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.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Open Thread -- Part Seven
Comments are steadily accumulating. Time for another open thread.
"DocGNovember 21, 2015 at 12:44 PM Blue Note: "Reviewing Patsy's testimony, she says that Linda and Mervin were planning to wash windows at some point. Patsy tells the police that they (Linda and Mervin) would have known whether or not the window was broken."
Good catch! I'd forgotten about that segment of her testimony. Once again she mentions Linda, and also Mervin. If she's lying, she knows full well that they won't corroborate her story. So why bring them up at all, especially the part about them washing the windows, why not just say she has no idea who might know about that window being repaired, or even being broken in the first place?
If she's lying she is certainly a terrible liar. Which suggests to me that my initial assumption about John persuading her to lie is most likely wrong, and that some form of gaslighting is far more likely. And Blue Note, I'm sorry if you can't accept the gaslighting theory. I can. And obviously others here can as well.
Gaslighting is the implanting of false memories and it's been documented, so it's certain possible. I see no reason to assume Patsy was in that part of the basement very often during that period, if at all. Linda certainly was. And if Linda washed the windows, she would certainly have noticed a broken pane. We have no reason to assume Patsy would have noticed that the pane wasn't broken, as it's unlikely she'd have paid attention to that window or gone anywhere near it. I see no point in insisting that she did."
I'm fine with people being able to accept gaslighting, people accept a great many things including IDI, BDI, etc. I'm just trying to point out that it's actually fairly unlikely.
I think the point of suggesting (as opposed to insisting) that Patsy noticed the window is simply that it's very likely she was in that part of the basement a few times, at least. Possibly quite a few. I mean it's her house, and her children play in that room. So it seems unlikely to me she'd never have gone in there, but if it makes gaslightling more plausible for you, and you want to assume she rarely if ever went in that room, fine. It seems an unlikely assumption to me.
She certainly is a terrible liar. But maybe she's lying under duress. If she had really believed the story she would have told police that Linda and her husband could confirm the window had been broken, she wouldn't be uncertain about it if she had been convinced she swept up glass.
Another thought on the subject. John uses an excellent strategy in timing the break in story to coincide with Patsy being away at the vacation home in Charlevoix. Since she wasn't home she couldn't confirm or deny that John broke the window during the summer. But he switches to a poor strategy by including her in the sweeping up, which she might very well know she didn't do. That's pretty risky, and it makes me think gaslighting is improbable. But threatening to implicate her would still work.
In fact it would have made more sense for John to say he swept up the glass himself. It might have been a bit out of character, but it would make Patsy unable to confirm or deny the story to that point. All that would be left to do is convince her the hole had been there for months and she just didn't notice it (unlikely enough in my book) Claiming to have swept up himself would also negate the need to explain why he didn't tell Linda about it, or why Linda left it for anywhere from a couple weeks to almost a couple months, depending on what part of the summer the "break" happened. You see Patsy also has to believe that her housekeeper left the glass laying around for Patsy to sweep up upon her return from Michigan.
You weren't far off in thinking she was persuaded to lie, it's just the method of persuasion that we differ on.
Also, there is no timing issue with a threat to implicate her. John needs no rationale for why he swept up glass on the 26th. The "conversation" you had imagined in "The Basement Window -Part 4" could run along very similar lines for the most part, it's just that it would be less cajoling/pleading and much more threatening.
"if it makes gaslightling more plausible for you, and you want to assume she rarely if ever went in that room, fine. It seems an unlikely assumption to me."
I'm not assuming anything. I just see no reason to assume, as you do, that she spent much time down there. Nor am I in love with gaslighting as John's method of manipulating her. It's just that this strikes me as the most plausible explanation in view of what we know.
As for John threatening to implicate her, that just doesn't strike me as plausible. Such a theory implies that John would have confessed to Patsy that he's the killer after all. Why would he have been so foolish as to do that? It would have been far riskier than simply lying about breaking the window, as she could easily have taken Burke and fled the house at that point, heading straight for the police station to report his confession.
While it's true he could have claimed to have cleaned up the glass himself, he still needed Patsy to confirm the window had been broken all that time, so he would still have needed manipulate or gaslight her.
As for the timing, you still don't get it. John's reason for breaking the window had nothing to do with anything that was said or done the following days, weeks or months. It was his immediate fear that his incomplete staging would be recognized as such by the police that very morning. The bit about the police being convinced that they are in it together would have been his reason for wanting her to support his story, NOT his reason for cleaning up the glass. (Assuming that what I wrote initially was how it happened. At this point I think gaslighting is more likely, but there's no way to tell for sure.)
"John's reason for breaking the window had nothing to do with anything that was said or done the following days, weeks or months. It was his immediate fear that his incomplete staging would be recognized as such by the police that very morning."
Yes, I understand. But the break only needed to be "old". IOWs John could have claimed to have broken in the previous week, not several months ago, as far as fooling the police. But he placed the time of the break at "last summer" in "July or August" and I think it's obvious that he did that because Patsy and the kids were in Michigan so they couldn't deny that it happened at that time. Otherwise why not just say it was last Thursday? His reason for sweeping up the glass was to make the break appear "old", rather than something that was done the night of the murder. Since he evidently timed the break for when Patsy and the kids were out of town, it seems odd he didn't time the clean-up the same way.
He didn't really need Patsy to confirm the break, he just needed her not to deny that it ever happened, hence, timing it for the summer while she was away. He needed her to go along with the window being broken for several months, but this does not require her personal involvement, in fact it's better if he doesn't try to involve her. His options, as far as gaslighting, were to convince her she was personally involved in something that never happened, or that she'd been unobservant of a broken window that she was not involved with in any way. It's pretty obvious which one has the better (still slim) chance of success. Yet you have him choosing the option with that's least probable.
Why would John confess to her? He wouldn't if it were at all avoidable. He may have had no option. It was either confess and threaten, or go to prison. It wouldn't have been very risky, as he could simply deny it, it's not like he'd do it in front of witnesses.
Patsy was very vulnerable. With John ruled out, and herself sort of "ruled back in" (even though initially the "experts" thought she was unlikely to be the author) she might well have found herself on trail for a murder she didn't commit. She was unlikely to "rat" on John since her best chance was to support his story
-Blue Note
PS, I'm done with this topic now, I'll let you have the last word if you want it. I will reply to one or two other comments then I'll go back to lurking. Thanks for the discussion.
One more quick post to clarify what I'm saying. If John threatens to implicate her and she decides to go to the police John's response is simply to blame Patsy for the murder. At that point the case becomes "he said/she said" with each blaming the other for the murder. The result would probably be what happened in real life, both are indicted. But Patsy is in a much more vulnerable position with respect to being convicted. John after all has been ruled out. He'd have to take his lumps with lesser charges; aiding and abetting, evidence tampering, and maybe a few more, but that beats a murder rap. Were he put on trial today his defense would probably be PDI, but the statute has run on the lesser charges.
The sentence for sexual abuse of a child would range from probation and counseling to fifteen years, depending on the number and nature of the charges. He would also lose his reputation, his job, his family and a good part of his fortune. CC
I have found little to sway me in the last year away from the idea that Patsy was keeping an eye on John suspecting he was the one playing with JB by molesting her in her sleep,and caught him that night ,and in the slightly dark room with the flashlight struck at Johns head only to hit JB instead . This way John convinced Patsy that she was guilty of murder , He proved to Patsy that JB was dead by putting the electric train track to JBs body-- Now a pack was made , Patsy doesn't tell on John and John won't tell on Patsy-- It still fits the indictment . Burke doesn't know anything., But by now ,he must be highly suspicious ----robert
What does "molesting her in her sleep" mean? Who fed her pineapple? Why was Patsy carrying a flashlight that was kept downstairs in the kitchen? Why did Patsy call 911 rather than going through with the kidnapping ruse?
Thats where the flashlight ended up--molesting her in her sleep means just that, child sleeping and being probed by John to get off doesn't mean she would wake, he know just how far to go. By all accounts she was fed pineapple by Patsy--Patsy called 911 near 6 AM on the 26th when she should have called 6 or 7 hours earlier. so you tell me about a kidnapping ruse---robert
No, that's where the flashlight was kept- in a drawer in the kitchen. No need for Patsy to creep down two flights of stairs to get it to surprise John in the act when she could just flip on the lights and accomplish the same thing.
As a female I can assure you that any female would awake when being "probed".
There are no accounts of Patsy or anyone feeding her pineapple.
Why bother with an elaborate ransom note if you're just going to call 911 at 6:00 or any hour?
Yes. Regardless of whatever scenario one might like to cook up that "explains" why the two of them would cooperate to stage a kidnapping, there is no way Patsy would have called 911 with the body still in the house if she were involved in the staging and knew the note was phony. This realization is the basis for my conviction that the note could only have been written by John and no one else was involved -- meaning he must have been the killer as well. And if you read the blog post titled "Patsy's Role," you'll learn of all the many details of the case that convinced me of Patsy's innocence.
Patsy pre planned the use of the flashlight-- Maybe it was ordinarily stored downstairs ,she took it with her to bed with the intent to catch John. In order to get down the JBs bedroom without turning on a light ,which previously at other times John had time to zip up with the warning of a light coming on down the hall or staircase--- I don't buy that part about a child waking while being assaulted , depends on the degree of assault, violent assault yes--- robert
"Don't you think she would have figured out that he killed her and then either told on him or at least left him ?"
She was heavily medicated for weeks after the murder and by the time she came out of it she was informed that John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note. Since no one at the time questioned that decision, why should she? If John didn't write the note and she didn't, then there must have been an intruder.
"Don't you think she would have figured out that he killed her and then either told on him or at least left him ?"
Yes. I think she probably at least had serious suspicions. If things played out the way I think they might have, she would have had no doubts.
DocG approaches the case as if Patsy has slipped her brain into neutral and can't find the clutch. I see her as a smart confident woman who knows some of the details don't make much sense. I don't see her as being asleep at the switch for years and years.
Would she leave him? Depends. If it played out the way I suspect, she might have had little choice but to stay in the marriage. There is also Burke to consider. If they divorced, and she's the prime suspect it's unlikely she'll get custody of Burke.
"there is no way Patsy would have called 911 with the body still in the house if she were involved in the staging and knew the note was phony"
Your case relies on this. While it makes a great deal of sense, all that is needed to get John off the hook is one juror who will entertain the idea that there was some plausible reason for not dumping the body, despite both of them being involved.
If might be suggested for example that one or the other was chickening out on driving around the countryside with a dead body. The other might have been willing to do it together but not alone.
Of course there are still problems, why would they not destroy the note and display the body as a sex killer victim? But as you often say yourself, they weren't master criminals and they couldn't think of everything.
As someone else pointed out several weeks ago, the reason might be exactly that no one would believe they'd call 911 under those circumstances so how could they be guilty?
It's not that I disagree with you on this point, I'm just trying to show how fragile the case against John is. Even the solid portions of your theory are vulnerable to reasonable doubt. It only takes one juror to get John off.
"John would have to be blaming Patsy for the murder with him assisting in the cover up in order to get acquitted."
Yes, exactly. And I can't see him doing that, because he'd be confessing to a huge lie, not only to the authorities but to all the many people who supported him. Why would any juror want to believe any version of what happened as related by such a notorious, shameless liar? Reasonable doubt is one thing. Shamelessly pointing the finger at someone else without proof is another.
If I could get it as fact that JB was wiped down ,it would ask the question of -- Did John Ramsey go for it one last time? That is if he was planning a premeditated murder -- robert
My gut reaction, for what little gut reaction is worth, is no. If he premeditated the murder would he be in the mood? We don't really know, and truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but I'd find it hard to believe being in the mood while simultaneously intending to murder.
If premeditated, I doubt he'd want to risk contaminating the body with semen, We know in fact there was no semen on the body. So, as I see it premeditation doesn't fit very well with having a last fling. But who can really say?
It is widely accepted she was wiped down. But the smears left behind are blood and only blood. The smeared areas lit up under a special light at autopsy. The police initially thought that might indicate semen, and they were right to be suspicious. But that is just an initial indicator. Chemical testing later showed it to be blood. If the wiping was not thorough enough to eliminate all traces of blood it's unlikely that it would have eliminated all traces of semen, imo.
Thats why I asked the question-- John being smart enough not to have one last go at it in a premeditated murder situation -- The more I think about it ,The more I think about what I've read about Dr. B--- 3 phone call to him from Patsy on the 17th all within an hour . Its hard to get at the truth as to what info. Dr. B . had . I understand he protected his file on JB. and there was a claim some info. was stolen . Leads me to speculate that Dr. B could be a make or brake lead into a motive for JBs death. ---robert
DNA is recoverable from digital penetration, and according to an article I just read in Forensic Magazine from earlier this year, lasts at least 12 hours. I think JR went to school on the OJ Simpson trial and John Douglas' s "Mindhunter", and knew better than to leave DNA. In an abundance of caution he wiped her down, did not molest her the night he killed her BECAUSE it was carefully premeditated. Why combine molestation with a murder intended to cover up molestation? CC
Wiping her down PLUS redressing her in a fresh pair of panties strongly suggests an attacker concerned about spilled semen. No way to prove that, but it does seem likely, at least to me. My guess is that semen was spilled, some got onto the panties, but none got onto her body. He got rid of those panties. And, just to be sure, he wiped her down.
I do not agree with your assumption that he redressed her. All he needed to do to stage a sexual assault is roll down whatever she was wearing. I do not believe a man intent on murder to cover up incest who had schooled himself on DNA to the point of wiping the body to prevent touch DNA would indulge in one last little fling before tightening that garrote. CC
Some avenues to take here--- Premeditated without one last fling vs a fling that he went ape on . I have not formed an opinion on John acting alone. To me what has merit is Patsy after consulting with Dr. B 8 days before ,took the flashlight with her each night to catch him. We all know that by law Doctors are required to report abuse of this nature. But that is at the decision of the doctor. Here is a wealthy rich client , took it upon himself to save face for the family and maybe it would go away. He can not let any negative finding out then or now . assuming he may be still practicing . He may someday be a key man helping with this case
You're new here, welcome. You should read Doc's theory of the case in his first 2 blog posts from 2012 to get a idea where we're coming from. If youre interested in the JonBenet case its worth it.
"The sentence for sexual abuse of a child would range from probation and counseling to fifteen years, depending on the number and nature of the charges. He would also lose his reputation, his job, his family and a good part of his fortune."
If John was planning this murder for some time (days, weeks) is it reasonable to assume that he wasn't too worried about JonBenet just blurting out that she was being molested? In other words, his concern was that her upcoming medical exam would lead to her being questioned by authorities, rather than JonBenet taking it upon herself to tell another family member that John was hurting her.
If John had time (days, weeks) to plan this murder, does it make sense that he felt more comfortable bullshitting his way out of a fake kidnapping/ransom note/bank withdrawal/murder than an accusation of child molestation?
"How would that work? If the child was alive, she could speak when questioned."
Right, JonBenet would be questioned after her exam and blame John. By bullshitting I don't mean getting away with it entirely, I mean spinning the truth, deflecting blame, manipulating people and hiring the best attorneys money can buy.
The stigma - not just of child molestation, but of incest - would still ostracize him socially, affect his professional reputation, and cause his wife to divorce him. Good attorneys may have been able to make a favorable deal with the notoriously liberal DA's office, but he'd still be ruined.
He'd survived the death of one daughter, knew he could survive another. CC
To be clear, I think John is far and away the strongest suspect. I'm just thinking about premeditation.
If I spent days/weeks planning to kill my daughter, never in a million years would I think this plan would work. Maybe that's why he's still walking the streets and I'd be arrested within 48 hours.
I doubt that this was planned weeks or even days in advance, because JonBenet could have spilled the beans at any time and ruined him. If it was pre-planned at all then imo it would have been a day in advance tops -- and he would have been under a lot of pressure due to their post-Xmas travel plans. True, it seems as though he came up with a fairly convoluted plan that would have required a lot of bullshitting even if it went as planned. But I can't think of any alternative that would have been safer for him. He couldn't just claim some kidnapper snatched her on the street. Not after the Susan Smith case. And what would he do with the body? Every alternative was risky.
To be clear, I'm a far stronger proponent of premeditation than Doc. In any case, had PR not called 911 and the FBI gotten involved in the purported kidnapping, JR too may have been arrested in 48 hours. CC
That's how it starts. Wait 'til you read the whole blog, start to finish, then read Doc's e-book. Then it'll be Thomas's book, and Kolar's, and ACandyRose. You'll get sucked in, just like the rest of us! CC
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure Doc even agrees that JBR was abused prior to that night, much less that it was the motive. He hasn't weighed in on it lately, that I'm aware. Regardless, it isn't necessary to his basic theory. CC
You are right, CC -- motive is not basic to my theory. As with a great many cases, motive is extremely difficult to establish. The law demands proof of guilt, not proof of motive, thank goodness, or lots of criminals would go free. The facts of the case point squarely in John's direction, but they tell us little about motive. But motive can be inferred from these facts, and that's what I tried to do in the chapter I recently added to the new edition of the book, "A Motive for Murder." Silencing a child who's been molested is, first of all, the only motive for murdering a child like JonBenet that I can think of and secondly, it's consistent with the evidence of prior molestation. But there is non way to prove it. Fortunately there is plenty of other evidence of guilt.
Because once he becomes convinced she's going to "tell" on him any day now, time becomes of the essence. A week of planning would be a week during which the ax could fall.
And why do you think he became convinced she was going to "tell on him any day now"?
