tea glass appeared on the table. What's good for the tea glass is good for the pineapple bowl too, and we simply do not know how, why, or when, or by whom the bowl of pineapple appeared on the table.
CH
Again, you are being extremely literal, CH. Pineapple was found in the victim's digestive system. We know she didn't have any at the party. So when a bowl of pineapple is found on the kitchen table, it makes sense to infer that the two are connected. Such inferences are the basis for criminal prosecution and are certainly admissible in a court of law. Whether the jury is willing to accept such inferences is another matter, but the very strong possibility of an association cannot be ruled out, which is what you are trying to do.
Delete"It would be very difficult to handle a bowl and a glass and not leave a print."
DeleteMy house was burglarized many years ago and no prints were found anywhere, despite the fact that such objects were found out of place. The police assured me that it was not unusual for no prints to be found, and in fact finding prints was considered a lucky break.
I would guess your burgler might have worn gloves?
DeleteSo JR served the pineapple from a shiny porcelain bowl without leaving a print and without wiping prints from the bowl. He also managed to find time to write a three page note but failed to clean up the incriminating snack, a snack that Patsy would think looked bizarre.
When questioned by LE he also failed to come up with any shred of a possible explanation for the pineapple, without not knowing what prints of his may or may not have been found on the bowl or the spoon. And how simple would it be to say "Oh sure, those are our bowls. I recall always having to move those bowls out of the way, they stacked badly. ". "No, I did not get any pineapple out that night, I was asleep all night, but maybe JonBenet woke up at some point and figured out how to move a chair to the cupboard. " Boom. His possible prints on the bowl explained. Pineapple in her stomach explained. In fact, some horrible peeping pedophile might have seen the little girl alone in the kitchen and used the opportunity to break in and assault her. Two small suggestions: he knows the bowls, and JB could have figured out how to climb.
But no. He gives them nothing. I assume it was because though he was innocent he had guilty knowledge, and was walking a legal tightrope.
MM
"Again, you are being extremely literal, CH. Pineapple was found in the victim's digestive system. We know she didn't have any at the party. So when a bowl of pineapple is found on the kitchen table, it makes sense to infer that the two are connected. Such inferences are the basis for criminal prosecution and are certainly admissible in a court of law. Whether the jury is willing to accept such inferences is another matter, but the very strong possibility of an association cannot be ruled out, which is what you are trying to do."
DeleteWhy do you keep twisting the meaning of everything I say? I'm saying there is no association, I'm saying we don't know if the tea glass was put there by a helper or not, and if we are going to entertain the idea that a helper placed the glass of tea (or at any rate a glass with a tea bag in it) on the table, we may as well contemplate that the "helper" might have placed the pineapple there too - as you say yourself, the "helpers" were feeding people. None of this is a denial of JBR eating pineapple. But the snack could have been put away afterwords and gotten back out by a "helper". You are not willing to consider this yet you have a "feeling" base on nothing at all, that "helper" put the glass on the table the morning of the 26th.
CH
"I'm saying there is no association, I'm saying we don't know if the tea glass was put there by a helper or not, . . . "
DeleteI assume you meant, "I'm not saying there is no association . . . "
I hope that's what you meant, because there certainly could be an association.
"if we are going to entertain the idea that a helper placed the glass of tea (or at any rate a glass with a tea bag in it) on the table, we may as well contemplate that the "helper" might have placed the pineapple there too"
There is an important difference. There is no evidence linking the glass of tea to anything else pertinent to the case, but there IS evidence linking the pineapple found in the bowl to the pineapple found in JBR's digestive system. Thus it's not so easy to dismiss the pineapple in the bowl as "merely" something that could have been put there by one of the "guests." That could certainly be true, but it's also very possible that this is the source of the pineapple that JBR ate. That possibility has to be taken seriously, while as it seems to me you are urging us to dismiss it as irrelevant simply because it MIGHT have been placed there by a guest.
And by the way, I feel sure the guests were questioned regarding that bowl and if anyone had recalled placing it there, they would have said so. Yet I've never seen any reference to anything like that in any discussions of the pineapple evidence from authoritative sources.
The guests were no doubt questioned about the glass as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
DeleteCH
I'm glad to see this discussion about the pineapple. From the moment I read about it years ago, I felt it was the smoking gun in this case. At the very least, I believe it completely rules out an intruder. From the state of the pineapple in JonBenet's stomach, the experts concluded it was eaten AFTER the Ramseys returned from the Fleet's dinner party that night. And there is just no way an intruder would want to feed JonBenet for fear of being discovered in the house, not to mention that it is unlikely she would agree to eat it with them.
ReplyDeleteNeither Patsy, John or Burke claim to know anything about it. If that is, in fact, true, we have to believe that JonBenet fed herself. That is possible, although most young children do not wake up in the middle of the night feeling hungry. Actually, JonBenet didn't wake even when she had to urinate. So unless she fed it to herself right after they got home, I do not believe she got up later and helped herself to a snack. JR states she was asleep when they got home and he carried her up to bed. Why would he lie about that? No reason. If she was actually awake when they got home and wanted a snack, either Patsy, John or Burke would know about it and have no reason to lie about it. So I believe she was asleep when they got home. Once asleep, I do not believe she awoke until she either wet her bed or someone woke her up. If she wet her bed, she would have woken Patsy and told her. This could possibly have been the time when JonBenet asked for a snack. But, again, why would Patsy lie about this?? JonBenet had a history of bedwetting and Patsy admitted to helping JonBenet when she had accidents. In fact, Patsy said JonBenet did not wake from a bedwetting accident that night. So unless you are one of those PDI theorists who believe Patsy lied about a bedwetting incident that night because she accidentally killed JonBenet, I contend that JonBenet did not wake on her own that night. Now, if you are a PDI theorist, you can stop here because you probably believe she lied about the bedwetting and probably the pineapple too.
I suppose it's not impossible that Burke woke her (for what reason I'm not sure), but I believe he would have told the police that unless he killed her. But I have never subscribed to that theory solely on the fact that the head blow was delivered with great force and I don't believe 9-year old, skinny Burke had that kind of strength. Plus I find it crazy to believe Patsy and JR would then stage an elaborate kidnapping to cover for him.
Bottom line: Patsy or Burke could have fed her the pineapple, but WHY LIE about it? Why would that incriminate them? John could have also fed her the pineapple, but why would he lie? I believe he lied because he didn't want any evidence that he was up with JonBenet alone that night which would cause suspicious speculation. However, if he was innocent and did feed her the pineapple, I don't believe he would have lied. He'd have had nothing to hide and would probably not even be thinking about any speculation people might have about him being up with JonBenet.
I have long believed that people tell the truth when they have nothing to hide, regardless of what other people will think. John has a history of lying. And assuming he was guilty of killing JonBenet, he would never want anyone knowing he was up with her that night. If he was actually innocent, I see no reason why he would lie.
bb
I just read the interview of JR by Lou Smith/MIke Kane, link a few posts above. This excerpt was particularly interesting to me:
ReplyDeleteJOHN RAMSEY: It's -- if I -- you
18 know, if I recall this little tidbit that her
19 mother said that JonBenet said Santa was going
20 to come visit her the evening of the 26th, she
21 never told us that. And if that's something
22 they would have, you know, secretly prearranged,
23 would have been very possible, because I think
24 JonBenet took Santa through the house, you know,
25 that night of the 23rd or was with him while he
0557
1 was there the year before, I remember that.
2 If I came -- if I in fact -- if
3 in fact that's who said that to her and in fact
4 was said, and somebody she knew, and was
5 expecting, particularly Santa Claus, she would
6 hop right out of bed, you know, gone to the mall
7 if he wanted to.
John is attempting to point the finger at the Santa being the one who woke JonBenet and later sat and ate pineapple with her. IMO, JR overkills this a little bit, saying JonBenet would have even gone to the mall with him.
Another thing I've long believed is that guilty people will quickly point the finger at others just to divert attention off of them. This "Santa" was a family friend. Why would JR throw him under the bus? Because it was a plausible explanation of who fed JonBenet the pineapple. Except, of course, that there was no evidence of an intruder i the house.
