Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Open Thread - Part Five
Last thread was getting too crowded, so here's another.
For everyone's convenience, I'll repeat my last comment from the previous thread:
"Obviously, we do not know for sure which version is more accurate. But either way, John did NOT try to prevent her from calling 911."
We don't know that. I feel sure John must have at least tried to talk her out of it -- there was no way he could have prevented her from making the call if she was determined to make it.
"Patsy wanted the police to find the body rather quickly so she could conclude this entire charade with a gut wrenching grand finale that was not completely contrived."
Hercule's explanation of why Patsy might have wanted to call 911 may or may not sound convincing in itself. But this question must be considered in conjunction with the allegation that she is the one who wrote the note. The two questions can't be considered independently of one another.
If there was no intruder, then the note can be understood only as part of an effort to stage a phony kidnapping. And if Patsy wrote it, then we have to conclude that she, either on her own, or with John's collusion, was staging a phony kidnapping. It's really that simple. Now IF she is staging a phony kidnapping, then why would she have wanted to call the police on herself before the staging was complete?
The staging at the window was clearly not complete. And the body of the victim was still in the house. As I've written so many times, I'm embarrassed to have to repeat it, there is simply no reason for the person who wrote that note to call 911 knowing that the police will discover the body and realize that there was no kidnapping after all. Added to that, I fail to see why the writer of the note would have wanted to hand the police evidence of her own handwriting on that note, especially if we want to assume, as so many have assumed, that the note was "obviously" written by her.
On the other hand, why is it so difficult for so many to even consider the possibility that John could have written the note, and that Patsy called 911 against his will? To me this is the only possible conclusion.
You can come up with a thousand "reasons" why Patsy would have wanted to make that call, but I see NO reason why she would have wanted to make it if she were staging a phony kidnapping.
There's been a lot of talk about the 911 call and whose idea it was to make. Does anyone know whose idea it was to invite all those people over to the house? Are we certain it was Patsy's idea? Maybe JR realized that since the police were coming over anyway (because of 911 call), it would benefit him to have a bunch of people over to contaminate the house. And since the threats in the RN did not stop her from making that 911 call, I can't see them stopping her from inviting friends and the clergy over. But maybe it was JR's idea?
With respect to Patsy's calling friends, I have two theories about that, but they are only theories. We will probably never know the real reason for sure.
Theory one: she might have been in fear for her own life, either suspecting the kidnappers could still be in the house, or possibly being fearful of John, who might well have been acting strangely, especially after she'd called the police and destroyed his carefully laid plans. Not sure when the police would arrive, she might have called friends over to make sure someone would be there as soon as possible.
Theory two: calling friends might have been John's suggestion, as an alternative to calling the police. It would also have suited his purpose because he could show them the note, so they could later serve as witnesses to its existence and its contents. This is consistent with my theory that John was planning to ultimately destroy the note, claiming the "kidnappers" wanted it back, so it could never be examined by the police. It's possible at least some of the friends were called prior to Patsy's decision to call 911. But it's also possible they were called afterward, in accordance with John's earlier advice.
I have wondered that, myself. In fact, if JR did call them, it might have been the reason Patsy (allegedly) was peeking at him that morning from behind her hands. I know that Doc thinks she never really suspected John at that point, but I have to believe that whatever went on between the two of them that morning made her feel uneasy and wondering what was going on that John might know about -- maybe she even wondered if he had some enemies that were out to get him. A woman's intuition is quite sharp when it comes to her husband and children. She must have been wondering why in the world all those people had to be there. You know, for those like Hercule who say Patsy was all about appearances, I think this is one reason she would NOT have called those people over. She didn't need them to see this drama unfold. If she wanted to put on a dramatic show for the police, she could do that without their observation. But back to Hercules saying that behaviorly, Patsy was suspect. I find this laughable. John's behavior throughout the entire day was extremely odd. Being "cordial" when the police arrived, instead of panicked, not comforting Patsy at all, reading his mail, disappearing for an hour, the lies about the window, sending Burke off to the White's (I would have kept my child glued to my side), mis-stating to Stuart the time that they found JB, trying to fly to Atlanta the same day (with Patsy in no condition to fly). Wow. Combine all that with the handwriting that looks like his exemplars and the signs of prior sexual abuse, and then compare to the reaching scenarios about Patsy, a woman who loved her child. John - loving? He was never home. Men who travel that much and don't make their kids a priority are selfish, ambitious men - I've met more than a few of them in my line of work. But put that aside. Someone mentioned that because John was wealthy and intelligent, there is no way he would have created this crime scenario. Like Doc, I want to point out that nothing went according to plan. I don't think John had a perfect plan, but I think he had a pretty good idea of how he was going to get out of this incest mess he started and the time came that he had to act, even though he may not have thought through every detail. Sorry for rambling, - LE
First of all, it was Patsy and not John who called the friends. Secondly she was spotted peeking at a policeman, not John. However there does seem to have been some degree of tension between them that morning, and it's possible Patsy may have suspected at that point that John had something to do with the "kidnapping."
As for the rest, I completely agree. John's actions that day were far more suspicious than Patsy's. Patsy may have peeked between her fingers, but it was John who was all over the place that morning, went missing and never fully accounted for his activities. And later claimed to have closed an open window without reporting that to the police. Very suspicious indeed.
Thanks Doc, for those clarifications. I was only attempting to respond to what Hercule and others have suggested, about Patsy. She called the friends - that answers an earlier post. So maybe she was nervous and having them there was a shield. And you're right, its the tension, not the peeking per se, that has always puzzled me. I think your theory explains all of the early morning behaviors very well, which is just one reason why I support your JDI theory. -LE
My theory is that Patsy knew about the prior molestations by John. Maybe she found out about them from JBR. When confronted, John threatened to end his financial support for her cancer treatment, and out of desperation she kept quiet. I think she then suspected John in the murder, but went along with the cover up (without him explicitly fessing up) because she felt guilty about - or felt criminally culpable - in not blowing John in for the prior molestations.
I agree with you and with Anonymous yesterday that PR may have suspected something. JBR was taken to her pediatrician 33 times in 3 years, the last year of her life for recurring vaginitis. PR called Dr. Beuf 3 times the evening of 12/17, 8 days before the murder. There was a vaginal exam in that 6-year old's future, and PR may have expressed that to JR, who then had to take action, knowing it would expose molestation. CC
Talking of handwriting analysis and questioned document examiners the other day made me wonder why the RN wasn't printed in block letters. We've all seen those notes on TV, right? Likely PR did too. Hard to attribute that kind of printing to anyone. But to a computer guy like JR tracing a Courier font from a laptop, as Doc has suggested, may be his version of block printing. CC
I never thought about it, but thats what I'd do, print in all cap block letters, unless I was a computer guy and then I'd go straight to my computer. AH
Hi Doc, Sorry to change the topic here at the mo,when you replied to my post about the heart drawn on JBR'S hand, i wasn't referring to who, what or when it was drawn, or even what is was, but that during Patsy's 98 interview with LE, when she was asked about how she new it was there, she replied twice that she had seen it there on her hand in the morning. This was after a discussion about the night before at the whites where she says the kids could have drawn it. How is this if JBR was missing/kidnapped.?
Evej, I'm not Doc, but I was sort of confused by what you're asking. I get that Patsy had conflicting answers on Dec 25 - ie. was the drawing there on Christmas morning or drawn later on Christmas night. Either way though, she is saying the drawing was there when JBR went to bed and then subsequently was found to be missing. So all that Patsy seems to be establishing is that it was there before she went missing. I see this guessing about when it got there as sort of innocuous. Kids draw on themselves all the time and Patsy was just trying to remember when she saw it or guess when it was drawn. If the drawing was NOT there when she went to bed, then I guess that means JBR was up during the night with someone she trusted and it was drawn then. But we really don't know.
As I recall, Patsy never literally said she saw the "heart" that morning, only that the heart was on her hand that morning. How would she know that? Because the image was on her hand when she was found dead early in the afternoon.
If she were guilty, I don't see her deliberately "confessing" to having seen her daughter that morning, after testifying that the last time she saw her was the night before. Steve Thomas and others jumped at the chance to "nail" Patsy over every odd thing she might have done or said -- revealing their own bias rather than Patsy's guilt.
"...saying that behaviorly, Patsy was suspect. I find this laughable. John's behavior throughout the entire day was extremely odd."
I find it laughable when I see how twisted the facts of this case can often be. John's "odd" behavior can be explained.
As I have stated before, the decision to call friends to come over was specifically intended for contaminating the crime scene. Patsy's performance was intended to convince the police, who did not know her.
Linda Arndt came forward 3 YEARS after the murder to testify in a television interview that John was "cordial". First of all, Arndt never had anything negative to say about John at the beginning of the investigation. In fact, she supported both John and Patsy. So if you and Doc want to discount Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's opinions on this case, I think it is only fair to dismiss the views of Linda Arndt.
Let's clear up some myths. John did not go to the mailbox and read his mail as if it were a normal day in paradise. The mail was delivered through a slot on the front door. John's purpose was to sift through the mail to see if there were anything suspicious or if the kidnappers had sent him another letter.
"John - loving? He was never home. Men who travel that much and don't make their kids a priority are selfish, ambitious men - I've met more than a few of them in my line of work."
How much time John was allotted to spend with his children due to mandatory work schedules and business trips has nothing to do with how much he loved them. It is the quality not quantity that is relevant. By the way, I never stated that Patsy did not love JonBenet. I believe she did, albeit, conditionally.
John's disappearance for an hour on the morning of the 26th does not mean he was the killer. Perhaps John did find the body late that morning. I think it is highly probable that he did. After grieving and pulling himself back together, John returned behaving much less "cordial" and appeared to be in deep thought. He had to consider the possibilties of what could have transpired. John already suspected Patsy's narrative in the ransom note despite her attempt to disguise it. Was she covering for someone? Perhaps Burke? John needed to talk to Patsy alone. The next opportunity he was given, John decided he must make the official discovery and soon after get some answers.
John's decision to arrange a flight to Atlanta was based on needing a place to stay and being with family. I think the John Ramsey you, Doc, and many others have created here would have been far too cunning to make himself look that suspicious.
Hi Hercule, can you provide the source about the mail slot, and the purpose of John looking through the mail? Although I said nothing about walking to a mailbox, I believe I have read that some thought he was looking for a message from kidnappers. If I were thinking there might be a message in the mail, I would have spoken to Linda Arndt about it. I would have expected her, or someone else in the PD, to intercept the mailman before he/she stepped on my property, if for no other reason than to confirm the contents of the mail and catch any suspicious mail and have it dusted.
Regarding my thoughts about John as a father: he was CEO. The only mandates come from him, not to him. He can go see clients and be back in a day in many cases, he can delegate, and he could have, if he chose to, spend more time at home. Not a lot more, because I understand how time consuming the role of CEO is, but let's face it, he went on overseas trips that no one knew much about, and was gone a lot. He left most of the parenting to Patsy. I personally disagree about the quantity vs. quality time. I see too many screwed up kids these days whose dad was gone all the time yet who professed to love their kids. My husband gave up travel for this reason, and I do believe our kids are better off. I have a career too, and we found it quite challenging to be at all of our kids games, debates, presentations, etc. But we did it - one or both of us were there at every single important event in their lives that parents are invited to attend, and we were there for them on weekends too.
Now, Linda Arndt is a police officer and also probably has a good 40 IQ points over the housekeeper, about whom I've read could barely read and write. For that reason alone, I'm not willing to compare the two people. The point is, Linda had a job in the PD and had to keep silent for a long while. She had nothing to gain by siding with the family, either. She had time to process her observations and later an opportunity to speak about it. Linda, on the other hand, changed her tune under the influence of Darnay Hoffman, who was waving the potential of a money payout in her face. What is "fair" is to look at motives for why people do and say what they do. To that end, I can find no motive for Patsy. IF it was an accident, why do the horrible things to JB. Only a narcissist could do that. John comes across like a narcissist to me, Patsy does not. And, as been pointed, out, his behavior all day was very odd. Upon suspecting Patsy, he could have taken her aside to find out what happened, called lawyers, and then had her admitted to the psych ward.
I just scanned some pictures of the front of the Ramsey home and there is a black oblong mailbox outside the front gate and affixed to a brick column on the left hand side of the gate. Not sure when the pictures were taken, but my guess is it was present when the Ramsey's lived there, or why would there be one at all. And the front door in the photograph doesn't appear to have a slot in it, although the picture isn't super clear. kp
2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"
DOI (HB) Page 19:
"I see some new mail lying on the foyer floor, beneath the mail slot by our front door. I think, if the kidnapper is going to communicate with me, maybe there is a note from him in this pile of mail. I sort carefully through the letters. Nothing."
I just checked a photo of the house front and I see what looks like a mail slot to the right of the front door. That's probably what John was referring to.
I see no problem with him checking his mail. But that could have taken only a minute or so. What about the rest of the time he was out of sight? And why would he have been out of sight for so long? What would he have been up to?
John said he saw the broken window around 10. There were police in the house. If you thought a kidnapper took your daughter why not rush upstairs and report the broken window? That's plenty strange by iitself.
Yes, it certainly is. And by the way, he said he "can't recall" when he saw that window ajar -- and closed it. He could have been down there at any time that morning, even before the police arrived.
Doc, here are some exerpts from the interview. It does appear to me that while Patsy has got into the conversation, she then forgets herself. 6 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at
17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about
20 washing her hands?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid,
22 you know, if she can get by with it, she
23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much
24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.)
25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to
0197
1 that at all Christmas Day?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I
3 don't remember exactly, but I may have.
4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there
5 was a heart on her hand?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on
7 there in the morning, that's why.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it
9 from the next morning?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next
12 morning?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next
15 morning, did you remember it from the previous
16 evening?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No
18 response.) But then when the interview restarts the next morning i think it is. Patsy herself brings up the hand drawing, which does appear to be her needing to change the story to this. 20 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, I wasn't clear
21 whether you were talking about picture of her in
22 the laundry room, or pictures of her located in
23 the laundry room. And I think that I read
24 somewhere talking about the heart on her hand.
25 And truthfully, I can't -- I am having trouble
0207
1 distinguishing whether I have read about that or
Yes, now I recall that exchange. Thanks, evej, very interesting.
For me the thing that stands out most from this interchange is the complete incompetence of the questioner. DeMuth stops short of asking the obvious followup: Where were you when you saw the heart on her hand that morning? Where was she? Was she alive or dead at the time?
I feel sure that if he'd asked her, she'd have come out of her trance and explained more fully what she meant. I think it pretty obvious that she didn't see JonBenet, alive OR dead, that morning. If that's what she meant then she might as well have held out her hands to be cuffed.
Obviously she was confused. I can't see any other explanation. The body was discovered circa 1 PM, but Patsy may have remembered it as happening earlier, i.e., in the morning. Regardless, I'm sorry but I can't see this as some sort of confession, that makes no sense. She got confused, and if the proper followup questions had been asked by her clueless questioners that would have become apparent very soon.
"PR called Dr. Beuf 3 times the evening of 12/17, 8 days before the murder."
That is incorrect. The calls were made December 7.
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth (JonBenet prior sexual abuse)
19 TOM HANEY: You made three calls to 20 Dr. Buff 's office on December 7. Okay. Just-- 21 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE). 22 TOM HANEY: Correct? Three in one 23 day. One at 6:28 p.m., one at 6:50 p.m., and 24 one at 6:59 p.m. Do you recall that day? 25 PATSY RAMSEY: To the office or
0580 1 his home? 2 TOM HANEY: To the office. 3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't 4 remember. 5 TOM HANEY: Would that have been 6 for something like this, to remember? 7 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like I would 8 have remembered, you know. 9 TOM HANEY: Three times in less 10 than an hour? 11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just 12 don't --
Doc: If all had gone according to plan and PR had not called the cops, when do you think JR would have reported JBR missing, and how would he corroborate a kidnapping without a RN, presuming his intent was to destroy it? I'm following a train of thought about premeditation. CC
I think John would have completed his staging and dumped the body the following night, the night of Dec. 27th. He would then have called the police the following morning, telling them he'd delivered the ransom, but the "kidnappers" vanished without returning JonBenet.
As far as the note is concerned, there are two possibilities. Either he would have destroyed the note or he would have felt confident he could fool the investigators thanks to his tactic of tracing or copying the text from a computer display.
If he'd been planning on destroying the note then he would probably have shown it to friends at some point, so they could serve as witnesses to its contents. He may also have planned on making a copy, either by hand or on his computer, so they could read the contents. The absence of the original would have raised suspicions, but it would have seemed reasonable that the "kidnappers" would have wanted it returned, so he probably would have gotten away with such a ploy.
On the other hand, he just might have had enough confidence in his ability to fool them that he planned on simply handing over the original note. After all, six "experts" ruled him out, so he would have had reason to feel safe. I think it possible that he had two very different styles of writing, perhaps one with the left hand and another with the right, and made sure to provide them with examples of his right hand and not his left -- I have a strong feeling they never saw the document we've all seen, that was made public some time later.
Since he was "ruled out" as writer of the note, he must have felt confident he could fool them -- and he did.
Doc, carrying your scenario further: I think this supports the idea that John wanted Patsy and Burke to leave the house and go with friends "for their safety." It would support the theory that it was his idea to call someone over (though I doubt he wanted that many people to come over). One thing though: I assume he thought about the fact that any one of their friends might have been insistent on calling in the cops and/or FBI. He had to have been confident in his ability to convince them that paying the money and getting JBR back was the best approach. I do believe he was that confident and arrogant, given his CEO background.
Looking at the alternative PDI theory: there is no way that I think Patsy would have or could have cooked up such a risk-loaded plan for covering up her deed - one that would have entailed getting rid of a body. She did not have the arrogance, confidence, or even ability to execute getting rid of the body. Let's say she realized after the fact that she could not execute a complex kidnapping plan, so she decided to call the police and play out the drama queen act. I can't buy this because I think she had enough sense to unstage a bit, by at least unlocking a door or something before she called the police. Common sense tells me to rule out Patsy as setting up a kidnapping gone wrong. This crime has all the makings of a very arrogant person having a fairly well thought out plan that depended upon his ability to manipulate other people's actions. Patsy has been called all kinds of things but manipulative is not one of them - in fact her style was very direct. That said, had she aborted a kidnapping to cover up an accident" plan, there are at least a few things she would have done before picking up the phone. Man, would I Iike to be on a jury for JR. I would not buy all the smoke and mirrors that you've covered in this blog and I would vote to indict him for pre-meditated murder. LE
I don't think JR planned on destroying the RN. Too much time went into disguising his handwriting (in part just because the note was so long) that I think he did feel confident they would not think he wrote it. But, more importantly, I think it would look very suspicious indeed if he did not have the note. I'm not familiar with any kidnapping cases where the kidnappers demanded their RN back. That, coupled with the delay in calling the police (had his plan gone accordingly), would be a major red flag to me.
I agree. I think he'd have to hand the RN over to further the IDI theory with LE, which means he probably spent a lot of time tracing it on a computer as Doc has theorized.
Wait a minute docG. You said. "After all, six "experts" ruled him out, so he would have had reason to feel safe.." That happened after the crime.. some time after. He couldn't have felt safe writing the note before or during the crime.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear and what I wrote was confusing. The fact that six "experts" ruled him out tells us, in retrospect, that he did a good job disguising his hand. So his confidence in his ability to fool the experts turns out to have been well founded. That's what I meant, but I expressed myself carelessly.
I also do not believe that this crime was premeditated. I agree with a comment that Hercule made recently that JR could easily have prevented JBR from telling others what JR was doing to her. He was a very successful CEO and had a great deal of experience in controlling situations. Why would controlling his daughter from speaking out be any different? He could easily have controlled her through bribes, brainwashing or threats. A 6-year old is very impressionable and easy to control.
I think something went wrong that night while he was with JB, but I don't believe it was planned.
I see no reason to assume that John could have easily prevented JBR from exposing him. That's just an opinion. We have no way of knowing that. From what we do know, she was a very bright and independent minded child who might well have defied a father who was abusing her.
On the other hand, I see no motive for John to deliver such a powerful blow to her head for any reason other than premeditated murder. The premeditation may have begun a day or so earlier, a few hours earlier, or just a minute or so earlier, if she'd given him some indication that night that she was about to "tell" on him. I can't see such a blow as an accident, and I can't see it as an angry reaction, because there was no sign she was beaten, just that one carefully calculated blow. A blow like that strikes me as a cold blooded, carefully considered act, not an angry reaction. If JBR had refused to cooperate with his latest advance, I can't see that as a motive for murder, no matter how frustrated he might have been. However, if she made it clear she was about to expose him, that's a different matter -- the motive would be clear.
I felt that way too, but I no longer think it was JBR he had to control. The vaginitis problems were becoming an issue and were going to lead to a full-on vaginal exam, which would expose the molestation. If PR shared this with her husband after her 3 calls to the pediatrician the evening of the 17th, he needed a plan.
The 2-hour trip to the airport on Christmas day always seemed strange to me. Jeffco Airport is 15 minutes from the Rs home, a straight shot down the Denver-Boulder Turnpike, so what was JR doing there for an hour and a half? I couldn't see him parked out in public tracing a RN on a computer, but then I read that he had a private hangar, and it made more sense. CC
We don't know he was at the airport, do we? He could have gone anywhere that afternoon. But even if he was at the airport, it was Christmas day and the place would probably have been all but deserted. He could easily have found a private place to do his thing.