From what I've read less than a third of sexually abused adolescents self report, even fewer younger children. JBR, by all accounts, adored her father, missed him terribly when he traveled, and might have unwittingly welcomed any attention from him. CC
This is why I have a hard time believing Jonbenet was going to tell on him. I've heard mentions of Patsy calling the pediatrician multiple times in the month of December. I obviously don't know any of what was said or the details but my gut tells me something made John nervous. I think he decided to do something about it within a couple days of the murder. Again this is all speculation but it's what makes the most sense to me. -SM
PR called the pediatrician three times within an hour the evening of 12/17. I think she told her husband she'd be taking JBR in after the Charlevoix trip and the trip on the Big Red Boat, and he knew he had a week to act. CC
Agreed. She may also have not told John on the 17th but a few days later. We will never know when John found out or how long he had to make the decisions he made. All I know is that Docs theory and looking at all the known concrete evidence that it all points to John. -SM
All true, except the part about concrete evidence . . . there still isn't any. Even Doc's invaluable re-including of JR as the writer of the RN and the tracing of the font doesn't help, as handwriting analysis is so subjective. There is still nothing beyond reasonable doubt with which a prosecutor could make a case. CC
CC: "And why do you think he became convinced she was going to "tell on him any day now"?"
I don't think he would have murdered her if he wasn't convinced she was about to reveal his secret. I imagine it must have been something she said. And once he was convinced he would have need to act quickly.
"All true, except the part about concrete evidence . . . there still isn't any."
You're confusing a smoking gun, which is rare in almost all such cases, and a case based on circumstantial evidence. Can it be proven that there was no intruder? Imo, yes. Can it be proven that John lied? -- especially about the broken window? Imo, yes. Can it be proven that John wrote the note? No, but it can be demonstrated that he should not have been ruled out, which would be huge. And the many similarities with the legal document would also be huge. That, plus the fact that the victim was sexually molested -- and the evidence consistent with prior abuse, would be enough to make a solid case, imo.
Once the absurdity of any intruder theory is established; and once it's demonstrated that John's story about breaking the window earlier is a fabrication; and once the extreme unlikelihood of Patsy calling 911 if she had written the note is established, then John's lawyers would have quite a dance to dance when pleading reasonable doubt. Most court cases are decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If a true smoking gun exists, the defendant usually cops a plea.
The problem with your circumstantial evidence - other than the abuse - is that it applies equally well to Patsy, a fact upon which any decent defense attorney would capitalize.
It would be utterly impossible to prove abuse at this point, much less prove that John was the abuser.
Then there's the Lacy letter.
Believe me, Doc, no prosecutor would touch this case at this point, particularly a prosecutor in Boulder County. CC
I agree, the probability of getting a conviction is virtually nill. While it might be interesting to make John explain himself, trails are not conducted just for curiosity.
As with so many aspects of the case, there is a split of professional opinion on prior molestation, and that's shorty after the murder. All these years later it would be impossible to prove. Then, as you say, it still has to be proven that John was the one, not someone else.
Then there's the Lacy Letter, as you say. Unless the prosecution can figure some way to keep that from being introduced into evidence at the trail, an "exoneration" letter is pretty powerful.
This case will never go to trial.
"The problem with your circumstantial evidence - other than the abuse - is that it applies equally well to Patsy, a fact upon which any decent defense attorney would capitalize. "
I've lately started to look at this JDI theory not from the point of view of putting John on trial, but from the pov of Patsy using it as a defense (a moot point now obviously) For me it casts doubt on some details that DocG is insistent on. (and not just the gaslighting)
So from your new pov, what gives you you pause? I cannot set aside the idea that Patsy would have called 911 that early if she was involved. I can't see any reason whatsoever that would make her want to make that call until JB was removed from the house. So you see, its not just the handwriting, which is very very convincing to me after seeing exemplars of John's, its the complete picture of: 1) no intruder 2) Patsy called 911, 3) John found the body and moved it, tampering with evidence 4) John was in the basement during the morning, giving opportunity to stage/unstage or tamper with the crime scene 5) John lied 6) John tried to high-tail it out of town on a plane within hours after finding his daughter dead (if that is not conscientiousness of guilt, I don't know what is), 7) John hired high powered attorneys 8) John was the most capable of sexual abuse 8) Linda Arndt was literally ready to pull her gun based on the behavior of John right after he found the body 9) Even the Ramsey's best friends like Fleet White knew he was behaving as if he had a lot to cover up 10) remarks by friends that JB was clingy to Patsy in the weeks before the murder. In fact, that clinging might be a reason John realized that he needed to act - her complaints about privates bothering her, the resumed bedwetting, the whining/clinging to her mother -- the remarks to about a secret visit from Santa indicating that she (JB) was not keeping their "secrets" to herself.... If a prosecutor put on a trial, and if there was a jury, I would vote for John as guilty. LE
The Lacy letter was just plain stupid. Even when it came out, I was already knowledgeable enough to know that touch DNA can be transfer DNA. It would be so easy for experts to cast doubt on what Lacy concluded and make her look like the fool that she is. Not only that, I don't think any police or FBI types would support her exoneration of the Ramsey's.
I'm assuming this question is directed at me. What gives me pause is the small details. I'm not arguing for Patsy's guilt. I'm trying to stay within the confines of DocG's theory.
Looking at it defensively, Patsy, were she on trial, would have to explain some lies.
The biggest one is the lie about sweeping up the glass. Would it be possible to convince a jury that Patsy was gaslighted into claiming she did something that never happened? She says one thing at the interviews but she'd have to sing a different tune at her own trial, if her defense were JDI. How can Patsy prove gaslighting? How can she even suspect gaslighting? By definition a false memory, once implanted, is believed by the gaslighting victim. I suppose it's possible to be "un-gaslighted" but what's a jury going to think? I suspect they'd think she lied at the interviews because she was involved in the coverup and/or the murder. Her sudden "ungaslighting" would seem like a lame tactic to shift all blame to John. .
Wouldn't she be better off, defensively, trying to sell the jury on the idea that she'd been coerced into lying for John? There's no definitive answer, I just think it's useful to stop and look from a different perspective. It's not so much a question of what actually happened as what a jury would likely believe.
She might sink John but she'd probably sink herself in the process.
There are other lies, or at least seeming lies, that Patsy must explain if she is using a JDI defense.
If the jury believes it's Burke's voice on the enhanced tape, then why would an innocent Patsy lie about him not being up until later? On a JDI defense, what explains this apparent lie? Nothing, as far as I can see. Is it possible to explain this away? I doubt it. I'm assuming the tape actually exists and would be played for the jury so they'd come to their own conclusion. DocG prefers to dismiss Burke's voice as "cross talk" but I suspect the jury would think it's Burke. If so, how does JDI work out for Patsy in this instance? If John did it and Patsy is an innocent bystander, why did she lie?
Or the lie (possibly) about putting the oversized bloomies in the drawer. No other oversized bloomies were found in the house, much less the drawer, so I think a jury would likely want an explanation from Patsy. How could she be telling the truth if no oversized panties were found in the drawer? As far as I can see, neither DocG nor anyone commenting on the blog has satisfactorily explained why John would redress JonBennet in oversized bloomies, or what John apparently did with them, or why. Patsy doing it is equally inexplicable, if not more so, but that doesn't get her off the hook. She said she put the oversized bloomies in the drawer. They weren't there. Unless her lawyers can explain what happened the jury is going to think she's lying. Is she going to tell the jury John must have taken the entire package from the drawer, used one pair to redress the body, then wandered over the the neighbors trash can to dispose of them? Good luck with that.
Taking a different perspective doesn't necessarily cause one to come to a different conclusion about who the murderer is. It's just that the plausibility is different when you are playing sleuth compared to playing defense lawyer.
I don't disagree with voting for John as guilty, but that's not the equivalent of acquitting Patsy. I think it would be very hard for the jury to see her as completely innocent of all involvement, since her defenses to the "lies" are not very plausible.
If John were put on trial, it would be a huge mistake for his lawyers to accuse Patsy, because 1. his credibility would be shot to Hell; 2. the jury would expect some sort of explanation from John, since he was hardly an innocent bystander. If Patsy killed JonBenet then John would know exactly what happened and why and an explanation from him would be in order. While it's true that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defense, if the defense wants to point the finger at someone else they would be expected to offer some sort of proof -- without such proof reasonable doubt can't convincingly be invoked out of thin air.
Now if Patsy were put on trial (hypothetically, natch), the situation would be entirely different because 1. she was the one who made the 911 call -- why would she do that if she were involved in a staged kidnapping? 2. she was in plain sight of authorities during the entire morning, while John was out of sight for over an hour with clear opportunity to stage; 3. aside from some clumsy and amateurish attempts to link her to the ransom note, there is no evidence whatsoever of her involvement; 4. lying to support John's version of what happened is hardly proof of Patsy's guilt and the prosecution would be required to furnish proof, not conjecture -- she could have argued, as I have, that she trusted John because he'd been "ruled out," so agreed to support his version of what happened since she knew he must be innocent.
As far as the question of the case ever going to trial, I agree that, as things now stand, that's extremely unlikely. However, things can change. Renewed interest in the case via high powered and aggressive media reporting could change everything.
Ok, Blue Note. If I understand you, you are assuming that if Patsy were alive, and went on trial, that she alone would be on trial (not John)? And in that case, she would turn on John and blame him? I tend to believe, based on the grand jury indictment, that both of them would have been put on trial. Had that happened, I think they would have taken their chances with the IDI case. Obviously, by hiring Lou Smit to pursue that angle, they were preparing for an IDI case should Hunter have taken them to trial. Now, in the unlikely case that only Patsy was taken to trial, I tend to think she would not suddenly be convinced that JDI and want to pin this on him. Again, I think she would have gone with "I didn't do it, John Ramsey didn't do it, and we don't have a clue of anyone who did do it." I think she really believed in John's innocence. There is always the chance that the defense could take the route that was taken with Casey Anthony's defense - create a scenario where someone else "could have" done it, thus creating reasonable doubt for the defendant but not actually making an out and out case that another person (in the Anthony case, that person being her father) did in fact do it and it could be proven. The Anthony case indeed set a bad, bad precedent for a defense based on fantasy theories. So, back to your thoughts: I think Patsy's defense would have stuck to IDI, no matter how far fetched it might seem. She might have lost, and gone to jail. Something tells me she would have taken jail over nailing her husband or her son, because she would have truly believed them to be innocent. As for present day: John could be taken to trial, and I have no doubt he would blame Patsy if it could save his hide. At this point, Burke's testimony might be what spares him or gets him convicted. However, Burke's bread is buttered by John- I'm sure he expects to inherit something when John dies. (I don't believe for one second that John is broke). So Burke will side with John, even if John blames Patsy, or he'll plead having zero knowledge of anything. Bottom line, as a jury member I would not believe John's story no matter what story he told. -LE
I need to add the fact that JonBenet was sexually molested (fact!) and the strong evidence of prior molestation (not fact, but powerful evidence nonetheless). "Now I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who would have been more likely to sexually assault the victim? A woman (who happened also to have been her mother); a nine year old boy (with no history of either violent or sexual behavior); or a middle aged male?"
THERE WOULD BE NO JURY. Google "defendant's right to bench trial" if you doubt my legal opinion. John's a bright guy; no way would he want the emotionalism and preconceptions of a jury. With a bench trial Doc's case, as it stands, doesn't stand a chance. CC
" Ok, Blue Note. If I understand you, you are assuming that if Patsy were alive, and went on trial, that she alone would be on trial (not John)? And in that case, she would turn on John and blame him? "
Almost. I'm trying to imagine how Patsy would fare at trial basing her defense on a JDI theory. I'm pretty much imagining the trial happening within a reasonable amount of time after the murder, not all these years later after they had backed the intruder theory. If Patsy were still alive and the trial started in 2016 I think the'd both be stuck with an IDI defense.
Mostly what I'm trying to do is not look at the case as a sleuth, but rather as a juror in Patsy's trial. How does that different perspective influence what's believable?
It seems to me JDI might be consistent with her lies about the window, the panties, and Burke being awake at the time of the 911 call. IMO she'd have to say she was coerced into lying. If she wasn't coerced (threatened with implication in the murder) she'd have to be gaslighted into all 3 lies. As you already know I find gaslighting as unbelievable as John's break in story. I can't imagine using it to explain all 3 lies.
Using an IDI defense, how does Patsy explain these lies? There doesn't seem to me any real explanation for the lies that also fits with IDI.
DocG and some others who've posted would say she isn't lying about putting the panties in the drawer. But the panties aren't there, or anywhere else. In a JDI defense she's got to explain what John did with them. (In IDI she could say the intruder took them as a souvenir) John, in his trial, would of course deny redressing JonBennet.
I don't think she would actually use a JDI defense even if she feels it's true. It's almost impossible for her to use JDI as a defense w/o appearing to be an accomplice.
"I tend to believe, based on the grand jury indictment, that both of them would have been put on trial."
Yes, they'd both be indicted and tried. Possibly separate trials though. They wouldn't necessarily need a "joint" defense. They'd be free to rat on each other if they thought that was their best chance. Johns in the stronger position as he's been ruled out.
They both would have the best chance, in my non-lawyer opinion, of getting off completely by using an IDI defense.
LS was hired by the prosecutor's office. Whether or not he was working for the Ramseys under the table is open to question. It would explain a lot. But there is no evidence of that, so we must leave that aside if we want our solution to be evidence based.
Also, if LS is on the up and up, then his IDI theory should be re-examined because it must make more sense than we are giving credit for. We don't have to agree with it to give it it's due. A man with his experience and reputation is not easily fooled. Why does LS think IDI?
"As for present day: John could be taken to trial, and I have no doubt he would blame Patsy if it could save his hide."
For me it's not so much a question of what John is willing to do but what's in his best interests. I have no doubt he's willing to point the finger at Patsy but that's probably not his best defense. I think he'd go with IDI.
JMO, but I don't think Burke knows anything that could convict John. If he did, then John would never have let him go to FW's house at 7am.
You're assuming Burke would lie for his future inheritance. That's always possible, but it isn't giving Burke much credit. I tend to think he'd have come forward, as an adult, in the interests of justice. Hard to say. Money can be a powerful influence.
We get it, believe me; new blood always welcome. Put your initials or your dog's name on the end of your posts, and happy reading. Then comes the fun part: thinking it through and coming up with your own ideas.
"From what I've read less than a third of sexually abused adolescents self report, even fewer younger children. JBR, by all accounts, adored her father, missed him terribly when he traveled, and might have unwittingly welcomed any attention from him."
I agree about children/teens not reporting abuse. But I can tell you, from personal experience, that no child welcomes that kind of attention, even from a loved one. Even young children know that it is wrong.
At this point, Doc, the most you can hope for is getting enough public outcry to reopen an investigation, look for more substantive evidence or your smoking gun.
I can think of several avenues of investigation, and your clever posters here can probably come up with many more.
Jeffco Airport would have records of employees on site Christmas day. Perhaps someone saw him in the private hanger. It was never searched, nor was John's office downtown. Maybe his first wife, or the girlfriend from the first marriage, or the alleged mistress during his second would now be willing to talk. If you'd give up your insistence that JBR was about to tell and entertain my theory about the pediatrician, Dr. Beuf's records regarding those three calls on 12/17 might be helpful.
You need more. No judge could fail to find reasonable doubt as it stands. CC
I'm not an investigative reporter, and certainly not a private eye. Nor am I on some sort of crusade to nail John Ramsey. My goal in life is simple: to make a million dollars selling my book and buy a ranch somewhere in Texas, surrounded by trigger happy gun nuts.
That's a joke, icadgi. (in case anyone didn't get it).
Seriously, my intention all along was simply to get everything I knew about this case off my chest and out into the world, and have some interesting discussions regarding the various details. And that's what's happened, and I'm OK with that. Sure, I'd love to see John put on trial -- and made to pay for his horrible crime. But I'm not in a position to unearth the necessary evidence. Hopefully some ambitious cub reporter on the Daily Planet (or some comparable news venue) will be inspired to give it a shot.
I cheerfully contributed my $6.50 to your retirement fund, and wish you well with the rest of it . . . though I think, the way things are going, you could retire in place and still be surrounded by trigger happy gun nuts.
Clearly, you've accomplished some of your stated intentions as well: the conversation here has been ongoing for what, four years now? And who knows; Perhaps a Jimmy Olson with a fearless publisher will appear. In the meantime , good job, and thanks.
Just please promise me you'll give up your fantasy of a jury trial . . . it makes me grind my teeth. CC
Well, CC, if you're a defense attorney, I'll defer to your wisdom as far as jury vs. judge is concerned. However: I'd have thought John would have a better chance with a jury rather than a judge, however, because all he'd need would be one single juror to buy reasonable doubt. With a judge you just never know what he'll think and every one is different, no? As I see it, a judge with no prior bias in favor of any particular theory of the case would be unlikely to buy reasonable doubt because 1. an intruder clearly makes no sense (as the grand jury decided); 2. John would never try to pin the murder on Patsy -- I just can't see him doing that -- he'd stick with the intruder theory no matter what. I'm surprised you can't see that. In any case, you seem to know more about these things than I do, so I won't insist.
And thanks for the $6.50. Every little bit counts. (Isn't it just 6 even?)
Judges don't hold much truck with competing theories or conflicting expert testimony, and would likely not consider either in his verdict. Their mandate is factual evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. There's precious little of the former, and the latter would require him to find reasonable doubt. All good news for John. CC
And finally, I'm not a defense attorney - wrong hat. A prosecutor would have to consider every possible defense in the preparation of his case, and PDI with a dead P would be viable. Personally, I agree with you he'd stick to IDI and thank god for Lou Smit and Mary Lacy on his way out the courtroom door. CC
In reply to CC: "Jeffco Airport would have records of employees on site Christmas day. Perhaps someone saw him in the private hanger. It was never searched, nor was John's office downtown."
The GJ did subpoena records from the hangar which John said he visited on Christmas Day.