ReplyDeletei found the following information about patsy and her thought about John sexually abusing JBR
"During The ENQUIRER interview, Patsy admitted she considered and rejected the possibility that John was sexually abusing JonBenet. She openly admitted that during her struggle to defeat ovarian cancer between 1993 and 1994, John and Patsy's sex life suffered. She totally rejects the notion of John abusing JonBenet, but her reasoning is odd.
She said her mother "came to take care of the kids (when I had cancer). She slept in the other bed in JonBenet's room. I mean, if John was coming in to molest JonBenet, you know that's not going to happen 'cause Grandma was right there every night.""
(http://www.acandyrose.com/04032001enquirer.htm)
It is interesting that John mentions the practice note:
If I was
14 setting this up, give me some credit for being
15 smarter than that. You know, would I have
16 handed Linda Arndt the pad that I wrote the
17 practice note on? If we were trying to disguise
18 something, why wouldn't we say oh, yeah, we fed
19 her pineapple before she went to bed, that
20 explains that. We didn't."
qq
....i just wanted to add something to the BDI theory.
ReplyDeleteIMO it is very clear that john and ramsey did not cover up for burke. There is a lot of arguments on this blog - but one is imo very convincing:
If Burke did it, than there is no way his parents would have allowed him to stay with the Whites that day.
So there remains only one possibility: that burke did everything alone without the knowledge of PR and JR - the murder with the garrotte, the changing of the underwear, the sexual abuse, the ransom note etc....And this seems extremly unlikely regarding his age.
qq
The Ramseys also allowed Burke to return to school just a few weeks after the murder (I think just 2 weeks). If they were covering for Burke, they would not feel comfortable allowing him to go back to school where he could talk to all his friends. Friends end up talking to their parents.
DeleteAnd I agree . . . he could never have done this crime by himself. Not the blow to the head, not the garrote and certainly not the ransom note.
It still surprises me that Kolar believes Burke did it and that he was able to write a book on it. I read his book and I still don't see it at all.
bb
That's true, they wouldn't have allowed BR to go with the Whites if it was BDI, nor if BR knew something about who did it.
DeleteBut there is a bigger reason to dismiss BDI. JR and PR are simply not going to risk life in prison (or possible execution) for a crime they did not commit when BR can't be prosecuted. And going to prison doesn't save the "family honor". Its' just that simple, imo. BDI is a senseless theory.
CH
Glad to see you're back on track, CH. :-)
DeleteI believe John used to the pineapple to lure JBR out of bed and down stairs. He couldn't just wake her and say "get up and let me molest you down in the basement." It's an escalation thing. "Hey sweetie, how about we go downstairs and get some pineapple." Then while eating pineapple, "Hey sweetie, I thought I saw some presents down in the basement, want to check it out?"
ReplyDeleteThat is what I believe also. And I agree with Doc about the empty tea glass. I think that was actually placed there by one of the friends Patsy invited over. It's like someone was about to make tea and got distracted -- easily done with everything going on that morning.
Deletebb
I never thought it was Burke, either. There are so many loose ends to this case which begets so many theories. Everyone wants to solve it which is great. But I think its smart to stay as close to the facts as possible to get a more realistic and accurate picture. Well done DocG. I don't think its unrealistic to believe that this case could reopen and if it does I hope JR is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
ReplyDeleteI see the pineapple scene this way. Jonbenet may have asked for something to eat as a way to stall the sexual abuse. John, however, was in a hurry to get on with his intentions. I read in her autopsy report that the pineapple was barely chewed. Perhaps, in haste, he grabbed whatever spoon was closest, threw the chunks in a bowl, gave her a box a tissues to wipe her mouth and that was that. Same deal with the ice-tea. He stated he didn't drink sweet tea, (but made sure to note that Patsy did) in his interrogation and that the way Patsy made it took a long time. If Jonbenet was again stalling the inevitable abuse by asking for some sweet tea that takes a long time to make, John throwing a tea bag into a glass of hot water with some sugar makes sense as he wants to move along with his abuse and keep dawdling down to a minimum.
If you read his interrogation done with Lou Smit over these items, you can see how odd his reactions are to the scene at the table. When Smit asks him if he knows anything about the pineapple, he goes on and on about the size of the bowl and spoon. Why not just say its out of character for that spoon and that bowl to be used to feed his child a snack. The end. Instead, he acts as if he is viewing some strange alien object dropped from the sky, "Look at the size of that bowl, I mean just look at that bowl, its so huge, wow, look at that spoon, it looks like Patsys good silver, wow look at the size of that spoon and that bowl. That is just a huge bowl." something along those lines. It's odd to me that he behaves this way. I think he doth protest too much. And I think it reveals his guilt.
In addition, he is constantly throwing responsibility toward Patsy while saying she could have nothing to do with it at the same time. Another narcissistic trademark. In fact, I would argue that he purposefully placed Patsy under the umbrella of suspicion from the second he sat down to write that ransom letter. I think he knew about the location of Burkes' knife, the over-sized underwear, and so on and used these items to implicate Patsy. He knew about the location of her silver, whether there were cans of pineapple in the house, whether tissue was kept on the dining room table, and where it was normally kept and other little details revealed in his interrogation. He had to have known that, if the kidnapping plan fell through, investigators would know it was an inside job. He isn't stupid, his survival of the fittest skills are pretty well developed and amoral. He had to account for as much as possible in the little time he had. Recall that the first thing he says to Linda Arndt upon laying his daughters body down after finding her dead is that it looked like an inside job. - Suzs
While not defending LS's responses, the size of the bowl and spoon suggest the possibility that the bow (and spoon) were meant for serving, not for an individual to eat from. The bowl and spoon could have been in the 'fridge and were taken out for the snack w/o the fuss of getting individual bowls and spoons. Just a possibility.
DeleteCH
I agree that this does make sense. However, as I understand it, the guests were questioned about this and no one recalled handling that bowl.
DeleteNice post Suzs. You are absolutely right, imo, on all those points!
ReplyDeleteJR made a big deal about the suitcase being in the wrong spot too, much like his repeated comments about the spoon and bowl. I'm not a psychologist, but I would venture to say that that is what a liar does to remove himself from that particular scene; by being surprised or curious about something, makes it appear that that is the first time you've seen it and, thus, you couldn't be responsible for the objects in question. John does this a lot.
bb
It's called "reverse psychology" and John is a master of that strategy. By demonstrating how "cooperative" he can be he points suspicion away from himself.
DeleteYou know what I also found interesting. The interview with JR about patricia mallard (the woman who claimed she had an affair with him). I've always thought this claim was bogus and it seemed obvious she was after her 15min of fame and a payday.
ReplyDeleteBut when asked about her, JR for the first time answered with the body language and verbal language that showed he was telling the truth. He even had a bit of a laugh about it and it was one of the few times I'd seen JR act so natural.
So what does this mean? Well we now know what JR looks like telling the truth. Which means, to me, 95% of everything else he said was him telling lies and making stuff up.
JR is guilty in my opinion but the IDI (family acquaintance with a key) still cant be ruled out which is why an arrest had never been made.
ZJ
I think an arrest was never made because the DA felt he wouldn't be able to convict. And he probably felt he couldn't convict because of the power and money behind JR. That and the shoddy investigative work done by the police. Taking a case to trial costs a lot of money and time for a DA, not to mention it can hurt the reputation of the DA's Office if they lose. I don't think the DA was willing to risk taking this case to trial.
DeleteI, too, keep coming back to the IDI (family acquaintance with a key). I can come up with an explanation for all the oddities in this case under this IDI theory except one thing: the broken window. The ridiculous story JR gives about breaking the window months before when he was locked out blows the IDI out the window (no pun intended). When you read his statement about this, it is plain as day that it is a complete lie. And a really bad one at that.. And if it's a lie, that means the window was actually broken that night, most probably by him in an effort to stage an intruder break-in.
bb
Agree completely BB. Although sometimes I wonder JR's window explanation is sooooo ridiculous, maybe it's the truth...
DeleteZJ
Well I thought it was ridiculous when he said he went through the window in his underwear (knowing full well that his neighbors had a key to the house), but it was his lack of memory when asked what he broke the window with that confirmed the lie for me. He couldn't remember if he broke it with his foot or a rock or something else. He simply couldn't recall. Who on earth wouldn't remember what they broke the window with? John has lied about many things, but it's the things he conveniently "can't recall" that make him so suspicious.