A private hangar would be a pretty private place in a mostly deserted executive airport on a major holiday. His office was on Pearl Street Mall in downtown Boulder - far riskier. CC
Good point CC. I recently read on this blog about PR's phone calls to the pediatrician and the possibility of JBR getting a more extensive exam. The results of such an exam could not be explained by bed wetting or yeast infections so JR would be right to feel nervous about that. I just can't get over the possibility of a father pre-meditating his young daughter's murder though. That seems so extreme. Wouldn't he have just talked to JBR and reinforced with her again to deny anything if she was asked? I honestly think he had the power to do that. Of course, like many have already said, he was a narcissist and his need to protect himself went into overdrive.
If Dr. Beuf had done an exam and found abuse he would have been required by law to report it, and that would have exposed JBR to questions from DFS and the police, not to mention what PR would have been forced to admit to herself at that point. Not sure her denials could survive that kind of scrutiny. CC
I believe this murder was premeditated, at least a week in advance. IMO it is next to impossible to construct a ransom note that is that complex, full of movie references, and details designed to confuse law enforcement in one short night. The $118,000 ransom amount wasn't just some clever afterthought. This number not only correlates to John's bonus, but also to Jeff Merrick or anyone John worked with. Everything about the note and the way the crime was staged clearly was meant to send investigators on a wild goose chase suspecting anyone or everyone.
It's possible he knew about Bill McReynold's daughter being kidnapped on December 26 several years prior and Bill's wife's play about the teenage girl murdered in a basement. Using that date would have been clever. He certainly should have known about LHP's request for money. Placing the ransom note where Linda often places items for Patsy would've been another red herring for John to exploit.
I strongly feel that S.B.T.C. stands for "Small Business Technical Council". How does this relate? Another red herring to have investigators looking at something business related. Consider the following information from the NSBA website:
"NSBA and its high-tech arm—the Small Business Technology Council (SBTC)—have led successful efforts to foster and protect small-business innovation programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program."
"The Small Business Innovation Research (or SBIR) program is a United States Government program, coordinated by the Small Business Administration, intended to help certain small businesses conduct research and development (R&D). Funding takes the form of contracts or grants. The recipient projects must have the potential for commercialization and must meet specific U.S. Government R&D needs."
And yes, this program is affiliated with the NAVY. John Ramsey, as we know, served in the Navy. (Cont.)
"SBIR - The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was established by Congress in 1982 with a statutory purpose to strengthen the role of innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in Federally-funded research or research and development (R/R&D). Specific program purposes are to: (1) Stimulate technological innovation; (2) use small business to meet Federal R/R&D needs; (3) foster and encourage participation by socially and economically disadvantaged SBCs in working in technological innovation; and (4) increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity and economic growth.
STTR - The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is a sister program to SBIR, established by Congress in 1992 with a similar statutory purpose as SBIR. A major difference in the two programs is that the STTR requires the small business to have a research partner consisting of a University, Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), or a qualified non-profit research institution. In STTR, the small business must be the prime contractor and perform at least 40% of the work, with the research partner performing at least 30% of the work. The balance can be done by either party and/or a third party.
Although the Navy's SBIR and STTR programs are a component of the overall Department of Defense (DoD) SBIR/STTR program, the Navy's program is targeted at addressing the needs and areas of interest to the Navy and its System Commands (SYSCOMS).
On a schedule coordinated by DoD, the Navy issues SBIR solicitations, usually 3 per year, that contain a series of "Technical Topics" that describe the areas of interest and needs of the Navy and its SYSCOMS. Small businesses are invited to submit proposals targeted at one or more of the technical topics listed in the solicitation. The STTR program works in the same manner, but has only 2 solicitations per year.
The Navy's SBIR/STTR Programs are primarily mission oriented, providing companies the opportunity to become part of the national technology base that can feed both the military and private sectors of the nation. To that end, the Navy incorporates into its Phase II component, the emphasis on the small business' need to market its technology to both ."
John's goal was to point the finger at everyone except himself. Nothing used in the murder belonged to him. These items either belonged to Patsy, Burke, or the "intruder". John carefully made Patsy a suspect to ensure she would need his support therefore giving him her own. A brilliant narcissist indeed.
I agree that nothing about the RN was spontaneous, right down to the salutation. Kolar says the practice note directed to "Mr. and Mrs." was on page 26 of the notepad, while the finished RN was written on pages 27-29. I think JR changed it to just himself in an effort to further underline to PR that it was intended for him and he should be in charge of all subsequent decisions - like not calling in authorities, getting PR and BR safely out of the house. CC
Doc, in the RN, it states that JR will receive a phone call between 8-10am to instruct him on where to pick up JBR and deliver the ransom. If JR was indeed the killer, wouldn't police want to see phone records/a recording of the call (if this would be possible to obtain at the time - I'm guessing it would)? I highly doubt the police would simply take John's word for it.
Good question! I've written about this matter already, elsewhere on this blog and in my book. If he'd been able to carry out his original plan, John could easily have called his house from a phone booth, after picking up the ransom money from the bank. The answering machine would have picked up the call, thus leaving a record of it in the phone company's files. When he got home he would have erased any trace of that call from the tape. Since the phone company does not keep records of the contents of any calls, there would be no way the investigators could have determined what was said and by whom.
We have no way of knowing what John's plan actually was, but it was certainly possible for him to carry out this deception had he thought of it.
Thanks for the reply, that could potentially work, yes. His head must have been spinning throughout all of this - he must really be one hell of a sociopath. I've been reading the blog for about a year now and this really is the only theory that makes any kind of sense.... as much as I don't want to believe it, I don't see how logically it could be anybody else.
Everything I've learned about this case tells me that John Ramsey was/is not only one hell of a sociopath, but a very thorough one, with an impressive head for detail. If nothing else, the note itself tells us a lot about how carefully this whole thing was planned.
Well JR was a CEO. Those skills helped him that night and beyond. To get to that level you need to be calm under pressure, be able to think quickly, have stamina, and all the while keeping a poker face. Combine that with not having a conscience, and you can understand how he pulled this off.
If it was premeditated - and I think it was - isn't it likely there was no incest that night and the sexual assault was intended to be vicious to obscure evidence of prior molestation? In that case, the panties and long johns would not need to be removed, just rolled down, and the wiping down cursory. I think a neophyte would want to keep it simple.
I don't know much about narcissism and psychopathy, but it seems to me a first-time offender would be mission-oriented and not inclined to mix incest with murder designed to cover up incest. CC
It might have been premeditated in the sense JR planned out what he would do if it looked like JBR would ever tattle. Including devising a ransom note in his head. Perhaps something happened that night while molesting her that caused him to put the plan into action.
And whatever duct and rope remained would have been bundled up with the body for removal the following day, along with - probably - the flashlight and pad, but PR's call to police necessitated improvising a plan b. The glass from unstaging could have gone into the bag with the duct tape and rope, then dumped in a neighbor's garbage can across the alley when plan a was blown. JR was careful to explain a trip to the alley by telling LE he went outside to check the garage door. CC
Totally agree with you, CC. The fact that Patsy called the police and messed up John's plan is, ironically, the reason he was not caught. The events that came to pass after she called were lucky breaks for him. I feel that if she had not called, he would have probably been busted while trying to dump the body - the chances of him getting caught doing that or leaving a trail of evidence was actually greater and besides, having only evidence inside the house has been helped this case. LE
Very interesting. I didn't know JR had to explain a trip outside. And it's true that Patsy's 911 gave JR a better chance of getting away with this. If he had had to remove the body and carry out the rest of the staging (phoning the house, explaining the disappearance of the RN), there would be more room for error and he might very well have been caught. I suspect he would have been caught.
Why didn't the police search the trash cans? With a murder in the house and items obviously missing, I would think it would be automatic to check the trash unless, of course, it was picked up by the garbage company that day. If those missing items were found, JR would be caught as his fingerprints and/or DNA would very likely be on them.
Steve Thomas asked if he'd checked the first floor doors on the morning of the 26th in the 4/97 interview, and JR said he went outside to check the garage door.
No clue if BPD checked neighbors' trash. It seems an obvious move in retrospect, but they weren't the shrewdest. There's no trash on the evidence collection lists. I found it intetesting that JR volunteered that he'd been up in his and BR's rooms scanning the street and alley with binoculars the morning of the 26th. Looking for a garbage truck, perhaps? Useless speculation, but interesting. CC
"there is simply no reason for the person who wrote that note to call 911 knowing that the police will discover the body and realize that there was no kidnapping after all" can't agree with that !! ...if she killed her daughter herself , and she still in the basement , and Jonh woke up early that morning , of course she did not have time to finish the planning AND also can't take a shower on time...so what to do from there ?! ...of course she will call the police knowing that it will be "sentence of death" to Jonbenet (...they are watching not far away ,to murder her daughter if she talk anyway !!) ...so the morning call PROVE NOTHING AT ALL to tells if John is the killer ! with all the facts it's always possible to made a credible story against Patsy too
First of all, everyone in that house knew that they were getting up early to take an early morning flight to Michigan, so regardless of whether Patsy or John was the perp, either would have known how much time they had before the other woke up. So you speculate that Patsy started this plan and could not finish her plan in time. Let's assume that Patsy wanted to pretend the murderer was still in the house and murdered JBR while she was calling or right after she called...again, the note just complicates matters and likely would just point to her. Why not destroy the note and focus on unlocking doors, windows, etc to look like someone had a way in and out of the house? In fact, that did not happen. The window in the basement was unstaged. Who did the unstaging, in your scenario?
All very well thought out, CC. Also you're the only one with a motive that makes enough sense to persuade me a father could murder his daughter, that the pediatrician would have to report abuse to authorities. Well done. AH
So, Anonymous, you think Patsy called 911 because she thought the police would buy the story that the murderers were still in the basement that morning, waiting for the parents to wake up and see if they disobeyed the commands in the RN?
If you really think Patsy was the killer and she called 911 so the responding police would think that JBR was killed because she reached out to authorities, you also have to believe that the police would have bought the story that PR and JR wouldn't have either found the murderers hiding in the basement, or wouldn't have heard them exiting the house in the 7 minutes between the 911 call and the first officer arriving.
As Doc has said many times before, any theory that involves Patsy as the lone killer will be bizarre. I've heard this one many times before -- about how JBR was killed because Patsy called 911 -- and it never fails to make me laugh at how ridiculous it is.
ok but , i don't buy that Patsy went to bed and wear the same clothes the morning after only to save time , and about the murder , the suitcase in front of the window (the unfinished staging) is only there to convince that an intruder came Inside and get out by that same window , and there is no reason to think that an intruder would have wait until Patsy call the police to kill her daughter, you can kill someone and taking the money without delivering ...also this call is the most convincing way to prove she didn't do it ,me too i would have done this call , nobody would suspect me if they find the body in the basement !!! the proof is this website here based on this fact.... she was smart enough to play that game at the last minute , and a dead body Inside the house is solving the problem of the waiting call who never came around 10 am ....
If that's the way your logic works, that's fine. No amount of arguing will make you think otherwise. But as for your assertion that "nobody would suspect" Patsy, that's just another example of how little you seem to understand this case. Everyone suspects Patsy!! As DocG has mentioned many times, those of us who believe JDI are in the minority.
I've been trying to poke holes in CC's ideas of premeditation and motive, because I always thought it had to be an accident, maybe because it's so hard to believe a father could do that, but I can't, especially the part about the pediatrician having to report abuse. The thing about no assault that night except for staging explains the panties and no semen, too. Doc, what do you think of all that? D2
It's possible John was just trying to cover up the vaginal damage by staging a pedophile assault, yes. However that theory isn't consistent with her being redressed and wiped down, which to me strongly implies that semen was spilled. Some small amount of semen might have landed on her body, causing John to wipe it down. Or he might have wiped her down just in case a minuscule amount might have been present. Just because none was found doesn't mean there was no ejaculation. He might have been careful when he ejaculated, but wiped her down just to be sure. If he never ejaculated then I can't see why he'd have wanted to either redress her or wipe her down.
Regardless of whether he actually sexually assaulted her that night or not, it was probably his intention to make it look like the vaginal injuries had been produced by "the intruder-kidnapper."
If undies and ljs just rolled down for pedophilie staging no need to redress. Wiping down may have been for fibres and touch dna. Answers a lot of petty questions like where panties came from.
anonymous who think Patsy did it : i first completely disagree with that comment , but the more i think of it the more i think it's still possible , if she made the call to cover herself , never cossed my mind until i read that comment oct 14th , i still think the best solution is DocG but....not certain 100% anymore !
So you think Patsy was sexually abusing her daughter? And killed the most important person in her life, through whom she was re-living her own glory days as a pageant contestant?
Yeah, lets dismiss all the logical theories that fit with a horny old man who can't stick to marriage vows, wasn't getting any from his 2nd wife, traveled all the time to Holland, home of the lingerie ladies displayed in windows, had strange woman surfacing to say he liked kinky sex with her dressed up in showgirl outfits, who is now married to a designer of showgirl outfits. One who had access to a pretty, precocious little girl who was dressed up in pageants like his fantasy women while his wife was away for cancer treatments. Yeah, lets put that crazy idea aside and go with the mom who doted on and loved her child, was always home, surrounded by friends, family, and household workers, who didn't run around with men on the side, who always spoke her mind and was never accused of being secretive or having any other aberrant behavior other than typical holiday stress that all momes of households have. Let's go with that lady as the perp! Give me a break.
It has been a long time since I commented on this site and I used to argue with Doc that possibly BDI, but in the end the most logical explanation was that it was JR. The window cover up, along with him finding the body, along with him having the means and a potential motive are all that's needed to look at the most logical suspect. All along I have felt that it was 100% one of the 3 remaining people in the home, and at times I still think there is a chance BDI, its really grasping at straws.
So Doc, I have asked you before, but have you thought about doing a podcast on this case?
John Ramsey is very litigious, and a suit for defamation is always a possibility. I think Doc is wise to stay anonymous and keep a relatively low profile.
Lin Wood, the attorney in Atlanta, got all of John's money. He can't sue anybody now is my guess. What this case needs is a smart, savvy journalist who will take Doc's case to the masses and start demanding a bonafide handwriting analysis.
Sure he can; attorneys take cases like that on contingency. A smart, savvy journalist would face the same threat. Mary Keenan Lacy "exonerated" the Ramseys, remember? Any prosecutor or journalist making allegations about the Rs would find that damn near insurmountable.
Not Lin Wood. He doesn't work on contingency - and the ones that do look at the potential to actually collect on a settlement. They will go after the deep pockets of The National Enquirer or even Vanity Fair but not some lone journalist. No, Jon ramsey and Lin Wood carefully picked who they went after and the goal was always to line each of their pockets I'm sure. Re: Mary Lacy- the new DA doesn't give any weight to her statement and he has said he will look at this case if anything credible comes forward. I personally think a handwriting analysis would be the first thing to focus on.
Lin Wood settled a well-publicized whistleblower case in Atlanta this year that he took on contingency. Almost any attorney will do so for a long-term client from whom he's made mega fees.
A lone journalist must publish somewhere, and that company would be liable as well, just as St. Martin's, Fox, CNN and half a dozen others were when JR sued them.
And while Stan Garnett mouthed the appropriate words about the Ramsey case, he no doubt recognizes that the first affirmative defense JR would raise is Mary Keenan Lacy's letter to the Rs, and the second would be Alex Hunter's failure to indict when the GJ returned a true bill.
We all know what JR's defenses will be. he has been deflecting and defending since 1996. The questions will be put before him to explain the handwriting, the story about the broken window, the zero evidence of an intruder, the confusing story about who decided to call the police and why, and so on. There are plenty of people out there he could have sued already but none of them have deep pockets. Lin Wood was primarily looking out for Patsy and I'm told he is no great friend to John any more. In fact John has lost all of his friends. I do think a journalist could give this case a new life. The key I think is to find some old exemplars of John's handwriting, publish all of this in the form of questions to be answered, and gain Stan Garrett's attention. JR won't be the first or the last litigious rich guy to go down for his crime if those wimps in Boulder will step up and listen to an end to end theory based on facts rather than some supposition about a stressed out mama who some how took out her stress on her baby's vagina (ludicrous) or a skinny little 9 year old boy whacking his sister like a mafia hit man because of his sexual curiosity.
I applaud your passion and wish you well, but hire the best attorney you can afford before you try this, as you really don't seem to understand the legalities. Rod Westmoreland, JR's investment banker friend, recently sued a blogger named undertheradar for libel - no deep pockets in sight.
Why do think I'm a journalist? I'm suggesting that a good, savvy journalist can do this. No idea why you would not want someone with some courage to take this on, if they are willing ... maybe you are JR? Rod has plenty of money of his own, no skin off of him to spend money on protecting his own name. And rightly so, if he was libeled. Appreciate that you think I have passion too, though that's not what I'm trying to convey. I just think it is so ludicrous that the police and DA's in Boulder will not pursue this simply because there are too many half baked theories out there. They are too lazy to put together a case like DocG has done, or too unwilling and/or lazy to look his case. I think a journalist could get some media attention on this and thereby force the DA to really focus on a fact based case.
A journalist needs a forum, and I think it doubtful one could be found given JR's past success in prosecuting suits against writers and their publishers.
Current police and prosecutors in Boulder won't/can't bringa case, not because of laziness or confusion, but because there's insufficient evidence and the waters have been muddied by their predecessors.
I might be wrong, but IF Doc did a podcast and JR sued based on slander or something else, wouldnt JR be forced to prove Doc wrong? Therefore testifying....
A podcast wouldn't be necessary. The book is enough of a provocation, I would think. But suing me would be a huge mistake and he knows it. First of all, I don't have enough money to make it worthwhile for Lin Wood or any other lawyer to be bothered. Far more important, however, is the fact that, by suing me, John would, in effect, be putting himself on trial. As I understand it, I'd have the right to put him on the stand and ask any questions I like. He would not be able to take the Fifth either -- he'd have no choice but to answer or drop his suit. He would once again be in the spotlight, as such a case would get lots of media attention. And my book would be selling like hotcakes, meaning that my theory of the case would be widely disseminated and taken seriously by many I feel sure. So, from my perspective, what's not to like?
As far as the best strategy for getting John indicted, I don't expect anything from the Boulder DA or any of his successors, as such a move would be far too risky in the face of Lacy's letter, as has already been argued by some of you. Imo the only hope is for a major media figure or outlet (such as 60 minutes, 48 hours) to get involved. And yes, the most effective tactic would be to concentrate on the handwriting evidence, not so much to claim it proves John wrote the note, but to discredit the "experts" who ruled him out. Some of these "experts" could be interviewed on how they arrived at such a boneheaded decision, and I think that would be enough to put pressure on the DA to act or do the walk of shame in full public view.
DocG, thanks for making some points that I was trying to make, only better. I agree that John is not going to sue anyone who doesn't have very deep pockets, and I agree that its not in his best interest to sue. I want the handwriting analysis exposed -- wish that someone would expose what you've already written about that and get it widely disseminated! I'm thinking Geraldo. Can you send him a copy of your book?
That's exactly what he'd do. He'd claim she confessed on her deathbed, or in hysterics at 2 a.m. on the 26th and he helped her cover it up to protect Burke and because he felt sorry for her, knowing Stage 4 Uterine Cancer is almost always a death sentence. He'd probably write another book.
It was ovarian cancer, and she was in remission at that time...and remained in remission for another approx. 8-9 years. Patsy's sisters and father would never let him get away with blaming her. I think a lot more information would be forthcoming from them if he tried to blame her. Its also possible that Burke would speak up with anything that he knows.
I agree with CC that if it came to a murder charge in a courtroom he'd blame PR. Doubt he'd care what Paughs might say as they were in Atlanta on 26th and anything PR may have told them would be inadmissible hearsay. If you believe enhanced 911 tape BR said "what did you find" which implies he knew nothing night of crime and he offered nothing in subsequent interviews. JR would blame his wife and he'd walk.
I don't know much about the clarity of that tape but I do think Burke has been unusually quiet about the murder of his sister and I find that to be rather odd. Regardless of what was on that tape, Burke lived in that family and could know something. I believe he has been instructed by lawyers to say nothing. Besides, predicting that people will not talk is not a reason to not pursue this case. You don't have to have DNA or a witness to indict JR and see how he will answer the hard questions.
You must, however, have a prosecutor who's willing to file charges. Faced with Lacy's letter, Hunter's failure to indict on a true bill, a pile of circumstantial evidence that could be - and has been - construed to blame PR, the likelihood JR would assert a dying declaration by PR, and the further likelihood that he'd request - and get - a bench trial rather than a jury . . .finding such a prosecutor would be difficult. Especially in Boulder, which has been embarrassed for years on the world stage by the mess made by its PD and DAs.