"Dr. Beuf's records regarding those three calls on 12/17 might be helpful."
One area that would be worthwhile to explore, I think, would be examples of John's spelling errors and patterns of spelling errors. On the only very brief writing exemplar of John's that most of us have seen, he spelled two words wrong--separate and occasions. I believe he spelled them as seperate and occassions. Compare them with the spelling errors in the ransom note. That would be telling, I think. kp
And who in the world says "and hence", which is in the ransom note. John Ramsey does, that's who. Love to know the percent of the population that uses or has used that phrase ever in their life.
LE: You can't blame the Anthony case for the third party culpability defense - it's been around a long time. We used to call it the SODDIT defense (some other dude did it) or the Two Dude Defense. The reason it's been around so long is that it works. It would work for John Ramsey, too. CC
CC, you're right. I think the fantasy part of that defense was putting out the idea that Casey's father molested her and that made him a bad guy in the jury's mind - made him capable of killing Caylee. I had not thought of Doc's idea, which is that Casey was covering for someone - interesting idea! If she was covering for her father, shame on her for not exposing him for the murder and getting justice for her child. Then again, she may have had a role in hiding the body and decided to keep quiet for that reason. The chloroform that was alleged to have been used to make Caylee sleep is why most people thought Casey was involved. -LE
Thanks CC, you are right. I guess the fantasy part of the Anthony case was the idea that her father was molesting her; a fantasy that put him in a bad light with the jury, making the idea that he could have done it more plausible, even though there was no no real motive, and it was Casey's car that smelled like there had been a dead body in the trunk. It seemed so outrageous to make the SODDIT defense using your own father! So sad that so many people get away with killing children because of tactics like this. - LE
Lou Smit was not bent. One of his most famous cases in the Springs involved finding evidence of an actual intruder in a case wherein his PD peers believed it to be an inside job. He was looking to pull a similar rabbit from this hat.
There is no reason to assume the BPD collected all the panties from all the drawers in JBR's bed/bath. They were looking for semen and blood stains and probably attached little importance to clean pairs, much less brand new pairs still in plastic packaging.
If I understand you correctly, you're putting forth a "what if", in this case, what if Hunter had signed the true bill returned by the grand jury and taken the Rs to trial? CC
"There is no reason to assume the BPD collected all the panties from all the drawers in JBR's bed/bath. ..."
The evidence list says they counted 15 pairs. That's a pretty good indication that they collected all of them, otherwise they couldn't get a count.
"... They were looking for semen and blood stains and probably attached little importance to clean pairs, ..."
Why would they be looking for semen? There was no semen on the body. If they attached little significance to clean pairs why bother counting them or taking them into evidence?
"... much less brand new pairs still in plastic packaging."
If you are suggesting the police overlooked the remaining package, and that possibly that is the package returned some years later, ok. But, the police would still know that the package wasn't in the underwear drawer. They still know that one or the other (Patsy or John) removed the entire package from the drawer.
And they didn't know anything about size 12s in plastic packaging until Patsy spoke about them in her police interview in 4/97, well after they'd searched the house and released it to the Rs. CC
Never mind, Blue Note. After re-reading, I think your bottom line is still threat vs gaslighting. My point above is that there weren't three lies, just one, and I don't think Patsy thought she was lying about the window.
If the term "gaslighting" offends you, dump it; the net effect is still the same - John's explanation made sense to her and she saw no need to question it. It fits the pattern of their marriage; threats do not. CC
We don't really know anything about the "pattern of their marriage". It's just conjecture, as is gaslighting, as is threat.
What we do know is that Patsy is a smart, capable, competitive and confident woman. Not a good subject for gaslighting.
We also know that if DocG's version is true then John elected to try to convince Patsy she was involved in something that never happened rather than trying to convince her that she forgot about something she was never involved in. Doesn't really make much sense, imo.
If the questions can't be resolved satisfactorily the jury is likely to view them as lies.
We know John ruled the roost. She wanted a different house, he wanted to be close to town. She didn't want to go to Michigan for Xmas, they were going. One of the old babysitters said her main job was to keep him from being annoyed. If she's so smart and confident why would she put up with threats especially if like you say he told her he killed the kid.
Blue Note: "We also know that if DocG's version is true then John elected to try to convince Patsy she was involved in something that never happened rather than trying to convince her that she forgot about something she was never involved in."
As I understand it, gaslighting is defined as the implanting of a false memory as well as convincing someone to forget what actually happened. And it's not a myth, it's been studied and verified. Patsy was in an extremely vulnerable position, partly because she'd been so heavily medicated, and partly because she was widely regarded as the culprit, not John. It's not hard to see how he could have manipulated her into believing him since she "knew" her daughter could only have been attacked by an intruder, thus John must be innocent.
Thus some sort of manipulation, possibly by gaslighting, possibly by other means, makes far more sense than threatening her, which would be tantamount to a confession of his own guilt.
"If the questions can't be resolved satisfactorily the jury is likely to view them as lies."
Well, Patsy won't be the one on trial, will she? And if she was lying about the window, then so was John -- so clearly his lawyers would never even suggest such a thing. Thus no jury would be asked to make such a decision, since there would be no incentive for either the defense or the prosecution to bring it up.
"What we do know is that Patsy is a smart, capable, competitive and confident woman."
I think you're giving Patsy too much credit. Patsy always struck me as a someone you could pull one over on. John seems like the smart, capable, competitive and confident person. Imagine if their roles in this case were essentially reversed: John innocent and Patsy guilty. I think John would have called her out on her lies and sent her to prison.
Patsy was from a small town in West Virginia and she met John a month after college, the only job she ever had was working for him. He made a lot of money and let her spend it, obviously she took direction from him. I don't know where you get all this smart confident bs. Your obsessing over some stupid meaningless detail again Blue Note.
"As I understand it, gaslighting is defined as the implanting of a false memory as well as convincing someone to forget what actually happened."
Not exactly, it's eroding someone's confidence in their memory. It can involve forgetting what happened (when something actually did) or it can involve implanting a false memory. But it's a process, not a one time trick that can be used in an emergency. It takes repetition.
"And it's not a myth, "
Never suggested it was.
"Patsy was in an extremely vulnerable position, partly because she'd been so heavily medicated,"
That's largely irrelevant as he could neither gaslight her nor threaten to implicate her unless she were off the drugs and able to think clearly. He could not afford to let her go to the police interview in a haze.
"and partly because she was widely regarded as the culprit, not John. It's not hard to see how he could have manipulated her into believing him since she "knew" her daughter could only have been attacked by an intruder, thus John must be innocent."
Actually it is hard to see how he could do that, because he's suggesting to her she was keenly aware of a broken window but then forgot all about it until he reminded her of it. This might be possible by slowly and steadily undermining her confidence in her memory with small matters. But it's on ongoing effort. It's not a trick to pull out of a hat at the last minute.
"Thus some sort of manipulation, possibly by gaslighting, possibly by other means, makes far more sense than threatening her, which would be tantamount to a confession of his own guilt."
As I see it her vulnerability makes threatening to implicate her likely. She would have had suspicions anyway. He'd have to have admitted guilt, but what choice was there?
If he had claimed to sweep up the glass himself I could, possibly, buy the idea she was gaslighted. He could say he himself forgot to mention it to Linda, and it was weeks before Patsy would return home so he'd have an excuse for forgetting to tell her too. Yet the reality is Patsy claims to have swept up glass herself. She'd likely know she didn't, but even if she thought she did, she'd know that Linda would have reported it to her. She'd know she herself would have wanted it taken care of. It's involving her that makes gaslighting so unlikely. Yet she claims involvement in something that never happened. That, to me seems consistent with "you play along or else you'll go down with me."
"Well, Patsy won't be the one on trial, will she? And if she was lying about the window, then so was John -- so clearly his lawyers would never even suggest such a thing."
I thought I had made it clear that I was looking at the case as if Patsy were on trial. It's clear enough that a dead woman won't be on trial. If she were on trail herself, she'd have to explain why she lied. If she were basing her defense on JDI then she has the window lie, and possibly the panties in the drawer lie to explain. Under JDI or IDI she has the "Burke was in bed" lie to explain.
"Thus no jury would be asked to make such a decision, since there would be no incentive for either the defense or the prosecution to bring it up."
Clearly if both R's were on trial their best bet would be for both to use an IDI defense.
Doc: In your 12/3 post to me you said "an intruder clearly makes no sense (as the grand jury decided". I went back and took another look at their true bill, and what they actually returned was two charges of child abuse resulting in murder against PR and JR. The interesting thing about this, imo, is that this was the fourth of seven possible charges. Safe to assume, I think, that the first three were Murder One, Murder Two and Manslaughter. It appears they felt the Rs bore some responsibility for the death of their daughter, but the evidence they saw was not sufficient to cause a majority to believe they actually committed the act.
They could have disagreed about which was the perp, as you've theorized, or some of them may have held out for an intruder, and the abuse leading to murder charge reflected a feeling the parents failed to protect their child from outside danger. CC
My take: If they suspected the Ramseys of conspiring to cover for the actual murderer, they'd have charged them with conspiracy. Unfortunately, all that was released was the true bill. If we had access to all the documents we'd have a better idea of what the jury had in mind. But to me it seems clear that the indictment reflected the inability of the jury to determine who did what, plus their conviction that, regardless of who did what, both Ramseys should be held responsible.
Yes. Likely they didn't see enough evidence to convince them the Rs, jointly or severally, committed murder. They could have chosen to charge them and let the DA sort it out at trial.
I wasn't suggesting that the GJ suspected the Rs of covering for a murderer, Doc. Conspiracy is a plan made between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
A prosecutor, in my state, submits a list of possible charges to a GJ. Since this GJ chose the fourth and seventh possible charges, it's likely the first three were some form of murder, five and six further charges of abuse. CC
"They could have disagreed about which was the perp, as you've theorized, or some of them may have held out for an intruder, and the abuse leading to murder charge reflected a feeling the parents failed to protect their child from outside danger."
How would parents have protected their child from "outside danger"?
Doesn't it seem unlikely that any members of the GJ who might have held out for an intruder would probably not have wanted any charges brought against either parent?
It seems likely to me that the GJ dismissed intruder theory all together.
Prosecutor Kane said not calling a GJ together soon after the Rs’ non-cooperation was apparent was a big mistake. By the time a GJ was called, and this is according to Thomas’s book, the DA traded calling them to the GJ in return for additional interviews with the Rs. The reasoning is that a subject cannot be compelled to testify to something which might incriminate them under the 5th amendment. Though a hired attorney can’t speak at a GJ, I understand he can be present with his client in Colorado (correct me if I’m wrong with this) and would undoubtedly influence which questions their client could answer.
In contrast, the FBI felt the Rs needed to be put under oath in a GJ as soon as possible.
Doc, you have done an excellent job analyzing this case. Better, I think, than the investigators assigned to it.
Obviously, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to indict JR, but in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence that you see that points to him? Handwriting? Behavior? Other?
Thanks for the kind words, Tom. To answer your question, here's what I regard as the strongest evidence:
1. The lack of conclusive intruder evidence. An intruder who leaves both a ransom note and a dead victim is clearly not trying to hide the fact that he was in the house. So why don't we see any conclusive signs of his presence?
2. The fact that the note was written on a notepad from the house. A kidnapper would have prepared a note in advance, a pedophile wouldn't have bothered to write a note, and someone out to frame John would have forged his hand. Thus the note is clearly fake, part of an attempt to stage a kidnapping. I see no other possible interpretation.
3. The fact that the body was hidden in the basement. An intruder would have had no reason to hide the body. If both John and Patsy were involved, they too would have had no reason to hide it. But if one spouse were involved and the other not, then the reason for hiding the body becomes clear: it was hidden so the innocent spouse would not find it.
4. Since there is no conclusive intruder evidence and no intruder scenario makes sense, we are forced to conclude JonBenet was killed by someone in her own family.
5. Patsy called 911 with the body still in the house, completely negating the staging implied in the note. This tells us she could have known nothing about it. By process of elimination, we are forced to conclude that John wrote the note and kept this a secret from her.
6. The fact that JBR was sexually molested points to John and John only. A 9 year old with no history of violent behavior or interest in the opposite sex is not likely to molest a 6 year old girl.
7. Finally, John's obvious fabrication of his story about breaking the window months ago is clearly an alibi, pointing away from his breaking the window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder breakin. That story was contradicted by the only eye witness in this case, the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh.
I'll add that there is more than enough evidence to indict John Ramsey, on the basis of probable cause. The problem would come later, during the trial, as it might not be possible to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there is no smoking gun.
Your theory is great, Doc, but your legal skills are lacking. It may have been possible to indict JR in the late nineties, but no responsible prosecutor would do so now. CC
You underestimate the power of the press. What's needed is not a prosecutor, but an ambitious and persistent journalist. Not that I'm particularly optimistic, but I'm not ready to give up, either.
But your feckless journalist will require a media outlet. I believe you underestimate the depth of fear JR has instilled in the publishing and television industries by successfully settling seven defamation lawsuits, including those against Time, Fox, Court TV and St. Martin's Press.
I've tilted at my share of windmills - you go, Doc. CC
Linda Arndt is a piece of the "smoking gun." No matter how they try to discredit her, she has powerful first-hand testimony. Her belief in JR's guilt is powerful.
The more I read about narcissistic personality disorder, the more this family fits the bill. The dynamic, with JR, at the helm is the crux of this case. It's nearly textbook NPD family, almost like a family suffering from addiction or alcoholism. There are character traits, and roles are distributed within the family. JR is the narcissist. PR is the scapegoat. She is an easy target, because she is honest and kind. In the NPD mind, it makes her a "push-over" and easy to discard like trash. She enjoyed relating to people, by being honest and vulnerable. Most people would appreciate someone in life holding their hand and saying "me too" but the NPD sees a good person as weak. PR became the "scapegoat" in the family dynamic, by default.
The children all had roles, too. Someone was the over-achiever, the perfectionist. Someone was the clown. Someone was the attention seeker, problematic child. They all had a role. No one is safe in a Narcissistic home--not safe emotionally, mentally or sexually/physically, unfortunately.
When the NPD gets in a jam, they call on the "flying monkeys." The flying monkeys are a very important part of the NPDs circle. They immediately swoop in at any request, and the hoovering begins. The flying monkeys are convinced by the wicked witch. The NPD can make a sweet Dorothy look like the wicked witch. They are clever and wicked. This is the narcissist's hidden talent. Nothing is as it seems. The rules do not apply to them.
The scapegoat always suffers. An honest person is no match for a spouse with no conscience. The spouses of narcissists are often sick. They become physically ill and suffer from all sorts of illnesses, due to emotional abuse and distress and fear. PR has the classic "gaslight" look. Her face speaks of confusion and fear, yet determination to make things right, to make things better, to make things look good. Linda Arndt also has this look. She is suffering. She is traumatized. Again, honest, empathetic people do not stand a chance against a wicked narcissist with money to waste and an endless crew of flying monkeys.
What can we find out about the children? I would be interested to know their role in the Narcissist Father family dynamic. I can't discredit the fact that if the father was doing sick things, maybe the sons were doing sick things, too. There are poor boundary issues in an NPD home. Incest runs in families, unfortunately. Secrecy is the main ingredient. These people cannot tell the truth. They are morally insane.
I am not suggesting that anyone did anything, other than JR, that night. I'm suggesting that we can't discredit that the males in the home were allowed to have bad habits, while JBR was alive.
Normal people do not lie. Normal people do not care about reputations. Normal people do not remain calm and cordial during a kidnapping.
Normal people get angry seven times a day.
PR got upset and showed a range of emotions, which should have been viewed as HEALTHY. JR stayed flat, calm and one-dimensional and has remained flat,calm and one-dimensional, since 1996. This should be viewed as UNHEALTHY and a RED FLAG. The other siblings have remained silent. Secrecy is the main ingredient. This should be viewed as a RED FLAG.
H, are you saying only John has NPD and the rest of the family developed patterns of behavior around that? I have never heard of a NPD family. Most people say living with a narcissist is "crazy-making." I don't think their own personalities change because of the narcissist, but rather they are extremely frustrated when having to live with them.
No, I'm saying that PR married into a family that was already established. JR had older children. PR had to step into a routine and behaviors that had already been established for quite some time.
We all have narcissistic tendencies, but narcissistic personality disorder is rare. It effects less than 1% of the population, and mostly males. Please, keep reading and researching the NPD and the family dynamic of an NPD family; i.e. children of narcissists, adult children of narcissists, etc.
There are adults out there in therapy, right now, who are just finding out that this is what was wrong with their mother or father. They have been totally unaware of what narcissism even was. It's the (nervous) feeling of knowing something was off or wrong or cruel or cold or deliberately critical, impossible to please, judgmental, dishonest, harmful, resentful, hostile, hateful, etc. about their parent, caregiver, etc.
PR was the perfect magnet for a narcissist. She was a people pleaser. She enjoyed making things look good. She made John look good. She craved acceptance and liked "fixing" things and dolling things up. She was trusting, to a fault, unfortunately. She believed everything he told her, faithfully, and she believed in JR like she believed in her bible. She may have been very easy to take advantage of, unfortunately. If she were a raging psycho, I doubt the housekeeper would have had the nerve to ask her to borrow money. LPH probably felt a sense of friendship with PR. By all accounts, PR was easy to approach.
Please, keep studying this area of personality disorders and family dynamics. Thank you for your response.
H: That's really good stuff. You should copy and paste it at the end, where everybody will see it. Not too many people scroll backwards for comments and this is a very good picture of Patsy.
Thank you. With the negative trolling that seems to be relatively new to this unique and incredible website, your nice comment is a breath of fresh air!