DeleteAmong the many blunders the police made that day, is the fact that they did not take any of the broken glass found near the window and examine it to determine when it was actually broken. In this day of advanced forensics, certainly they would be able to determine that. If they found that it had been broken recently, and JR had already given his weak story about breaking it months earlier, they probably would have arrested him on the spot.
bb
Forensics could also tell if the glass was broken from the inside or the outside. Seems like this would be vital information to know, ESPECIALLY if they were already suspecting the crime was an inside job, which I'm sure they were once any forced entry was ruled out.
Deletebb
According to Kolar's recent interview, it was not possible to determine whether or not the break was old or new. This tells me the edges of the glass must have been clean. If they'd been encrusted with dirt or dust then it would have been possible to make that determination, since the break would obviously have been old. I feel sure the edges were clean, but since the authorities were probably confused by the lack of broken glass on the floor they may not have known what to think. Also there were strands of a broken cobweb on the broken glass and that too might have confused them. Obviously, they were easily confused. Plus I think they wanted to believe John's story because it confirmed in their minds that no one had passed through the window on the night of the murder.
DeleteAs far as whether or not the window was broken from the inside, there would be no way to determine that for sure, since John could easily have broken the window from outer side of the pane so the glass would fall inward.
Ahhhh . . . you're right about the lack of broken glass on the ground. That would definitely lead the authorities to believe the break was an older one. And you're also correct about not being able to tell which side the glass was broken from. John could have opened the window first then broken it from either side.
DeleteThanks for pointing these two things out. You're never miss a beat, Doc!
bb
"If they found that it had been broken recently, and JR had already given his weak story about breaking it months earlier, they probably would have arrested him on the spot."
ReplyDeleteI agree that John's story about breaking into the basement through the window was a lie...ahhhhhh...but not for the reason you may think!
To Patsy's surprise, John took the credit for breaking the window...therefore Patsy had to go along with his story despite breaking the window herself while staging an intruder. Let us not forget that Patsy claimed to have cleaned up the broken glass with the help of Linda Hoffman-Pugh after John "supposedly" broke the window to gain entry into the basement. Linda, however, denied that story.
Why would Patsy include Linda in her lie? First, to make Linda look guilty knowing that she would deny the story...and to take some of the suspicion away from John. After all, Patsy put a lot of work into staging an intruder/pedophile/sexual sadist/murderer in an attempt to ensure that police would not suspect her or John. It would be very unusual for Patsy to lie about cleaning up glass from the broken window unless she was the killer. A huge red flag.
I contend the window had been broken by Patsy the night of the crime. Seeing the broken window on the 26th must have confused John. He had already been suspecting Patsy after reading the ransom note...thus his broken window story had to be created until he found out why JonBenet was REALLY missing and what happened between her and Patsy.
Hercule
If you insist that Patsy is the one who broke the window to stage a break-in, then please explain why she would have left her staging incomplete, knowing the police would notice the undisturbed grate and the undisturbed dirt on the windowsill, and realize that no one could have entered or left, despite the broken window. The incomplete window staging is inconsistent with the 911 call, as, of course, is the "ransom note" and the body lying in the basement waiting to be discovered.
DeleteThe ONLY explanation that accounts for all of the above, is the one I've offered here, with Patsy's call short circuiting John's plan, which would have given him an additional 24 hours to complete his staging and dump the body.
As for her story about Linda helping her clean up the glass, that has all the earmarks of gaslighting, i.e., the implanting of a false memory. Since Patsy would have expected Linda to help her clean up that sort of mess, Linda then became a part of the false memory implanted by John. While this might seem far fetched, I see no other reason for Patsy to have included Linda in her lie, knowing Linda would deny it.
Hercule, it is obvious that you believe Patsy killed JonBenet. You have posted some interesting thoughts about this theory -- some almost believable. But the one thing you haven't said much about is Patsy's decision to cover up the crime. Please tell me why you think she decided to do that instead of simply calling 911. Do you believe she intentionally delivered that blow to JonBenet's head in a fit of rage or was it actually an accident? This is important because if you believe it was just an accident, then you must convince me why she simply wouldn't call 911. Certainly seeing JonBenet unconscious would snap her out of any rage she had and she would instantly want to get medical help for her right away UNLESS the blow was intentional and she knew the police would figure that out. Hitting JonBenet intentionally is what I have a hard time believing --- especially a blow that hard.
ReplyDeletePatsy once stated that she was fighting Stage 4 ovarian cancer and that the notion that bedwetting would be her motive for killing JonBenet was ludicrous. I was completely taken by this comment and found myself agreeing with her. In fact, if she knew she might possibly die from cancer, I think she would be even more attentive and loving with JonBenet, knowing she might not be long in the world.
bb
This is very interesting case. Police must have known window was broken for a while, they could find people like gardner, kids family attesting to that. Patsy likely would know of it. The window would stick in johns head and he would know it would make a good staging. All this assumes we know for sure nobody entered through window which is debatable.
ReplyDelete"As for her story about Linda helping her clean up the glass, that has all the earmarks of gaslighting, i.e., the implanting of a false memory."
ReplyDeleteYou are right, Doc. It is far fetched. Just because gaslighting is the only thing that is keeping your theory alive does not mean that it must be true. I find it to be much more likely that Patsy was lying with an intent to deceive.
"The ONLY explanation that accounts for all of the above, is the one I've offered here, with Patsy's call short circuiting John's plan, which would have given him an additional 24 hours to complete his staging and dump the body."
Really? Come now, Doc. I have already explained why Patsy called 911, why she still wore the same clothes from the night before, why she called her friends to come to the house, why she placed the RN on the spiral staircase in the kitchen and why John would have instead been sure to discover the RN first so Patsy could not have foiled his plan of dumping the body (per your theory). Those are only a few of the unexplainable issues that plague your method. I am so confident that Patsy is the killer that I am willing to wager that I can provide an acceptable explanation to any question regarding her guilt.
"Please tell me why you think she decided to do that instead of simply calling 911. Do you believe she intentionally delivered that blow to JonBenet's head in a fit of rage or was it actually an accident?"
bb, those are fair questions. Why would Patsy choose to strangle her daughter after an accidental head blow? Or why would Patsy want to premeditate and murder her beloved daughter? Those are the questions that have befuddled Doc, his supporters, and almost everyone associated with this case. The short answer to your question is yes, there was an accident...and yes there was a murder. To fully understand how Patsy could have justified taking her daughter's life you must first know what it's like to grow up as a pageant child and later be a pageant mom. Unless you have been around it, it is hard to fathom the actions of some of these pageants moms. To the outside world their behaviors are bizarre, such as one mother giving her pageant daughter Botox injections or the mother who fed her daughter tapeworms in order for her to lose weight thus giving her a better chance of winning pageants. So, if you want to understand or have a faint idea of how a woman could kill her pride and joy - such as the woman who decapitated her 2-year-old child, you must allow yourself to enter a very dark and unrelenting world inside the confines of your mind. I am in the process of finishing my thesis on the subject so please bear with me. Stay tuned...
Hercule
Thank you Hercule . . . I anxiously await the conclusion to your "thesis."
DeleteAnd I am hoping you will also address the issue of the sexual abuse, both from that night and previously unless, of course, you do not believe she was previously abused and that all that irritation in her vagina was due to yeast infections and/or rough wiping by Patsy. I believe she was previously abused. Dr. Cyril Wecht's analysis of the autopsy report convinced me of this, although I do not subscribe to his theory that she died from a sex game gone horribly wrong. That theory is almost as unbelievable to me as the theory that Patsy killed her daughter, pageant mom or not.
bb
You have explained nothing, Hercule, other than your own fantasies. I've already responded to the various aspects of your "theory," and won't be wasting more time with it.
DeleteVery well, Doc. I see that you are frustrated. That will suit me fine. Since you were unable to effectively prove that what I have proposed thus far is any less impressive than your own theory, then I do not expect that will change after all of this time.
DeleteHercule
Sorry, Hercule, but I anticipated your "theory" some time ago. Here it is, in a nutshell: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-deux.html
DeleteThank you Hercule for bring up the sadistic world of Pageant Queens and Pageant Mom's. If ever you want more detail on that subject, we should connect. I'm sure that we share many other the same thoughts about this. From what I have read from you so far I see where you are going and completely agree with you.