Ruling John out as the author of the ransom note is not the reason the case shifted focus from he to Patsy. That is a myth. Doc has repeated this statement so many times that it has become the gospel truth to many of his readers. The fact is: John was not ruled out because of his handwriting alone; the structure and voice of the note was also determined not to be his. Now, all of that aside, the handwriting analysis was never a critical part of the case because it would not be enough to prosecute a suspect. The major factor that has kept John from being charged with murder is that Patsy, on several occasions, altered her statements and conflicted statements made by others which suggested to detectives that she was lying. You tell me, which is more believable...Patsy would cover for her homicidal husband or John would cover for his wife? It was that very question that really bears any credence and not the decision to rule out John as the author of the ransom note.
Hercule, you don't need to insult the intelligence of those who post here by suggesting that we've been brainwashed by a repeated statement; that is crazy talk.
All along, Doc has said that ruling John out as the author of the note has caused the investigation to go in a direction that basically ignores John's BIG FAT LIE about the window, dismisses his behavior on Dec. 26, probably caused those lame detectives to not look harder at why Patsy made that call to police, and even made them fail to further explore what John was doing on Christmas day when he left the house for hours. But the real crux of this matter to me is that JBR was sexually abused. Period. Anybody who is intelligent and educated can write a note to disguise the "voice." In fact, someone was trying to pretend to be a group who had an axe to grind with John. Sounds like something right out of those crime books that John liked to read, to me :)
I don't know what lies from Patsy you are referring to, but its clear to me that she was trying to follow a storyline that lawyers wanted her to follow, and she did so out of fear. I personally find Patsy's behavior, grief, and statements about wanting to find this killer to be believable. John, much like Susan Smith, didn't seem too upset about the loss of his child, wanted to hop on a plane and get the hell out of dodge (what kind of stand up father does that? Leaves home right after his little girl is murdered?) Seriously, that behavior alone is typical of most murderers - run and hide. He made sure his wife was drugged, he lawyered up, and he stonewalled the investigation. To this day, he has focused more on himself than on finding the killer. Kinda like OJ, you know? Those statements he made about John Mark Karr were strange. I find the guy to be completely strange in every way if I am to believe he's some stand up guy who loves his wife and son that much. His fake Christian charade does not fool anyone who knows what real Christ followers would do.
You have failed to read all that Doc has written. Patsy wasn't covering up for John. The theory is that she believed, or wanted to believe, it was an intruder. Maybe she figured it out there was no intruder years later, who knows. I doubt it because Lou Smit was doing a very good job of distracting everyone with his intruder theories, all of which could be debunked -- as Kolar has effectively done -- but not before she got cancer again and then died. This case has to look at all the facts put together. Too many people want to take their theory and make the facts support the theory, including you Hercule. You have decided that Patsy is the type of woman who would do this. The number one fact here is that this child was sexually abused. Linda Arndt herself was at the autopsy and saw horrific signs of abuse. Men sexually abuse little girls, not their mothers. JR was a horny narcissist. That's it. Narcissists can be rich, educated, smart, successful. They can put on a good front. They can conquer nations for that matter. Patsy did not invade JBRs vagina like that. Nor did Burke. A horny dude did it. A guy who like to spend time in Amsterdam for no good reason; it was not the tech capital of the world in the 90's. He fooled around on his previous wife and was said to like his ladies to dress up like showgirls. JR was and probably still is a pervert who objectifies women. His pretty little pageant princess was too hard to resist.
Now you're just making stuff up, Hercule. None of the detectives who have written or spoken about this case detailed the reasons John was ruled out, much less say it was because Patsy lied or they suspected John was covering for her. Or are we supposed to believe this information comes from your special triple secret access to the case files?
"Now you're just making stuff up, Hercule. None of the detectives who have written or spoken about this case detailed the reasons John was ruled out, much less say it was because Patsy lied or they suspected John was covering for her. Or are we supposed to believe this information comes from your special triple secret access to the case files?"
You may believe however you choose, it makes no difference to me. The most interesting thing about this blog is that the same posters who demand a reference to every statement that conflicts with their beliefs are the same ones who accept any unintelligible assertion about John Ramsey's psychosis without being qualified to make such a diagnosis.
Good to know, because no one believes you have 30 years experience in behavioral psychology or any special access to case information. A careful reading of Doc's theory and the posts on this blog will reveal that nothing is based on JR's possible psychological state and no one has claimed to diagnose him.
I think we demand a reference to every statement about ANYONE. That's Doc's whole basis and the beauty of his theory and the reason no one believes yours: facts, or in your case a lack of facts.
Hercule, my posts about JR being a narcissist are based upon his behavior, his books, and his public comments. I could give a rip about any "diagnosis." Narcissists don't think they are sick and don't go to doctors to get help. Likewise, nothing you've posted makes be believe you are who you say you are. The thing is, people on this blog listen to a variety of ideas, but yours are baseless - you've simply decided for yourself that Patsy is a crazy mom who killed her daughter for some sick reason, which is what a lot of amateurs out there think, including Steve Thomas. You have nothing to add to what has been posited for years, and you seem to want to dismiss the new thoughts and reasoning here. I, for one, cannot dismiss that sexual abuse of a child is something that happens way more in society, and that JR could easily have done this to his child. Why do you dismiss that one parent could sexually abuse their child but the other one (a female) could damage a little girl's vagina in this manner?
Canuck called Hercule a catfish two months ago and CC exposed him as a fraud thirty days later. Now he's just desperately trying to save face and his ill-researched, undocumented "theory" that PDI.
I have carefully examined all of the facts of this case more than a few times. It is my passion to seek justice for JonBenet. You can doubt me, ridicule me, or what have you. I could not care less. If anyone wishes to discuss this case with me in a civil manner, I think it would be more beneficial. The truth of this case, I predict, will be eventually exposed. As I see it, when that day comes most of you will deny it. You are entrenched in your beliefs. I respect that stance. Initially, my finger was aimed at John. The case appeared simple on the surface. Unfortunately, however, 2 and 2 cannot equal 3.75 nor can it be rounded off to 4 when it comes to a murder case. Keep your minds open. I am glad that I did.
Oh for god's sake, we've all examined the case more than a few times! We may not have a "passion", but we're all interested in seeing this resolved. What are you now, Carnac with the predictions? "The truth will eventually be exposed"??? The evidence is in. It isn't going to improve. The only thing that could happen now is John could confess or he could finger Patsy.
Hercule, then why, after having been asked numerous times, haven't you shared your careful examination of the facts? Just don't bother posting here until you have something to share, that is all that we ask. You were civilly asked to share and you came back with put downs and insults, and now you ask others to be civil with you. What is is we're supposed to open our minds to? Do tell.
What you shared was a vague hypothesis about Patsy and then kept saying stay tuned, I need more time, I need to document my entire theory and I'm busy right now...bla bla bla. You have delivered nothing.
Apparently we're supposed to open our minds to hot dog vendors and document examiners who make gorilla suits and whatever other crap this guy feels like spewing and dressing up as legitimate fact.
I think the point is that no one wishes to discuss the case with you because you have nothing new to say and can document nothing you believe. We have all examined the facts of the case many times, and many of us started out PDI. We are not entrenched and happily entertained your theory for months, until it became increasingly untenable.
Please don't now post a self-justifying, rambling diatribe based on your notion of behavioral psychology, Hercule. You don't have the chops. You misused "psychosis" this morning, and you have misapplied many other psych terms in the past, and gone so far as to invent things like "pageant mom syndrome", which does not appear inthe DSM-5. You've played out your string here; time to go write your own self-serving blog or e-book or whatever.
I'm pleased to see so many agreeing with my take on this case, but there is nothing to be gained by all this dumping on Hercule. Lots of people share his view of this case and if their evaluation is flawed, as I believe it is, that doesn't mean they don't have anything of value to contribute. Hercule's presence has made the debate more lively, that's for sure. And he is certainly entitled to his (or her) opinion.
Just for the record, I didn't actually call Hercule a catfish. I said that some of his posts reminded me of a catfish and gave a few examples.
And also for the record, while my post was long and required five sections, Hercule, I WAS attempting to engage you respectfully. I asked you several questions that I thought were fair. Since then, you've said at least twice that you're open to answering questions, but you haven't addressed mine.
I don't want to dump on anyone but again, trying to be fair, Hercule, you once again invite us to discuss the case with you in a civil manner, but you appear to prefer to engage with those you see as ridiculing you.
So I'll ask again, would you please address the questions I posed to you on August 24, 2015 starting at 12:15 AM?
There's a show premiering 11/2 at 10 EST on ID called "American Scandals" wherein Barbara Walters revisits old crimes, one of which will be JBR. The promo I saw featured a new interview with JR, for whatever that may be worth. CC
I saw your September 26th comment shortly after it was posted, Hercule, but I didn't really think it adequately addressed my questions. No matter. I think we'd end up going around in circles. You believe PDI. I believe JDI.
That said, are you willing at all to provide some insight, specifically, into how you got access to the case files and what you found there? As I said before, even the smallest of revelations could go a long way in convincing us that what you say is true. And please don't say you're not interested in convincing us. We all post here with a mind to sharing our thoughts and convincing each other of what we believe.
Bravo, Doc, for reminding the people posting here that it is not necessary to continually pounce on Hercule. I don't agree with Hercule's theory either, but some of what he has said has caused me to re-examine some aspects of this case. He causes me to think. JDI theorists are in the minority; many more people believe PDI. I have to at least applaud Hercule for having the courage to post his theory here where his beliefs are less than popular.
bb, I haven't pounced on Hercule, but he has insulted me several times in response to civil posts that I made. The other commenter(s) who have come back at him, in my opinion, are saying what I'm thinking but didn't bother to write. The fact is, Hercule has not posted a theory. What is it? We ask, he won't answer. He's made some statements about behavioral indicators that he thinks point to Patsy. Geez, that's why the whole world thinks Patsy did it -- she was a stage mom, a has-been beauty queen, etc. Since when does that prove someone is a murderer? I'm sorry, but nothing Hercule has posted has given me any pause for thoughts that I didn't already process over 10 years ago. Repeatedly asking where he gets his information from is not pouncing on him. The other remarks that seem like they are just picking on Hercule? He kind of asked for it, by insulting people. I don't believe people who are legit members of the psychological or behavioral analysis community make it a habit to insult people in order to make their point.
I'm not a pouncer either, but I agree. He has no theory, no facts, just opinions delivered with great pomposity and woe be it unto anyone who challenges him. In five months he's been able to verify just ONE statement, that there was a mail slot in the front door.
Doc I couldn't post above, but I have referenced the Podcast so many times because I believe that is the only way to get this case back into the spotlight. The Adnan Syed case has become known around the world because Serial became so huge and has now spawned 2 podcasts (Undisclosed and Truth and Justice) that are at the very top of Itunes. Until I stumbled upon this blog I think I always just assumed that there was an intruder because I remembered something about an open window. Serial and Undisclosed are probably going to get Adnan a 2nd trial and his freedom so a podcast about one of the most infamous murders in US history (JBR) would surely bring attention and a focus to JR.
Thanks for the helpful thought, but podcasting isn't really my thing. Also imo the case is just too complex to do justice to it in a lecture. I think the book works best to nail things down properly. Regardless, the case is just too cold for anything other than major media exposure to make a difference. I've tried to get someone from one of the major networks interested, but I think they are just too afraid of a lawsuit.
Doc, as you know, I am a JDI theorist and mostly agree with the details of your theory. I would, however, like to discuss a good point that Hercule made about the suitcase below the basement window. Why do you think John would take the trouble to unstage the window break-in by disposing of broken glass but not moving the suitcase away from the window?
Say what you will about Hercule, but he has made several interesting points about this case that shouldn't be ignored. I really don't care what his profession is. At times, Hercule does come across as brash, but he obviously knows this case very well and I hope he continues to speak his mind.
JR could remove the broken glass, but there was nothing to be done about the broken window. At least the suitcase made the scene ambiguous and confusing. It certainly worked on Smit and countless IDI believers. CC
To add to CC's point, the suitcase could have been there all along, who really knows. If it was, John may not have even thought about how that looked in his haste to get the glass cleaned up. Remember, he was probably doing the unstaging while everyone was upstairs and he had to have been under great stress and there was probably other evidence to hide as well.
I seriously doubt that the suitcase was there all along. As I see it, this was placed under the window as part of the staging for sure. My best guess as to why John didn't remove it is that he was simply too pressed for time and/or too distracted to deal with every detail of the staging/unstaging process. He may have had just enough time to deal with the glass, with Fleet breathing down his neck in some other part of the basement, who knows?
Later on, when being "interviewed" by the police, he may have hoped he could revive his original staging by stressing the presence of the suitcase, thus making a positive out of a negative. Again, who knows what was going on in his devious mind?
From the point of view of the investigators it should have been obvious that the suitcase plus the broken window, plus all the undisturbed dust and dirt, plus the lack of broken glass on the floor spelled d-e-c-e-p-t-i-o-n.
Hercule...I have been away for a while on this blog, but I have always felt that it was either BR or JR. If you have already explained it then please copy and paste, but what is your basic conclusion as to who killed JBR?
I have a suggestion for Hercule, as unlikely as that may seem, given as I was one of the original authors of his misery a month ago. If he posted more as a contributor, less as an authority figure above question, threw in a few IMOs and what ifs, refrained from insult and mockery, I think we would all welcome his remarks and enjoy the challenge of debating him. CC
An interview of JR by Barbara Walters is slated for airing on Nov 2 on the ID show, 10 pm EST. I don't expect any new bombshells of info, but since she seems to have the ability to approach JR and get him before the public, wouldn't it be awesome if she could be pressed to follow up with another interview consisting of questions by those who think he killed JBR? Simply asking him who the "experts" were who ruled him out, based upon how many specimens of his writing were submitted, could be enough to start him doing his infamous lip-licking and seat shifting. I am very anxious to see his "body language" responses during the Nov 2 broadcast. MWMM
"If you have already explained it then please copy and paste, but what is your basic conclusion as to who killed JBR?"
Basically, by examining the facts, behavioral clues, and evidence, I deduced that Patsy Ramsey, acting alone, was responsible for JonBenet's death. I believe there was an accident involving a head injury, most likely related to JonBenet soiling herself and Patsy's aggressive attempt to clean her in the bathtub. Not realizing, initially, the severity of the injury, Patsy convinced herself that JonBenet was simply "knocked out" and calling 911 would be premature thus subjecting her to embarrassment and subsequent ridicule from family, friends, or acquaintances from the Boulder community. Patsy was proud of the glamorous and flawless reputation she had worked so hard to create. She could not accept the responsibility of such a debilitating mistake nor could she face her peers, who would be armed with that knowledge. When JonBenet's pulse became undetectable, a desperate cover-up ensued.
Thanks Hercule.....I was just curious what your overall take on the case was, so I appreciate the response.
The one thing I struggle with is that when PR was on her deathbed and she knew she was going to die, then why not admit to the crime if she did in fact kill her? I don't know what her feelings for JR were at that point, but she still had her son BR who has had scrutiny come here way, so why not once and for all clear his name by admitting it?
I think it is probable that JonBenet woke from her nap when Patsy attempted to change her clothes. Patsy would have wanted JonBenet to use the toilet before getting back into bed. Since JonBenet had little to eat that evening she may have pleaded for a snack and drink. Fearing that could cause a bed soiling accident, Patsy may have argued with her but ultimately relented. Burke would later claim to have seen JonBenet walking up the stairs to prepare for bed.
Then why would PR lie to LE about giving JBR the pineapple, if it preceded the accident? And how does BR seeing his sister climb the stairs before bed work with the accepted timeline and JR's statement that JBR was already in bed and he took BR up and got him settled? CC
The Ramsey lawyers probably instructed John and Patsy to stick to a simple story: JonBenet was asleep and went straight to bed. This adamant claim would also suggest an intruder must have fed JonBenet the pineapple.
John stated that he assisted Burke with a Christmas toy before going to bed. This would have given JonBenet time to wake up as Patsy attempted to change her clothes and make a trip downstairs for a snack before John and Burke retired for bed. For all we know, Burke could have already produced the bowl of pineapple for himself and JonBenet simply reached into the bowl and took a couple of slices, which would explain no fingerprints from her.
Hercule, you are the first one with a logical theory about the pineapple. The extra large spoon in the dish suggests a child was involved in eating it. It makes sense that Jon Benet could have gone downstairs after being put to bed if she heard noises downstairs (Burke and JR). Any child who goes to sleep on Christmas night and then wakes up, is very eager to return to the site of the presents and check out their new stuff. She may have heard Burke and JR while they were putting a toy together and she decided to check it out and have a snack, made available and left on the counter by Burke.
Now some would ask why JR would lie about seeing Jon Benet at that time, but perhaps she snuck down the back staircase and wasn't seen by them, or maybe just by Burke. Kids love to sneak around, especially if they know they are supposed to be in bed. And she may have wanted to get away from a very tired, annoyed mom who was again cleaning up after a bed wetting incident.
Not true. Doc tries not to speculate, but does when forced, though he never incorporates it into his theory. I like his idea that John hit Jonbenet in the head while feeding her pineapple, because I believe the whole molestation/pediatrician would be reporting motive and that's what it all comes down to. Hercule thinks Patsy was nuts and snapped over poop and the rest of us think John molested his daughter and was about to be exposed by Dr Beuf and be reported to cops and lose everything. Just depends on what you believe.
Hercule, if you have communicated with people associates with this case, then don't you know that the damage to her vagina showed signs of prior molestation, not consistent with rough wiping? If Steve Thomas's theory could be shown to be grounds for indicting Patsy, and Patsy alone, the grand jury sure didn't get that story nor did they return with a position that Patsy alone was involved.
Communicating with prople associated with this case could mean anything or most likely nothing like he sent somebody an email one time but for sure they never let just anybody look at the files after all the critisism for leaks, it's just more hot air. Anybody can say anything to make themself important.
The pineapple is nothing more than a shit ton of lies out of Patsy Ramsey ....JBR had pineapple in her stomache and Patsy got caught lying again . Why is this so hard to believe when everything she says is I cant remember , not particularly and utter and complete proven lies ? Its plain as day why she is lyi ng about the pineapple and that is bc it puts her up and awake with JBR at around 1130 pm .....
John's lies were significnant. Read this blog and then see what you think. Oh and don't forget he didn't supply old handwriting exemplars, he tried to boogy out of town while his little girl was at the morgue, he hired the high powered attorneys, he pissed off Fleet White for no good reason, and he lied about the pineapple too. Do you think Patsy digitally penetrated JB? Amazing how one can ignore John's outrageous behavior.
I have no doubts at all that they were both in on the cover-up . I am not so sure as to it being an accident . I think there are definitely some underlying issues here tho ...prior sexual abuse , both kids wetting their beds , and Burke or Burke and JBR shitting and rubbing it everywhere ....and there are some other signs that there was some serious dysfunction going on in that house . We will probably never know and that is what really sucks . What I do know is that no one other than the people in that house were involved and almost every word out of the Ramseys mouth has been a proven lie ....literally every word .
"...don't you know that the damage to her vagina showed signs of prior molestation, not consistent with rough wiping?"
There is no definitive proof nor is it an undisputed fact that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. There are just as many medical experts who claim that JonBenet's vaginal injuries are not consistent with prior sexual abuse. Also, when it is determined that a child is a victim of sexual abuse, a full comprehensive investigation must be conducted that is not limited to physical trama alone.
We believe Drs. Jones, Monteleone, McCann, Wright, Rau, Krugman, Meyer, Sirontak, Wecht and Kirscher. You believe Dr. Spitz and some FBI agents who did not have medical degrees.
Of course there would have been a "...full comprehensive inestigation...", that's precisely what JR killed her to avoid. CC
There is no definitive proof nor is it an undisputed fact that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. There are just as many medical experts who claim that JonBenet's vaginal injuries are not consistent with prior sexual abuse. Also, when it is determined that a child is a victim of sexual abuse, a full comprehensive investigation must be conducted that is not limited to physical trama alone.
I agree. Many posters here think Hercule's theory is fantasy, but we all have to remind ourselves that not everything is as it seems, especially in this bazaar case. Aside from suspecting an intruder --- which I totally think is bogus --- anything could have happened in that house that night. That's exactly why this case captivates the attention of so many people. It is a total, unexplained mystery. John, Patsy OR Burke could be responsible for JB's death, or have a part in the cover up. I'm afraid we will never know and this case will go down in history as one of the biggest unsolved mysteries of all time.
Notice please that Hercule is posting his own applause now, as he did as Anonymous at 9:11 above and again, accidentally ("well said") at 9:51. Sorry folks, but this guy really is a windbag.
Sorry Hercules but there was not 1 expert that claimed that she was not sexually abused ...the only question was if it was chronic or not . Check autopsy and 5 nationwide experts who all said the same ....Vagina was TWICE the size it should have been for a girl her age and abrasions inside if her vagina were old injuries ...+ she kept getting yeast infections regularly at 6 yrs old which is very uncommon . The only person who said he never saw any signs of abuse was her regular doctor she saw for bedwetting and the i fections and he doesnt / cant do full vaginal exams . I will post them right on here . Also note that I hear alot of ppl say that the experts werent sure if Patsy wrote the note ......every expert (I believe 5 tested her writing) concluded that Patsy Ramsy wrote the letter . Even a normal person with 0 training can put the ransom note letters or same words right next to her letters and see an exact match ....