There are lots of nice, receptive people here. Hercule just brings out the worst in everybody because he's been rude to and offended so many who disagreed with him or asked him to back up his opinions. He'll go away again soon and everything will go back to normal.
Friends, friends with a legal background, legal team, friends in Atlanta, friends at CNN, friends with power and prestige. Those are the "flying monkeys."
The only honest people in this scenario are The White's and Linda Arndt. They both came to the same logical conclusion.
Within two days, Dec. 28th when the crime officially became a homicide, JR hired Pat Korten, a Washington D.C. Media Consultant within a "crisis management" firm to handle all things related to the media and to strategize how to spread stories of the Ramseys innocence within the media.
CC, I replied to your comment on the hangar records as well as added some additional info on the activities of the 17th. Though I added it today, I'm new here and hit the 'reply to your post' instead of just replying to the thread. It is published 'up-thread.'
CC, I don’t believe there is a complete list of what they subpoened. But Matt Sebastian of the Daily Camera wrote about the aviation hangar records subpoened here: http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/13rams.html From personal experience within the medical field in the 90s I can tell you that doctors used answering services to screen calls. The service protects a pediatrician from having to answer calls from panicked parents 24/7. I don’t know the name of the answering service, and Dr. B is retired now. But more importantly, because BPD were unable to locate phone records for the entire month of December for the Ramseys, I knew that LE had likely obtained info from an answering service who, by legal protocol, must keep a record of emergency after hours calls.
Thanks. Doc has referenced a Daily Camera Ramsey archive, but I believe it may have been taken down; at any rate, I can't find it.
Know anything about exhumations? The forensics people I've spoken with all equivocate about exhumations and sexual abuse. Not that it matters at this point, but I was curious how long such evidence would last postmortem. CC
I'm wondering how bad the window staging really was.
The major objections to the staging are the spider web and the dirt not being disturbed.
I'm wondering if the spider web might have gone unnoticed by John. It was attached to the grate and lawn so it might have been in the shadows even if the basement light was on. Did the police test the visibility of the web under the same light conditions? If John was unaware of the web he could not have considered it when deciding to un-stage the window.
You have said that you think John scooped packing peanuts from the window well into the basement. This scooping either would or wouldn't have disturbed the dirt, depending on how hard packed the dirt was. Apparently it was pretty hard packed, since it wasn't very disturbed in Steve Thomas's opinion.
But don't you think that John would have been aware of this hard packed condition when he did the scooping? Would that make him think his scooping motions sufficiently disturbed the dirt?
Also would there be a difference between how hard the dirt was at temps near or below freezing and temps that are higher during the day with the sun out. This might have been something Steve Thomas didn't consider. When Lou Smit slid his butt across the sill the dirt was disturbed but that was quite a while after the night of the murder, and during the day.
So I'm wondering if John really thought the staging was inadequate? Did he un-stage as a response to the 911 call? Or did he un-stage earlier? Perhaps he already planned on blaming someone with a key?
I can't shake the idea that if he knew of the spider web he would have knocked it down with a broom. And if he knew the dirt should be more disturbed he could have done that while scooping.
I can't believe the family would actually live with a broken window for several months. So, John must have broken it the night of the murder, and must have picked up the glass that night/morning.
I think the reason given for John's unstaging is that once the police arrived and started taking note of the state of the outside window grate, the window itself, and taking pictures, he knew this focus was going to be a problem for him. Remember, he thought he had all day to go over the scene he set and deal with the remaining details. He had to unstage when the police showed up and quickly started scrutinizing. Personally, I don't think these police were as inept as everyone says. I just think the leadership failed to provide support for Linda Arndt. At that point, maybe they doubted already that there had been a kidnapping.
When the investigation is bought, the evidence does not matter. The information that the public received was under unimaginable control. Money matters. I think people have a real Polly Anna view of our legal system. JR was off limits from the beginning. We have been so easily manipulated into even considering that a frazzled mother could or would sexually assault her six year old child.
As Doc has stated, JR was ruled out. Why? Follow the rabbit hole, if you must, but it's not necessary. Money, power, "friends" who accepted money over justice in all the "right" places.
Who did that leave remaining? The mother and the brother...when your arms are tied behind your back in your investigation, what do you do? You try to solve the case, the best you can, with what you have.
Blame the only available character: the mom.
JR hired the best of the best. PR did not have the "dream team" that JR had. She was left totally vulnerable to attack, because JR's legal team was better.
Sick. sick. sick. JR is sick. His money was pulling the strings, behind the scenes, even without his wife's knowledge. Poor Patsy.
Burke's testimony to the GJ, according to his attorney, was that he woke to the sound of raised voices during the 911 call and thereafter pretended to be asleep.
The BPD collected clothing with bodily fluid stains, as specified in the three search warrants. They would not exceed the scope of the warrants and so did not collect unstained panties or new panties in plastic packaging. They simply left them in the drawer.
John had four months between the murder and the first police interview in which to manipulate Patsy's story about the window. Nothing spur of the moment about it. Had John carefully coached her or threatened her, she would not have said Linda helped clean up the glass, which John would know Linda would deny. In her mind, that's what would have happened.
You contradict your own threat theory, Blue Note, by admitting Patsy was a strong, confident woman. Such a woman would not be swayed by threats from a man who admitted killing her daughter; she'd get outta' Dodge. CC
CC, I agree that at this point no prosecutor in Boulder would dare to try the case without some hard evidence.
Regarding exhumation, there are too many factors influencing decomposition to know absolutely how one would find the body. (E.g., amount of preservative used in embalming, the material utilized in a grave liner if the coffin was placed in one, the weather, etc.) I’m no expert. However, it’s been said the environmental factors in Georgia (warm and humid) would likely not have helped to preserve any body evidence.
Btw, and iirc, it was said the rest of the extra large panties, still in plastic wrapping, had been sent from Georgia by someone helping to unpack belongings of the Rs (or so it was alleged). A Daily Camera story in 2003 mentions this: "Also, investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the DA's office now has them, Wood says)." -joe
You misunderstand the reason it takes time. It takes repeated attempts to undermine someone's confidence in their own memory. It takes multiple instances. If John wanted to be sure Patsy would play along he'd have to undermine her confidence repeatedly, with multiple examples of her bad memory, not just repeatedly tell her she swept up glass.
John did have months. And we don't know whether or not John undermined her memory during this time with multiple instances. But we have no evidence of that.
Clearly Patsy went off script in suggesting Linda followed with the vacuum. Linda is going to deny that whether it's gaslighting or a threat, so yes, I agree, John would never have told her to say that. That would be as true for gaslighting as for a threat of implication.
If John had gaslighted her about sweeping up glass he'd have been careful to also implant the false memory that Patsy herself had run the vacuum. He'd have told her it was Linda's day off and that would explain why Linda had no recollection of vacuuming glass.
IMO it's unlikely that he would have tried to convince Patsy that she was involved at all. It would be much easier to convince her she took no notice of a broken window that she had no involvement with. As I see it, it would be difficult to convince her she swept up glass then completely ignored the broken window thereafter.
"In her mind, that's what would have happened."
In her mind, she would have wondered why the hell the glass had been laying on the floor for weeks or months waiting for her to sweep it up upon her return from Michigan. Why do they have a housekeeper? In her mind she'd have tasked the housekeeper with the entire job. In her mind, had she been keenly aware of a broken window (she'd have to be keenly aware of it if she swept up glass from right underneath it) she'd have wanted it fixed and would have seen to it that it got done, yet it wasn't done. In her mind she'd find it odd that she'd swept up glass then completely ignored the window thereafter.
If John had gaslighted her, and had months to work out the details of how to do it, he'd have claimed to have swept up the glass himself. The story needs an explanation as to why John didn't have Linda clean it up in July or August. The story needs an explanation as to why the glass was left on the floor until Patsy and the kids returned from Mich. Had he claimed he swept it up himself he wouldn't have to explain those points.
She couldn't get out of Dodge. John had been ruled out. The focus was on her by default since John couldn't be the killer. Her only chance of not going down for the crime was to support the IDI theory, and to do that she'd have to support John's window story. If she didn't the police would feel that "The Ramseys" (or possibly just Patsy) had staged the window and thus were guilty.
Perhaps threat is too strong a word. John would have made it clear to her that if she didn't support his story they'd both be in jeopardy, her even more so than him.
It could have gone down more or less as DocG writes in Basement Window Part 4. But, as I've pointed out in the past, the fact that he sweeps up the glass the morning of the 26th clearly tells Patsy, if her brain isn't in neutral, that he's the murderer.
But I'm glad you agree she's a strong confident woman. She's an unlikely subject for gaslighting.
I have not been doing well in keeping my promise not to talk about this anymore. I will renew my effort to ignore this topic.
I do not agree that Patsy was a strong, confident woman. Those are your words. I pointed out that believing so contradicts your threat theory, which I do not find credible. CC
after reading almost half of everything on this site , it's funny how "carefully chosen facts" explain DocG's theory of this planned murder
1-it's clear that the 118 000$ on the RN has only 1 goal ! ...to give the idea that a JR working colleague did it , if as lately DocG still think the RN was prepared in advance , why that he never really speaks about it in the theory he supposed ? ...is the police investigation got something from that prepared in advance crime? 2- Lou Smit argument about uses of the taser gun by the killer "Lou Smit made up this argument from nothing" DocG answer couples of months ago...lol 3-Patsy would have never abuse her daughter like that!! lol!! so DocG fans believe that it is impossible that a little girl killed by her mother , would never been abused by her father not long before the event ? come on ! 4-a computer screen can help to be more precise but there is no way you can disguise a writing by doing this !
... if you think it's not possible to be sexually abused and being killed not much longer after by someone else , you know nothing at all ! or you are an idiot !
my previous post : about my no 1 point of the 118000$ note , i was not clear , sorry , yes DocG speaks in detail abour this prepared note but he never took seriously the fac that JR could have prepared physically something else at the office or at the home of a working colleague !
Somewhere on these threads is the answer to a question I have ,but to save me time in finding it ,post a reply to this question-- If John planned the killing without any of Patsys involvement ,why the indictment of Patsy? I see references to one covering for the other--I see references to the GJ not knowing which one did what,but that both was guilty . There much have been testimony at the GJ that included Patsys guilt ---robert
A major component of this blog/theory of Doc's is the fact that John was ruled out based on bogus handwriting analyses, there was no evidence of an intruder, and Burke could not have done this. Doc's book is called "Ruled Out..." So you need to go to the beginning of this blog, as recommended, and read the posts that Doc asks everyone to start with in order to understand the overarching argument.
Obviously you believe the answer to the question is in the recommended reading-- Why not just answer the question in YOUR understanding of the answer. I have read the recommended reading and failed to grasp the answer. Likely because my comprehension ain't that good-- Thats why I ask for help
We don't know what evidence the grand jury saw because those proceedings are still sealed. The indictment they handed down was not for murder, it was for child abuse which caused a murder. That's really all we know. Everything else is just speculation.
Robert, I think I did answer you as best I could. Its as simple as this: John was "ruled out" due to the handwriting. There was no real physical evidence of an intruder. There were reasons to be skeptical that Burke did it. That left Patsy. Patsy was indicted because investigators backed into her as the culprit, but then when they realized that Patsy doing this alone did not make total sense, John was named as being "under the umbrella of suspicion." So they both were indicted, to let the grand jury figure who should be charged with what. As you know, the GJ didn't figure it all out. Beyond this, I don't have time to summarize the very thorough analysis done by DocG.
Plenty helpful-- Child abuse leading to murder as apposed to child abuse leading to an accidental death. --I have been stuck on an accidental death which is not murder, only staged as a murder
1. Who knew of the $118000 Christmas bonus? 2. Was the made and people around thoroughly investigated? Any fingerprints and or DNA on the note? 3. Is writing new line with an offset to the left so common and with which generations? 4. Can one's handwriting be forged to look similar? Can the note be a forgery to look similar yet to be different in trying to hide, i. e. purposely made as to be the same just when trying to hide? Who can do so? I guess many but who knew the handwriting? 5. Why was the previously broken window not repaired for 6 months? Who knew of this window other than one who checks just before? 6. Why was a blanket from the laundry used and not a blanket from the bedroom other than when in the bedroom the person did not know a blanket would be needed. 7. Why was not JonBenet pushed through the window and or pulled with the available rope? 8. Were there any cars around? Any guest to the neighbours and or friends and relatives? 9. Does the governor have a power to force an FBI investigation due to the obvious lack of knowledge of the local police? Who does?
1. JR and a few people at Access Graphics 2. Yes. 3. Margin alignment became more widespread with computers. 4. Probably yes to all. Family members would know each other's handwriting. 5. It wasn't broken for 6 mos. 6. Blanket was from dryer outside JBR's bedroom where it was always washed and dried. 7. Because she wasn't kidnapped. 8. No one in neighborhood reported observing anything helpful. 9. No. FBI for federal crimes like kidnapping. No one.
"The indictment referred to 'murder in the first degree,' which rules out accidental murder."
As you know, first degree murder is differentiated from second in that it is willful and premeditated.
Time to concede premeditation, Doc, and perhaps take another look at those three calls to the pediatrician on 12/17, and admit JR likely began thinking about it eight days before he did the deed. CC
To believe anything other than the BDI theory is utterly ridiculous! IMO Everything points to Burkes involvement and John and Patsy covering it up. Cookie
I have devoted the past 20 years to investigating and learning everything I could about this case. If you stick to the evidence and the interviews statements and behaviors there really is only one person who could have done this and only one person the Ramseys would have protected to this extent. BDI was my theory long before Kolars book. Its the only thing that makes sense. Cookie
"BDI was my theory long before Kolars book. Its the only thing that makes sense."
I commend you on your perseverance, however, I believe you are mistaken. Burke is a more viable suspect than John, but I cannot conceive of any BDI scenario that makes sense unless he wrote the ransom note, which is certainly not feasible.
I give you credit for being able to discern that Patsy lied too many times to be considered a victim of gaslighting, especially the lie to one of her close friends that screens had been removed from the windows to be professionally cleaned, yet she told investigators that John had removed them to gain access into the house on several occasions through several different windows. Gaslighting? Not a chance.
Except that it doesn't make sense to risk indictment for a crime you didn't commit. BDI explains everything except why John and Patsy would both be willing to risk prison, life sentences or possibly execution, for a crime they didn't commit. Burke was beyond the reach of the law.
Yes, Hercule, can you supply us with a reference? I'd never heard that story either. The screens are in fact present in the window well, they can clearly be seen in the photos, so why would she lie about that?
Look at how convinced we are that Patsy did not write the ransom note. Now imagine if you actually were Patsy: you would literally be 100% certain that you did not write the ransom note. If I'm a smart, confident woman who above all else wants justice for my daughter's murder, these "handwriting experts" can go **** themselves.
Look at how many lies we are pretty sure John has told. As Patsy, witnessing John firsthand, I'm going to be even more sure he is lying. Again, if I'm a smart, confident woman who above all else wants justice for my daughter's murder, I'm getting my own lawyer and calling out John on all of his BS.
NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE doubted the decision to rule John out, that was never questioned by anyone other than myself and Fausto Brugnatelli -- so why would Patsy question it?
Why wouldn't Patsy question John being ruled out? As you've so ably pointed out, Patsy was ranked as a very low probability for being the author, yet as the investigation developed she was seen as being the author. Then when D. Hoffman got involved his paid for experts all saw Patsy as the author. Cina Wong was 100% certain. Patsy would have little faith in the handwriting experts as their analysis applied to her so I don't see why that wouldn't extend to John being ruled out.
Ubowski from the CBI was the first to analyze the RN, and he determined it to be PR's writing within a week of the crime. This was promptly leaked to the R's legal team by Pete Hofstrom.
Everything we know about Patsy tells us there is no way she'd have continued living with John if she suspected him of murdering her daughter. She accepted the decision to rule John out because 1. everyone else accepted it; and 2. that's what she wanted to believe. Also, the same "experts" who ruled John out also claimed it was unlikely that she wrote it, so she would have had no reason to doubt them. It was the "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffman who pointed the finger at her.
Hercule is making things up again. I just read the 3 interviews with LE and what she actually says is that screens were off the windows and stored in basement because John didn't like a "cloudy" view. She says nothing about him getting in several times through different windows.
I'm still waiting for our so called psychology expert to explain why he called John Ramsey psychotic in an October post. I looked it up. Psychosis is a break with reality, delusional, serious mental illness. Not even close, Hercule. I'm surprised you have the nerve to post here at all, much less make up more nonsense.
Yes, I am well versed on psychology terms so there is no need to enlighten me on the definition of psychosis. I am afraid you took my statement out of context. Since you insist upon bashing my credentials and demanding an explanation then I shall give you one with the hope that it will extinguish your obsession on the subject. Let us take a look at my comment from October:
"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."
I was not stating that it was my belief that John was suffering from psychosis. I was stating it from the viewpoint of all the bloggers who feel that John is psychotic.
Since you have already made up your mind that I am a fake, your interpretation of my statements will undoubtedly be negative and accusatory. My advice is to stop obsessing over my qualifications and focus on the case. Perhaps that will help you understand the points that I have attempted to make.
If you mean that no one has specifically mentioned John being psychotic then you are correct. There have been some bloggers, however, that have implied it. Some have hinted that John is delusional in how he views himself while others have asserted that he is a narcissist, which of course would mean that John would appear to be psychotic on the surface but in fact could not be if that were the case because he would be fully cognizant of what it is true and not true or real and make believe.
I played golf this afternoon with a shrink...a real one, and I showed him this paragraph. He said it was gibberish, laughed out loud at the "appear to be psychotic on the surface" and he said the words narcissist and psychotic should never appear together in one sentence.