DeleteNancy D.
"Dr. Cyril Wecht's analysis of the autopsy report convinced me of this, although I do not subscribe to his theory that she died from a sex game gone horribly wrong."
ReplyDeleteI would not subscribe to any of Dr. Wecht's theories concerning this case and I would be cautious to accept anything he has to say regarding any subject. There is no doubt that Cyril is knowledgeable when it comes to his profession, however, in the last thirty years or so, he has been more of a politician and less of a forensic pathologist. He has a very shady reputation in regards to his business practices and his tenure as the coroner of Allegheny County. In 2006, Wecht was indicted on 84 criminal counts that pertained mostly to the allocating of business funds and improper business conduct. It was a big enough issue for the FBI to get involved, seizing documents from his private and county offices. Luckily for Wecht almost all of the charges were dropped due mostly to search warrant technicalities. That does not change the fact that Cyril was a dishonest, political, money driven, heretic. He is the type of person who would say anything if the price is right...not unlike John Douglas...who was hired by the Ramseys and who since then has lost an incredible amount of credibility with the FBI after he supported an intruder theory and was blatantly inaccurate about several key pieces of evidence discussed in a couple of his books.
So...consider your source when you take into account that JonBenet was sexually abused chronically. There are just as many forensic pathologists who do NOT think the chronic irritation was sexually related.
Hercule
Are you suggesting Dr. Wecht was PAID to say JonBenet had chronic sexual abuse?? Who on earth would pay him to say that?? Whoever they are, they must have paid off the other MD's, including a panel of pediatricians, who also concluded there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse. Of course, there are probably just as many MD's, including her own pediatrician, who contradict this belief. I'm just saying that if you believe Dr. Wecht was paid off, all the other experts must have been too.
DeleteI do consider my sources carefully, although i have to admit that I have never heard anything about this alleged unethical political behavior. I suppose if you want to dig up dirt, you can dig it up on just about anyone. It does not affect my respect for Dr. Wecht and his professional forensic opinion in this case.
Putting aside the debated chronic abuse, I still cannot fathom that Patsy sexually assaulted her daughter that night in an attempt to cover her crime, whether the killing was accidental or intentional. That notion is just way to bizarre for my mind to wrap around, especially since Patsy showed absolutely no signs of previous violent tendencies toward her children. Of course, you can say the same about John -- that he also showed no signs of previous sexually deviant behavior. But let's remember that most sexual abusers, especially in the case of incest, are quite good at hiding their deviant tendencies. In other words, if Patsy had flown off the handle over JonBenet's bedwetting because Patsy was a psycho pageant mom, certainly there would have been some previous incidents where she got very angry over something. There is not. However, John had a dark, little secret that he was successful hiding from everyone.
Bottom line for me is that John is far, far more likely to have sexually abused JonBenet that night than Patsy. Even if Patsy lost control that night and accidentally killed her daughter, I cannot for a minute think she would have the presence of mind to jam one of her paintbrushes up her daughter's vagina.
bb
Doc: "Sorry, Hercule, but I anticipated your "theory" some time ago. Here it is, in a nutshell: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-deux.html"
ReplyDeleteDoc, I just read this previous post of yours, "Patsy Did It." Besides making total sense and demonstrating how totally absurd it is to believe Patsy killed JonBenet, it is also quite hilarious! Laughing out loud at the scenarios you suggest convinces me that the theory of PDI is just as laughable. And from the Twilight Zone indeed.
bb
"Are you suggesting Dr. Wecht was PAID to say JonBenet had chronic sexual abuse??"
ReplyDeleteI am suggesting that anyone with a long history of criminal mischief is not to be trusted on any subject.
"I suppose if you want to dig up dirt, you can dig it up on just about anyone."
I did not have to dig far. Besides, and I think most would agree, that 84 counts of criminal behavior is an extremely high number and should not be passively dismissed as simple, ordinary, everyday dirt that can be found on most normal people.
"However, John had a dark, little secret that he was successful hiding from everyone."
If you know about his dark secrets then please share them with us. Although, if you know any secrets about John Ramsey then I think it is safe to assume they are neither factual or no longer a secret to anyone.
Hercule
Has everyone forgotten a HUGE portion of this?
ReplyDeleteOnce a Pageant Queen always Pageant Queen!!!!
As an ex pageant girl there is so much more behind the scenes than what "Toddlers and Tiaras" depicts. It's much more. Than TLC's child exploitation series.
The pressure to be perfect all the time...... No 6 year old has any kind of coping mechanism to deal with that kind of stress. Hence the bed wetting and the night soiling.
A pageant queen mother who is stressed, ill, agitated that her daughter isn't the picture of perfection like a pageant queen should be.
Passive aggressive.
Public perception is everything and would be a freezing day in hell before the public will ever, and I mean EVER know or hear of any flaws or mistakes of a Pageant Queen or her family.
Stop thinking tangible and see the forest through the trees.
Nancy D.
"Sorry, Hercule, but I anticipated your "theory" some time ago. Here it is, in a nutshell: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/fantastic-theories-part-deux.html"
ReplyDeleteDoc, the way you present the PDI is absurd and very different from my own theory. It also leaves out a lot of important clues and evidence tying Patsy to the crime. It is not difficult at all to take any coherent theory from any subject and spin it in a way that makes it appear to be ridiculous. All one has to do is ignore everything that is critical to supporting that theory as you have masterfully done. By the way, I never said Patsy hit JonBenet with a flashlight. That would shift things quite nicely into the land of absurdity. That is a very important component to this crime.
Hercule
I used to think Patsy was guilty too. I actually came to this blog and wrote out my theory but I submitted it from my IPhone and it disappeared. Good thing because at that point I started to read through the evidence laid out on this website and couldn't believe how much it made sense from a very logical and unbiased point of view. Totally changed my tune.
ReplyDeleteIf posters are convinced in their own theories that Patsy was the undisputed killer, wouldn't it be more satisfying to your sense of discovery and research to start your own blog in order to present your side? Just a thought.
I had a question. Is there additional evidence being withheld from the general public on this case? And if so, do we know if there are any plans to release it soon?
P.S. I also think it's relevant to remind PDI critics how Chris Wolf could not be excluded either as the author of the ransom note. Makes you wonder about the science used to analyze handwriting in general. ~ Suzs
DeleteI've read that there is evidence that has never been revealed. But I've also read that just about everything of importance has been made public by now.
DeleteHercule,
ReplyDeleteEven if Patsy was a Dr. Jekyell/Mr. Hyde, crazy pageant queen and actually did kill JonBenet . . .
Even if there really wasn't any previous sexual abuse and the abuse she received that night was part of staging . . . .
Even if Patsy confessed to John and got him to agree to a cover-up . . .
Even if John or Patsy could bring themselves to garrote their daughter as part of a cover-up . . .
Even if they both backed each other up with that crazy window story of John's . . .
What about the RN?? Why stage a kidnapping with the body still in the house? What would the purpose of that be? Why leave a note at all and risk leaving all that evidence? Their time covering the crime would be better spent doing more to make it look like there was really a forced entry and intruder. It would be overkill to make it look like a kidnapping . . . one that went bad, in fact. Or, for that matter, instead of making it a ransom note, why wouldn't they write a hate note making it appear that it was left for John from a disgruntled employee or friend. But that's not what the note was. It was intended to be a ransom note. Why would either Patsy or John, or both, decide to leave that when the body would, in all probability, be found by the police??
This is what doesn't add up. I'm anxious to hear your explanation for that.
bb
I've started getting into this case in last few weeks. Here are my thoughts:
ReplyDelete- Based on hand writing and diction there is more evidence imho that Patsy wrote the note than another person.
- If John/Patsy did it I'm not sure why they would write a book, and hire investigator. That is a big risk even though it might mean that it would draw people away from you there is always a chance the investigator that you hired would uncover something linking John/Patsy to crime. Book only draws attention to case and there could be slip up in book.
- I agree the video you posted is evidence towards John/Patsy involvement.
- It is possible an intruder might be so stupid as to think that they could hide body in house without anybody finding it and recover ransom, because John/Patsy would still think Jon Bonnet is alive somewhere. This more likely if they thought police would not be contacted as without police possibly total search of house would not be done.