I have seen all the letters from the handwriting experts on the letters of determination . The DAs office in this case should be indicted and prosecuted ..they screwed it all up NOT the PD . Sure the PD did fumble on the first day due to the 1st case in the history of the US with these circumstances but they followed the evidence after that and there is but an abundance of it ....broken window ..chair in front of door .suitcase in front of window my ass changing stoies every 3 mos . The media campaign was all the Ramseys doing on purpose just flooding the media with false info and false leads etc etc etc . Poor persecuted us is all they whined about . Never a tear ...never a sign of sadness ...I saw Patsy take her handwriting comparison tests and it was like a big joke to her . They pulled out a family photo album w pic of JBR and with her own writing in it and she claimed to not be able to recognize her own writing ..nor could John identify any items with her writing on it . Its a huge fucking joke ...anyone else would have been indicted right there on that alone .
And investigators also found this besides all of the national experts who said there had been prior molestation ...just for more proof . Opened to Word "Incest." "When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members" (Thomas 2000:293; quote and source provided by Internet poster tylin.
Show a little class and clean up your vocabulary Rick. We don't post like that here. And go back to the beginning of this blog and read Doc's first two posts to understand his theory, then look at the sections about the ransom note and handwriting analysis. You need to get caught up, we've been over all this a thousand times.
Hey everybody ---- Barbara Walters will be interviewing John Ramsey in a new series premiering tomorrow night at 10:00 on the network Investigation Discovery:
Thanks bb. I don't have cable so won't be able to watch it, so I'd appreciate any report you or any of the others can provide. I don't expect that John will be asked any hardball questions, so I'm not exactly excited. But you never know. If Barbara can crack the case with a single interview more power to her.
"Sorry Hercules but there was not 1 expert that claimed that she was not sexually abused ...the only question was if it was chronic or not."
I never said that there were experts who said that she was NOT sexually abused. She was obviously sexually abused the night of her murder. There was chronic inflammation as stated in the autopsy report. The question is...Was the chronic inflammation indicative of prior sexual abuse or did it originate from something else? My point is the results were inconclusive, therefore it is not a fact that JonBenet was a victim of sexual abuse prior to the night of her murder.
It's also a fact that you will never get me to believe in a million years that a loving mother would sexually assault her dying or dead daughter for any reason whatsoever, least of all to cover up an injury that could easily have been reported as an accident.
Ditto what Doc said. I can't believe any of those horrible things, like the rope around the neck, etc. were done by Patsy. And if they were in it together, there is no way she would let John do this. We can't solve the problems of incest and sexual abuse in this world until people stop turning their head from the problem. All kinds of men do this....all kinds. Why does JR get a pass? Hercule, please answer as to why you won't look harder at John or why you have ruled him out?
The results were NOT inconclusive. Many, many pathologists, forensic pathologists and child abuse expert docs concluded there was prior abuse. Hymen was eroded and had healed. Vagina was twice normal size. Do some research. Google Jonbenet Ramsey sexual abuse. Look at the Jonbenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia. Stop trying to twist facts to match your goofball ideas.
I would prefer not to believe it either but there are people out there that do horrific things. Terri Robinson, put her 3 year-old son in an oven and let him burn to death. Ka Yang put her 7 week-old baby in a microwave. This sort of evil does exist and I have tried to understand it, to make sense out of the incomprehensible. How could someone kill a precious child or much worse do it in such a disgusting fashion? Each case is unique and has its own complicated history. Sometimes one must dig into the dark recesses of the mind to get answers that cannot be visibly seen.
Yes, of course, "loving" mothers have been known to murder their children, that's an old and very disturbing story. But that's not what we're discussing here. You (along with Thomas and of course many others) are not accusing Patsy of deliberate murder (for which no one has been able to find any motive whatsoever) but of killing her child accidentally. And I'm sorry, but a mother who accidentally kills a beloved child is not going to then sexually assault her, penetrating her vagina and drawing blood. I don't care what you think the motive may be, it's just not credible that Patsy would have done that. It's especially not credible when we consider that the staging in the note is of a kidnapping, and not the sort of thing a sexual predator would write. Why do such a disgusting thing when you're staging a kidnapping? I see no reason for Patsy to have done this, nor do I see any necessity for doing such a thing when staging a kidnapping, in any case.
No one has ever accused Patsy of murdering JonBenet in cold blood, so she cannot be placed in the same class of these other demented mothers. An accident would have been reported as such. No need for Patsy to morph into a monster, all that would have been needed was a 911 call reporting an accident.
Yet you're unwilling to "dig into the dark recesses" of JR's mind! Incest is more common than murder, and happens across the societal spectrum, yet you reject the possibility out of hand in favor of a crazy pageant mom who snaps over poop. We've come full circle with you (again), and you have no more facts than you did, and no qualifications to persuade me your theory has worth. CC
"And I'm sorry, but a mother who accidentally kills a beloved child is not going to then sexually assault her, penetrating her vagina and drawing blood. I don't care what you think the motive may be, it's just not credible that Patsy would have done that. It's especially not credible when we consider that the staging in the note is of a kidnapping, and not the sort of thing a sexual predator would write. Why do such a disgusting thing when you're staging a kidnapping?"
What I have attempted to do on this blog is explain in a more complete fashion why Steve Thomas claimed that Patsy murdered JonBenet. Doc, you are making the same mistake of which you have accused me. Making assumptions. The assumption that Patsy's relationship with JonBenet, like most healthy mother/daughter relationships, was one of unconditional love. What I have learned about Patsy tells me that her love for JonBenet was only CONDITIONAL. As long as JonBenet did what was expected of her, Patsy had no problem showering her with love. Because Patsy too was raised in the pageant world, there was an expectation placed on JonBenet to perform at the same level Patsy had achieved. To make matters more stressful for Patsy, there was the mindful eye of her mother, Nedra Paugh, who expected JonBenet to be the next Miss America. This obsession was the foundation of an unstable, fractured relationship between Patsy and Nedra that would carry over to JonBenet.
Doc, you don't think it is credible for Patsy to have violently assaulted JonBenet in a sexual manner. That was precisely why she did it! Most people like you would never believe a mother could be capable of such an act.
Why write a ransom note to stage a kidnapping? Two reasons:
1. Patsy knew the police would suspect John (because of the sexual assault) so she created the note to give the police tangible evidence that there was an intruder.
2. To contaminate the crime scene. If the police treated the crime as a kidnapping, a much different approach would be taken. Patsy also phoned friends and had them come over to further compromise the crime scene.
OK, Steve Thomas plus LauranceSmith plus a whole lot of Topix bloggers. The whole PDI thing has been done to death with the same amount of bla bla bla Hercule displays.
"Yet you're unwilling to 'dig into the dark recesses' of JR's mind! Incest is more common than murder, and happens across the societal spectrum, yet you reject the possibility out of hand in favor of a crazy pageant mom who snaps over poop. We've come full circle with you (again), and you have no more facts than you did, and no qualifications to persuade me your theory has worth."
Like I have said, my initial suspicions were placed on John being the murderer. So no, I never rejected the possibility.
As for incest being more common than murder; We should therefore accept that this statistic means JonBenet must have been a victim of incest? I find that to be very premature.
Doc has attempted to solve this case using logic based only on facts. This formula has its impressive highlights, however, when it fails to bridge the gaps, Doc passes it off as a logical "inference" or simply "it is possible that...". So forgive me if I have doubts when a square block does not fit into a round peg. An accurate theory, no matter how attractive and logical it is, must account for every piece of physical evidence and behavioral clues.
My advice to everyone on this blog is to not reject what appears to be illogical to your personal beliefs and only accept what you feel is logical to you. There have been many innocent people imprisoned because they were logically the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. The Ramsey case is not a "logic puzzle". It is real life, and more to the point, it is extremely complicated. I encourage you all to stop bridging the gaps with what you think is logical despite facts and clues that suggest otherwise.
Hercule makes an excellent point. While the facts I've cited are irrefutable as facts, the inferences I've drawn could be faulty. Which is why the case I've been making is centered on probable cause and not proof positive. As I see it there is more than enough probable cause to indict John and this should go double for anyone who, like Hercule, and indeed most posting here, who see no intruder in the picture. Even if you favor Patsy as the principle culprit, you have to agree that putting John on trial would, at the very least, make it very difficult for him to continue hiding the truth. If Patsy is the culprit, then he certainly knows about it. And if his future is on the line, he may well decide to tell what he knows.
Sure, I'm convinced that John did this crime, but as Hercule justly points out, I could be wrong. So let him have his day in court and give him the opportunity to tell the world what he knows. And let the jury decide.
I think the most important thing here is the sexual abuse. I find it highly unlikely (maybe possible, but very, very rare) that any potty issues that Jon Benet was having would cause the damage to her vagina. I would bet my life that she was, in fact, abused prior to her murder. So one must look at who the most likely person in that house could have been responsible for this prior abuse. I don't buy that it was Patsy or Burke. I know there are cases out there where perfectly normal people become monsters and do unbelievable things, but this is not that kind of case. Neither Patsy or Burke showed any signs of questionable or suspicious behavior. John did and, in my opinion, still does.
Well said. Many who have been drawn to this blog have gone through phases of considering Patsy, and almost as many have considered Burke. It never, ever added up for me. If it had, I wouldn't be here reading. I don't know why Hercule thinks we aren't capable of theorizing about a mom who got carried away and hurt her child. We have been down that road and found a dead end. The biggies are this: sexual abuse, no intruder evidence, handwriting that looks like John's (the analysis by Doc blew me away), a note written to buy time, a mom calling in spite of the note's warnings, a dad who spent hours away from the house on Christmas day, wants to hightail it out of town hours after his baby girl is found, but stays and drugs up his wife, who later tells ridiculous lies...well, unlike Hercule I find that it all dovetails with the the theory that Patsy didn't know what happened and John did this.
I agree too. All this rough wiping Hercule talks about included inside the vagina far enough to break the hymen? Doctors said it was an old injury, edges had healed over. Rough wiping???
I just watched the Barbara Walters Investigation Discovery show. There was nothing investigative about the program. Just another chance for JR to talk about himself and his life. The one thing that strikes me is how he never talks about how he wishes he could have seen his little girl grown into a young lady, go to college, start a career, get married. He never talks about Burke either, unless asked. Most parents talk about what tragedies like this do their other children. JR goes out of his way to not talk about his living children at all. Doesn't even state what joy they have brought him and how that helps him carry on. Seems strange to me.
Instead of "bridging the gaps" with what you acknowledge is logic you want us to apply your "behavioral" garbage and it isn't going to happen. It beats me why some people here find anything you have to say worthwhile. Over and over and over you say the same things and tell us to open our minds. You're having the opposite effect on me. I want facts, logic, documentation, which you do not have. Nedra and Patsy had a dysfunctional relationship, where is that coming from? Patsy's love for daughter was conditional, no proof of that either. Do you think you can wear us down? You're just wearing me out.
Based on Hercule's logic, Honey Boo Boo is gonna find herself dead any day now. She's got a nutty pageant mom from a dysfunctional family and the mom was living with a KNOWN sexual abuser. That momma surely loves Honey Boo Boo conditionally, doncha think? Shouldn't that child be taken into protective services based on the "facts" about pageant mom syndrome, the dysfunctional relationships, the boyfriend/molester? That mom, according to Hercule, is ripe to become a violent murderer. Sorry for this sarcasm, but really I think Hercule should move on and try to save Honey Boo Boo while she can be saved. Wait...will it be a pageant mom accident or a first degree thing? I can't decide which one fits with Hercule's profile of pageant moms. Oh, and don't forget about those cheerleader moms, and the school teacher moms that want their kids to be star students. Shoot, there are a lot of crazy moms out there now that I think about it.
It was awful. Baba WahWah all but drooled on him. The gist was the poor couple were victimized by the media and then exonerated by Mary Lacy. John has obviously retained the lessons learned from his p.r. guy back in 97.
And still...no tears from John. No comments about his daughter missing out on proms, homecoming, dating, college, boyfriends, marriage, children of her own, grandchildren for him.... no remarks about what this did to his wife and his son. Its all about him. Poor John, have to find a way to go on, coming out on the other side. This is NOT how any innocent father I know who has lost his sweet baby girl refers to his ordeal.
I watched the Barbara Walters special and purposely paid close attention to Patsy and John. Patsy seemed very sincere, grieving and in pain. John seemed cold, disconnected, stoic. He said not one thing that seemed loving or emotional. The DNA found is still puzzling to me.
Did you see how he patted Patsy's hand in the 2000 interview clip rather than take her hand? Kinda like you'd pat an alligator, and with about as much warmth. The guy had no idea about how to express real emotions cause he does not have any. He did perk up a little when his new trophy wife came out. Ugh. Self-absorbed and just smarmy.
I did see that hand pat. I had the same reaction. If my husband ever patted me like that, in private or public, I would die of humiliation. Women aren't babies or dogs, we don't want to be patted for comfort. I did really look for sincerity, and felt total sincereness from Patsy. As for the trophy wife, did you see her shift her eyes at one point, as if she didn't really believe what she was saying? She knows he's smarmy too.
I don't think he's broke, either. He may be down to his last couple mil, but he's not broke. That was a custom-tailored blazer he was wearing, they travel frequently and I read they had a lavish wedding in Charlevoix.
He implied that he took a beating on the sale of the Boulder home, but that wasn't the case. Lockheed Martin bought it for fair market value in accordance with his employment contract.
I, too, watched the Barbara Walters special. I was disappointed that the bulk of the show consisted of clips from her first interview with both John and Patsy in 2000. The press release about this show implied that the show would be all about her NEW and recent interview with John. That interview ended up being the last 10 minutes of the show and it included his new wife coming out to sit with him. She said nothing; only looked at him with adoring eyes . . . what a fool.
Two things did catch my attention and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on them. First, when describing the blunders of the Boulder police, Barbara said that the bowl of pineapple had been cleaned BEFORE police could examine it. I thought they did examine it and, in fact, founds fingerprints from both Patsy and Burke on the bowl. Second, when describing how John found Jon Benet's body, they said he turned on the light of the wine cellar and then saw her body. According to Fleet White, John did not immediately turn on the light but John still saw her body instantly and knew it was her. Did Barbara Walters get her facts wrong on these two points or am I mistaken?
And another thing I thought stood out was when Barbara goes off camera at a point where Patsy is beginning to break down. Patsy then puts her head down and starts crying. I found this to be completely believable and not an act. The reason I say this is because I was drawn into her grief watching her and I felt so bad for her. She really did love that child more than life itself and for that reason alone, I do not believe she hurt that child, whether accidentally or intentionally.
John, on the other hand, showed little, if any emotion, other than patting Patsy's hand and saying, "It's OK. Jon Benet is here with us."
I've been lurking these past few years and thought it was time to chime in.
There is a fact has been ignored. This has caused some difference of opinion as to what time of the morning Mr. Ramsey swept up the glass from the broken window. Some believe he must have swept up before the police came to the house. Others believe it was later, perhaps in response to something Mr. Ramsey heard the police talking about. Fortunately the missing fact lays the dispute to rest.
The missing fact is that Fleet White went down the basement to search for Jonbenet "within fifteen minutes" after arriving at the Ramsey home.
We learn of this fact from Judge Carnes' commentary in Wolf v Ramsey. Fleet White makes the statement that he went down the basement within 15 minutes in a sworn deposition. This is not one of Judge Carnes' interpretation of what the evidence means but rather she is simply taking notice of Mr. Whites statement in his deposition. All of this is widely available on the net.
Mindful of this fact, it's obvious that if Mr. Ramsey swept up the glass from the broken window, he did it before the police showed up. If this doesn't immediately gel, I'll walk through the steps to the conclusion.
We know Mr. White arrived at the Ramsey house a few minutes after 6am. If we add 15 minutes to that we can place Mr. White in the Ramsey's basement a few minutes after 6:15.
We know the police arrived at the Ramsey's door at one minute prior to 6am, so we know the police were already on scene when Mr. White arrived.
We can infer that Mr. Ramsey was preoccupied with the police for some time, showing them the ransom letter, explaining that all the doors and windows were locked, explaining why he hadn't set the burglar alarm, and answering questions put to him by the police.
It's obvious enough that Mr. Ramsey was upstairs dealing with the police when Mr. White went down the basement to search for Jonbenet.
We know Mr. White visited the train room on his early morning search. We even know, because he tells us, that he picked up a piece of glass and moved the suitcase. We can infer that if there had been multiple pieces of glass on the floor, Mr. White would have noticed that.
We also know that Mr. White was in the train room again around 1 pm, in the company of Mr. Ramsey. It was at this time Mr. Ramsey related to Mr. White the story about having to break in when he forgot his key. This story would not fly if the glass hadn't been swept up by 1 pm. But, we can also infer that there was no noticeable difference in the amount of glass on the floor in the afternoon as compared to the early morning. Mr. White would have noticed the discrepancy and would have reported it. So, we can conclude that the glass was gone when Mr. White entered the train room a few minutes after 6:15.
Now, I've learned over the years that people hate to give up their POV even if the facts and logic are not on their side. So at least a few of you will insist that Mr. Ramsey met the police at the front door before 6, then excused himself leaving his wife to deal with police. He hustled downstairs swept up the glass, hid the glass, or disposed of the glass somehow, then hustled back upstairs rejoining his wife and the police and that he did all this sometime between 6 am and 6:15 am without arousing the suspicion of his wife or the police.
For those of us who prefer common sense it's obvious Mr. Ramsey was dealing with the police when Mr. White went on his solo search of the basement. So, the glass had to be swept up before Mr. White went downstairs. Since the police arrived before Mr. White, the glass must have been swept up before the police showed up at the front door.
For everyone's convenience, I'll repeat my last comment from the previous thread:
ReplyDelete"Obviously, we do not know for sure which version is more accurate. But either way, John did NOT try to prevent her from calling 911."
We don't know that. I feel sure John must have at least tried to talk her out of it -- there was no way he could have prevented her from making the call if she was determined to make it.
"Patsy wanted the police to find the body rather quickly so she could conclude this entire charade with a gut wrenching grand finale that was not completely contrived."
Hercule's explanation of why Patsy might have wanted to call 911 may or may not sound convincing in itself. But this question must be considered in conjunction with the allegation that she is the one who wrote the note. The two questions can't be considered independently of one another.
If there was no intruder, then the note can be understood only as part of an effort to stage a phony kidnapping. And if Patsy wrote it, then we have to conclude that she, either on her own, or with John's collusion, was staging a phony kidnapping. It's really that simple. Now IF she is staging a phony kidnapping, then why would she have wanted to call the police on herself before the staging was complete?
The staging at the window was clearly not complete. And the body of the victim was still in the house. As I've written so many times, I'm embarrassed to have to repeat it, there is simply no reason for the person who wrote that note to call 911 knowing that the police will discover the body and realize that there was no kidnapping after all. Added to that, I fail to see why the writer of the note would have wanted to hand the police evidence of her own handwriting on that note, especially if we want to assume, as so many have assumed, that the note was "obviously" written by her.
On the other hand, why is it so difficult for so many to even consider the possibility that John could have written the note, and that Patsy called 911 against his will? To me this is the only possible conclusion.
You can come up with a thousand "reasons" why Patsy would have wanted to make that call, but I see NO reason why she would have wanted to make it if she were staging a phony kidnapping.
How many hours have you devoted to this project? And you still couldn't come up with the right answer?
DeleteFor the truth about what happened to JonBenet the night she died, go here:
https://www.facebook.com/jonbenet.mystery.solved?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
There's been a lot of talk about the 911 call and whose idea it was to make. Does anyone know whose idea it was to invite all those people over to the house? Are we certain it was Patsy's idea? Maybe JR realized that since the police were coming over anyway (because of 911 call), it would benefit him to have a bunch of people over to contaminate the house. And since the threats in the RN did not stop her from making that 911 call, I can't see them stopping her from inviting friends and the clergy over. But maybe it was JR's idea?
ReplyDeleteWith respect to Patsy's calling friends, I have two theories about that, but they are only theories. We will probably never know the real reason for sure.
DeleteTheory one: she might have been in fear for her own life, either suspecting the kidnappers could still be in the house, or possibly being fearful of John, who might well have been acting strangely, especially after she'd called the police and destroyed his carefully laid plans. Not sure when the police would arrive, she might have called friends over to make sure someone would be there as soon as possible.
Theory two: calling friends might have been John's suggestion, as an alternative to calling the police. It would also have suited his purpose because he could show them the note, so they could later serve as witnesses to its existence and its contents. This is consistent with my theory that John was planning to ultimately destroy the note, claiming the "kidnappers" wanted it back, so it could never be examined by the police. It's possible at least some of the friends were called prior to Patsy's decision to call 911. But it's also possible they were called afterward, in accordance with John's earlier advice.