". . . Perhaps that will help you understand the points that I have attempted to make. "
There is no failure of comprehension on our part, Hercule. Rather, it is - again - a failure on yours to make a valid point, and to back it up with anything but empty opinion, false assumption and outright misrepresentation of facts.
No one is obsessed with you or your qualifications, and judging by the thousands of posts on this blog, we have no difficulty focusing on the case. CC
When I am absent, your focus on the case is keen. When I share an opinion, however, the focus shifts dramatically, as your last comment exemplifies my point.
"...and he said the words narcissist and psychotic should never appear together in one sentence."
Did you not read my entire comment or is your reading comprehension lacking? I clearly said:
"... John would appear to be psychotic on the surface BUT in fact could NOT be if that were the case because he would be fully cognizant of what it is true and not true or real and make believe."
My reading skills are just fine, you phony windbag. You conveniently left out the first part of your sentence: "...others have asserted that he's a narcissist, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD MEAN that John would appear to be psychotic on the surface. .."
Because some people say he's a narcissist you say he appears "psychotic on the surface", what does that even mean? He appeared kind of schizophrenic? Kind of paranoid? Kind of had delusions and hallucinations? And NOBODY NOTICED??? You're a fake, and nobody believes anything you say.
I really do not expect you to comprehend anything I post so why should my last comment produce different results? It is quite maddening at times to make a point on this blog. I might have had better luck trying to putt with a driver, eh Golfguy?
As CC told you, it is not a failure to comprehend on our part.
Golfguy makes a good point, and quotes the definition of psychosis as including schizophrenia, paranoia, delusions and hallucinations that I found online, too.
So it's a fair question. Why would you say narcissism, a Cluster B Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5, cause someone to display symptoms of psychosis "on the surface"? How is it that as Golfguy asked no one noticed?
I really don't care if John is found to be a narcissist, a psychotic, even a borderline personality. It does not matter. If he killed Jonbenet, the evidence of sexual abuse means at least indicates that he is a sexual deviant. Of all the child abusing, sexual deviants in the world, I'm sure there are a variety of diagnoses or classifications for these people. Sicko control freaks can be found to have no regard for other humans. I think John did this because I believe an intruder did not, and we know that Burke couldn't have written the note and couldn't have pulled off the coverup. Patsy called 911. She wanted her daughter found, wanted the perps to be caught before they could harm her. John, who cordially invited the police in that morning, has a whole consciousness of guilt air about him. The handwriting looks like his, for goodness sake! Forget the reason why -- the only thing that matters is that he had the means, motive and opportunity to kill his kid.
There is nothing you can say to convince me that no one other than Patsy wrote the ransom note. The author was clearly female and the handwriting matched 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet from Patsy's numerous handwriting samples. She also made a clear attempt to disguise her handwriting after the murder. The fact is, Patsy had several different handwriting styles and often could not recognize her own writing when detectives questioned her. Doc has often said the ransom note handwriting does not look like Patsy's handwriting. Well, perhaps Doc did not look at the right samples! The ones I have seen have an uncanny resemblance.
Throughout the investigation, both Patsy and John exhibited deceptive behavior in their actions and answers. So you tell me: Which spouse is more likely to cover for the other? Patsy, whom has been described here as a loving, devoted mother that loved JonBenet more than life itself and would never allow someone to hurt her children much less protect the offender; Or John, who would have been put in a position to lose his daughter then lose his wife to prison and face the embarrassment of being the head of a highly dysfunctional family. That certainly would not be good for his business that he worked so hard to be successful. I never said John was an angel, but he obviously was not a murderer. He was very businesslike in his approach to everything. Is he arrogant? Yes. Is he condescending? You better believe it. Was he a narcissist? Possibly, but so is Donald Trump and most alpha males that are wealthy.
I find DocG's analysis of the handwriting quite convincing. For the most part it doesn't look like either John or Patsy. Here and there, if cherry picked, one can see similarities to both Patsy and John.
The important point DocG makes is that we are dealing with intentionally disguised writing. This isn't like telling someone that the signature is or is not that of Abe Lincoln.
As for John covering for Patsy, why would he risk indictment/trial for a murder he didn't commit ? If Patsy became unhinged enough to kill Jonbenet why would he run the risk of leaving Burke with her? How could he be sure it was a "one time" thing?
CC - Could P have claimed marital privilege and protect J by refusing to testify? My husband says it doesn't apply to murder, but I thought it was true across the boards. Sunny D
It varies from state to state with regard to murder, but all fifty states prohibit the assertion of marital privilege when the crime concerns the abuse or death of a child. CC
Hercule, with statements that most alpha males that are wealthy are narcissists, you lose creditability with me. For one thing, we have no idea if John was an alpha type. I agree that he probably is one, but my point was that it does not matter what we all label him as being. There is nothing you can say to make me believe Patsy would go along with ramming a paint brush in her daughter's vagina, no matter what had already transpired that night. And...she would not have called 911 if she had been involved in any of it.
John most assuredly is an alpha male. The question is, to what extent? There are different levels. By the way, this is not psychology. We need not psychoanalyze John in the confines of my dimly lit office highlighted by a comfy leather chair and Peace Lily to surmise that he is an alpha male.
If Patsy did kill JonBenet, and I have no reservations about that, why would she not do something drastic in her staging to have investigators or people like you saying, "I would never believe Patsy could do such a thing..."? That is precisely why she did! Furthermore, she would have to call the police. Is she going to dump the body late at night and risk being seen? Is she going to tell John, "Don't worry honey, I'll take care of this. You and Burke go over to the Whites while I wait for the kidnappers to call." What choice did she have but to play the dramatic role of a devasted mother in crisis? A role in which a well-trained former beauty queen (who was already genuinely upset about what transpired that night) was far more comfortable playing.
Yeah yeah yeah. We've heard all this from you before. You still got no evidence or proof just half ass psychobabble. When you try to come up with evidence it's all lies, like the screens this last time. If you think we're all so stupid why do you keep on blogging here? So far as I can tell you have not convinced anybody of anything in six months of trying. mb
Agree with MB. Hercule, you make a lot of smug assertions, and its all frankly BS. If you believe Patsy killed JB, assaulted her private area, wrote that note, then called the police because she reasoned, after placing the note on the stairs, that it was a real good idea to call the police right then and there, then you on one hand are giving her credit for being a great actress (because we all know that pageant winners are actresses and role players and in the 70's got lots of "training" - and yes I'm being snarky), but on the other hand you give her zero credit for having the ability to carry out her scene as set in the ransom note. You make no sense to me. You ramble on about John and what type of person he is, to make what point about his role in this? You apparently have all kinds of notions about women who participate in pageants, but nothing is cohesive in terms of explaining why this note was written to thwart someone from calling the police, why the note appeared to be buying time on behalf of the perp(s), you present no real reason for Patsy to kill her daughter in this manner, and most importantly, you ignore that JB had signs of chronic sexual abuse. My only question to you is, if you have a daughter, would you dismiss any findings of sexual abuse and go after a woman as the suspect, dismissing any males who had access to her? You my friend, are why I protect my children so strongly. You are scary. You are someone who I would never trust in the role of psychologist, judge, mental health professional, social worker, school counselor. People that think like you are the reason why so many girls never get justice for sexual abuse. You want to sweep this sexual abuse under the rug and blame the victim, blame the mother. After all, if JB didn't wet the bed, crazy-mommy wouldn't have been so put out, and wouldn't have clobbered her, strangled her, sexually assaulted her, and then darn it, had to re-apply her makeup. Good God. I hope my daughter never encounters the likes of you in her life. Ask yourself why you are so eager to excuse John in this. HE DOES NOT GET A PASS! There is no reason, as Doc as so eloquently explained, to give him a pass.
Doc: H posted something upstream, on 12/19 at 2:22, about Patsy and narcissism, that I'd like to enlarge on, but I'm not as smart as my smartphone, and can't figure out how to cut and paste. Could you post it here? Thanks. CC
No, I'm saying that PR married into a family that was already established. JR had older children. PR had to step into a routine and behaviors that had already been established for quite some time.
We all have narcissistic tendencies, but narcissistic personality disorder is rare. It effects less than 1% of the population, and mostly males. Please, keep reading and researching the NPD and the family dynamic of an NPD family; i.e. children of narcissists, adult children of narcissists, etc.
There are adults out there in therapy, right now, who are just finding out that this is what was wrong with their mother or father. They have been totally unaware of what narcissism even was. It's the (nervous) feeling of knowing something was off or wrong or cruel or cold or deliberately critical, impossible to please, judgmental, dishonest, harmful, resentful, hostile, hateful, etc. about their parent, caregiver, etc.
PR was the perfect magnet for a narcissist. She was a people pleaser. She enjoyed making things look good. She made John look good. She craved acceptance and liked "fixing" things and dolling things up. She was trusting, to a fault, unfortunately. She believed everything he told her, faithfully, and she believed in JR like she believed in her bible. She may have been very easy to take advantage of, unfortunately. If she were a raging psycho, I doubt the housekeeper would have had the nerve to ask her to borrow money. LPH probably felt a sense of friendship with PR. By all accounts, PR was easy to approach.
Please, keep studying this area of personality disorders and family dynamics. Thank you for your response.
Flame wars have been extremely rare on this blog and I'd like to keep it that way. So from now on, any comment containing a personal attack is going to be deleted. I've never had to do that before, but things are getting a bit out of hand. Thank you for your cooperation.
Your next to last paragraph is the best analysis of Patsy I've seen, H; I think it's spot on. This is was the basis of my point to Blue Note in his threat vs gaslighting argument, but didn't know enough about P to articulate: classic gaslighting would not have been necessary, as P was predisposed by temperament and habit to believe John. Thanks, H. CC
What kind of prison sentence would John receive if JonBenet said he was sexually molesting her?
ReplyDelete"DocGNovember 21, 2015 at 12:44 PM
ReplyDeleteBlue Note: "Reviewing Patsy's testimony, she says that Linda and Mervin were planning to wash windows at some point. Patsy tells the police that they (Linda and Mervin) would have known whether or not the window was broken."
Good catch! I'd forgotten about that segment of her testimony. Once again she mentions Linda, and also Mervin. If she's lying, she knows full well that they won't corroborate her story. So why bring them up at all, especially the part about them washing the windows, why not just say she has no idea who might know about that window being repaired, or even being broken in the first place?
If she's lying she is certainly a terrible liar. Which suggests to me that my initial assumption about John persuading her to lie is most likely wrong, and that some form of gaslighting is far more likely. And Blue Note, I'm sorry if you can't accept the gaslighting theory. I can. And obviously others here can as well.
Gaslighting is the implanting of false memories and it's been documented, so it's certain possible. I see no reason to assume Patsy was in that part of the basement very often during that period, if at all. Linda certainly was. And if Linda washed the windows, she would certainly have noticed a broken pane. We have no reason to assume Patsy would have noticed that the pane wasn't broken, as it's unlikely she'd have paid attention to that window or gone anywhere near it. I see no point in insisting that she did."
I'm fine with people being able to accept gaslighting, people accept a great many things including IDI, BDI, etc. I'm just trying to point out that it's actually fairly unlikely.
I think the point of suggesting (as opposed to insisting) that Patsy noticed the window is simply that it's very likely she was in that part of the basement a few times, at least. Possibly quite a few. I mean it's her house, and her children play in that room. So it seems unlikely to me she'd never have gone in there, but if it makes gaslightling more plausible for you, and you want to assume she rarely if ever went in that room, fine. It seems an unlikely assumption to me.
She certainly is a terrible liar. But maybe she's lying under duress. If she had really believed the story she would have told police that Linda and her husband could confirm the window had been broken, she wouldn't be uncertain about it if she had been convinced she swept up glass.
Another thought on the subject. John uses an excellent strategy in timing the break in story to coincide with Patsy being away at the vacation home in Charlevoix. Since she wasn't home she couldn't confirm or deny that John broke the window during the summer. But he switches to a poor strategy by including her in the sweeping up, which she might very well know she didn't do. That's pretty risky, and it makes me think gaslighting is improbable. But threatening to implicate her would still work.
In fact it would have made more sense for John to say he swept up the glass himself. It might have been a bit out of character, but it would make Patsy unable to confirm or deny the story to that point. All that would be left to do is convince her the hole had been there for months and she just didn't notice it (unlikely enough in my book) Claiming to have swept up himself would also negate the need to explain why he didn't tell Linda about it, or why Linda left it for anywhere from a couple weeks to almost a couple months, depending on what part of the summer the "break" happened. You see Patsy also has to believe that her housekeeper left the glass laying around for Patsy to sweep up upon her return from Michigan.
You weren't far off in thinking she was persuaded to lie, it's just the method of persuasion that we differ on.
-Blue Note.
Also, there is no timing issue with a threat to implicate her. John needs no rationale for why he swept up glass on the 26th. The "conversation" you had imagined in "The Basement Window -Part 4" could run along very similar lines for the most part, it's just that it would be less cajoling/pleading and much more threatening.
Delete-Blue Note
"if it makes gaslightling more plausible for you, and you want to assume she rarely if ever went in that room, fine. It seems an unlikely assumption to me."
DeleteI'm not assuming anything. I just see no reason to assume, as you do, that she spent much time down there. Nor am I in love with gaslighting as John's method of manipulating her. It's just that this strikes me as the most plausible explanation in view of what we know.
As for John threatening to implicate her, that just doesn't strike me as plausible. Such a theory implies that John would have confessed to Patsy that he's the killer after all. Why would he have been so foolish as to do that? It would have been far riskier than simply lying about breaking the window, as she could easily have taken Burke and fled the house at that point, heading straight for the police station to report his confession.
While it's true he could have claimed to have cleaned up the glass himself, he still needed Patsy to confirm the window had been broken all that time, so he would still have needed manipulate or gaslight her.
As for the timing, you still don't get it. John's reason for breaking the window had nothing to do with anything that was said or done the following days, weeks or months. It was his immediate fear that his incomplete staging would be recognized as such by the police that very morning. The bit about the police being convinced that they are in it together would have been his reason for wanting her to support his story, NOT his reason for cleaning up the glass. (Assuming that what I wrote initially was how it happened. At this point I think gaslighting is more likely, but there's no way to tell for sure.)
"John's reason for breaking the window had nothing to do with anything that was said or done the following days, weeks or months. It was his immediate fear that his incomplete staging would be recognized as such by the police that very morning."
DeleteYes, I understand. But the break only needed to be "old". IOWs John could have claimed to have broken in the previous week, not several months ago, as far as fooling the police. But he placed the time of the break at "last summer" in "July or August" and I think it's obvious that he did that because Patsy and the kids were in Michigan so they couldn't deny that it happened at that time. Otherwise why not just say it was last Thursday? His reason for sweeping up the glass was to make the break appear "old", rather than something that was done the night of the murder. Since he evidently timed the break for when Patsy and the kids were out of town, it seems odd he didn't time the clean-up the same way.
He didn't really need Patsy to confirm the break, he just needed her not to deny that it ever happened, hence, timing it for the summer while she was away. He needed her to go along with the window being broken for several months, but this does not require her personal involvement, in fact it's better if he doesn't try to involve her. His options, as far as gaslighting, were to convince her she was personally involved in something that never happened, or that she'd been unobservant of a broken window that she was not involved with in any way. It's pretty obvious which one has the better (still slim) chance of success. Yet you have him choosing the option with that's least probable.
Why would John confess to her? He wouldn't if it were at all avoidable. He may have had no option. It was either confess and threaten, or go to prison. It wouldn't have been very risky, as he could simply deny it, it's not like he'd do it in front of witnesses.
Patsy was very vulnerable. With John ruled out, and herself sort of "ruled back in" (even though initially the "experts" thought she was unlikely to be the author) she might well have found herself on trail for a murder she didn't commit. She was unlikely to "rat" on John since her best chance was to support his story
-Blue Note
PS, I'm done with this topic now, I'll let you have the last word if you want it. I will reply to one or two other comments then I'll go back to lurking. Thanks for the discussion.
One more quick post to clarify what I'm saying. If John threatens to implicate her and she decides to go to the police John's response is simply to blame Patsy for the murder. At that point the case becomes "he said/she said" with each blaming the other for the murder. The result would probably be what happened in real life, both are indicted. But Patsy is in a much more vulnerable position with respect to being convicted. John after all has been ruled out. He'd have to take his lumps with lesser charges; aiding and abetting, evidence tampering, and maybe a few more, but that beats a murder rap. Were he put on trial today his defense would probably be PDI, but the statute has run on the lesser charges.
Delete-Blue Note.
The sentence for sexual abuse of a child would range from probation and counseling to fifteen years, depending on the number and nature of the charges. He would also lose his reputation, his job, his family and a good part of his fortune.
ReplyDeleteCC
I have found little to sway me in the last year away from the idea that Patsy was keeping an eye on John suspecting he was the one playing with JB by molesting her in her sleep,and caught him that night ,and in the slightly dark room with the flashlight struck at Johns head only to hit JB instead . This way John convinced Patsy that she was guilty of murder , He proved to Patsy that JB was dead by putting the electric train track to JBs body-- Now a pack was made , Patsy doesn't tell on John and John won't tell on Patsy-- It still fits the indictment . Burke doesn't know anything., But by now ,he must be highly suspicious ----robert
ReplyDeleteWhat does "molesting her in her sleep" mean? Who fed her pineapple? Why was Patsy carrying a flashlight that was kept downstairs in the kitchen? Why did Patsy call 911 rather than going through with the kidnapping ruse?
ReplyDeleteThats where the flashlight ended up--molesting her in her sleep means just that, child sleeping and being probed by John to get off doesn't mean she would wake, he know just how far to go. By all accounts she was fed pineapple by Patsy--Patsy called 911 near 6 AM on the 26th when she should have called 6 or 7 hours earlier. so you tell me about a kidnapping ruse---robert
ReplyDeleteNo, that's where the flashlight was kept- in a drawer in the kitchen. No need for Patsy to creep down two flights of stairs to get it to surprise John in the act when she could just flip on the lights and accomplish the same thing.