- RN on pad from home and pen put away and torture to me suggests John/Patsy as intruder would likely not be pedo and a money seeker. To be both is strange. If true pedo then that person is driven by sex mainly and when thinking about sex is not thinking about money. They are consumed by sex.
"- Based on hand writing and diction there is more evidence imho that Patsy wrote the note than another person."
DeleteWhat evidence do you have in mind? Patsy's penmanship is totally different from that of the note as far as overall style is concerned. Yes, it's possible to identify similarities with certain letters, but the same has been done with both Chris Wolf and John Ramsey. It's not hard to pick out such similarities if that's all you're looking for.
What aspects of her diction resemble the note. I haven't found any. The famous "and hence" can be traced to John, not Patsy.
I need to put something to rest. It's clear that the JDI's are intent on not only making JR a murderer but a child molester too.
ReplyDelete"As for the chronic vaginal irritation, JonBenet visited her pediatrician over 30 times in the span of a year. She suffered from yeast infections and other internal infections due to soiling her bed." - Hercule
I am sure there are other Ladies here. If JBR were suffering from yeast infections and vaginal infections then her doctor would have prescribed a topical cream to clear these reoccurring infections.
Wonder why there is evidence of digital penetration? With most creams that are used to clear these infections the cream must enter the vaginal cavity. A six year old girl wouldn't do that, and wouldn't be prepared to do it well enough for that type of medication to be successful.
So........ John was probably not comfortable with the aspect of it and that probably fell to Patsy.
Prior sexual abuse or treatment of vaginal infections?
I'm not sure why this hasn't been pointed out before but common sense and experience doesn't seem to prevail. Just interpretations of evidence to fit whatever anyone wants.
I am finding myself more inline with Hercule than any JDI theorist. But then He seems to have delved deeper into things that most people won't do for fear that it might make sense.
Nancy D.
I just finished doing some research online about treatment of yeast infections in children. By far the most prescribed method of treatment for children is oral medications. Although suppositories are sometimes prescribed for women, they are not typically prescribed for children. In fact I found several sites that warn against it for children. Of course, we will probably never know what type of medication JonBenet was using.
DeleteBut even if her treatment was internal, I don't believe smearing a little cream inside the vagina would cause the damage that was discovered during her autopsy and later confirmed by several doctors as being a sign of chronic abuse. The application of any creams or suppositories internally would not have caused the extent of damage found.
"I'm not sure why this hasn't been pointed out before but common sense and experience doesn't seem to prevail. Just interpretations of evidence to fit whatever anyone wants." - Nancy D.
I think this is exactly what you are doing -- looking for an explanation of the vaginal irritation and pinning it on the yeast infections. "Common sense" tells me there was something else happening to JonBenet to cause the damage in her vagina.
Yes the general way to treat (candidiasis) in children is with a topical cream and sometimes oral antibiotics, therefor Patsy would not have inserted her finger into Jonbenet's vagina. It has been said by JBR'S doctor, that she visited him for various symtoms including influenza. Unfortunatley treatment of influenza, chest infections with antibiotics, also contribute to the cause of Candidiasis. That said, this condition is not commonly found in young children.It would be intresting to know, whether JBR had always wet herself, or had lapsed back into this behaviour after a fair period of dryness, as the latter can be a sign of emotional stress.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some may say this is "cherry picking", as Doc would say, I found this article about causes of yeast infections in children interesting. Maybe JonBenet's bedwetting was a symptom of the sexual abuse, not the cause of all her yeast infections, as many believe.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amoils.com/treatment/yeast-infection/yeast-infection-children.html
bb
Ok I'll bite. Lets play devils advocate.
ReplyDeletePerineal-Vaginal Injuries in Children: Accident or Abuse?
Claudia Liuzzi M.D.1,
Felice Carabellese M.D.2 and
Francesco Vinci M.D.1
In this Book, they clearly state that there are instances that "Voilent Stretching" can cause the same appearances as digital penetration. Voilent stretching that they use as an example is slipping on a floor and and "wish boning" (if you cant do the slpits and you forcibly do them"
Or how even a young girl who slams back down on a bicycle seat can cause injury.
But lets's see:
" Maybe JonBenet's bedwetting was a symptom of the sexual abuse, not the cause of all her yeast infections, as many believe." - bb
Ok, bb, true to fact that psychologically it has been found that children who are being sexually abused do wet the bed more often. But so do children that endure a high amount of stress and pressure(Pageants in this case) due to no true coping mechanism at such a young age.
But if we "must" believe that JBR was sexually abused I would be likely to look in two directions specifically from my own experiences and from statistics.
I read (still back sourcing to fully confirm) that Patsy herself was sexually abused as a child. Statistically she would be the abuser in this case if she did not break the cycle. BR had the same bed wetting problems that JBR had up until PR redirected all her attention to JBR and pageants. Could be a coincident but not likely.
Or Pageants. You would be surprised at how many times a pageant contestant is offered up as a piece of meat to a particular judge to increase the likelihood of a higher score to win. The secrets of pageants can be a dangerous one that only those who ever participated in them would ever think about.
" "Common sense" tells me there was something else happening to JonBenet to cause the damage in her vagina." -Doesn't Want Any Affliation.
Common sense or assumption? There are a wide variety of ways that the damage and injuries could have happened. It's easier to believe a child is sexually abused based on the fact that children are easy targets. And for the possibilities that the injuries are accidental almost becomes absurd as there is no way that physically is it possible that kind of injury can occur without the presence of sexual abuse. Sometimes it's too hard to fathom.
Regardless, just some different points that are worth thinking about.
Nancy D.
Nancy D -
DeleteInteresting post.. What took me back the most was your comment that Patsy herself was sexually abused. I have never heard this before and would be interested in knowing where you read or heard this. Since I am a believer that JonBenet WAS abused prior to the night of her death -- that she had signs of chronic abuse -- I think whoever was abusing her is most likely the one who killed her. Having never even considered Patsy as the one abusing her, I have always felt John was guilty (I've never believed Burke to be involved at all)
I was also taken back by your comment regarding a pageant contestant "offered up as a piece of meat to a particular judge." This resembles the theories out there that the Ramseys were involved in some sort of sex ring. I just really have a hard time buying into that. I would like to believe that the investigators on this case thoroughly checked out everyone who was ever involved in any of the same pageants that JonBenet was involved in and found nothing suspicious.
I still hold to my theory that the sexual abuse was done within the family and most probably by John. But if you have something to back up Patsy's own abuse, I would be very interested in knowing about it.
bb
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?139275-Who-molested-abused-Jonbenet
DeletePost at 06-08-2011, 12:33 AM
I read this and I am further back sourcing as I want to ensure the full Credibility. Although there are court records to back up most the claim. And does list the many abuses that Patsy herself endured. Hence why if I had to pick a Parental Abuser that I would pick Patsy because it was done to her by her mother.
As for my reference of pageant contestants being served up as a piece of meat....... I was a very active contestant in many pageants and I know the whole horror stories behind the scenes. The abuse and the payoffs. Hercule wasn't wrong when he said that you have to go to a very dark place to think like that.
Nancy D
Just found this long term case study. Please scroll down to "unique offender profile"
ReplyDeleteProfiling parental child sex abuse - Australian Institute of ...
www.aic.gov.au/.../tandi465.html
Australian Institute of Criminology
“Public policy initiatives to redress parental child sexual offenders have been hindered by the absence of an offending profile that characterises this core group of intrafamilial offenders. Drawing on data from a sample of 213 offenders, this study augments knowledge about sex offender typologies by identifying ten key descriptive features of parental offenders.”
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the whole study was hindered by the absence of an offending profile, only making it of characterises the core Group of intrafamilia offenders. Not based on just Parental Offenders. And 213 participants doesn’t necessarily give the largest or most clear of pictures. Also, the fact that the number of participants aren’t specified in a Female/Male basis.
Nor is this based primarily on USA statistics. Being that international cultures vary and that there are higher rates of specific crimes depending on the area and the culture practised a Study of Australian Offenders doesn’t primarily fit in this instance. As there are many things that in Australia you can do that in the U.S. you can’t and that there are so many clear differences in social beliefs.