I have wondered that, myself. In fact, if JR did call them, it might have been the reason Patsy (allegedly) was peeking at him that morning from behind her hands. I know that Doc thinks she never really suspected John at that point, but I have to believe that whatever went on between the two of them that morning made her feel uneasy and wondering what was going on that John might know about -- maybe she even wondered if he had some enemies that were out to get him. A woman's intuition is quite sharp when it comes to her husband and children. She must have been wondering why in the world all those people had to be there. You know, for those like Hercule who say Patsy was all about appearances, I think this is one reason she would NOT have called those people over. She didn't need them to see this drama unfold. If she wanted to put on a dramatic show for the police, she could do that without their observation. But back to Hercules saying that behaviorly, Patsy was suspect. I find this laughable. John's behavior throughout the entire day was extremely odd. Being "cordial" when the police arrived, instead of panicked, not comforting Patsy at all, reading his mail, disappearing for an hour, the lies about the window, sending Burke off to the White's (I would have kept my child glued to my side), mis-stating to Stuart the time that they found JB, trying to fly to Atlanta the same day (with Patsy in no condition to fly). Wow. Combine all that with the handwriting that looks like his exemplars and the signs of prior sexual abuse, and then compare to the reaching scenarios about Patsy, a woman who loved her child. John - loving? He was never home. Men who travel that much and don't make their kids a priority are selfish, ambitious men - I've met more than a few of them in my line of work. But put that aside. Someone mentioned that because John was wealthy and intelligent, there is no way he would have created this crime scenario. Like Doc, I want to point out that nothing went according to plan. I don't think John had a perfect plan, but I think he had a pretty good idea of how he was going to get out of this incest mess he started and the time came that he had to act, even though he may not have thought through every detail. Sorry for rambling, - LE
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it was Patsy and not John who called the friends. Secondly she was spotted peeking at a policeman, not John. However there does seem to have been some degree of tension between them that morning, and it's possible Patsy may have suspected at that point that John had something to do with the "kidnapping."
DeleteAs for the rest, I completely agree. John's actions that day were far more suspicious than Patsy's. Patsy may have peeked between her fingers, but it was John who was all over the place that morning, went missing and never fully accounted for his activities. And later claimed to have closed an open window without reporting that to the police. Very suspicious indeed.
Thanks Doc, for those clarifications. I was only attempting to respond to what Hercule and others have suggested, about Patsy. She called the friends - that answers an earlier post. So maybe she was nervous and having them there was a shield. And you're right, its the tension, not the peeking per se, that has always puzzled me. I think your theory explains all of the early morning behaviors very well, which is just one reason why I support your JDI theory. -LE
DeleteMy theory is that Patsy knew about the prior molestations by John. Maybe she found out about them from JBR. When confronted, John threatened to end his financial support for her cancer treatment, and out of desperation she kept quiet. I think she then suspected John in the murder, but went along with the cover up (without him explicitly fessing up) because she felt guilty about - or felt criminally culpable - in not blowing John in for the prior molestations.
DeleteI agree with you and with Anonymous yesterday that PR may have suspected something. JBR was taken to her pediatrician 33 times in 3 years, the last year of her life for recurring vaginitis. PR called Dr. Beuf 3 times the evening of 12/17, 8 days before the murder. There was a vaginal exam in that 6-year old's future, and PR may have expressed that to JR, who then had to take action, knowing it would expose molestation.
DeleteCC
Talking of handwriting analysis and questioned document examiners the other day made me wonder why the RN wasn't printed in block letters. We've all seen those notes on TV, right? Likely PR did too. Hard to attribute that kind of printing to anyone. But to a computer guy like JR tracing a Courier font from a laptop, as Doc has suggested, may be his version of block printing.
ReplyDeleteCC
You mean if Patsy wrote it it would be block printed instead of her trying to disguise her own writing so Patsy didnt write it. That makes sense.
DeleteI never thought about it, but thats what I'd do, print in all cap block letters, unless I was a computer guy and then I'd go straight to my computer. AH
DeleteHi Doc, Sorry to change the topic here at the mo,when you replied to my post about the heart drawn on JBR'S hand, i wasn't referring to who, what or when it was drawn, or even what is was, but that during Patsy's 98 interview with LE, when she was asked about how she new it was there, she replied twice that she had seen it there on her hand in the morning. This was after a discussion about the night before at the whites where she says the kids could have drawn it. How is this if JBR was missing/kidnapped.?
ReplyDeleteEvej, I'm not Doc, but I was sort of confused by what you're asking. I get that Patsy had conflicting answers on Dec 25 - ie. was the drawing there on Christmas morning or drawn later on Christmas night. Either way though, she is saying the drawing was there when JBR went to bed and then subsequently was found to be missing. So all that Patsy seems to be establishing is that it was there before she went missing. I see this guessing about when it got there as sort of innocuous. Kids draw on themselves all the time and Patsy was just trying to remember when she saw it or guess when it was drawn. If the drawing was NOT there when she went to bed, then I guess that means JBR was up during the night with someone she trusted and it was drawn then. But we really don't know.
DeleteI'm fairly sure having read it twice, patsy said she saw it there in the morning. Meaning the morning jbr was missing.
DeleteHaving read it twice, i'm fairly sure patsy was saying she saw the drawing on jbr hand the morning after the whites, when jbr was missing.
DeletePatsy is saying she saw the drawing on jbr's hand the morning after Christmas, the same morning patsy reported her missing/ kidnapped.
DeleteAs I recall, Patsy never literally said she saw the "heart" that morning, only that the heart was on her hand that morning. How would she know that? Because the image was on her hand when she was found dead early in the afternoon.
DeleteIf she were guilty, I don't see her deliberately "confessing" to having seen her daughter that morning, after testifying that the last time she saw her was the night before. Steve Thomas and others jumped at the chance to "nail" Patsy over every odd thing she might have done or said -- revealing their own bias rather than Patsy's guilt.
"...saying that behaviorly, Patsy was suspect. I find this laughable. John's behavior throughout the entire day was extremely odd."
ReplyDeleteI find it laughable when I see how twisted the facts of this case can often be. John's "odd" behavior can be explained.
As I have stated before, the decision to call friends to come over was specifically intended for contaminating the crime scene. Patsy's performance was intended to convince the police, who did not know her.
Linda Arndt came forward 3 YEARS after the murder to testify in a television interview that John was "cordial". First of all, Arndt never had anything negative to say about John at the beginning of the investigation. In fact, she supported both John and Patsy. So if you and Doc want to discount Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's opinions on this case, I think it is only fair to dismiss the views of Linda Arndt.
Let's clear up some myths. John did not go to the mailbox and read his mail as if it were a normal day in paradise. The mail was delivered through a slot on the front door. John's purpose was to sift through the mail to see if there were anything suspicious or if the kidnappers had sent him another letter.
"John - loving? He was never home. Men who travel that much and don't make their kids a priority are selfish, ambitious men - I've met more than a few of them in my line of work."
How much time John was allotted to spend with his children due to mandatory work schedules and business trips has nothing to do with how much he loved them. It is the quality not quantity that is relevant. By the way, I never stated that Patsy did not love JonBenet. I believe she did, albeit, conditionally.
John's disappearance for an hour on the morning of the 26th does not mean he was the killer. Perhaps John did find the body late that morning. I think it is highly probable that he did. After grieving and pulling himself back together, John returned behaving much less "cordial" and appeared to be in deep thought. He had to consider the possibilties of what could have transpired. John already suspected Patsy's narrative in the ransom note despite her attempt to disguise it. Was she covering for someone? Perhaps Burke? John needed to talk to Patsy alone. The next opportunity he was given, John decided he must make the official discovery and soon after get some answers.
John's decision to arrange a flight to Atlanta was based on needing a place to stay and being with family. I think the John Ramsey you, Doc, and many others have created here would have been far too cunning to make himself look that suspicious.
Hercule
Hi Hercule, can you provide the source about the mail slot, and the purpose of John looking through the mail? Although I said nothing about walking to a mailbox, I believe I have read that some thought he was looking for a message from kidnappers. If I were thinking there might be a message in the mail, I would have spoken to Linda Arndt about it. I would have expected her, or someone else in the PD, to intercept the mailman before he/she stepped on my property, if for no other reason than to confirm the contents of the mail and catch any suspicious mail and have it dusted.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my thoughts about John as a father: he was CEO. The only mandates come from him, not to him. He can go see clients and be back in a day in many cases, he can delegate, and he could have, if he chose to, spend more time at home. Not a lot more, because I understand how time consuming the role of CEO is, but let's face it, he went on overseas trips that no one knew much about, and was gone a lot. He left most of the parenting to Patsy. I personally disagree about the quantity vs. quality time. I see too many screwed up kids these days whose dad was gone all the time yet who professed to love their kids. My husband gave up travel for this reason, and I do believe our kids are better off. I have a career too, and we found it quite challenging to be at all of our kids games, debates, presentations, etc. But we did it - one or both of us were there at every single important event in their lives that parents are invited to attend, and we were there for them on weekends too.
Now, Linda Arndt is a police officer and also probably has a good 40 IQ points over the housekeeper, about whom I've read could barely read and write. For that reason alone, I'm not willing to compare the two people. The point is, Linda had a job in the PD and had to keep silent for a long while. She had nothing to gain by siding with the family, either. She had time to process her observations and later an opportunity to speak about it. Linda, on the other hand, changed her tune under the influence of Darnay Hoffman, who was waving the potential of a money payout in her face. What is "fair" is to look at motives for why people do and say what they do. To that end, I can find no motive for Patsy. IF it was an accident, why do the horrible things to JB. Only a narcissist could do that. John comes across like a narcissist to me, Patsy does not. And, as been pointed, out, his behavior all day was very odd. Upon suspecting Patsy, he could have taken her aside to find out what happened, called lawyers, and then had her admitted to the psych ward.
I just scanned some pictures of the front of the Ramsey home and there is a black oblong mailbox outside the front gate and affixed to a brick column on the left hand side of the gate. Not sure when the pictures were taken, but my guess is it was present when the Ramsey's lived there, or why would there be one at all. And the front door in the photograph doesn't appear to have a slot in it, although the picture isn't super clear. kp
ReplyDelete2000 March 18 - John and Patsy Ramsey book "Death of Innocence"
ReplyDeleteDOI (HB) Page 19:
"I see some new mail lying on the foyer floor, beneath the mail slot by our front door. I think, if the kidnapper is going to communicate with me, maybe there is a note from him in this pile of mail. I sort carefully through the letters. Nothing."
Hercule
I just checked a photo of the house front and I see what looks like a mail slot to the right of the front door. That's probably what John was referring to.
DeleteI see no problem with him checking his mail. But that could have taken only a minute or so. What about the rest of the time he was out of sight? And why would he have been out of sight for so long? What would he have been up to?
John said he saw the broken window around 10. There were police in the house. If you thought a kidnapper took your daughter why not rush upstairs and report the broken window? That's plenty strange by iitself.
DeleteYes, it certainly is. And by the way, he said he "can't recall" when he saw that window ajar -- and closed it. He could have been down there at any time that morning, even before the police arrived.
DeleteDoc, here are some exerpts from the interview. It does appear to me that while Patsy has got into the conversation, she then forgets herself.
ReplyDelete6 Did somebody tell her to go wash her hands at
17 the Whites, do you remember anything about that?
18 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
19 TRIP DeMUTH: How was she about
20 washing her hands?
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Just typical kid,
22 you know, if she can get by with it, she
23 wouldn't do it. You know, but I was pretty much
24 always (INAUDIBLE). (Gesturing.)
25 TRIP DeMUTH: Had you referred to
0197
1 that at all Christmas Day?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know. I
3 don't remember exactly, but I may have.
4 TRIP DeMUTH: How do you know there
5 was a heart on her hand?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Because it was on
7 there in the morning, that's why.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: And you remember it
9 from the next morning?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
11 TRIP DeMUTH: You saw it the next
12 morning?
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: When you say the next
15 morning, did you remember it from the previous
16 evening?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: (Shaking head.) (No
18 response.)
But then when the interview restarts the next morning i think it is. Patsy herself brings up the hand drawing, which does appear to be her needing to change the story to this.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay, I wasn't clear
21 whether you were talking about picture of her in
22 the laundry room, or pictures of her located in
23 the laundry room. And I think that I read
24 somewhere talking about the heart on her hand.
25 And truthfully, I can't -- I am having trouble
0207
1 distinguishing whether I have read about that or
2 whether I actually saw that. I just recently
3 read parts of the autopsy report, and I believe
4 that was on there. And I just, you know, now I
5 have a picture of a heart on her hand and I
6 can't remember whether I actually saw it or --
7 TRIP DeMUTH: Let me ask you this.
8 Do you remember what color it was? Is there a
9 color that you recall?
10 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I just see a red
11 heart in my mind.
12 TRIP DeMUTH: But you don't know if
13 you read it?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: No. I just to be
15 perfectly fair, to say that I saw it on her.
16 And what else.
Yes, now I recall that exchange. Thanks, evej, very interesting.
DeleteFor me the thing that stands out most from this interchange is the complete incompetence of the questioner. DeMuth stops short of asking the obvious followup: Where were you when you saw the heart on her hand that morning? Where was she? Was she alive or dead at the time?
I feel sure that if he'd asked her, she'd have come out of her trance and explained more fully what she meant. I think it pretty obvious that she didn't see JonBenet, alive OR dead, that morning. If that's what she meant then she might as well have held out her hands to be cuffed.
Obviously she was confused. I can't see any other explanation. The body was discovered circa 1 PM, but Patsy may have remembered it as happening earlier, i.e., in the morning. Regardless, I'm sorry but I can't see this as some sort of confession, that makes no sense. She got confused, and if the proper followup questions had been asked by her clueless questioners that would have become apparent very soon.
"PR called Dr. Beuf 3 times the evening of 12/17, 8 days before the murder."
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. The calls were made December 7.
June 1998 Patsy Ramsey Interrogation by Thomas Haney and Trip DeMuth (JonBenet prior sexual abuse)
19 TOM HANEY: You made three calls to
20 Dr. Buff 's office on December 7. Okay. Just--
21 PATSY RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE).
22 TOM HANEY: Correct? Three in one
23 day. One at 6:28 p.m., one at 6:50 p.m., and
24 one at 6:59 p.m. Do you recall that day?
25 PATSY RAMSEY: To the office or
0580
1 his home?
2 TOM HANEY: To the office.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No, I don't
4 remember.
5 TOM HANEY: Would that have been
6 for something like this, to remember?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Seems like I would
8 have remembered, you know.
9 TOM HANEY: Three times in less
10 than an hour?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just
12 don't --
Hercule
And yes I am aware that December 7 is John Ramsey's birthday. Let the wild stories begin.
DeleteHercule
And if you really want to have fun with this...it was 18 days before the murder. There is that pesky 18 number again.
DeleteHercule
Kolar's book, in the chapter titled Interpreting the Evidence, says December 17.
ReplyDeleteCC
Doc: If all had gone according to plan and PR had not called the cops, when do you think JR would have reported JBR missing, and how would he corroborate a kidnapping without a RN, presuming his intent was to destroy it? I'm following a train of thought about premeditation.
ReplyDeleteCC
I think John would have completed his staging and dumped the body the following night, the night of Dec. 27th. He would then have called the police the following morning, telling them he'd delivered the ransom, but the "kidnappers" vanished without returning JonBenet.
DeleteAs far as the note is concerned, there are two possibilities. Either he would have destroyed the note or he would have felt confident he could fool the investigators thanks to his tactic of tracing or copying the text from a computer display.
If he'd been planning on destroying the note then he would probably have shown it to friends at some point, so they could serve as witnesses to its contents. He may also have planned on making a copy, either by hand or on his computer, so they could read the contents. The absence of the original would have raised suspicions, but it would have seemed reasonable that the "kidnappers" would have wanted it returned, so he probably would have gotten away with such a ploy.
On the other hand, he just might have had enough confidence in his ability to fool them that he planned on simply handing over the original note. After all, six "experts" ruled him out, so he would have had reason to feel safe. I think it possible that he had two very different styles of writing, perhaps one with the left hand and another with the right, and made sure to provide them with examples of his right hand and not his left -- I have a strong feeling they never saw the document we've all seen, that was made public some time later.
Since he was "ruled out" as writer of the note, he must have felt confident he could fool them -- and he did.
Doc, carrying your scenario further:
DeleteI think this supports the idea that John wanted Patsy and Burke to leave the house and go with friends "for their safety." It would support the theory that it was his idea to call someone over (though I doubt he wanted that many people to come over). One thing though: I assume he thought about the fact that any one of their friends might have been insistent on calling in the cops and/or FBI. He had to have been confident in his ability to convince them that paying the money and getting JBR back was the best approach. I do believe he was that confident and arrogant, given his CEO background.
Looking at the alternative PDI theory: there is no way that I think Patsy would have or could have cooked up such a risk-loaded plan for covering up her deed - one that would have entailed getting rid of a body. She did not have the arrogance, confidence, or even ability to execute getting rid of the body. Let's say she realized after the fact that she could not execute a complex kidnapping plan, so she decided to call the police and play out the drama queen act. I can't buy this because I think she had enough sense to unstage a bit, by at least unlocking a door or something before she called the police. Common sense tells me to rule out Patsy as setting up a kidnapping gone wrong. This crime has all the makings of a very arrogant person having a fairly well thought out plan that depended upon his ability to manipulate other people's actions. Patsy has been called all kinds of things but manipulative is not one of them - in fact her style was very direct. That said, had she aborted a kidnapping to cover up an accident" plan, there are at least a few things she would have done before picking up the phone. Man, would I Iike to be on a jury for JR. I would not buy all the smoke and mirrors that you've covered in this blog and I would vote to indict him for pre-meditated murder. LE
I don't think JR planned on destroying the RN. Too much time went into disguising his handwriting (in part just because the note was so long) that I think he did feel confident they would not think he wrote it. But, more importantly, I think it would look very suspicious indeed if he did not have the note. I'm not familiar with any kidnapping cases where the kidnappers demanded their RN back. That, coupled with the delay in calling the police (had his plan gone accordingly), would be a major red flag to me.
DeleteI agree. I think he'd have to hand the RN over to further the IDI theory with LE, which means he probably spent a lot of time tracing it on a computer as Doc has theorized.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute docG. You said. "After all, six "experts" ruled him out, so he would have had reason to feel safe.." That happened after the crime.. some time after. He couldn't have felt safe writing the note before or during the crime.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I didn't make myself clear and what I wrote was confusing. The fact that six "experts" ruled him out tells us, in retrospect, that he did a good job disguising his hand. So his confidence in his ability to fool the experts turns out to have been well founded. That's what I meant, but I expressed myself carelessly.
DeleteI'm sure he didn't feel safe. There's a large degree of risk in commiting any crime. He did what he could to minimize risk and rolled the dice.
ReplyDeleteI also do not believe that this crime was premeditated. I agree with a comment that Hercule made recently that JR could easily have prevented JBR from telling others what JR was doing to her. He was a very successful CEO and had a great deal of experience in controlling situations. Why would controlling his daughter from speaking out be any different? He could easily have controlled her through bribes, brainwashing or threats. A 6-year old is very impressionable and easy to control.
ReplyDeleteI think something went wrong that night while he was with JB, but I don't believe it was planned.
I see no reason to assume that John could have easily prevented JBR from exposing him. That's just an opinion. We have no way of knowing that. From what we do know, she was a very bright and independent minded child who might well have defied a father who was abusing her.
DeleteOn the other hand, I see no motive for John to deliver such a powerful blow to her head for any reason other than premeditated murder. The premeditation may have begun a day or so earlier, a few hours earlier, or just a minute or so earlier, if she'd given him some indication that night that she was about to "tell" on him. I can't see such a blow as an accident, and I can't see it as an angry reaction, because there was no sign she was beaten, just that one carefully calculated blow. A blow like that strikes me as a cold blooded, carefully considered act, not an angry reaction. If JBR had refused to cooperate with his latest advance, I can't see that as a motive for murder, no matter how frustrated he might have been. However, if she made it clear she was about to expose him, that's a different matter -- the motive would be clear.
I felt that way too, but I no longer think it was JBR he had to control. The vaginitis problems were becoming an issue and were going to lead to a full-on vaginal exam, which would expose the molestation. If PR shared this with her husband after her 3 calls to the pediatrician the evening of the 17th, he needed a plan.
ReplyDeleteThe 2-hour trip to the airport on Christmas day always seemed strange to me. Jeffco Airport is 15 minutes from the Rs home, a straight shot down the Denver-Boulder Turnpike, so what was JR doing there for an hour and a half? I couldn't see him parked out in public tracing a RN on a computer, but then I read that he had a private hangar, and it made more sense.
CC
We don't know he was at the airport, do we? He could have gone anywhere that afternoon. But even if he was at the airport, it was Christmas day and the place would probably have been all but deserted. He could easily have found a private place to do his thing.
DeleteA private hangar would be a pretty private place in a mostly deserted executive airport on a major holiday. His office was on Pearl Street Mall in downtown Boulder - far riskier.
DeleteCC
Good point CC. I recently read on this blog about PR's phone calls to the pediatrician and the possibility of JBR getting a more extensive exam. The results of such an exam could not be explained by bed wetting or yeast infections so JR would be right to feel nervous about that. I just can't get over the possibility of a father pre-meditating his young daughter's murder though. That seems so extreme. Wouldn't he have just talked to JBR and reinforced with her again to deny anything if she was asked? I honestly think he had the power to do that. Of course, like many have already said, he was a narcissist and his need to protect himself went into overdrive.
ReplyDeletebb
If Dr. Beuf had done an exam and found abuse he would have been required by law to report it, and that would have exposed JBR to questions from DFS and the police, not to mention what PR would have been forced to admit to herself at that point. Not sure her denials could survive that kind of scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteCC
Should have said "Not sure a child's denials could survive that kind of scrutiny. " Too many pronouns; sorry.