ReplyDeleteAs a female I can assure you that any female would awake when being "probed".
There are no accounts of Patsy or anyone feeding her pineapple.
Why bother with an elaborate ransom note if you're just going to call 911 at 6:00 or any hour?
Yes. Regardless of whatever scenario one might like to cook up that "explains" why the two of them would cooperate to stage a kidnapping, there is no way Patsy would have called 911 with the body still in the house if she were involved in the staging and knew the note was phony. This realization is the basis for my conviction that the note could only have been written by John and no one else was involved -- meaning he must have been the killer as well. And if you read the blog post titled "Patsy's Role," you'll learn of all the many details of the case that convinced me of Patsy's innocence.
DeleteDon't you think she would have figured out that he killed her and then either told on him or at least left him ?
DeletePatsy pre planned the use of the flashlight-- Maybe it was ordinarily stored downstairs ,she took it with her to bed with the intent to catch John.
DeleteIn order to get down the JBs bedroom without turning on a light ,which previously at other times John had time to zip up with the warning of a light coming on down the hall or staircase--- I don't buy that part about a child waking while being assaulted , depends on the degree of assault, violent assault yes--- robert
"Don't you think she would have figured out that he killed her and then either told on him or at least left him ?"
DeleteShe was heavily medicated for weeks after the murder and by the time she came out of it she was informed that John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note. Since no one at the time questioned that decision, why should she? If John didn't write the note and she didn't, then there must have been an intruder.
"Don't you think she would have figured out that he killed her and then either told on him or at least left him ?"
DeleteYes. I think she probably at least had serious suspicions. If things played out the way I think they might have, she would have had no doubts.
DocG approaches the case as if Patsy has slipped her brain into neutral and can't find the clutch. I see her as a smart confident woman who knows some of the details don't make much sense. I don't see her as being asleep at the switch for years and years.
Would she leave him? Depends. If it played out the way I suspect, she might have had little choice but to stay in the marriage. There is also Burke to consider. If they divorced, and she's the prime suspect it's unlikely she'll get custody of Burke.
-Blue Note
"there is no way Patsy would have called 911 with the body still in the house if she were involved in the staging and knew the note was phony"
DeleteYour case relies on this. While it makes a great deal of sense, all that is needed to get John off the hook is one juror who will entertain the idea that there was some plausible reason for not dumping the body, despite both of them being involved.
If might be suggested for example that one or the other was chickening out on driving around the countryside with a dead body. The other might have been willing to do it together but not alone.
Of course there are still problems, why would they not destroy the note and display the body as a sex killer victim? But as you often say yourself, they weren't master criminals and they couldn't think of everything.
As someone else pointed out several weeks ago, the reason might be exactly that no one would believe they'd call 911 under those circumstances so how could they be guilty?
It's not that I disagree with you on this point, I'm just trying to show how fragile the case against John is. Even the solid portions of your theory are vulnerable to reasonable doubt. It only takes one juror to get John off.
-Blue Note
I'm sorry, that post was unclear. John would have to be blaming Patsy for the murder with him assisting in the cover up in order to get acquitted.
Delete-Blue Note
"John would have to be blaming Patsy for the murder with him assisting in the cover up in order to get acquitted."
DeleteYes, exactly. And I can't see him doing that, because he'd be confessing to a huge lie, not only to the authorities but to all the many people who supported him. Why would any juror want to believe any version of what happened as related by such a notorious, shameless liar? Reasonable doubt is one thing. Shamelessly pointing the finger at someone else without proof is another.
If I could get it as fact that JB was wiped down ,it would ask the question of -- Did John Ramsey go for it one last time? That is if he was planning a premeditated murder -- robert
ReplyDeleteMy gut reaction, for what little gut reaction is worth, is no. If he premeditated the murder would he be in the mood? We don't really know, and truth is sometimes stranger than fiction, but I'd find it hard to believe being in the mood while simultaneously intending to murder.
DeleteIf premeditated, I doubt he'd want to risk contaminating the body with semen, We know in fact there was no semen on the body. So, as I see it premeditation doesn't fit very well with having a last fling. But who can really say?
It is widely accepted she was wiped down. But the smears left behind are blood and only blood. The smeared areas lit up under a special light at autopsy. The police initially thought that might indicate semen, and they were right to be suspicious. But that is just an initial indicator. Chemical testing later showed it to be blood. If the wiping was not thorough enough to eliminate all traces of blood it's unlikely that it would have eliminated all traces of semen, imo.
-Blue Note
Thats why I asked the question-- John being smart enough not to have one last go at it in a premeditated murder situation -- The more I think about it ,The more I think about what I've read about Dr. B--- 3 phone call to him from Patsy on the 17th all within an hour . Its hard to get at the truth as to what info. Dr. B . had . I understand he protected his file on JB. and there was a claim some info. was stolen . Leads me to speculate that Dr. B could be a make or brake lead into a motive for JBs death. ---robert
DeleteThe M.E. found fibers that he thought were a result of wiping down.
ReplyDeleteDNA is recoverable from digital penetration, and according to an article I just read in Forensic Magazine from earlier this year, lasts at least 12 hours. I think JR went to school on the OJ Simpson trial and John Douglas' s "Mindhunter", and knew better than to leave DNA. In an abundance of caution he wiped her down, did not molest her the night he killed her BECAUSE it was carefully premeditated. Why combine molestation with a murder intended to cover up molestation?
ReplyDeleteCC
Interesting forensic info. Thanks.
Delete-Blue Note.
Wiping her down PLUS redressing her in a fresh pair of panties strongly suggests an attacker concerned about spilled semen. No way to prove that, but it does seem likely, at least to me. My guess is that semen was spilled, some got onto the panties, but none got onto her body. He got rid of those panties. And, just to be sure, he wiped her down.
DeleteI do not agree with your assumption that he redressed her. All he needed to do to stage a sexual assault is roll down whatever she was wearing. I do not believe a man intent on murder to cover up incest who had schooled himself on DNA to the point of wiping the body to prevent touch DNA would indulge in one last little fling before tightening that garrote.
DeleteCC
Some avenues to take here--- Premeditated without one last fling vs a fling that he went ape on . I have not formed an opinion on John acting alone. To me what has merit is Patsy after consulting with Dr. B 8 days before ,took the flashlight with her each night to catch him. We all know that by law Doctors are required to report abuse of this nature. But that is at the decision of the doctor. Here is a wealthy rich client , took it upon himself to save face for the family and maybe it would go away. He can not let any negative finding out then or now . assuming he may be still practicing . He may someday be a key man helping with this case
DeleteRamsey's must have somehow killed her by mistake and then tried to stage it because they were afraid to go to jail...end of mystery
ReplyDeleteYou're new here, welcome. You should read Doc's theory of the case in his first 2 blog posts from 2012 to get a idea where we're coming from. If youre interested in the JonBenet case its worth it.
DeleteIf your new Robert Shepherd ,you got a good handle on it. yes ,end of mystery, but would like to see John Ramsey nailed-- robert
DeleteRobert.
DeleteQuite possible. But, don't be too quick to come to a conclusion. Read the whole blog and comments first.
-Blue Note
Great. There goes the neighborhood.
ReplyDelete"The sentence for sexual abuse of a child would range from probation and counseling to fifteen years, depending on the number and nature of the charges. He would also lose his reputation, his job, his family and a good part of his fortune."
ReplyDeleteIf John was planning this murder for some time (days, weeks) is it reasonable to assume that he wasn't too worried about JonBenet just blurting out that she was being molested? In other words, his concern was that her upcoming medical exam would lead to her being questioned by authorities, rather than JonBenet taking it upon herself to tell another family member that John was hurting her.
If John had time (days, weeks) to plan this murder, does it make sense that he felt more comfortable bullshitting his way out of a fake kidnapping/ransom note/bank withdrawal/murder than an accusation of child molestation?
How would that work? If the child was alive, she could speak when questioned.
ReplyDelete"How would that work? If the child was alive, she could speak when questioned."
ReplyDeleteRight, JonBenet would be questioned after her exam and blame John. By bullshitting I don't mean getting away with it entirely, I mean spinning the truth, deflecting blame, manipulating people and hiring the best attorneys money can buy.
The stigma - not just of child molestation, but of incest - would still ostracize him socially, affect his professional reputation, and cause his wife to divorce him. Good attorneys may have been able to make a favorable deal with the notoriously liberal DA's office, but he'd still be ruined.
ReplyDeleteHe'd survived the death of one daughter, knew he could survive another.
CC
To be clear, I think John is far and away the strongest suspect. I'm just thinking about premeditation.
ReplyDeleteIf I spent days/weeks planning to kill my daughter, never in a million years would I think this plan would work. Maybe that's why he's still walking the streets and I'd be arrested within 48 hours.
I doubt that this was planned weeks or even days in advance, because JonBenet could have spilled the beans at any time and ruined him. If it was pre-planned at all then imo it would have been a day in advance tops -- and he would have been under a lot of pressure due to their post-Xmas travel plans. True, it seems as though he came up with a fairly convoluted plan that would have required a lot of bullshitting even if it went as planned. But I can't think of any alternative that would have been safer for him. He couldn't just claim some kidnapper snatched her on the street. Not after the Susan Smith case. And what would he do with the body? Every alternative was risky.
DeleteTo be clear, I'm a far stronger proponent of premeditation than Doc. In any case, had PR not called 911 and the FBI gotten involved in the purported kidnapping, JR too may have been arrested in 48 hours.
ReplyDeleteCC
I wasn't mocking you with the "to be clear", btw. JR was no criminal mastermind. He benefited greatly from an inept BPD and a lotta' luck.
ReplyDeleteCC
You should have mocked me for saying "never in a million years" when I only had a couple days to think about it.
DeleteThat's how it starts. Wait 'til you read the whole blog, start to finish, then read Doc's e-book. Then it'll be Thomas's book, and Kolar's, and ACandyRose. You'll get sucked in, just like the rest of us!
ReplyDeleteCC
Now that I think about it, I'm not sure Doc even agrees that JBR was abused prior to that night, much less that it was the motive. He hasn't weighed in on it lately, that I'm aware. Regardless, it isn't necessary to his basic theory.
ReplyDeleteCC
You are right, CC -- motive is not basic to my theory. As with a great many cases, motive is extremely difficult to establish. The law demands proof of guilt, not proof of motive, thank goodness, or lots of criminals would go free. The facts of the case point squarely in John's direction, but they tell us little about motive. But motive can be inferred from these facts, and that's what I tried to do in the chapter I recently added to the new edition of the book, "A Motive for Murder." Silencing a child who's been molested is, first of all, the only motive for murdering a child like JonBenet that I can think of and secondly, it's consistent with the evidence of prior molestation. But there is non way to prove it. Fortunately there is plenty of other evidence of guilt.
DeleteDoc: why just ". . . a day in advance, tops"?
ReplyDeleteCC
Because once he becomes convinced she's going to "tell" on him any day now, time becomes of the essence. A week of planning would be a week during which the ax could fall.
DeleteAnd why do you think he became convinced she was going to "tell on him any day now"?
DeleteFrom what I've read less than a third of sexually abused adolescents self report, even fewer younger children. JBR, by all accounts, adored her father, missed him terribly when he traveled, and might have unwittingly welcomed any attention from him.
CC
This is why I have a hard time believing Jonbenet was going to tell on him. I've heard mentions of Patsy calling the pediatrician multiple times in the month of December. I obviously don't know any of what was said or the details but my gut tells me something made John nervous. I think he decided to do something about it within a couple days of the murder. Again this is all speculation but it's what makes the most sense to me. -SM
DeletePR called the pediatrician three times within an hour the evening of 12/17. I think she told her husband she'd be taking JBR in after the Charlevoix trip and the trip on the Big Red Boat, and he knew he had a week to act.
DeleteCC
Agreed. She may also have not told John on the 17th but a few days later. We will never know when John found out or how long he had to make the decisions he made. All I know is that Docs theory and looking at all the known concrete evidence that it all points to John. -SM
DeleteAll true, except the part about concrete evidence . . . there still isn't any. Even Doc's invaluable re-including of JR as the writer of the RN and the tracing of the font doesn't help, as handwriting analysis is so subjective. There is still nothing beyond reasonable doubt with which a prosecutor could make a case.
DeleteCC
The paint brush injury to the vagina points to someone trying to destroy evidence of prior trauma to that area.
DeleteCC: "And why do you think he became convinced she was going to "tell on him any day now"?"
DeleteI don't think he would have murdered her if he wasn't convinced she was about to reveal his secret. I imagine it must have been something she said. And once he was convinced he would have need to act quickly.
"All true, except the part about concrete evidence . . . there still isn't any."
DeleteYou're confusing a smoking gun, which is rare in almost all such cases, and a case based on circumstantial evidence. Can it be proven that there was no intruder? Imo, yes. Can it be proven that John lied? -- especially about the broken window? Imo, yes. Can it be proven that John wrote the note? No, but it can be demonstrated that he should not have been ruled out, which would be huge. And the many similarities with the legal document would also be huge. That, plus the fact that the victim was sexually molested -- and the evidence consistent with prior abuse, would be enough to make a solid case, imo.
Once the absurdity of any intruder theory is established; and once it's demonstrated that John's story about breaking the window earlier is a fabrication; and once the extreme unlikelihood of Patsy calling 911 if she had written the note is established, then John's lawyers would have quite a dance to dance when pleading reasonable doubt. Most court cases are decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If a true smoking gun exists, the defendant usually cops a plea.
The problem with your circumstantial evidence - other than the abuse - is that it applies equally well to Patsy, a fact upon which any decent defense attorney would capitalize.
DeleteIt would be utterly impossible to prove abuse at this point, much less prove that John was the abuser.
Then there's the Lacy letter.
Believe me, Doc, no prosecutor would touch this case at this point, particularly a prosecutor in Boulder County.
CC
@CC
DeleteI agree, the probability of getting a conviction is virtually nill. While it might be interesting to make John explain himself, trails are not conducted just for curiosity.
As with so many aspects of the case, there is a split of professional opinion on prior molestation, and that's shorty after the murder. All these years later it would be impossible to prove. Then, as you say, it still has to be proven that John was the one, not someone else.
Then there's the Lacy Letter, as you say. Unless the prosecution can figure some way to keep that from being introduced into evidence at the trail, an "exoneration" letter is pretty powerful.
This case will never go to trial.
"The problem with your circumstantial evidence - other than the abuse - is that it applies equally well to Patsy, a fact upon which any decent defense attorney would capitalize. "
I've lately started to look at this JDI theory not from the point of view of putting John on trial, but from the pov of Patsy using it as a defense (a moot point now obviously) For me it casts doubt on some details that DocG is insistent on. (and not just the gaslighting)
-Blue Note
So from your new pov, what gives you you pause? I cannot set aside the idea that Patsy would have called 911 that early if she was involved. I can't see any reason whatsoever that would make her want to make that call until JB was removed from the house. So you see, its not just the handwriting, which is very very convincing to me after seeing exemplars of John's, its the complete picture of: 1) no intruder 2) Patsy called 911, 3) John found the body and moved it, tampering with evidence 4) John was in the basement during the morning, giving opportunity to stage/unstage or tamper with the crime scene 5) John lied 6) John tried to high-tail it out of town on a plane within hours after finding his daughter dead (if that is not conscientiousness of guilt, I don't know what is), 7) John hired high powered attorneys 8) John was the most capable of sexual abuse 8) Linda Arndt was literally ready to pull her gun based on the behavior of John right after he found the body 9) Even the Ramsey's best friends like Fleet White knew he was behaving as if he had a lot to cover up 10) remarks by friends that JB was clingy to Patsy in the weeks before the murder. In fact, that clinging might be a reason John realized that he needed to act - her complaints about privates bothering her, the resumed bedwetting, the whining/clinging to her mother -- the remarks to about a secret visit from Santa indicating that she (JB) was not keeping their "secrets" to herself.... If a prosecutor put on a trial, and if there was a jury, I would vote for John as guilty. LE
DeleteThe Lacy letter was just plain stupid. Even when it came out, I was already knowledgeable enough to know that touch DNA can be transfer DNA. It would be so easy for experts to cast doubt on what Lacy concluded and make her look like the fool that she is. Not only that, I don't think any police or FBI types would support her exoneration of the Ramsey's.
Delete"So from your new pov, what gives you you pause?"
DeleteI'm assuming this question is directed at me. What gives me pause is the small details. I'm not arguing for Patsy's guilt. I'm trying to stay within the confines of DocG's theory.
Looking at it defensively, Patsy, were she on trial, would have to explain some lies.
The biggest one is the lie about sweeping up the glass. Would it be possible to convince a jury that Patsy was gaslighted into claiming she did something that never happened? She says one thing at the interviews but she'd have to sing a different tune at her own trial, if her defense were JDI. How can Patsy prove gaslighting? How can she even suspect gaslighting? By definition a false memory, once implanted, is believed by the gaslighting victim. I suppose it's possible to be "un-gaslighted" but what's a jury going to think? I suspect they'd think she lied at the interviews because she was involved in the coverup and/or the murder. Her sudden "ungaslighting" would seem like a lame tactic to shift all blame to John. .
Wouldn't she be better off, defensively, trying to sell the jury on the idea that she'd been coerced into lying for John? There's no definitive answer, I just think it's useful to stop and look from a different perspective. It's not so much a question of what actually happened as what a jury would likely believe.
She might sink John but she'd probably sink herself in the process.
There are other lies, or at least seeming lies, that Patsy must explain if she is using a JDI defense.