“Most offenders were not sexually abused as children
In the current parental sample, using a retrospective self-report method, the majority of parental offenders (61%) disclosed no personal history of childhood sexual abuse—self-reported rates of childhood sexual abuse were two in five (39%).”
The fact that this was a retrospective self-reported method again doesn’t clearly represent anything and again skews facts and beliefs. Out of the 61% of offenders that didn’t report a history of childhood sexual abuse, how many lied about that fact? How many were too ashamed to admit that fact? How many were/are still in denial? Self-reporting in any study can then bring about misrepresentation and false findings
“Victim–offender relationship
Most parental child sex offenders were men in a father–child relationship with their victim. During the 14 year period of observation, all referrals were men (the program subsequently had 1 female offender referral). “
Again, wording….. MOST (note not all) and again the fact that the study only had one female referral(Not stated that they were included in the study raises questions) Not a full picture. It only paints the picture that MEN are sitting at an 87%(Exaggeration) rate for sexually abusing their own child or step child.
Just because Women were primarily left out of the study, either because of their marital status, or employment status doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. It just means that this study like many others was put together in a way of misrepresentation and that to fully get the whole picture that a study of just women sexual abusers would need to be done and that the parameters of the study would need to not exclude marital status, rank, employment and social status.
To Be Continued.........
Nancy D
Continuation........
Delete“Unique offender profile
Various researchers have emphasised the heterogeneity of child sexual offenders (Smallbone & Wortley 2001). Nonetheless, parental intrafamilial offenders are not often distinguished from other intrafamilial or extrafamilial child sexual offenders. The profile of parental offenders was unlike that of other child offenders in several respects.”
Researchers have emphasised the heterogeneity of child sex offender….. Please the Catholic churches of the world have proven that to be an over statement. Although in GENERAL yes, but there isn’t an unspoken law amongst those that would harm a child in any way to say that it never happens. In a perfect world we wouldn’t even have to play devils advocate about this. The world isn’t perfect nor is it black and white, its grey and it only takes one person to do it to raise the question of whether that statement is strong enough in validity to matter.
Studies would be helpful and relevant when and only when the variables can be proven without a doubt, and that the controlled subject is clear and precise. Self-reporting in studies is not an option as it gives participants the opportunity and availability to change the outcome purposely and consciously. Think in terms of credibility, would you believe a criminal? Offenders lie and frequently, so this study, although well written and with the best of intentions has no valid representation as the outcome and findings cannot be reliable as the self-reporting method was used.
Nancy D
Nancy, i agree, the credibility of criminals cannot be gospel, and this study did not include women as such. But these case studies also would have based the full conclusion of the report on some factual evidence also. They would have some certain knowledge of the crimes, re-offenders, age of offenders and victims etc.
ReplyDeleteI think that lengthy studies can give us some insight, on the basis of certain aspects of the study, even if we disregard what we believe may not be factual evidence.
Forgot to mention, this was not the only case study or profile of familial offenders that i read about,it was just one i hadn't come across before.
ReplyDeleteAnd just in case anyone thinks i am trying to find something on JR to fit the JDI.
I have and still am "on the fence"
I'm going to take another stab at explaining why I think the suitcase is an unimportant piece of evidence.
ReplyDelete1. Either JR placed it under the window to stage an exit point for the mythical intruder, or he didn't. In either case we would still have the larger logic that tells us this is a JDI case. Since the role of the suitcase (if any) doesn't affect the solution to the crime, why get defensive or insistent on one POV concerning the suitcase?
2. People don't stand on suitcases. Look to your own life experiences. The last time you changed a light bulb, or had to reach something from a high cupboard or shelf, or put decorations on the Christmas tree, did you stand on a chair or on a hard sided Samsonite? With both the suitcase and the chair within a few feet of each other, and both visible, JR's mind would simply never have gone to the suitcase as something to stand on. He'd no more have chosen the suitcase as a step-stool than you would choose it as something to stand on when changing a light bulb. People simply do not stand on suitcases.
3. The suitcase had a piece of glass on it. That means it was under the window when the window was broken. In turn that would mean that JR staged the exit through the window before he staged the entrance through the window. Was JR staging out of sequence, like a film director shooting the ending of the movie first? Anything is possible. IMO, it's not all that probable. JR would, I think, more likely have walked through the intruder's actions from start to finish, staging in the sequence things were supposed to have happened.
But there is an additional problem. Had everything gone to plan, eventually the police would have to be called and they'd see the scene as originally staged - with the broken glass all over the place. The police would also have had to realize the suitcase was under the window when the intruder entered. JR would be in the position of having to claim the suitcase had always been in that spot, rather than claiming, as he did, that the suitcase didn't belong there.
It seems to have gone largely unnoticed by internet sleuths, as well as the real detectives, that the intruder could not have placed the suitcase under the window after the break-in. That LS ignored this fact does not surprise me in the least.
4. The window is an unlikely exit point for a kidnapper who has JBR in his arms. Even with the chair under the window instead of the suitcase, it would be quite a chore to push JBR through the window, into the well, then climb in the well and lift her through the grate. A more reasonable exit point would be a door on the first floor of the house. I see no reason why either PR or the police would insist that the intruder must have gone out the way he came in, with JBR in his arms, therefore I see no reason the window was staged as an exit.
I think it's quite possible the suitcase really was there all along, under the window. That's why it got glass on it. It certainly could not have been positioned after the window break. The suitcase under the window is constant with a break in - the intruder can't know what, if anything is under the window, and can't avoid getting glass on the suitcase. The suitcase is inconsistent with the story JR/LS develop - that the intruder placed the suitcase under the window to boost himself up. If this were true, how did it get glass on it?
The main thing to keep in mind is that we have a JDI case whether JR staged the widow as an exit or not. The second think to keep in mind is that it isn't good to get too rigid in our thinking since there is really no reason that the suitcase had to be used as exit staging.
CH
I'm going to also take a stab at explaining why the pineapple is unimportant.
ReplyDeleteThere is no scenario in which someone other than JR prepared the snack which makes us doubt the overall logic of JDI. So, why get "married" to a particular view of what happened?
1. Do we know what time she ate pineapple?
Really we don’t know for sure, we just have the probability that it was after returning from the party. ST, in his book, allows that it’s at least possible that she ate pineapple just before leaving for the party, and that if she was killed shortly after arrival home, the pineapple would still be where it was found in the small intestine. Digestion times are approximations based on averages. Individuals will vary in how long digestion takes. If we stop to consider that the pineapple had to be in the house before the party (unless you think the intruder brought the pineapple) then this is at least possible, if not the highest probability.
Based on digestion times and the location of the pineapple in the GI tract, it’s more likely she ate it after returning home.
2. Patsy claims that the fresh pineapple was usually purchased at Safeway, already cut up and in a plastic bag. This would make it easy for a child to prepare the snack. All that is needed is to pour the contents of the bag into a bowl and get out a spoon.
3. Patsy states that she doesn’t think the family had lunch on the 25th, since they had a late breakfast of pancakes and were expected to leave for the party between 4 and 5 pm. She states she cleaned up after breakfast. The relevance of this will become clear shortly.
4. What do fingerprints tell us?
JR and JBR did not leave fingerprints on the bowl. That doesn’t mean they didn’t touch it, so nothing much can be determined from lack of prints. PR’s prints can be explained innocently. She unloaded the dishwasher and put away the tableware, so naturally her prints would be on the items. BR’s prints on the bowl, and glass, are harder to dismiss. Since BR would not likely have unloaded the dishwasher and put things in the cupboard, his prints are likely there because he either got the items out of the cupboard, and/or he handled them in the course of eating a pineapple snack.
In 1996 there would have been phosphates in dishwasher detergent, and they’d have pretty well destroyed fingerprints so it’s unlikely Burke’s prints are on the blow and glass from prior usage. I think we must admit the high likelihood that Burke was involved with this snack.
to be continued.....
CH
... continuing
ReplyDelete5. Are the glass with the tea bag in it, and the bowl related? Some people theorize that the glass may have been gotten out by one of the “helpers” (victim advocates, or friends called by PR) but the same people are unwilling to concede that the same could be said for the pineapple bowl. We can assume the police asked about both, and as far as we know, no one admits to getting out either the glass, or the bowl. So, we’d have to assume that someone else got them out. (e.g. a family member) Since neither is likely to have been got out the morning of the 26th (or if you doubt the thoroughness of the police, either are just as likely to have been got out the morning of the 26th) then they must be related. At the very least the glass must have been out when the snack was prepared.