DeleteCC
I believe this murder was premeditated, at least a week in advance. IMO it is next to impossible to construct a ransom note that is that complex, full of movie references, and details designed to confuse law enforcement in one short night. The $118,000 ransom amount wasn't just some clever afterthought. This number not only correlates to John's bonus, but also to Jeff Merrick or anyone John worked with. Everything about the note and the way the crime was staged clearly was meant to send investigators on a wild goose chase suspecting anyone or everyone.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible he knew about Bill McReynold's daughter being kidnapped on December 26 several years prior and Bill's wife's play about the teenage girl murdered in a basement. Using that date would have been clever. He certainly should have known about LHP's request for money. Placing the ransom note where Linda often places items for Patsy would've been another red herring for John to exploit.
I strongly feel that S.B.T.C. stands for "Small Business Technical Council". How does this relate? Another red herring to have investigators looking at something business related. Consider the following information from the NSBA website:
"NSBA and its high-tech arm—the Small Business Technology Council (SBTC)—have led successful efforts to foster and protect small-business innovation programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program."
"The Small Business Innovation Research (or SBIR) program is a United States Government program, coordinated by the Small Business Administration, intended to help certain small businesses conduct research and development (R&D). Funding takes the form of contracts or grants. The recipient projects must have the potential for commercialization and must meet specific U.S. Government R&D needs."
And yes, this program is affiliated with the NAVY. John Ramsey, as we know, served in the Navy. (Cont.)
Gumshoe
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteMore information below from the Navy's website:
"SBIR - The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was established by Congress in 1982 with a statutory purpose to strengthen the role of innovative small business concerns (SBCs) in Federally-funded research or research and development (R/R&D). Specific program purposes are to: (1) Stimulate technological innovation; (2) use small business to meet Federal R/R&D needs; (3) foster and encourage participation by socially and economically disadvantaged SBCs in working in technological innovation; and (4) increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from Federal R/R&D, thereby increasing competition, productivity and economic growth.
STTR - The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is a sister program to SBIR, established by Congress in 1992 with a similar statutory purpose as SBIR. A major difference in the two programs is that the STTR requires the small business to have a research partner consisting of a University, Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), or a qualified non-profit research institution. In STTR, the small business must be the prime contractor and perform at least 40% of the work, with the research partner performing at least 30% of the work. The balance can be done by either party and/or a third party.
Although the Navy's SBIR and STTR programs are a component of the overall Department of Defense (DoD) SBIR/STTR program, the Navy's program is targeted at addressing the needs and areas of interest to the Navy and its System Commands (SYSCOMS).
On a schedule coordinated by DoD, the Navy issues SBIR solicitations, usually 3 per year, that contain a series of "Technical Topics" that describe the areas of interest and needs of the Navy and its SYSCOMS. Small businesses are invited to submit proposals targeted at one or more of the technical topics listed in the solicitation. The STTR program works in the same manner, but has only 2 solicitations per year.
The Navy's SBIR/STTR Programs are primarily mission oriented, providing companies the opportunity to become part of the national technology base that can feed both the military and private sectors of the nation. To that end, the Navy incorporates into its Phase II component, the emphasis on the small business' need to market its technology to both ."
John's goal was to point the finger at everyone except himself. Nothing used in the murder belonged to him. These items either belonged to Patsy, Burke, or the "intruder". John carefully made Patsy a suspect to ensure she would need his support therefore giving him her own. A brilliant narcissist indeed.
Gumshoe
I agree that nothing about the RN was spontaneous, right down to the salutation. Kolar says the practice note directed to "Mr. and Mrs." was on page 26 of the notepad, while the finished RN was written on pages 27-29. I think JR changed it to just himself in an effort to further underline to PR that it was intended for him and he should be in charge of all subsequent decisions - like not calling in authorities, getting PR and BR safely out of the house.
ReplyDeleteCC
Doc, in the RN, it states that JR will receive a phone call between 8-10am to instruct him on where to pick up JBR and deliver the ransom. If JR was indeed the killer, wouldn't police want to see phone records/a recording of the call (if this would be possible to obtain at the time - I'm guessing it would)? I highly doubt the police would simply take John's word for it.
ReplyDeleteGood question! I've written about this matter already, elsewhere on this blog and in my book. If he'd been able to carry out his original plan, John could easily have called his house from a phone booth, after picking up the ransom money from the bank. The answering machine would have picked up the call, thus leaving a record of it in the phone company's files. When he got home he would have erased any trace of that call from the tape. Since the phone company does not keep records of the contents of any calls, there would be no way the investigators could have determined what was said and by whom.
DeleteWe have no way of knowing what John's plan actually was, but it was certainly possible for him to carry out this deception had he thought of it.
Thanks for the reply, that could potentially work, yes. His head must have been spinning throughout all of this - he must really be one hell of a sociopath. I've been reading the blog for about a year now and this really is the only theory that makes any kind of sense.... as much as I don't want to believe it, I don't see how logically it could be anybody else.
DeleteEverything I've learned about this case tells me that John Ramsey was/is not only one hell of a sociopath, but a very thorough one, with an impressive head for detail. If nothing else, the note itself tells us a lot about how carefully this whole thing was planned.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell JR was a CEO. Those skills helped him that night and beyond. To get to that level you need to be calm under pressure, be able to think quickly, have stamina, and all the while keeping a poker face. Combine that with not having a conscience, and you can understand how he pulled this off.
ReplyDeleteIf it was premeditated - and I think it was - isn't it likely there was no incest that night and the sexual assault was intended to be vicious to obscure evidence of prior molestation? In that case, the panties and long johns would not need to be removed, just rolled down, and the wiping down cursory. I think a neophyte would want to keep it simple.
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about narcissism and psychopathy, but it seems to me a first-time offender would be mission-oriented and not inclined to mix incest with murder designed to cover up incest.
CC
It might have been premeditated in the sense JR planned out what he would do if it looked like JBR would ever tattle. Including devising a ransom note in his head. Perhaps something happened that night while molesting her that caused him to put the plan into action.
DeleteAnd whatever duct and rope remained would have been bundled up with the body for removal the following day, along with - probably - the flashlight and pad, but PR's call to police necessitated improvising a plan b. The glass from unstaging could have gone into the bag with the duct tape and rope, then dumped in a neighbor's garbage can across the alley when plan a was blown. JR was careful to explain a trip to the alley by telling LE he went outside to check the garage door.
ReplyDeleteCC
Totally agree with you, CC. The fact that Patsy called the police and messed up John's plan is, ironically, the reason he was not caught. The events that came to pass after she called were lucky breaks for him. I feel that if she had not called, he would have probably been busted while trying to dump the body - the chances of him getting caught doing that or leaving a trail of evidence was actually greater and besides, having only evidence inside the house has been helped this case. LE
ReplyDeleteVery interesting. I didn't know JR had to explain a trip outside. And it's true that Patsy's 911 gave JR a better chance of getting away with this. If he had had to remove the body and carry out the rest of the staging (phoning the house, explaining the disappearance of the RN), there would be more room for error and he might very well have been caught. I suspect he would have been caught.
DeleteWhy didn't the police search the trash cans? With a murder in the house and items obviously missing, I would think it would be automatic to check the trash unless, of course, it was picked up by the garbage company that day. If those missing items were found, JR would be caught as his fingerprints and/or DNA would very likely be on them.
bb
I meant to type:
ReplyDeletehaving only evidence inside the house has not helped this case.
Steve Thomas asked if he'd checked the first floor doors on the morning of the 26th in the 4/97 interview, and JR said he went outside to check the garage door.
ReplyDeleteNo clue if BPD checked neighbors' trash. It seems an obvious move in retrospect, but they weren't the shrewdest. There's no trash on the evidence collection lists. I found it intetesting that JR volunteered that he'd been up in his and BR's rooms scanning the street and alley with binoculars the morning of the 26th. Looking for a garbage truck, perhaps? Useless speculation, but interesting.
CC
"there is simply no reason for the person who wrote that note to call 911 knowing that the police will discover the body and realize that there was no kidnapping after all" can't agree with that !! ...if she killed her daughter herself , and she still in the basement , and Jonh woke up early that morning , of course she did not have time to finish the planning AND also can't take a shower on time...so what to do from there ?! ...of course she will call the police knowing that it will be "sentence of death" to Jonbenet (...they are watching not far away ,to murder her daughter if she talk anyway !!) ...so the morning call PROVE NOTHING AT ALL to tells if John is the killer ! with all the facts it's always possible to made a credible story against Patsy too
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, everyone in that house knew that they were getting up early to take an early morning flight to Michigan, so regardless of whether Patsy or John was the perp, either would have known how much time they had before the other woke up. So you speculate that Patsy started this plan and could not finish her plan in time. Let's assume that Patsy wanted to pretend the murderer was still in the house and murdered JBR while she was calling or right after she called...again, the note just complicates matters and likely would just point to her. Why not destroy the note and focus on unlocking doors, windows, etc to look like someone had a way in and out of the house? In fact, that did not happen. The window in the basement was unstaged. Who did the unstaging, in your scenario?
DeleteAll very well thought out, CC. Also you're the only one with a motive that makes enough sense to persuade me a father could murder his daughter, that the pediatrician would have to report abuse to authorities. Well done. AH
ReplyDeleteSo, Anonymous, you think Patsy called 911 because she thought the police would buy the story that the murderers were still in the basement that morning, waiting for the parents to wake up and see if they disobeyed the commands in the RN?
ReplyDeleteIf you really think Patsy was the killer and she called 911 so the responding police would think that JBR was killed because she reached out to authorities, you also have to believe that the police would have bought the story that PR and JR wouldn't have either found the murderers hiding in the basement, or wouldn't have heard them exiting the house in the 7 minutes between the 911 call and the first officer arriving.
As Doc has said many times before, any theory that involves Patsy as the lone killer will be bizarre. I've heard this one many times before -- about how JBR was killed because Patsy called 911 -- and it never fails to make me laugh at how ridiculous it is.
- Piper
ok but , i don't buy that Patsy went to bed and wear the same clothes the morning after only to save time , and about the murder , the suitcase in front of the window (the unfinished staging) is only there to convince that an intruder came Inside and get out by that same window , and there is no reason to think that an intruder would have wait until Patsy call the police to kill her daughter, you can kill someone and taking the money without delivering ...also this call is the most convincing way to prove she didn't do it ,me too i would have done this call , nobody would suspect me if they find the body in the basement !!! the proof is this website here based on this fact.... she was smart enough to play that game at the last minute , and a dead body Inside the house is solving the problem of the waiting call who never came around 10 am ....
ReplyDeleteIf that's the way your logic works, that's fine. No amount of arguing will make you think otherwise. But as for your assertion that "nobody would suspect" Patsy, that's just another example of how little you seem to understand this case. Everyone suspects Patsy!! As DocG has mentioned many times, those of us who believe JDI are in the minority.
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to poke holes in CC's ideas of premeditation and motive, because I always thought it had to be an accident, maybe because it's so hard to believe a father could do that, but I can't, especially the part about the pediatrician having to report abuse. The thing about no assault that night except for staging explains the panties and no semen, too. Doc, what do you think of all that?
ReplyDeleteD2
It's possible John was just trying to cover up the vaginal damage by staging a pedophile assault, yes. However that theory isn't consistent with her being redressed and wiped down, which to me strongly implies that semen was spilled. Some small amount of semen might have landed on her body, causing John to wipe it down. Or he might have wiped her down just in case a minuscule amount might have been present. Just because none was found doesn't mean there was no ejaculation. He might have been careful when he ejaculated, but wiped her down just to be sure. If he never ejaculated then I can't see why he'd have wanted to either redress her or wipe her down.
DeleteRegardless of whether he actually sexually assaulted her that night or not, it was probably his intention to make it look like the vaginal injuries had been produced by "the intruder-kidnapper."
If undies and ljs just rolled down for pedophilie staging no need to redress. Wiping down may have been for fibres and touch dna. Answers a lot of petty questions like where panties came from.
ReplyDeleteanonymous who think Patsy did it : i first completely disagree with that comment , but the more i think of it the more i think it's still possible , if she made the call to cover herself , never cossed my mind until i read that comment oct 14th , i still think the best solution is DocG but....not certain 100% anymore !
ReplyDeleteSo you think Patsy was sexually abusing her daughter? And killed the most important person in her life, through whom she was re-living her own glory days as a pageant contestant?
ReplyDeleteYeah, lets dismiss all the logical theories that fit with a horny old man who can't stick to marriage vows, wasn't getting any from his 2nd wife, traveled all the time to Holland, home of the lingerie ladies displayed in windows, had strange woman surfacing to say he liked kinky sex with her dressed up in showgirl outfits, who is now married to a designer of showgirl outfits. One who had access to a pretty, precocious little girl who was dressed up in pageants like his fantasy women while his wife was away for cancer treatments. Yeah, lets put that crazy idea aside and go with the mom who doted on and loved her child, was always home, surrounded by friends, family, and household workers, who didn't run around with men on the side, who always spoke her mind and was never accused of being secretive or having any other aberrant behavior other than typical holiday stress that all momes of households have. Let's go with that lady as the perp! Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteYup. That about sums it up.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt has been a long time since I commented on this site and I used to argue with Doc that possibly BDI, but in the end the most logical explanation was that it was JR. The window cover up, along with him finding the body, along with him having the means and a potential motive are all that's needed to look at the most logical suspect. All along I have felt that it was 100% one of the 3 remaining people in the home, and at times I still think there is a chance BDI, its really grasping at straws.
ReplyDeleteSo Doc, I have asked you before, but have you thought about doing a podcast on this case?
-J
John Ramsey is very litigious, and a suit for defamation is always a possibility. I think Doc is wise to stay anonymous and keep a relatively low profile.
ReplyDeleteLin Wood, the attorney in Atlanta, got all of John's money. He can't sue anybody now is my guess. What this case needs is a smart, savvy journalist who will take Doc's case to the masses and start demanding a bonafide handwriting analysis.
ReplyDeleteSure he can; attorneys take cases like that on contingency. A smart, savvy journalist would face the same threat. Mary Keenan Lacy "exonerated" the Ramseys, remember? Any prosecutor or journalist making allegations about the Rs would find that damn near insurmountable.
ReplyDeleteNot Lin Wood. He doesn't work on contingency - and the ones that do look at the potential to actually collect on a settlement. They will go after the deep pockets of The National Enquirer or even Vanity Fair but not some lone journalist. No, Jon ramsey and Lin Wood carefully picked who they went after and the goal was always to line each of their pockets I'm sure. Re: Mary Lacy- the new DA doesn't give any weight to her statement and he has said he will look at this case if anything credible comes forward. I personally think a handwriting analysis would be the first thing to focus on.
ReplyDeleteLin Wood settled a well-publicized whistleblower case in Atlanta this year that he took on contingency. Almost any attorney will do so for a long-term client from whom he's made mega fees.
ReplyDeleteA lone journalist must publish somewhere, and that company would be liable as well, just as St. Martin's, Fox, CNN and half a dozen others were when JR sued them.
And while Stan Garnett mouthed the appropriate words about the Ramsey case, he no doubt recognizes that the first affirmative defense JR would raise is Mary Keenan Lacy's letter to the Rs, and the second would be Alex Hunter's failure to indict when the GJ returned a true bill.
ReplyDeleteWe all know what JR's defenses will be. he has been deflecting and defending since 1996. The questions will be put before him to explain the handwriting, the story about the broken window, the zero evidence of an intruder, the confusing story about who decided to call the police and why, and so on. There are plenty of people out there he could have sued already but none of them have deep pockets. Lin Wood was primarily looking out for Patsy and I'm told he is no great friend to John any more. In
ReplyDeletefact John has lost all of his friends. I do think a journalist could give this case a new life. The key I think is to find some old exemplars of John's handwriting, publish all of this in the form of questions to be answered, and gain Stan Garrett's attention. JR won't be the first or the last litigious rich guy to go down for his crime if those wimps in Boulder will step up and listen to an end to end theory based on facts rather than some supposition about a stressed out mama who some how took out her stress on her baby's vagina (ludicrous) or a skinny little 9 year old boy whacking his sister like a mafia hit man because of his sexual curiosity.
I applaud your passion and wish you well, but hire the best attorney you can afford before you try this, as you really don't seem to understand the legalities. Rod Westmoreland, JR's investment banker friend, recently sued a blogger named undertheradar for libel - no deep pockets in sight.
ReplyDeleteWhy do think I'm a journalist? I'm suggesting that a good, savvy journalist can do this. No idea why you would not want someone with some courage to take this on, if they are willing ... maybe you are JR? Rod has plenty of money of his own, no skin off of him to spend money on protecting his own name. And rightly so, if he was libeled. Appreciate that you think I have passion too, though that's not what I'm trying to convey. I just think it is so ludicrous that the police and DA's in Boulder will not pursue this simply because there are too many half baked theories out there. They are too lazy to put together a case like DocG has done, or too unwilling and/or lazy to look his case. I think a journalist could get some media attention on this and thereby force the DA to really focus on a fact based case.
ReplyDeleteA journalist needs a forum, and I think it doubtful one could be found given JR's past success in prosecuting suits against writers and their publishers.
ReplyDeleteCurrent police and prosecutors in Boulder won't/can't bringa case, not because of laziness or confusion, but because there's insufficient evidence and the waters have been muddied by their predecessors.
I might be wrong, but IF Doc did a podcast and JR sued based on slander or something else, wouldnt JR be forced to prove Doc wrong? Therefore testifying....
ReplyDelete-J
A podcast wouldn't be necessary. The book is enough of a provocation, I would think. But suing me would be a huge mistake and he knows it. First of all, I don't have enough money to make it worthwhile for Lin Wood or any other lawyer to be bothered. Far more important, however, is the fact that, by suing me, John would, in effect, be putting himself on trial. As I understand it, I'd have the right to put him on the stand and ask any questions I like. He would not be able to take the Fifth either -- he'd have no choice but to answer or drop his suit. He would once again be in the spotlight, as such a case would get lots of media attention. And my book would be selling like hotcakes, meaning that my theory of the case would be widely disseminated and taken seriously by many I feel sure. So, from my perspective, what's not to like?
DeleteAs far as the best strategy for getting John indicted, I don't expect anything from the Boulder DA or any of his successors, as such a move would be far too risky in the face of Lacy's letter, as has already been argued by some of you. Imo the only hope is for a major media figure or outlet (such as 60 minutes, 48 hours) to get involved. And yes, the most effective tactic would be to concentrate on the handwriting evidence, not so much to claim it proves John wrote the note, but to discredit the "experts" who ruled him out. Some of these "experts" could be interviewed on how they arrived at such a boneheaded decision, and I think that would be enough to put pressure on the DA to act or do the walk of shame in full public view.
DocG, thanks for making some points that I was trying to make, only better. I agree that John is not going to sue anyone who doesn't have very deep pockets, and I agree that its not in his best interest to sue. I want the handwriting analysis exposed -- wish that someone would expose what you've already written about that and get it widely disseminated! I'm thinking Geraldo. Can you send him a copy of your book?
DeleteYes, I like Doc's suggestion of a 60 Minutes or 48 Hours-type expose on JR and how he became "ruled out."
DeleteAny one out there have a connection to these two shows? Seriously, I've seem shows like this many times, and often it is focused on a very old case.
There's still an absence of substantive evidence, and John's obvious defense, at this point, would be to blame Patsy.
ReplyDeleteCC
That's exactly what he'd do. He'd claim she confessed on her deathbed, or in hysterics at 2 a.m. on the 26th and he helped her cover it up to protect Burke and because he felt sorry for her, knowing Stage 4 Uterine Cancer is almost always a death sentence. He'd probably write another book.
ReplyDeleteIt was ovarian cancer, and she was in remission at that time...and remained in remission for another approx. 8-9 years. Patsy's sisters and father would never let him get away with blaming her. I think a lot more information would be forthcoming from them if he tried to blame her. Its also possible that Burke would speak up with anything that he knows.
DeleteI agree with CC that if it came to a murder charge in a courtroom he'd blame PR. Doubt he'd care what Paughs might say as they were in Atlanta on 26th and anything PR may have told them would be inadmissible hearsay. If you believe enhanced 911 tape BR said "what did you find" which implies he knew nothing night of crime and he offered nothing in subsequent interviews. JR would blame his wife and he'd walk.
DeleteI don't know much about the clarity of that tape but I do think Burke has been unusually quiet about the murder of his sister and I find that to be rather odd. Regardless of what was on that tape, Burke lived in that family and could know something. I believe he has been instructed by lawyers to say nothing. Besides, predicting that people will not talk is not a reason to not pursue this case. You don't have to have DNA or a witness to indict JR and see how he will answer the hard questions.
DeleteYou must, however, have a prosecutor who's willing to file charges. Faced with Lacy's letter, Hunter's failure to indict on a true bill, a pile of circumstantial evidence that could be - and has been - construed to blame PR, the likelihood JR would assert a dying declaration by PR, and the further likelihood that he'd request - and get - a bench trial rather than a jury . . .finding such a prosecutor would be difficult. Especially in Boulder, which has been embarrassed for years on the world stage by the mess made by its PD and DAs.