If the jury believes it's Burke's voice on the enhanced tape, then why would an innocent Patsy lie about him not being up until later? On a JDI defense, what explains this apparent lie? Nothing, as far as I can see. Is it possible to explain this away? I doubt it. I'm assuming the tape actually exists and would be played for the jury so they'd come to their own conclusion. DocG prefers to dismiss Burke's voice as "cross talk" but I suspect the jury would think it's Burke. If so, how does JDI work out for Patsy in this instance? If John did it and Patsy is an innocent bystander, why did she lie?
Or the lie (possibly) about putting the oversized bloomies in the drawer. No other oversized bloomies were found in the house, much less the drawer, so I think a jury would likely want an explanation from Patsy. How could she be telling the truth if no oversized panties were found in the drawer? As far as I can see, neither DocG nor anyone commenting on the blog has satisfactorily explained why John would redress JonBennet in oversized bloomies, or what John apparently did with them, or why. Patsy doing it is equally inexplicable, if not more so, but that doesn't get her off the hook. She said she put the oversized bloomies in the drawer. They weren't there. Unless her lawyers can explain what happened the jury is going to think she's lying. Is she going to tell the jury John must have taken the entire package from the drawer, used one pair to redress the body, then wandered over the the neighbors trash can to dispose of them? Good luck with that.
Taking a different perspective doesn't necessarily cause one to come to a different conclusion about who the murderer is. It's just that the plausibility is different when you are playing sleuth compared to playing defense lawyer.
I don't disagree with voting for John as guilty, but that's not the equivalent of acquitting Patsy. I think it would be very hard for the jury to see her as completely innocent of all involvement, since her defenses to the "lies" are not very plausible.
-Blue Note
If John were put on trial, it would be a huge mistake for his lawyers to accuse Patsy, because 1. his credibility would be shot to Hell; 2. the jury would expect some sort of explanation from John, since he was hardly an innocent bystander. If Patsy killed JonBenet then John would know exactly what happened and why and an explanation from him would be in order. While it's true that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defense, if the defense wants to point the finger at someone else they would be expected to offer some sort of proof -- without such proof reasonable doubt can't convincingly be invoked out of thin air.
DeleteNow if Patsy were put on trial (hypothetically, natch), the situation would be entirely different because 1. she was the one who made the 911 call -- why would she do that if she were involved in a staged kidnapping? 2. she was in plain sight of authorities during the entire morning, while John was out of sight for over an hour with clear opportunity to stage; 3. aside from some clumsy and amateurish attempts to link her to the ransom note, there is no evidence whatsoever of her involvement; 4. lying to support John's version of what happened is hardly proof of Patsy's guilt and the prosecution would be required to furnish proof, not conjecture -- she could have argued, as I have, that she trusted John because he'd been "ruled out," so agreed to support his version of what happened since she knew he must be innocent.
As far as the question of the case ever going to trial, I agree that, as things now stand, that's extremely unlikely. However, things can change. Renewed interest in the case via high powered and aggressive media reporting could change everything.
Ok, Blue Note. If I understand you, you are assuming that if Patsy were alive, and went on trial, that she alone would be on trial (not John)? And in that case, she would turn on John and blame him? I tend to believe, based on the grand jury indictment, that both of them would have been put on trial. Had that happened, I think they would have taken their chances with the IDI case. Obviously, by hiring Lou Smit to pursue that angle, they were preparing for an IDI case should Hunter have taken them to trial. Now, in the unlikely case that only Patsy was taken to trial, I tend to think she would not suddenly be convinced that JDI and want to pin this on him. Again, I think she would have gone with "I didn't do it, John Ramsey didn't do it, and we don't have a clue of anyone who did do it." I think she really believed in John's innocence. There is always the chance that the defense could take the route that was taken with Casey Anthony's defense - create a scenario where someone else "could have" done it, thus creating reasonable doubt for the defendant but not actually making an out and out case that another person (in the Anthony case, that person being her father) did in fact do it and it could be proven. The Anthony case indeed set a bad, bad precedent for a defense based on fantasy theories. So, back to your thoughts: I think Patsy's defense would have stuck to IDI, no matter how far fetched it might seem. She might have lost, and gone to jail. Something tells me she would have taken jail over nailing her husband or her son, because she would have truly believed them to be innocent. As for present day: John could be taken to trial, and I have no doubt he would blame Patsy if it could save his hide. At this point, Burke's testimony might be what spares him or gets him convicted. However, Burke's bread is buttered by John- I'm sure he expects to inherit something when John dies. (I don't believe for one second that John is broke). So Burke will side with John, even if John blames Patsy, or he'll plead having zero knowledge of anything. Bottom line, as a jury member I would not believe John's story no matter what story he told. -LE
DeleteI need to add the fact that JonBenet was sexually molested (fact!) and the strong evidence of prior molestation (not fact, but powerful evidence nonetheless). "Now I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, who would have been more likely to sexually assault the victim? A woman (who happened also to have been her mother); a nine year old boy (with no history of either violent or sexual behavior); or a middle aged male?"
DeleteTHERE WOULD BE NO JURY. Google "defendant's right to bench trial" if you doubt my legal opinion. John's a bright guy; no way would he want the emotionalism and preconceptions of a jury. With a bench trial Doc's case, as it stands, doesn't stand a chance.
DeleteCC
@LE
Delete" Ok, Blue Note. If I understand you, you are assuming that if Patsy were alive, and went on trial, that she alone would be on trial (not John)? And in that case, she would turn on John and blame him? "
Almost. I'm trying to imagine how Patsy would fare at trial basing her defense on a JDI theory. I'm pretty much imagining the trial happening within a reasonable amount of time after the murder, not all these years later after they had backed the intruder theory. If Patsy were still alive and the trial started in 2016 I think the'd both be stuck with an IDI defense.
Mostly what I'm trying to do is not look at the case as a sleuth, but rather as a juror in Patsy's trial. How does that different perspective influence what's believable?
It seems to me JDI might be consistent with her lies about the window, the panties, and Burke being awake at the time of the 911 call. IMO she'd have to say she was coerced into lying. If she wasn't coerced (threatened with implication in the murder) she'd have to be gaslighted into all 3 lies. As you already know I find gaslighting as unbelievable as John's break in story. I can't imagine using it to explain all 3 lies.
Using an IDI defense, how does Patsy explain these lies? There doesn't seem to me any real explanation for the lies that also fits with IDI.
DocG and some others who've posted would say she isn't lying about putting the panties in the drawer. But the panties aren't there, or anywhere else. In a JDI defense she's got to explain what John did with them. (In IDI she could say the intruder took them as a souvenir) John, in his trial, would of course deny redressing JonBennet.
I don't think she would actually use a JDI defense even if she feels it's true. It's almost impossible for her to use JDI as a defense w/o appearing to be an accomplice.
"I tend to believe, based on the grand jury indictment, that both of them would have been put on trial."
Yes, they'd both be indicted and tried. Possibly separate trials though. They wouldn't necessarily need a "joint" defense. They'd be free to rat on each other if they thought that was their best chance. Johns in the stronger position as he's been ruled out.
They both would have the best chance, in my non-lawyer opinion, of getting off completely by using an IDI defense.
LS was hired by the prosecutor's office. Whether or not he was working for the Ramseys under the table is open to question. It would explain a lot. But there is no evidence of that, so we must leave that aside if we want our solution to be evidence based.
Also, if LS is on the up and up, then his IDI theory should be re-examined because it must make more sense than we are giving credit for. We don't have to agree with it to give it it's due. A man with his experience and reputation is not easily fooled. Why does LS think IDI?
"As for present day: John could be taken to trial, and I have no doubt he would blame Patsy if it could save his hide."
For me it's not so much a question of what John is willing to do but what's in his best interests. I have no doubt he's willing to point the finger at Patsy but that's probably not his best defense. I think he'd go with IDI.
JMO, but I don't think Burke knows anything that could convict John. If he did, then John would never have let him go to FW's house at 7am.
You're assuming Burke would lie for his future inheritance. That's always possible, but it isn't giving Burke much credit. I tend to think he'd have come forward, as an adult, in the interests of justice. Hard to say. Money can be a powerful influence.
-Blue Note.
I'm new here. I've been completely sucked in.
ReplyDeleteWe get it, believe me; new blood always welcome. Put your initials or your dog's name on the end of your posts, and happy reading. Then comes the fun part: thinking it through and coming up with your own ideas.
ReplyDeleteSorry - that was me - football photo finish.
DeleteCC
"From what I've read less than a third of sexually abused adolescents self report, even fewer younger children. JBR, by all accounts, adored her father, missed him terribly when he traveled, and might have unwittingly welcomed any attention from him."
ReplyDeleteI agree about children/teens not reporting abuse. But I can tell you, from personal experience, that no child welcomes that kind of attention, even from a loved one. Even young children know that it is wrong.
I thought everyone was entitled to a jury trial.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, Doc, the most you can hope for is getting enough public outcry to reopen an investigation, look for more substantive evidence or your smoking gun.
ReplyDeleteI can think of several avenues of investigation, and your clever posters here can probably come up with many more.
Jeffco Airport would have records of employees on site Christmas day. Perhaps someone saw him in the private hanger. It was never searched, nor was John's office downtown. Maybe his first wife, or the girlfriend from the first marriage, or the alleged mistress during his second would now be willing to talk. If you'd give up your insistence that JBR was about to tell and entertain my theory about the pediatrician, Dr. Beuf's records regarding those three calls on 12/17 might be helpful.
You need more. No judge could fail to find reasonable doubt as it stands.
CC
I'm not an investigative reporter, and certainly not a private eye. Nor am I on some sort of crusade to nail John Ramsey. My goal in life is simple: to make a million dollars selling my book and buy a ranch somewhere in Texas, surrounded by trigger happy gun nuts.
DeleteThat's a joke, icadgi. (in case anyone didn't get it).
Seriously, my intention all along was simply to get everything I knew about this case off my chest and out into the world, and have some interesting discussions regarding the various details. And that's what's happened, and I'm OK with that. Sure, I'd love to see John put on trial -- and made to pay for his horrible crime. But I'm not in a position to unearth the necessary evidence. Hopefully some ambitious cub reporter on the Daily Planet (or some comparable news venue) will be inspired to give it a shot.
I cheerfully contributed my $6.50 to your retirement fund, and wish you well with the rest of it . . . though I think, the way things are going, you could retire in place and still be surrounded by trigger happy gun nuts.
DeleteClearly, you've accomplished some of your stated intentions as well: the conversation here has been ongoing for what, four years now? And who knows; Perhaps a Jimmy Olson with a fearless publisher will appear. In the meantime , good job, and thanks.
Just please promise me you'll give up your fantasy of a jury trial . . . it makes me grind my teeth.
CC
Well, CC, if you're a defense attorney, I'll defer to your wisdom as far as jury vs. judge is concerned. However: I'd have thought John would have a better chance with a jury rather than a judge, however, because all he'd need would be one single juror to buy reasonable doubt. With a judge you just never know what he'll think and every one is different, no? As I see it, a judge with no prior bias in favor of any particular theory of the case would be unlikely to buy reasonable doubt because 1. an intruder clearly makes no sense (as the grand jury decided); 2. John would never try to pin the murder on Patsy -- I just can't see him doing that -- he'd stick with the intruder theory no matter what. I'm surprised you can't see that. In any case, you seem to know more about these things than I do, so I won't insist.
DeleteAnd thanks for the $6.50. Every little bit counts. (Isn't it just 6 even?)
Judges don't hold much truck with competing theories or conflicting expert testimony, and would likely not consider either in his verdict. Their mandate is factual evidence and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. There's precious little of the former, and the latter would require him to find reasonable doubt. All good news for John.
DeleteCC
A jury trial is a crapshoot. A jury trial in Boulder would be a crapshoot with loaded dice.
DeleteCC
And finally, I'm not a defense attorney - wrong hat. A prosecutor would have to consider every possible defense in the preparation of his case, and PDI with a dead P would be viable. Personally, I agree with you he'd stick to IDI and thank god for Lou Smit and Mary Lacy on his way out the courtroom door.
DeleteCC
In reply to CC: "Jeffco Airport would have records of employees on site Christmas day. Perhaps someone saw him in the private hanger. It was never searched, nor was John's office downtown."
DeleteThe GJ did subpoena records from the hangar which John said he visited on Christmas Day.
"Dr. Beuf's records regarding those three calls on 12/17 might be helpful."
About the 17th: On December 17, JonBenét performed at the All Star Kids Christmas pageant at the Airport Holiday Inn outside Denver. According to the interviews Patsy drove her to the pageant, John drove up at around 3 pm to see her talent portion. Apparently he arrived after her performance. She’d won the medal for talent which she gave to her father. It sounded from the interview as though they drove separately. If they left the pageant at the same time they would have arrived home sometime between 3:45 and 4:30, unless Patsy or John had to stop to pick up Burke at a friend’s house. Only 1 ½ hours later Patsy was phoning the doctor. Both doctor and Patsy couldn’t remember anything about those calls which were obviously logged by the answering service. What brings up questions is whether her daughter had physical signs of distress and why the subject of the calls was concealed. It’s my opinion she knew on that date what was amiss in her household, but was unable to deal with it.
One area that would be worthwhile to explore, I think, would be examples of John's spelling errors and patterns of spelling errors. On the only very brief writing exemplar of John's that most of us have seen, he spelled two words wrong--separate and occasions. I believe he spelled them as seperate and occassions. Compare them with the spelling errors in the ransom note. That would be telling, I think. kp
ReplyDeleteAnd who in the world says "and hence", which is in the ransom note. John Ramsey does, that's who. Love to know the percent of the population that uses or has used that phrase ever in their life.
ReplyDeleteLE: You can't blame the Anthony case for the third party culpability defense - it's been around a long time. We used to call it the SODDIT defense (some other dude did it) or the Two Dude Defense. The reason it's been around so long is that it works. It would work for John Ramsey, too.
ReplyDeleteCC
I haven't followed this case very closely, but it's occurred to me that Casey might be protecting someone she is either close to or afraid of.
DeleteCC, you're right. I think the fantasy part of that defense was putting out the idea that Casey's father molested her and that made him a bad guy in the jury's mind - made him capable of killing Caylee. I had not thought of Doc's idea, which is that Casey was covering for someone - interesting idea! If she was covering for her father, shame on her for not exposing him for the murder and getting justice for her child. Then again, she may have had a role in hiding the body and decided to keep quiet for that reason. The chloroform that was alleged to have been used to make Caylee sleep is why most people thought Casey was involved. -LE
DeleteThanks CC, you are right. I guess the fantasy part of the Anthony case was the idea that her father was molesting her; a fantasy that put him in a bad light with the jury, making the idea that he could have done it more plausible, even though there was no no real motive, and it was Casey's car that smelled like there had been a dead body in the trunk. It seemed so outrageous to make the SODDIT defense using your own father! So sad that so many people get away with killing children because of tactics like this. - LE
ReplyDeleteJurors, in post-trial interviews, said they wanted to convict her but the evidence just wasn't there.
ReplyDeleteCC
Lou Smit was not bent. One of his most famous cases in the Springs involved finding evidence of an actual intruder in a case wherein his PD peers believed it to be an inside job. He was looking to pull a similar rabbit from this hat.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason to assume the BPD collected all the panties from all the drawers in JBR's bed/bath. They were looking for semen and blood stains and probably attached little importance to clean pairs, much less brand new pairs still in plastic packaging.
If I understand you correctly, you're putting forth a "what if", in this case, what if Hunter had signed the true bill returned by the grand jury and taken the Rs to trial?
CC
"There is no reason to assume the BPD collected all the panties from all the drawers in JBR's bed/bath. ..."
DeleteThe evidence list says they counted 15 pairs. That's a pretty good indication that they collected all of them, otherwise they couldn't get a count.
"... They were looking for semen and blood stains and probably attached little importance to clean pairs, ..."
Why would they be looking for semen? There was no semen on the body. If they attached little significance to clean pairs why bother counting them or taking them into evidence?
"... much less brand new pairs still in plastic packaging."
If you are suggesting the police overlooked the remaining package, and that possibly that is the package returned some years later, ok. But, the police would still know that the package wasn't in the underwear drawer. They still know that one or the other (Patsy or John) removed the entire package from the drawer.
Even if they were looking for semen how could they be sure they didn't miss something without checking every pair in the drawer?
DeleteThe 12/26 and 12/27 warrants indicate a search for bodily fluids on clothing. The 12/29 warrant specifies a search for seminal fluid.
DeleteFifteen pairs of panties is nothing for a little girl who wets her pants, particularly a child of affluent parents.
They counted what they took, as required for the return of warrant and the receipt.
CC
And they didn't know anything about size 12s in plastic packaging until Patsy spoke about them in her police interview in 4/97, well after they'd searched the house and released it to the Rs.
DeleteCC
Never mind, Blue Note. After re-reading, I think your bottom line is still threat vs gaslighting. My point above is that there weren't three lies, just one, and I don't think Patsy thought she was lying about the window.
ReplyDeleteIf the term "gaslighting" offends you, dump it; the net effect is still the same - John's explanation made sense to her and she saw no need to question it. It fits the pattern of their marriage; threats do not.
CC
We don't really know anything about the "pattern of their marriage". It's just conjecture, as is gaslighting, as is threat.
DeleteWhat we do know is that Patsy is a smart, capable, competitive and confident woman. Not a good subject for gaslighting.
We also know that if DocG's version is true then John elected to try to convince Patsy she was involved in something that never happened rather than trying to convince her that she forgot about something she was never involved in. Doesn't really make much sense, imo.
If the questions can't be resolved satisfactorily the jury is likely to view them as lies.