6. JR is the only one who has a reason to lie about the pineapple snack. If PR set out the snack there’d be no problem in her admitting this. Whether BR would admit it or not is questionable, since he might fear getting into trouble, but in general, there is no pressing reason why BR couldn’t admit it.
7. IF JR prepared the snack then it’s necessary not only to clear off the table, but “undo” the snack, putting the pineapple back in the bag, disposing of the tea bag, and wash and put away the bowl, glass, and spoon. It's not enough to clear off the table and put the pineapple back in the 'fridge. After all, a snack suddenly manifesting in the refrigerator is just as suspicious as one that appears on the kitchen table. Sure, ok, JR may have been pressed for time, and may have simply forgotten the evidence that tells the world that someone had JBR up at night eating pineapple. IMO this is unlikely. JR didn’t get away with this by forgetting to take care of details.
8. The fact is there is a snack laid out on the table, which no one in the family can, or will, explain.
As I see it, this leaves us with only a few possible scenarios.
JR prepared the pineapple snack and completely missed or forgot that this was telling evidence that someone had JBR up at night eating pineapple. I have doubts about this scenario because it's such a glaring oversight. Also how are BR's prints explained in this scenario?
BR prepared the snack for both him and his sister, after the adults had gone to bed, then for some reason neglected to tell the family or police about it.
BR prepared the snack for himself, the afternoon of the 25th. He may have been hungry, and he may have known PR had no intention of serving lunch. The bowl, etc., could have been left out by BR. Since PR would have no reason to enter the kitchen the items could have gone unnoticed by PR. JBR could simply have eaten a few pieces from the bowl after returning from the party. This still leaves us with the problem that BR neglected to tell the police about the snack and when it was prepared. A great deal may depend on the exact questions he was asked and the exact way they were worded.
The main takeaway is that it doesn't matter, it's still JDI. Almost as important, there is no reason for rigid thinking about the pineapple snack. It's quite possible JR had nothing to do with it and is just as much in the dark as anyone else. Again, this does not mean the it's not JDI.
CH
OK, let me start with Nancy D. Nancy, the documentation you've put together is interesting, but hardly amounts to a compelling case against Patsy, since there is NO evidence suggesting she was the kind of person you're constructing here. Like James Kolar making his "case" against Burke, all you've done is demonstrate the POSSIBILITY that Patsy might fit your profile, and thus MIGHT possibly be the sort of person who could commit such a crime. There is nothing in her history that suggests she had the sort of personality you're accusing her of having. Moreover, unlike John, whom we know little about, as he was away "on business" most of the time, Patsy lived her life in a social whirl, surrounded by friends, relatives, children, etc. If she had pathological tendencies I would think someone would have reported them by now. And even if she had such tendencies that is very far from evidence linking her to the murder of her child. You, like Hercule (also Steve Thomas) are building a fantasy on thin air that would be laughed out of court, if it ever got there, which is extremely unlikely, as any competent judge would toss it out due to insufficient evidence.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised also to learn that, according to you, Patsy had been abused as a child and wonder where you got that piece of information. I don't recall reading about it anywhere -- can you provide a reliable reference?
Now to CH. I have great respect for your thought process and your skeptical tendencies, CH. You are certainly a critical thinker, which for me is a highly commendable trait. I like to think of myself in similar terms and in many ways we think alike.
ReplyDeleteHowever, judging from many of your posts, where you play devil's advocate, it seems to me as though you have constructed a John Ramsey who is some sort of mastermind, capable of fine tuning every single detail of his crime, so if you see some sign of carelessness you assume he would not have done things that way. I don't see him like that at all. To me John is someone who acted out of desperation, possibly on impulse, came up with a fairly decent plan that could have worked, but made many blunders along the way, partly due to haste, partly due to anxiety, partly due to the fact that he was not much of a criminal, just an ordinary person faced with an overwhelming dilemma.
I think the choice of the suitcase rather than a chair was probably an impulsive decision that he didn't think about very clearly at all. It's possible also that he used the suitcase to boost himself up when he broke the window and then decided to leave it there because it looked like evidence that the intruder might have exited via the window. Don't forget, he would have had a full day and night to make his staging more convincing, and if he'd had more time to think about it, he might have chosen a chair instead, who knows?
The FACT is that the suitcase was found, flush against the wall, just under the broken window. And I'm sorry but I can't think of any innocent reason for it to be in that particular place at that particular time. If it's not part of the staging, then what else could it be? Would it have made more sense to use a chair to stage an intruder exit. It would seem so, yes. But that is NOT what was used, so either John decided it was the most effective option OR he was just too overwhelmed with anxiety to think very clear at the time.
Now as far as the pineapple in the bowl is concerned, it is fully consistent with the presence of pineapple in JBR's digestive tract, and since no one apparently took responsibility for it being on the kitchen table, it makes sense to me that it should be considered part of the crime scene. You say Patsy would have noticed it that morning. But in fact she did not notice it. She could have said "hey, this doesn't belong there, maybe it's a clue," but she said nothing of the sort, probably because it didn't look all that unusual to her. My guess is that John was too stressed to think about putting it away that night and probably just forgot about it. One of many mistakes he made.
Now you could be right on that score and it could be an innocent artefact, but that's no reason to simply dismiss it. My method is to concentrate on the facts, but I also look for other evidence that may not be strictly factual, but that's consistent with the facts and can be used to support a theory based on the facts. I see nothing wrong with that. This is how any prosecutor would go about making a case. Just because something might be falsified doesn't mean it should be ignored.
No JR isn't a mastermind, it's just that even real dummy isn't going to choose a suitcase to stand on. Not when a chair is available. John's a smarter than average man, who would have naturally selected the chair.
DeleteI have never denied that the pineapple in the bowl is related to the pineapple in JBR's intestines. But BR's prints are hard to explain so I think there no reason to get too strong a conviction as to who prepared the pineapple snack, or when.
The main point is that we don't need JR to place the suitcase under the window, or prepare the snack in order to make a case against him.
Think of it this way - If BR suddenly started to talk, and he said he made the snack and he placed the suitcase under the window, imo it would not make much of a difference to the JDI case you've laid out. Those items are not crucial to figuring out who killed JBR.
As Steven Colbert says - Moving on.
CH
Well John may not have been a dummy, but "mastermind detective" Lou Smit certainly bought into the suitcase theory, so I wouldn't call it totally absurd. And I see no reason for Burke to have placed it there. Or anyone else, other than John.
Delete"The main point is that we don't need JR to place the suitcase under the window, or prepare the snack in order to make a case against him."
Agreed. But the staging at the window, featuring that very suspicious looking suitcase, has always seemed so obvious to me -- I've never understood why the investigators never made more of it. Maybe they saw it the same way you do.
In any case, yes, we don't need any of that to nail John. All we need is a prosecutor with some smarts -- and some guts.
JAR may have put it there, as he most likely was the last person using it. It has to be somewhere, so it's not that odd it would be there (given that it's in the basement at all) It had to be in that room because the "intruder" wouldn't have brought it there from another room (unless this is another of JR's mistakes)
DeleteCH
Everyone is going in circles and that is because one huge portion is left out...Burke's side of the story.
ReplyDeleteAll of us are on here trying to solve this crime and guess who is out there not dealing with it? BR and JR. Burke, to this day, has not spoken publically or been followed up with by detectives, journalists, police regarding his side of the story. Do you wonder why this is? I know many will say that he was too young to remember but at this point, ANYTHING from him would make a difference.
Can we get some posts on everything regarding Burke and this horrible murder? He is the missing piece of the puzzle and everyone ignores him because he was ignored by police, detectives, journalists. Protected because of his age, but surely with such an unsolved mystery, he should be closely scrutinized. Until then, you are all going to go back and forth and not be able to solve anything.