DeleteI'm all for it, I just don't see it happening.
Ruling John out as the author of the ransom note is not the reason the case shifted focus from he to Patsy. That is a myth. Doc has repeated this statement so many times that it has become the gospel truth to many of his readers. The fact is: John was not ruled out because of his handwriting alone; the structure and voice of the note was also determined not to be his. Now, all of that aside, the handwriting analysis was never a critical part of the case because it would not be enough to prosecute a suspect. The major factor that has kept John from being charged with murder is that Patsy, on several occasions, altered her statements and conflicted statements made by others which suggested to detectives that she was lying. You tell me, which is more believable...Patsy would cover for her homicidal husband or John would cover for his wife? It was that very question that really bears any credence and not the decision to rule out John as the author of the ransom note.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hercule, you don't need to insult the intelligence of those who post here by suggesting that we've been brainwashed by a repeated statement; that is crazy talk.
DeleteAll along, Doc has said that ruling John out as the author of the note has caused the investigation to go in a direction that basically ignores John's BIG FAT LIE about the window, dismisses his behavior on Dec. 26, probably caused those lame detectives to not look harder at why Patsy made that call to police, and even made them fail to further explore what John was doing on Christmas day when he left the house for hours. But the real crux of this matter to me is that JBR was sexually abused. Period. Anybody who is intelligent and educated can write a note to disguise the "voice." In fact, someone was trying to pretend to be a group who had an axe to grind with John. Sounds like something right out of those crime books that John liked to read, to me :)
I don't know what lies from Patsy you are referring to, but its clear to me that she was trying to follow a storyline that lawyers wanted her to follow, and she did so out of fear. I personally find Patsy's behavior, grief, and statements about wanting to find this killer to be believable. John, much like Susan Smith, didn't seem too upset about the loss of his child, wanted to hop on a plane and get the hell out of dodge (what kind of stand up father does that? Leaves home right after his little girl is murdered?) Seriously, that behavior alone is typical of most murderers - run and hide. He made sure his wife was drugged, he lawyered up, and he stonewalled the investigation. To this day, he has focused more on himself than on finding the killer. Kinda like OJ, you know? Those statements he made about John Mark Karr were strange. I find the guy to be completely strange in every way if I am to believe he's some stand up guy who loves his wife and son that much. His fake Christian charade does not fool anyone who knows what real Christ followers would do.
You have failed to read all that Doc has written. Patsy wasn't covering up for John. The theory is that she believed, or wanted to believe, it was an intruder. Maybe she figured it out there was no intruder years later, who knows. I doubt it because Lou Smit was doing a very good job of distracting everyone with his intruder theories, all of which could be debunked -- as Kolar has effectively done -- but not before she got cancer again and then died. This case has to look at all the facts put together. Too many people want to take their theory and make the facts support the theory, including you Hercule. You have decided that Patsy is the type of woman who would do this. The number one fact here is that this child was sexually abused. Linda Arndt herself was at the autopsy and saw horrific signs of abuse. Men sexually abuse little girls, not their mothers. JR was a horny narcissist. That's it. Narcissists can be rich, educated, smart, successful. They can put on a good front. They can conquer nations for that matter. Patsy did not invade JBRs vagina like that. Nor did Burke. A horny dude did it. A guy who like to spend time in Amsterdam for no good reason; it was not the tech capital of the world in the 90's. He fooled around on his previous wife and was said to like his ladies to dress up like showgirls. JR was and probably still is a pervert who objectifies women. His pretty little pageant princess was too hard to resist.
Now you're just making stuff up, Hercule. None of the detectives who have written or spoken about this case detailed the reasons John was ruled out, much less say it was because Patsy lied or they suspected John was covering for her. Or are we supposed to believe this information comes from your special triple secret access to the case files?
Delete"Now you're just making stuff up, Hercule. None of the detectives who have written or spoken about this case detailed the reasons John was ruled out, much less say it was because Patsy lied or they suspected John was covering for her. Or are we supposed to believe this information comes from your special triple secret access to the case files?"
ReplyDeleteYou may believe however you choose, it makes no difference to me. The most interesting thing about this blog is that the same posters who demand a reference to every statement that conflicts with their beliefs are the same ones who accept any unintelligible assertion about John Ramsey's psychosis without being qualified to make such a diagnosis.
Hercule
Good to know, because no one believes you have 30 years experience in behavioral psychology or any special access to case information. A careful reading of Doc's theory and the posts on this blog will reveal that nothing is based on JR's possible psychological state and no one has claimed to diagnose him.
ReplyDeleteI think we demand a reference to every statement about ANYONE. That's Doc's whole basis and the beauty of his theory and the reason no one believes yours: facts, or in your case a lack of facts.
ReplyDeleteHercule, my posts about JR being a narcissist are based upon his behavior, his books, and his public comments. I could give a rip about any "diagnosis." Narcissists don't think they are sick and don't go to doctors to get help. Likewise, nothing you've posted makes be believe you are who you say you are. The thing is, people on this blog listen to a variety of ideas, but yours are baseless - you've simply decided for yourself that Patsy is a crazy mom who killed her daughter for some sick reason, which is what a lot of amateurs out there think, including Steve Thomas. You have nothing to add to what has been posited for years, and you seem to want to dismiss the new thoughts and reasoning here. I, for one, cannot dismiss that sexual abuse of a child is something that happens way more in society, and that JR could easily have done this to his child. Why do you dismiss that one parent could sexually abuse their child but the other one (a female) could damage a little girl's vagina in this manner?
ReplyDeleteCanuck called Hercule a catfish two months ago and CC exposed him as a fraud thirty days later. Now he's just desperately trying to save face and his ill-researched, undocumented "theory" that PDI.
ReplyDeleteI have carefully examined all of the facts of this case more than a few times. It is my passion to seek justice for JonBenet. You can doubt me, ridicule me, or what have you. I could not care less. If anyone wishes to discuss this case with me in a civil manner, I think it would be more beneficial. The truth of this case, I predict, will be eventually exposed. As I see it, when that day comes most of you will deny it. You are entrenched in your beliefs. I respect that stance. Initially, my finger was aimed at John. The case appeared simple on the surface. Unfortunately, however, 2 and 2 cannot equal 3.75 nor can it be rounded off to 4 when it comes to a murder case. Keep your minds open. I am glad that I did.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Oh for god's sake, we've all examined the case more than a few times! We may not have a "passion", but we're all interested in seeing this resolved. What are you now, Carnac with the predictions? "The truth will eventually be exposed"??? The evidence is in. It isn't going to improve. The only thing that could happen now is John could confess or he could finger Patsy.
DeleteYou get more ridiculous by the minute.
Hercule, then why, after having been asked numerous times, haven't you shared your careful examination of the facts? Just don't bother posting here until you have something to share, that is all that we ask. You were civilly asked to share and you came back with put downs and insults, and now you ask others to be civil with you. What is is we're supposed to open our minds to? Do tell.
ReplyDeleteI have shared on numerous occasions. I am baffled by that comment.
DeleteHercule
What you shared was a vague hypothesis about Patsy and then kept saying stay tuned, I need more time, I need to document my entire theory and I'm busy right now...bla bla bla. You have delivered nothing.
DeleteApparently we're supposed to open our minds to hot dog vendors and document examiners who make gorilla suits and whatever other crap this guy feels like spewing and dressing up as legitimate fact.
DeleteI think the point is that no one wishes to discuss the case with you because you have nothing new to say and can document nothing you believe. We have all examined the facts of the case many times, and many of us started out PDI. We are not entrenched and happily entertained your theory for months, until it became increasingly untenable.
ReplyDeletePlease don't now post a self-justifying, rambling diatribe based on your notion of behavioral psychology, Hercule. You don't have the chops. You misused "psychosis" this morning, and you have misapplied many other psych terms in the past, and gone so far as to invent things like "pageant mom syndrome", which does not appear inthe DSM-5. You've played out your string here; time to go write your own self-serving blog or e-book or whatever.
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased to see so many agreeing with my take on this case, but there is nothing to be gained by all this dumping on Hercule. Lots of people share his view of this case and if their evaluation is flawed, as I believe it is, that doesn't mean they don't have anything of value to contribute. Hercule's presence has made the debate more lively, that's for sure. And he is certainly entitled to his (or her) opinion.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, I didn't actually call Hercule a catfish. I said that some of his posts reminded me of a catfish and gave a few examples.
ReplyDeleteAnd also for the record, while my post was long and required five sections, Hercule, I WAS attempting to engage you respectfully. I asked you several questions that I thought were fair. Since then, you've said at least twice that you're open to answering questions, but you haven't addressed mine.
I don't want to dump on anyone but again, trying to be fair, Hercule, you once again invite us to discuss the case with you in a civil manner, but you appear to prefer to engage with those you see as ridiculing you.
So I'll ask again, would you please address the questions I posed to you on August 24, 2015 starting at 12:15 AM?
My entire post is in "open-thread-part-four."
Thank you.
I have answered some of your questions, Canuck. Go back to the previous thread and look for September 26.
ReplyDeleteHercule
There's a show premiering 11/2 at 10 EST on ID called "American Scandals" wherein Barbara Walters revisits old crimes, one of which will be JBR. The promo I saw featured a new interview with JR, for whatever that may be worth.
ReplyDeleteCC
I saw your September 26th comment shortly after it was posted, Hercule, but I didn't really think it adequately addressed my questions. No matter. I think we'd end up going around in circles. You believe PDI. I believe JDI.
ReplyDeleteThat said, are you willing at all to provide some insight, specifically, into how you got access to the case files and what you found there? As I said before, even the smallest of revelations could go a long way in convincing us that what you say is true. And please don't say you're not interested in convincing us. We all post here with a mind to sharing our thoughts and convincing each other of what we believe.
Bravo, Doc, for reminding the people posting here that it is not necessary to continually pounce on Hercule. I don't agree with Hercule's theory either, but some of what he has said has caused me to re-examine some aspects of this case. He causes me to think. JDI theorists are in the minority; many more people believe PDI. I have to at least applaud Hercule for having the courage to post his theory here where his beliefs are less than popular.
ReplyDeletebb
bb, I haven't pounced on Hercule, but he has insulted me several times in response to civil posts that I made. The other commenter(s) who have come back at him, in my opinion, are saying what I'm thinking but didn't bother to write. The fact is, Hercule has not posted a theory. What is it? We ask, he won't answer. He's made some statements about behavioral indicators that he thinks point to Patsy. Geez, that's why the whole world thinks Patsy did it -- she was a stage mom, a has-been beauty queen, etc. Since when does that prove someone is a murderer? I'm sorry, but nothing Hercule has posted has given me any pause for thoughts that I didn't already process over 10 years ago. Repeatedly asking where he gets his information from is not pouncing on him. The other remarks that seem like they are just picking on Hercule? He kind of asked for it, by insulting people. I don't believe people who are legit members of the psychological or behavioral analysis community make it a habit to insult people in order to make their point.
DeleteI'm not a pouncer either, but I agree. He has no theory, no facts, just opinions delivered with great pomposity and woe be it unto anyone who challenges him. In five months he's been able to verify just ONE statement, that there was a mail slot in the front door.
DeleteI'm genuinely curious --- is tgere a PDI blog?
ReplyDeletethere
ReplyDeleteDoc I couldn't post above, but I have referenced the Podcast so many times because I believe that is the only way to get this case back into the spotlight. The Adnan Syed case has become known around the world because Serial became so huge and has now spawned 2 podcasts (Undisclosed and Truth and Justice) that are at the very top of Itunes. Until I stumbled upon this blog I think I always just assumed that there was an intruder because I remembered something about an open window. Serial and Undisclosed are probably going to get Adnan a 2nd trial and his freedom so a podcast about one of the most infamous murders in US history (JBR) would surely bring attention and a focus to JR.
ReplyDelete-J
Thanks for the helpful thought, but podcasting isn't really my thing. Also imo the case is just too complex to do justice to it in a lecture. I think the book works best to nail things down properly. Regardless, the case is just too cold for anything other than major media exposure to make a difference. I've tried to get someone from one of the major networks interested, but I think they are just too afraid of a lawsuit.
DeleteDoc, as you know, I am a JDI theorist and mostly agree with the details of your theory. I would, however, like to discuss a good point that Hercule made about the suitcase below the basement window. Why do you think John would take the trouble to unstage the window break-in by disposing of broken glass but not moving the suitcase away from the window?
ReplyDeleteSay what you will about Hercule, but he has made several interesting points about this case that shouldn't be ignored. I really don't care what his profession is. At times, Hercule does come across as brash, but he obviously knows this case very well and I hope he continues to speak his mind.
Gumshoe
JR could remove the broken glass, but there was nothing to be done about the broken window. At least the suitcase made the scene ambiguous and confusing. It certainly worked on Smit and countless IDI believers.
ReplyDeleteCC
To add to CC's point, the suitcase could have been there all along, who really knows. If it was, John may not have even thought about how that looked in his haste to get the glass cleaned up. Remember, he was probably doing the unstaging while everyone was upstairs and he had to have been under great stress and there was probably other evidence to hide as well.
ReplyDeleteI seriously doubt that the suitcase was there all along. As I see it, this was placed under the window as part of the staging for sure. My best guess as to why John didn't remove it is that he was simply too pressed for time and/or too distracted to deal with every detail of the staging/unstaging process. He may have had just enough time to deal with the glass, with Fleet breathing down his neck in some other part of the basement, who knows?
DeleteLater on, when being "interviewed" by the police, he may have hoped he could revive his original staging by stressing the presence of the suitcase, thus making a positive out of a negative. Again, who knows what was going on in his devious mind?
From the point of view of the investigators it should have been obvious that the suitcase plus the broken window, plus all the undisturbed dust and dirt, plus the lack of broken glass on the floor spelled d-e-c-e-p-t-i-o-n.
Hercule...I have been away for a while on this blog, but I have always felt that it was either BR or JR. If you have already explained it then please copy and paste, but what is your basic conclusion as to who killed JBR?
ReplyDelete-J
I have a suggestion for Hercule, as unlikely as that may seem, given as I was one of the original authors of his misery a month ago. If he posted more as a contributor, less as an authority figure above question, threw in a few IMOs and what ifs, refrained from insult and mockery, I think we would all welcome his remarks and enjoy the challenge of debating him.
ReplyDeleteCC
An interview of JR by Barbara Walters is slated for airing on Nov 2 on the ID show, 10 pm EST. I don't expect any new bombshells of info, but since she seems to have the ability to approach JR and get him before the public, wouldn't it be awesome if she could be pressed to follow up with another interview consisting of questions by those who think he killed JBR? Simply asking him who the "experts" were who ruled him out, based upon how many specimens of his writing were submitted, could be enough to start him doing his infamous lip-licking and seat shifting. I am very anxious to see his "body language" responses during the Nov 2 broadcast. MWMM
ReplyDelete"If you have already explained it then please copy and paste, but what is your basic conclusion as to who killed JBR?"
ReplyDeleteBasically, by examining the facts, behavioral clues, and evidence, I deduced that Patsy Ramsey, acting alone, was responsible for JonBenet's death. I believe there was an accident involving a head injury, most likely related to JonBenet soiling herself and Patsy's aggressive attempt to clean her in the bathtub. Not realizing, initially, the severity of the injury, Patsy convinced herself that JonBenet was simply "knocked out" and calling 911 would be premature thus subjecting her to embarrassment and subsequent ridicule from family, friends, or acquaintances from the Boulder community. Patsy was proud of the glamorous and flawless reputation she had worked so hard to create. She could not accept the responsibility of such a debilitating mistake nor could she face her peers, who would be armed with that knowledge. When JonBenet's pulse became undetectable, a desperate cover-up ensued.
Hercule
And fed her pineapple . . . when? Why?
ReplyDeleteCC
Thanks Hercule.....I was just curious what your overall take on the case was, so I appreciate the response.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I struggle with is that when PR was on her deathbed and she knew she was going to die, then why not admit to the crime if she did in fact kill her? I don't know what her feelings for JR were at that point, but she still had her son BR who has had scrutiny come here way, so why not once and for all clear his name by admitting it?
-J
"And fed her pineapple . . . when? Why?"
ReplyDeleteI think it is probable that JonBenet woke from her nap when Patsy attempted to change her clothes. Patsy would have wanted JonBenet to use the toilet before getting back into bed. Since JonBenet had little to eat that evening she may have pleaded for a snack and drink. Fearing that could cause a bed soiling accident, Patsy may have argued with her but ultimately relented. Burke would later claim to have seen JonBenet walking up the stairs to prepare for bed.
Hercule
Then why would PR lie to LE about giving JBR the pineapple, if it preceded the accident? And how does BR seeing his sister climb the stairs before bed work with the accepted timeline and JR's statement that JBR was already in bed and he took BR up and got him settled?
DeleteCC
The Ramsey lawyers probably instructed John and Patsy to stick to a simple story: JonBenet was asleep and went straight to bed. This adamant claim would also suggest an intruder must have fed JonBenet the pineapple.
DeleteJohn stated that he assisted Burke with a Christmas toy before going to bed. This would have given JonBenet time to wake up as Patsy attempted to change her clothes and make a trip downstairs for a snack before John and Burke retired for bed. For all we know, Burke could have already produced the bowl of pineapple for himself and JonBenet simply reached into the bowl and took a couple of slices, which would explain no fingerprints from her.
Hercule
Attorneys don't typically suborn perjury. Attorneys, reputable ones, which these were, encourage their clients to stick to the truth.
DeleteHercule, you are the first one with a logical theory about the pineapple. The extra large spoon in the dish suggests a child was involved in eating it. It makes sense that Jon Benet could have gone downstairs after being put to bed if she heard noises downstairs (Burke and JR). Any child who goes to sleep on Christmas night and then wakes up, is very eager to return to the site of the presents and check out their new stuff. She may have heard Burke and JR while they were putting a toy together and she decided to check it out and have a snack, made available and left on the counter by Burke.
DeleteNow some would ask why JR would lie about seeing Jon Benet at that time, but perhaps she snuck down the back staircase and wasn't seen by them, or maybe just by Burke. Kids love to sneak around, especially if they know they are supposed to be in bed. And she may have wanted to get away from a very tired, annoyed mom who was again cleaning up after a bed wetting incident.
Not true. Doc tries not to speculate, but does when forced, though he never incorporates it into his theory. I like his idea that John hit Jonbenet in the head while feeding her pineapple, because I believe the whole molestation/pediatrician would be reporting motive and that's what it all comes down to. Hercule thinks Patsy was nuts and snapped over poop and the rest of us think John molested his daughter and was about to be exposed by Dr Beuf and be reported to cops and lose everything. Just depends on what you believe.
DeleteThe pineapple was cut up fresh not from a can and stored in plastic bag. Anyone would use a long handled spoon to dig some out so means nothing.
DeleteThat whole theory is just a re-hash of Steve Thomas with some psychology bells and whistles and a lot of speculation.
ReplyDeleteHercule, are you willing at all to provide some insight, specifically, into how you got access to the case files and what you found there?
ReplyDeleteI can tell you that I have communicated with people associated with this case.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Big whoop.
ReplyDeleteHercule, if you have communicated with people associates with this case, then don't you know that the damage to her vagina showed signs of prior molestation, not consistent with rough wiping? If Steve Thomas's theory could be shown to be grounds for indicting Patsy, and Patsy alone, the grand jury sure didn't get that story nor did they return with a position that Patsy alone was involved.
ReplyDeleteCommunicating with prople associated with this case could mean anything or most likely nothing like he sent somebody an email one time but for sure they never let just anybody look at the files after all the critisism for leaks, it's just more hot air. Anybody can say anything to make themself important.
ReplyDeleteThe pineapple is nothing more than a shit ton of lies out of Patsy Ramsey ....JBR had pineapple in her stomache and Patsy got caught lying again . Why is this so hard to believe when everything she says is I cant remember , not particularly and utter and complete proven lies ? Its plain as day why she is lyi ng about the pineapple and that is bc it puts her up and awake with JBR at around 1130 pm .....
ReplyDeleteJohn's lies were significnant. Read this blog and then see what you think. Oh and don't forget he didn't supply old handwriting exemplars, he tried to boogy out of town while his little girl was at the morgue, he hired the high powered attorneys, he pissed off Fleet White for no good reason, and he lied about the pineapple too. Do you think Patsy digitally penetrated JB? Amazing how one can ignore John's outrageous behavior.
DeleteI have no doubts at all that they were both in on the cover-up . I am not so sure as to it being an accident . I think there are definitely some underlying issues here tho ...prior sexual abuse , both kids wetting their beds , and Burke or Burke and JBR shitting and rubbing it everywhere ....and there are some other signs that there was some serious dysfunction going on in that house . We will probably never know and that is what really sucks . What I do know is that no one other than the people in that house were involved and almost every word out of the Ramseys mouth has been a proven lie ....literally every word .
Delete"I can tell you that I have communicated with people associated with this case.
ReplyDeleteHercule"
So has Doc.
My paperboy in Boulder in 2000, has too. No lie.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"...don't you know that the damage to her vagina showed signs of prior molestation, not consistent with rough wiping?"
ReplyDeleteThere is no definitive proof nor is it an undisputed fact that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. There are just as many medical experts who claim that JonBenet's vaginal injuries are not consistent with prior sexual abuse. Also, when it is determined that a child is a victim of sexual abuse, a full comprehensive investigation must be conducted that is not limited to physical trama alone.
Hercule
We believe Drs. Jones, Monteleone, McCann, Wright, Rau, Krugman, Meyer, Sirontak, Wecht and Kirscher. You believe Dr. Spitz and some FBI agents who did not have medical degrees.
DeleteOf course there would have been a "...full comprehensive inestigation...", that's precisely what JR killed her to avoid.
CC
According to Kolar "to name just a few" so there are probably more drs who found chronic abuse.
DeleteThere is no definitive proof nor is it an undisputed fact that JonBenet was sexually abused prior to the night of her murder. There are just as many medical experts who claim that JonBenet's vaginal injuries are not consistent with prior sexual abuse. Also, when it is determined that a child is a victim of sexual abuse, a full comprehensive investigation must be conducted that is not limited to physical trama alone.
ReplyDeleteHercule
well said !!!
I agree. Many posters here think Hercule's theory is fantasy, but we all have to remind ourselves that not everything is as it seems, especially in this bazaar case. Aside from suspecting an intruder --- which I totally think is bogus --- anything could have happened in that house that night. That's exactly why this case captivates the attention of so many people. It is a total, unexplained mystery. John, Patsy OR Burke could be responsible for JB's death, or have a part in the cover up. I'm afraid we will never know and this case will go down in history as one of the biggest unsolved mysteries of all time.
ReplyDeleteNotice please that Hercule is posting his own applause now, as he did as Anonymous at 9:11 above and again, accidentally ("well said") at 9:51. Sorry folks, but this guy really is a windbag.
ReplyDeleteSorry Hercules but there was not 1 expert that claimed that she was not sexually abused ...the only question was if it was chronic or not . Check autopsy and 5 nationwide experts who all said the same ....Vagina was TWICE the size it should have been for a girl her age and abrasions inside if her vagina were old injuries ...+ she kept getting yeast infections regularly at 6 yrs old which is very uncommon . The only person who said he never saw any signs of abuse was her regular doctor she saw for bedwetting and the i fections and he doesnt / cant do full vaginal exams . I will post them right on here . Also note that I hear alot of ppl say that the experts werent sure if Patsy wrote the note ......every expert (I believe 5 tested her writing) concluded that Patsy Ramsy wrote the letter . Even a normal person with 0 training can put the ransom note letters or same words right next to her letters and see an exact match ....
ReplyDeleteI have seen all the letters from the handwriting experts on the letters of determination . The DAs office in this case should be indicted and prosecuted ..they screwed it all up NOT the PD . Sure the PD did fumble on the first day due to the 1st case in the history of the US with these circumstances but they followed the evidence after that and there is but an abundance of it ....broken window ..chair in front of door .suitcase in front of window my ass changing stoies every 3 mos . The media campaign was all the Ramseys doing on purpose just flooding the media with false info and false leads etc etc etc . Poor persecuted us is all they whined about . Never a tear ...never a sign of sadness ...I saw Patsy take her handwriting comparison tests and it was like a big joke to her . They pulled out a family photo album w pic of JBR and with her own writing in it and she claimed to not be able to recognize her own writing ..nor could John identify any items with her writing on it . Its a huge fucking joke ...anyone else would have been indicted right there on that alone .
ReplyDeleteAnd investigators also found this besides all of the national experts who said there had been prior molestation ...just for more proof . Opened to Word "Incest." "When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members" (Thomas 2000:293; quote and source provided by Internet poster tylin.
ReplyDeleteShow a little class and clean up your vocabulary Rick. We don't post like that here. And go back to the beginning of this blog and read Doc's first two posts to understand his theory, then look at the sections about the ransom note and handwriting analysis. You need to get caught up, we've been over all this a thousand times.
ReplyDeleteHey everybody ---- Barbara Walters will be interviewing John Ramsey in a new series premiering tomorrow night at 10:00 on the network Investigation Discovery:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-schedule/
This is not a repeat of an older interview (she did one with both John and Patsy years ago). This is new.
Should be interesting.
bb
Thanks bb. I don't have cable so won't be able to watch it, so I'd appreciate any report you or any of the others can provide. I don't expect that John will be asked any hardball questions, so I'm not exactly excited. But you never know. If Barbara can crack the case with a single interview more power to her.
DeleteThat's 10:00 PST.
ReplyDelete"Sorry Hercules but there was not 1 expert that claimed that she was not sexually abused ...the only question was if it was chronic or not."
ReplyDeleteI never said that there were experts who said that she was NOT sexually abused. She was obviously sexually abused the night of her murder. There was chronic inflammation as stated in the autopsy report. The question is...Was the chronic inflammation indicative of prior sexual abuse or did it originate from something else? My point is the results were inconclusive, therefore it is not a fact that JonBenet was a victim of sexual abuse prior to the night of her murder.
Hercule
It's also a fact that you will never get me to believe in a million years that a loving mother would sexually assault her dying or dead daughter for any reason whatsoever, least of all to cover up an injury that could easily have been reported as an accident.
DeleteDitto what Doc said. I can't believe any of those horrible things, like the rope around the neck, etc. were done by Patsy. And if they were in it together, there is no way she would let John do this. We can't solve the problems of incest and sexual abuse in this world until people stop turning their head from the problem. All kinds of men do this....all kinds. Why does JR get a pass? Hercule, please answer as to why you won't look harder at John or why you have ruled him out?
DeleteThe results were NOT inconclusive. Many, many pathologists, forensic pathologists and child abuse expert docs concluded there was prior abuse. Hymen was eroded and had healed. Vagina was twice normal size. Do some research. Google Jonbenet Ramsey sexual abuse. Look at the Jonbenet Ramsey Case Encyclopedia. Stop trying to twist facts to match your goofball ideas.
DeleteI would prefer not to believe it either but there are people out there that do horrific things. Terri Robinson, put her 3 year-old son in an oven and let him burn to death. Ka Yang put her 7 week-old baby in a microwave. This sort of evil does exist and I have tried to understand it, to make sense out of the incomprehensible. How could someone kill a precious child or much worse do it in such a disgusting fashion? Each case is unique and has its own complicated history. Sometimes one must dig into the dark recesses of the mind to get answers that cannot be visibly seen.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Yes, of course, "loving" mothers have been known to murder their children, that's an old and very disturbing story. But that's not what we're discussing here. You (along with Thomas and of course many others) are not accusing Patsy of deliberate murder (for which no one has been able to find any motive whatsoever) but of killing her child accidentally. And I'm sorry, but a mother who accidentally kills a beloved child is not going to then sexually assault her, penetrating her vagina and drawing blood. I don't care what you think the motive may be, it's just not credible that Patsy would have done that. It's especially not credible when we consider that the staging in the note is of a kidnapping, and not the sort of thing a sexual predator would write. Why do such a disgusting thing when you're staging a kidnapping? I see no reason for Patsy to have done this, nor do I see any necessity for doing such a thing when staging a kidnapping, in any case.
DeleteNo one has ever accused Patsy of murdering JonBenet in cold blood, so she cannot be placed in the same class of these other demented mothers. An accident would have been reported as such. No need for Patsy to morph into a monster, all that would have been needed was a 911 call reporting an accident.
Yet you're unwilling to "dig into the dark recesses" of JR's mind! Incest is more common than murder, and happens across the societal spectrum, yet you reject the possibility out of hand in favor of a crazy pageant mom who snaps over poop. We've come full circle with you (again), and you have no more facts than you did, and no qualifications to persuade me your theory has worth.
ReplyDeleteCC
"And I'm sorry, but a mother who accidentally kills a beloved child is not going to then sexually assault her, penetrating her vagina and drawing blood. I don't care what you think the motive may be, it's just not credible that Patsy would have done that. It's especially not credible when we consider that the staging in the note is of a kidnapping, and not the sort of thing a sexual predator would write. Why do such a disgusting thing when you're staging a kidnapping?"
ReplyDeleteWhat I have attempted to do on this blog is explain in a more complete fashion why Steve Thomas claimed that Patsy murdered JonBenet. Doc, you are making the same mistake of which you have accused me. Making assumptions. The assumption that Patsy's relationship with JonBenet, like most healthy mother/daughter relationships, was one of unconditional love. What I have learned about Patsy tells me that her love for JonBenet was only CONDITIONAL. As long as JonBenet did what was expected of her, Patsy had no problem showering her with love. Because Patsy too was raised in the pageant world, there was an expectation placed on JonBenet to perform at the same level Patsy had achieved. To make matters more stressful for Patsy, there was the mindful eye of her mother, Nedra Paugh, who expected JonBenet to be the next Miss America. This obsession was the foundation of an unstable, fractured relationship between Patsy and Nedra that would carry over to JonBenet.
Doc, you don't think it is credible for Patsy to have violently assaulted JonBenet in a sexual manner. That was precisely why she did it! Most people like you would never believe a mother could be capable of such an act.
Why write a ransom note to stage a kidnapping? Two reasons:
1. Patsy knew the police would suspect John (because of the sexual assault) so she created the note to give the police tangible evidence that there was an intruder.
2. To contaminate the crime scene. If the police treated the crime as a kidnapping, a much different approach would be taken. Patsy also phoned friends and had them come over to further compromise the crime scene.
Hercule
We got it when Steve Thomas wrote it. You've added nothing.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with that. Hercule has brought more insight to Steve's theory and made it, at the very least, more plausible.
DeleteGumshoe
OK, Steve Thomas plus LauranceSmith plus a whole lot of Topix bloggers. The whole PDI thing has been done to death with the same amount of bla bla bla Hercule displays.
Delete"Yet you're unwilling to 'dig into the dark recesses' of JR's mind! Incest is more common than murder, and happens across the societal spectrum, yet you reject the possibility out of hand in favor of a crazy pageant mom who snaps over poop. We've come full circle with you (again), and you have no more facts than you did, and no qualifications to persuade me your theory has worth."
ReplyDeleteLike I have said, my initial suspicions were placed on John being the murderer. So no, I never rejected the possibility.
As for incest being more common than murder; We should therefore accept that this statistic means JonBenet must have been a victim of incest? I find that to be very premature.
Doc has attempted to solve this case using logic based only on facts. This formula has its impressive highlights, however, when it fails to bridge the gaps, Doc passes it off as a logical "inference" or simply "it is possible that...". So forgive me if I have doubts when a square block does not fit into a round peg. An accurate theory, no matter how attractive and logical it is, must account for every piece of physical evidence and behavioral clues.
My advice to everyone on this blog is to not reject what appears to be illogical to your personal beliefs and only accept what you feel is logical to you. There have been many innocent people imprisoned because they were logically the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. The Ramsey case is not a "logic puzzle". It is real life, and more to the point, it is extremely complicated. I encourage you all to stop bridging the gaps with what you think is logical despite facts and clues that suggest otherwise.
Hercule
Hercule makes an excellent point. While the facts I've cited are irrefutable as facts, the inferences I've drawn could be faulty. Which is why the case I've been making is centered on probable cause and not proof positive. As I see it there is more than enough probable cause to indict John and this should go double for anyone who, like Hercule, and indeed most posting here, who see no intruder in the picture. Even if you favor Patsy as the principle culprit, you have to agree that putting John on trial would, at the very least, make it very difficult for him to continue hiding the truth. If Patsy is the culprit, then he certainly knows about it. And if his future is on the line, he may well decide to tell what he knows.
DeleteSure, I'm convinced that John did this crime, but as Hercule justly points out, I could be wrong. So let him have his day in court and give him the opportunity to tell the world what he knows. And let the jury decide.
I think the most important thing here is the sexual abuse. I find it highly unlikely (maybe possible, but very, very rare) that any potty issues that Jon Benet was having would cause the damage to her vagina. I would bet my life that she was, in fact, abused prior to her murder. So one must look at who the most likely person in that house could have been responsible for this prior abuse. I don't buy that it was Patsy or Burke. I know there are cases out there where perfectly normal people become monsters and do unbelievable things, but this is not that kind of case. Neither Patsy or Burke showed any signs of questionable or suspicious behavior. John did and, in my opinion, still does.
ReplyDeleteWell said. Many who have been drawn to this blog have gone through phases of considering Patsy, and almost as many have considered Burke. It never, ever added up for me. If it had, I wouldn't be here reading. I don't know why Hercule thinks we aren't capable of theorizing about a mom who got carried away and hurt her child. We have been down that road and found a dead end. The biggies are this: sexual abuse, no intruder evidence, handwriting that looks like John's (the analysis by Doc blew me away), a note written to buy time, a mom calling in spite of the note's warnings, a dad who spent hours away from the house on Christmas day, wants to hightail it out of town hours after his baby girl is found, but stays and drugs up his wife, who later tells ridiculous lies...well, unlike Hercule I find that it all dovetails with the the theory that Patsy didn't know what happened and John did this.
DeleteI agree too. All this rough wiping Hercule talks about included inside the vagina far enough to break the hymen? Doctors said it was an old injury, edges had healed over. Rough wiping???
DeleteI just watched the Barbara Walters Investigation Discovery show. There was nothing investigative about the program. Just another chance for JR to talk about himself and his life. The one thing that strikes me is how he never talks about how he wishes he could have seen his little girl grown into a young lady, go to college, start a career, get married. He never talks about Burke either, unless asked. Most parents talk about what tragedies like this do their other children. JR goes out of his way to not talk about his living children at all. Doesn't even state what joy they have brought him and how that helps him carry on. Seems strange to me.
ReplyDeleteInstead of "bridging the gaps" with what you acknowledge is logic you want us to apply your "behavioral" garbage and it isn't going to happen. It beats me why some people here find anything you have to say worthwhile. Over and over and over you say the same things and tell us to open our minds. You're having the opposite effect on me. I want facts, logic, documentation, which you do not have. Nedra and Patsy had a dysfunctional relationship, where is that coming from? Patsy's love for daughter was conditional, no proof of that either. Do you think you can wear us down? You're just wearing me out.
ReplyDeleteBased on Hercule's logic, Honey Boo Boo is gonna find herself dead any day now. She's got a nutty pageant mom from a dysfunctional family and the mom was living with a KNOWN sexual abuser. That momma surely loves Honey Boo Boo conditionally, doncha think? Shouldn't that child be taken into protective services based on the "facts" about pageant mom syndrome, the dysfunctional relationships, the boyfriend/molester? That mom, according to Hercule, is ripe to become a violent murderer. Sorry for this sarcasm, but really I think Hercule should move on and try to save Honey Boo Boo while she can be saved. Wait...will it be a pageant mom accident or a first degree thing? I can't decide which one fits with Hercule's profile of pageant moms. Oh, and don't forget about those cheerleader moms, and the school teacher moms that want their kids to be star students. Shoot, there are a lot of crazy moms out there now that I think about it.
DeleteDid anyone else watch the Barbara Walters Investigation Discovery program? There was nothing investigative about it.
ReplyDeleteIt was awful. Baba WahWah all but drooled on him. The gist was the poor couple were victimized by the media and then exonerated by Mary Lacy. John has obviously retained the lessons learned from his p.r. guy back in 97.
ReplyDeleteAnd still...no tears from John. No comments about his daughter missing out on proms, homecoming, dating, college, boyfriends, marriage, children of her own, grandchildren for him.... no remarks about what this did to his wife and his son. Its all about him. Poor John, have to find a way to go on, coming out on the other side. This is NOT how any innocent father I know who has lost his sweet baby girl refers to his ordeal.
DeleteI watched the Barbara Walters special and purposely paid close attention to Patsy and John. Patsy seemed very sincere, grieving and in pain. John seemed cold, disconnected, stoic. He said not one thing that seemed loving or emotional. The DNA found is still puzzling to me.
ReplyDeleteDid you see how he patted Patsy's hand in the 2000 interview clip rather than take her hand? Kinda like you'd pat an alligator, and with about as much warmth. The guy had no idea about how to express real emotions cause he does not have any. He did perk up a little when his new trophy wife came out. Ugh. Self-absorbed and just smarmy.
ReplyDeleteI did see that hand pat. I had the same reaction. If my husband ever patted me like that, in private or public, I would die of humiliation. Women aren't babies or dogs, we don't want to be patted for comfort. I did really look for sincerity, and felt total sincereness from Patsy. As for the trophy wife, did you see her shift her eyes at one point, as if she didn't really believe what she was saying? She knows he's smarmy too.
DeleteI don't think he's broke, either. He may be down to his last couple mil, but he's not broke. That was a custom-tailored blazer he was wearing, they travel frequently and I read they had a lavish wedding in Charlevoix.
DeleteHe implied that he took a beating on the sale of the Boulder home, but that wasn't the case. Lockheed Martin bought it for fair market value in accordance with his employment contract.
DeleteCheer up everybody. Hercule is going to come on here any minute and explain to us morons what behavioral clues we overlooked or misread.
ReplyDeleteI, too, watched the Barbara Walters special. I was disappointed that the bulk of the show consisted of clips from her first interview with both John and Patsy in 2000. The press release about this show implied that the show would be all about her NEW and recent interview with John. That interview ended up being the last 10 minutes of the show and it included his new wife coming out to sit with him. She said nothing; only looked at him with adoring eyes . . . what a fool.
ReplyDeleteTwo things did catch my attention and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on them. First, when describing the blunders of the Boulder police, Barbara said that the bowl of pineapple had been cleaned BEFORE police could examine it. I thought they did examine it and, in fact, founds fingerprints from both Patsy and Burke on the bowl. Second, when describing how John found Jon Benet's body, they said he turned on the light of the wine cellar and then saw her body. According to Fleet White, John did not immediately turn on the light but John still saw her body instantly and knew it was her. Did Barbara Walters get her facts wrong on these two points or am I mistaken?
bb
No, you're right, Barbara was wrong.
DeleteAnd another thing I thought stood out was when Barbara goes off camera at a point where Patsy is beginning to break down. Patsy then puts her head down and starts crying. I found this to be completely believable and not an act. The reason I say this is because I was drawn into her grief watching her and I felt so bad for her. She really did love that child more than life itself and for that reason alone, I do not believe she hurt that child, whether accidentally or intentionally.
ReplyDeleteJohn, on the other hand, showed little, if any emotion, other than patting Patsy's hand and saying, "It's OK. Jon Benet is here with us."
I've been lurking these past few years and thought it was time to chime in.
ReplyDeleteThere is a fact has been ignored. This has caused some difference of opinion as to what time of the morning Mr. Ramsey swept up the glass from the broken window. Some believe he must have swept up before the police came to the house. Others believe it was later, perhaps in response to something Mr. Ramsey heard the police talking about. Fortunately the missing fact lays the dispute to rest.
The missing fact is that Fleet White went down the basement to search for Jonbenet "within fifteen minutes" after arriving at the Ramsey home.
We learn of this fact from Judge Carnes' commentary in Wolf v Ramsey. Fleet White makes the statement that he went down the basement within 15 minutes in a sworn deposition. This is not one of Judge Carnes' interpretation of what the evidence means but rather she is simply taking notice of Mr. Whites statement in his deposition. All of this is widely available on the net.
Mindful of this fact, it's obvious that if Mr. Ramsey swept up the glass from the broken window, he did it before the police showed up. If this doesn't immediately gel, I'll walk through the steps to the conclusion.
We know Mr. White arrived at the Ramsey house a few minutes after 6am. If we add 15 minutes to that we can place Mr. White in the Ramsey's basement a few minutes after 6:15.
We know the police arrived at the Ramsey's door at one minute prior to 6am, so we know the police were already on scene when Mr. White arrived.
We can infer that Mr. Ramsey was preoccupied with the police for some time, showing them the ransom letter, explaining that all the doors and windows were locked, explaining why he hadn't set the burglar alarm, and answering questions put to him by the police.
It's obvious enough that Mr. Ramsey was upstairs dealing with the police when Mr. White went down the basement to search for Jonbenet.
We know Mr. White visited the train room on his early morning search. We even know, because he tells us, that he picked up a piece of glass and moved the suitcase. We can infer that if there had been multiple pieces of glass on the floor, Mr. White would have noticed that.
We also know that Mr. White was in the train room again around 1 pm, in the company of Mr. Ramsey. It was at this time Mr. Ramsey related to Mr. White the story about having to break in when he forgot his key. This story would not fly if the glass hadn't been swept up by 1 pm. But, we can also infer that there was no noticeable difference in the amount of glass on the floor in the afternoon as compared to the early morning. Mr. White would have noticed the discrepancy and would have reported it. So, we can conclude that the glass was gone when Mr. White entered the train room a few minutes after 6:15.
Now, I've learned over the years that people hate to give up their POV even if the facts and logic are not on their side. So at least a few of you will insist that Mr. Ramsey met the police at the front door before 6, then excused himself leaving his wife to deal with police. He hustled downstairs swept up the glass, hid the glass, or disposed of the glass somehow, then hustled back upstairs rejoining his wife and the police and that he did all this sometime between 6 am and 6:15 am without arousing the suspicion of his wife or the police.
For those of us who prefer common sense it's obvious Mr. Ramsey was dealing with the police when Mr. White went on his solo search of the basement. So, the glass had to be swept up before Mr. White went downstairs. Since the police arrived before Mr. White, the glass must have been swept up before the police showed up at the front door.
-Blue Note.