Well, of course, as I see it the case IS solved. There's no question in my mind that John Ramsey killed his daughter and wrote the note, and that Patsy was innocent. As for Burke, I can't rule him out completely strictly on the basis of the facts, but I see little likelihood of his involvement, mainly because the preponderance of evidence points exclusively to John and also because I can't see a frail 9 year old with no history of interest in females and no history of violence sexually assaulting and murdering his 6 year old sister.
DeleteYou do have a point, however, since Burke almost certainly knows more about the case than he's revealed. He may have heard or seen something that night that John (and his legal team) prefers to keep secret AND, after the murder, he may have overheard certain conversations between his parents and also conversations with their lawyers that he's been instructed to keep secret. Burke may well be the key to unlocking the case and bringing it to trial. The fact that he's obviously been instructed to keep away from the investigators already tells us that something ain't right in Ramsey country.
Well, if case is solved according to you, shut down the website. There is no need to have everyone give their two cents if this case is solved (according to you).
DeleteIt seems to me that it is quite irresponsible to ascertain that JR did it when a huge chunk of the information is missing. I am not saying that by virtue of the fact that BR has never given any insight into what happened that night, that he is responsible for the death of JBR, but rather that his insight is so hugely important he could put to rest any question of what happened that night with just one or two words. He might say that he heard his sister scream in the middle of the night. He might say he saw his dad take JBR downstairs for some pineapple, he might say that he himself took JBR downstairs for some pineapple, he might say that he saw his parents run up and down the stairs to and from the basement the morning JBR was found missing. Who knows. Everything revolves around what BR has NOT said because he was never asked or if he was asked, his story was sealed shut.
To say something isn't right in Ramsey county is the understatement of the century.
I believe the investigators DID interview Burke, at least once. If they felt he was hiding something and appeared to know more than he was saying, they would not have ruled him out so quickly.
DeleteHaving said that, I have always said there is a possibility that this case might get a new clue once John Ramsey dies. THEN maybe Burke will be willing to talk. Right now he is still very close to his dad and, assuming he knows something, might not have the courage to go against his father while he is still alive.
One thing I feel certain of is that Burke did not kill his sister. Whether he witnessed something, as you have suggested in detail, is possible. Of course, why would the Ramseys so quickly get him out of the house and send him with friends, unsupervised by them, where he could have said something? And then a couple weeks later send him back to school?? If either of the Ramseys knew Burke witnessed something, I think they would keep a tight rein on him. If he witnessed something secretly without them knowing, then he would either spill the beans while talking to investigators or bury it away for the rest of his life . . . . until his father dies.
bb
"Well, if case is solved according to you, shut down the website. There is no need to have everyone give their two cents if this case is solved (according to you)."
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I was keeping it a secret. The second post on this blog is titled "Case Solved." But that doesn't mean there isn't room for questions or the discussion of alternative theories. And I've always welcomed criticism of my ideas.
"It seems to me that it is quite irresponsible to ascertain that JR did it when a huge chunk of the information is missing."
Huge chunks of information are often missing in criminal cases. That doesn't mean prosecution, and conviction, isn't possible. As I see it, certain facts point us irrevocably toward John and that's the basis for my conviction that he alone is guilty. And when we explore additional evidence we see much that's consistent with my theory.
It's really very simple: no intruder theory is consistent with a 2 1/2 page hand printed note written on a pad from the house; no intruder theory is consistent with the body being hidden in a remote room in the basement; if Patsy were involved with the kidnap staging she would not have called 911; leaving only Burke and John. Burke is unlikely for reasons I've provided many times -- leaving John. That solves the case, imo, but many questions nevertheless remain, I'll grant you that.
I agree with bb that John would not have let Burke out of his sight if he thought Burke had seen anything incriminating. However, Burke may well have overheard discussions regarding certain details of the case, between Patsy and John, or discussions with their legal team, that John would not have wanted the investigators to know about. He was asked if he had any secrets and replied that they wouldn't be secrets if he shared them. Smart kid!
What is everyone's opinion in regards to the victim being redressed? I haven't found conversation in my search of the blog regarding this so if it's been flogged and blogged beyond your interest, I understand. But if anyone wants to take a stab? I feel the redressing supports my own inkling that John never discounted the fact that the body could be found, even after dumping or burial somewhere, which, in my opinion, shows how cognizant he was in making sure as much evidence as possible would point away from him, i.e. using Patsy's notepad to write the ransom note, planting Burke's knife near the body when any other knife could have been used, maybe even in the selection of items for Jonbenet to be redressed in down to the heart drawn on her hand that Patsy normally did. I agree with the idea that John is not a master/seasoned criminal, but he is much more highly functioning under stress than normal people due to what I feel is his sociopathic nature, so he can think more analytically and clearly about how best to divert any evidence away from himself.
ReplyDeleteI can't think of any other reason why he redressed Jonbenet other than realizing that if her body was found he didn't want the evidence to come back to him. Are there any other theories? ~ Suzs
"What is everyone's opinion in regards to the victim being redressed?"
ReplyDeleteAn intruder would not have bothered, so it's more evidence against IDI theory.
I agree with you that JR probably considered the very real possibility of the body being found. Therefore, to make a consistent and believable kidnapping story she'd have to be dressed in the same clothes she had on at bedtime. There would be no reason for a kidnapper (a successful one) to redress her in some of her other clothes before abducting her. She had to be redressed in the most literal sense, not only clothes placed back on the body, but the same clothes that were taken off the body.
While it's necessary the body should be dressed as per bed time before being dumped, this doesn't mean some clothes couldn't be missing. If for example the panties were missing, this could be blamed on the "kidnappers".
It isn't necessary that all the redressing was complete when the body was hidden. Initially the staging is for PR's benefit, so as long as she doesn't discover the body it doesn't much matter if/how it's dressed. So, this might explain the barbie nightgown in the WC. JBR might have worn that when JR took her away from her bed. He might, for some inexplicable reason, have decided not to put it back on her until later. Why he'd partly redress her I can't say. I can't think of a reason the nightgown would be in the WC unless JBR had it on when she was taken into the basement.
The biggest riddle about redressing is why she's wearing too big panties. Doc's theory that the original (presumably correct size) panties were semen stained and had to be disposed of is sensible and consistent with the evidence. But, it leaves us wondering why JR didn't notice the size problem, or why he seemingly ignored it. My thought is that JBR may have put the too big panties on herself before JR took her away from her bedroom. This would explain JR redressing her in them - it's what she had on. It's also consistent with PR's claim that the size 12s were available to JBR and that JBR sometimes wore them.
That's my 2 cents on the redressing.
-CH
DeleteThank you for that, CH. I agree that the changing of underwear was needed to get rid of his DNA just in case the body was found. I sometimes have this feeling that JR really wanted to frame PR for the crime. To me, it explains all of the evidence that seems to have a Patsy flavor to it. It could be that the big panties were grabbed in haste or maybe JBR put them on (did they ever find the packaging discarded?) but if it was JR I can't shake the feeling that he chose them purposefully. The infamous "underwear story" is what had investigators looking more suspiciously at Patsy, so its possible JR took that into consideration when he was staging that scene.
ReplyDeleteJMO, I don't think JR was setting up Patsy. His objective would be to set up a scenario where the kidnapping was believable. Anything that suggested that the murder was committed in the house, by a family member, would be going in the wrong direction.
DeleteCH
"JMO, I don't think JR was setting up Patsy."
DeleteAgreed. And for the same reasons.
As far as the oversize panties are concerned, if all had gone according to plan, John would have had no need to redress JonBenet. He could simply have disposed of the original (semen-stained? DNA contaminated?) panties along with all the other evidence on the following night.
It seems most likely, therefore, that the switch was performed sometime after Patsy's 911 call. Getting rid of the incriminating panties would not have been so easy with police around, so he probably made the switch with the intention of hiding them somewhere where they wouldn't be noticed, e.g., the laundry hamper.
If she'd been found without her panties, however, the police might have searched the house looking for them, so replacing them with a fresh pair would have been a good idea. In his haste, however, he chose an oversize pair. Even if he'd noticed they were too large, it was probably too late for him to correct his mistake, so he just replaced them and hoped for the best.
I continue to wonder if it would have been difficult to eliminate every trace of semen on or near Jon Benet's body--even with wiping it away. It seems to me some traces would have been left if the perpetrator ejaculated, but apparently done was detected.
ReplyDelete