-Blue Note
We know John ruled the roost. She wanted a different house, he wanted to be close to town. She didn't want to go to Michigan for Xmas, they were going. One of the old babysitters said her main job was to keep him from being annoyed. If she's so smart and confident why would she put up with threats especially if like you say he told her he killed the kid.
DeleteBlue Note: "We also know that if DocG's version is true then John elected to try to convince Patsy she was involved in something that never happened rather than trying to convince her that she forgot about something she was never involved in."
DeleteAs I understand it, gaslighting is defined as the implanting of a false memory as well as convincing someone to forget what actually happened. And it's not a myth, it's been studied and verified. Patsy was in an extremely vulnerable position, partly because she'd been so heavily medicated, and partly because she was widely regarded as the culprit, not John. It's not hard to see how he could have manipulated her into believing him since she "knew" her daughter could only have been attacked by an intruder, thus John must be innocent.
Thus some sort of manipulation, possibly by gaslighting, possibly by other means, makes far more sense than threatening her, which would be tantamount to a confession of his own guilt.
"If the questions can't be resolved satisfactorily the jury is likely to view them as lies."
Well, Patsy won't be the one on trial, will she? And if she was lying about the window, then so was John -- so clearly his lawyers would never even suggest such a thing. Thus no jury would be asked to make such a decision, since there would be no incentive for either the defense or the prosecution to bring it up.
"What we do know is that Patsy is a smart, capable, competitive and confident woman."
DeleteI think you're giving Patsy too much credit. Patsy always struck me as a someone you could pull one over on. John seems like the smart, capable, competitive and confident person. Imagine if their roles in this case were essentially reversed: John innocent and Patsy guilty. I think John would have called her out on her lies and sent her to prison.
Patsy was from a small town in West Virginia and she met John a month after college, the only job she ever had was working for him. He made a lot of money and let her spend it, obviously she took direction from him. I don't know where you get all this smart confident bs. Your obsessing over some stupid meaningless detail again Blue Note.
Delete"As I understand it, gaslighting is defined as the implanting of a false memory as well as convincing someone to forget what actually happened."
DeleteNot exactly, it's eroding someone's confidence in their memory. It can involve forgetting what happened (when something actually did) or it can involve implanting a false memory. But it's a process, not a one time trick that can be used in an emergency. It takes repetition.
"And it's not a myth, "
Never suggested it was.
"Patsy was in an extremely vulnerable position, partly because she'd been so heavily medicated,"
That's largely irrelevant as he could neither gaslight her nor threaten to implicate her unless she were off the drugs and able to think clearly. He could not afford to let her go to the police interview in a haze.
"and partly because she was widely regarded as the culprit, not John. It's not hard to see how he could have manipulated her into believing him since she "knew" her daughter could only have been attacked by an intruder, thus John must be innocent."
Actually it is hard to see how he could do that, because he's suggesting to her she was keenly aware of a broken window but then forgot all about it until he reminded her of it. This might be possible by slowly and steadily undermining her confidence in her memory with small matters. But it's on ongoing effort. It's not a trick to pull out of a hat at the last minute.
"Thus some sort of manipulation, possibly by gaslighting, possibly by other means, makes far more sense than threatening her, which would be tantamount to a confession of his own guilt."
As I see it her vulnerability makes threatening to implicate her likely. She would have had suspicions anyway. He'd have to have admitted guilt, but what choice was there?
If he had claimed to sweep up the glass himself I could, possibly, buy the idea she was gaslighted. He could say he himself forgot to mention it to Linda, and it was weeks before Patsy would return home so he'd have an excuse for forgetting to tell her too. Yet the reality is Patsy claims to have swept up glass herself. She'd likely know she didn't, but even if she thought she did, she'd know that Linda would have reported it to her. She'd know she herself would have wanted it taken care of. It's involving her that makes gaslighting so unlikely. Yet she claims involvement in something that never happened. That, to me seems consistent with "you play along or else you'll go down with me."
"Well, Patsy won't be the one on trial, will she? And if she was lying about the window, then so was John -- so clearly his lawyers would never even suggest such a thing."
I thought I had made it clear that I was looking at the case as if Patsy were on trial. It's clear enough that a dead woman won't be on trial. If she were on trail herself, she'd have to explain why she lied. If she were basing her defense on JDI then she has the window lie, and possibly the panties in the drawer lie to explain. Under JDI or IDI she has the "Burke was in bed" lie to explain.
"Thus no jury would be asked to make such a decision, since there would be no incentive for either the defense or the prosecution to bring it up."
Clearly if both R's were on trial their best bet would be for both to use an IDI defense.
-Blue Note
"What we do know is that Patsy is a smart, capable, competitive and confident woman."
Delete"I think you're giving Patsy too much credit."
Smart. Graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Capable. Helped John found and run Access graphics in the early years.
Competitive. Miss W. VA.
These 3 items are fact based.
Confident. I inferred this from the first 3.
-Blue Note.
Doc: In your 12/3 post to me you said "an intruder clearly makes no sense (as the grand jury decided". I went back and took another look at their true bill, and what they actually returned was two charges of child abuse resulting in murder against PR and JR. The interesting thing about this, imo, is that this was the fourth of seven possible charges. Safe to assume, I think, that the first three were Murder One, Murder Two and Manslaughter. It appears they felt the Rs bore some responsibility for the death of their daughter, but the evidence they saw was not sufficient to cause a majority to believe they actually committed the act.
ReplyDeleteThey could have disagreed about which was the perp, as you've theorized, or some of them may have held out for an intruder, and the abuse leading to murder charge reflected a feeling the parents failed to protect their child from outside danger.
CC
My take: If they suspected the Ramseys of conspiring to cover for the actual murderer, they'd have charged them with conspiracy. Unfortunately, all that was released was the true bill. If we had access to all the documents we'd have a better idea of what the jury had in mind. But to me it seems clear that the indictment reflected the inability of the jury to determine who did what, plus their conviction that, regardless of who did what, both Ramseys should be held responsible.
DeleteResponsible for something, but not murder or wouldn't they have charged them both with one of the first three?
DeleteYes. Likely they didn't see enough evidence to convince them the Rs, jointly or severally, committed murder. They could have chosen to charge them and let the DA sort it out at trial.
DeleteI wasn't suggesting that the GJ suspected the Rs of covering for a murderer, Doc. Conspiracy is a plan made between two or more people to commit an unlawful act.
A prosecutor, in my state, submits a list of possible charges to a GJ. Since this GJ chose the fourth and seventh possible charges, it's likely the first three were some form of murder, five and six further charges of abuse.
CC
"They could have disagreed about which was the perp, as you've theorized, or some of them may have held out for an intruder, and the abuse leading to murder charge reflected a feeling the parents failed to protect their child from outside danger."
DeleteHow would parents have protected their child from "outside danger"?
Doesn't it seem unlikely that any members of the GJ who might have held out for an intruder would probably not have wanted any charges brought against either parent?
It seems likely to me that the GJ dismissed intruder theory all together.
-Blue Note
By not entering her in pageants got up like a 20 year old. By checking the doors and windows. By turning on the alarm system. mb
DeleteDid John and Patsy testify before the GJ? I can't find anything that indicates they did.
ReplyDeleteCC
No they did not testify. They were never called. For some very strange reason. This whole case was handled in such a bizarre manner, it's incredible.
DeleteProsecutor Kane said not calling a GJ together soon after the Rs’ non-cooperation was apparent was a big mistake. By the time a GJ was called, and this is according to Thomas’s book, the DA traded calling them to the GJ in return for additional interviews with the Rs. The reasoning is that a subject cannot be compelled to testify to something which might incriminate them under the 5th amendment. Though a hired attorney can’t speak at a GJ, I understand he can be present with his client in Colorado (correct me if I’m wrong with this) and would undoubtedly influence which questions their client could answer.
DeleteIn contrast, the FBI felt the Rs needed to be put under oath in a GJ as soon as possible.
Kane and the FBI were right. A grand jury is a powerful investigative tool.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, too. Unusually, a witness' s attorney may be present in a grand jury proceeding in Colorado.
CC
Doc, you have done an excellent job analyzing this case. Better, I think, than the investigators assigned to it.
ReplyDeleteObviously, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to indict JR, but in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence that you see that points to him? Handwriting? Behavior? Other?
Thank you for this blog. It is fascinating!!
Tom
Thanks for the kind words, Tom. To answer your question, here's what I regard as the strongest evidence:
Delete1. The lack of conclusive intruder evidence. An intruder who leaves both a ransom note and a dead victim is clearly not trying to hide the fact that he was in the house. So why don't we see any conclusive signs of his presence?
2. The fact that the note was written on a notepad from the house. A kidnapper would have prepared a note in advance, a pedophile wouldn't have bothered to write a note, and someone out to frame John would have forged his hand. Thus the note is clearly fake, part of an attempt to stage a kidnapping. I see no other possible interpretation.
3. The fact that the body was hidden in the basement. An intruder would have had no reason to hide the body. If both John and Patsy were involved, they too would have had no reason to hide it. But if one spouse were involved and the other not, then the reason for hiding the body becomes clear: it was hidden so the innocent spouse would not find it.
4. Since there is no conclusive intruder evidence and no intruder scenario makes sense, we are forced to conclude JonBenet was killed by someone in her own family.
5. Patsy called 911 with the body still in the house, completely negating the staging implied in the note. This tells us she could have known nothing about it. By process of elimination, we are forced to conclude that John wrote the note and kept this a secret from her.
6. The fact that JBR was sexually molested points to John and John only. A 9 year old with no history of violent behavior or interest in the opposite sex is not likely to molest a 6 year old girl.
7. Finally, John's obvious fabrication of his story about breaking the window months ago is clearly an alibi, pointing away from his breaking the window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder breakin. That story was contradicted by the only eye witness in this case, the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh.
I'll add that there is more than enough evidence to indict John Ramsey, on the basis of probable cause. The problem would come later, during the trial, as it might not be possible to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as there is no smoking gun.
DeleteYour theory is great, Doc, but your legal skills are lacking. It may have been possible to indict JR in the late nineties, but no responsible prosecutor would do so now.
ReplyDeleteCC
You underestimate the power of the press. What's needed is not a prosecutor, but an ambitious and persistent journalist. Not that I'm particularly optimistic, but I'm not ready to give up, either.
DeleteBut your feckless journalist will require a media outlet. I believe you underestimate the depth of fear JR has instilled in the publishing and television industries by successfully settling seven defamation lawsuits, including those against Time, Fox, Court TV and St. Martin's Press.
DeleteI've tilted at my share of windmills - you go, Doc.
CC
Linda Arndt is a piece of the "smoking gun." No matter how they try to discredit her, she has powerful first-hand testimony. Her belief in JR's guilt is powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe more I read about narcissistic personality disorder, the more this family fits the bill. The dynamic, with JR, at the helm is the crux of this case. It's nearly textbook NPD family, almost like a family suffering from addiction or alcoholism. There are character traits, and roles are distributed within the family. JR is the narcissist. PR is the scapegoat. She is an easy target, because she is honest and kind. In the NPD mind, it makes her a "push-over" and easy to discard like trash. She enjoyed relating to people, by being honest and vulnerable. Most people would appreciate someone in life holding their hand and saying "me too" but the NPD sees a good person as weak. PR became the "scapegoat" in the family dynamic, by default.
The children all had roles, too. Someone was the over-achiever, the perfectionist. Someone was the clown. Someone was the attention seeker, problematic child. They all had a role. No one is safe in a Narcissistic home--not safe emotionally, mentally or sexually/physically, unfortunately.
When the NPD gets in a jam, they call on the "flying monkeys." The flying monkeys are a very important part of the NPDs circle. They immediately swoop in at any request, and the hoovering begins. The flying monkeys are convinced by the wicked witch. The NPD can make a sweet Dorothy look like the wicked witch. They are clever and wicked. This is the narcissist's hidden talent. Nothing is as it seems. The rules do not apply to them.
The scapegoat always suffers. An honest person is no match for a spouse with no conscience. The spouses of narcissists are often sick. They become physically ill and suffer from all sorts of illnesses, due to emotional abuse and distress and fear. PR has the classic "gaslight" look. Her face speaks of confusion and fear, yet determination to make things right, to make things better, to make things look good. Linda Arndt also has this look. She is suffering. She is traumatized. Again, honest, empathetic people do not stand a chance against a wicked narcissist with money to waste and an endless crew of flying monkeys.
What can we find out about the children? I would be interested to know their role in the Narcissist Father family dynamic. I can't discredit the fact that if the father was doing sick things, maybe the sons were doing sick things, too. There are poor boundary issues in an NPD home. Incest runs in families, unfortunately. Secrecy is the main ingredient. These people cannot tell the truth. They are morally insane.
I am not suggesting that anyone did anything, other than JR, that night. I'm suggesting that we can't discredit that the males in the home were allowed to have bad habits, while JBR was alive.
Normal people do not lie. Normal people do not care about reputations. Normal people do not remain calm and cordial during a kidnapping.
Normal people get angry seven times a day.
PR got upset and showed a range of emotions, which should have been viewed as HEALTHY. JR stayed flat, calm and one-dimensional and has remained flat,calm and one-dimensional, since 1996. This should be viewed as UNHEALTHY and a RED FLAG. The other siblings have remained silent. Secrecy is the main ingredient. This should be viewed as a RED FLAG.
-H
H, are you saying only John has NPD and the rest of the family developed patterns of behavior around that? I have never heard of a NPD family. Most people say living with a narcissist is "crazy-making." I don't think their own personalities change because of the narcissist, but rather they are extremely frustrated when having to live with them.
DeleteNo, I'm saying that PR married into a family that was already established. JR had older children. PR had to step into a routine and behaviors that had already been established for quite some time.
DeleteWe all have narcissistic tendencies, but narcissistic personality disorder is rare. It effects less than 1% of the population, and mostly males. Please, keep reading and researching the NPD and the family dynamic of an NPD family; i.e. children of narcissists, adult children of narcissists, etc.
There are adults out there in therapy, right now, who are just finding out that this is what was wrong with their mother or father. They have been totally unaware of what narcissism even was. It's the (nervous) feeling of knowing something was off or wrong or cruel or cold or deliberately critical, impossible to please, judgmental, dishonest, harmful, resentful, hostile, hateful, etc. about their parent, caregiver, etc.
PR was the perfect magnet for a narcissist. She was a people pleaser. She enjoyed making things look good. She made John look good. She craved acceptance and liked "fixing" things and dolling things up. She was trusting, to a fault, unfortunately. She believed everything he told her, faithfully, and she believed in JR like she believed in her bible. She may have been very easy to take advantage of, unfortunately. If she were a raging psycho, I doubt the housekeeper would have had the nerve to ask her to borrow money. LPH probably felt a sense of friendship with PR. By all accounts, PR was easy to approach.
Please, keep studying this area of personality disorders and family dynamics. Thank you for your response.
-H
H: That's really good stuff. You should copy and paste it at the end, where everybody will see it. Not too many people scroll backwards for comments and this is a very good picture of Patsy.
DeleteThank you. With the negative trolling that seems to be relatively new to this unique and incredible website, your nice comment is a breath of fresh air!
DeleteFeel free to share the comment, at your leisure.
-H
There are lots of nice, receptive people here. Hercule just brings out the worst in everybody because he's been rude to and offended so many who disagreed with him or asked him to back up his opinions. He'll go away again soon and everything will go back to normal.
DeleteLinda Arndt had a "feeling" John was guilty. How is that powerful evidence?
ReplyDeleteWho the hell are the flying monkeys in your scenario?
I said powerful testimony.
ReplyDeleteFriends, friends with a legal background, legal team, friends in Atlanta, friends at CNN, friends with power and prestige. Those are the "flying monkeys."
The only honest people in this scenario are The White's and Linda Arndt. They both came to the same logical conclusion.
-H
Who were their friends at CNN?
ReplyDeleteWithin two days, Dec. 28th when the crime officially became a homicide, JR hired Pat Korten, a Washington D.C. Media Consultant within a "crisis management" firm to handle all things related to the media and to strategize how to spread stories of the Ramseys innocence within the media.
ReplyDeleteFlying Monkeys
-H
CC,
ReplyDeleteI replied to your comment on the hangar records as well as added some additional info on the activities of the 17th. Though I added it today, I'm new here and hit the 'reply to your post' instead of just replying to the thread. It is published 'up-thread.'
I'd be very interested in seeing a list of what was subpoenaed by the GJ. Where did you find it? And the info on Dr. Beuf's answering service?
ReplyDeleteCC
CC,
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe there is a complete list of what they subpoened. But Matt Sebastian of the Daily Camera wrote about the aviation hangar records subpoened here:
http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/13rams.html
From personal experience within the medical field in the 90s I can tell you that doctors used answering services to screen calls. The service protects a pediatrician from having to answer calls from panicked parents 24/7. I don’t know the name of the answering service, and Dr. B is retired now. But more importantly, because BPD were unable to locate phone records for the entire month of December for the Ramseys, I knew that LE had likely obtained info from an answering service who, by legal protocol, must keep a record of emergency after hours calls.
Thanks. Doc has referenced a Daily Camera Ramsey archive, but I believe it may have been taken down; at any rate, I can't find it.
ReplyDeleteKnow anything about exhumations? The forensics people I've spoken with all equivocate about exhumations and sexual abuse. Not that it matters at this point, but I was curious how long such evidence would last postmortem.
CC
DocG
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how bad the window staging really was.
The major objections to the staging are the spider web and the dirt not being disturbed.
I'm wondering if the spider web might have gone unnoticed by John. It was attached to the grate and lawn so it might have been in the shadows even if the basement light was on. Did the police test the visibility of the web under the same light conditions?
If John was unaware of the web he could not have considered it when deciding to un-stage the window.
You have said that you think John scooped packing peanuts from the window well into the basement. This scooping either would or wouldn't have disturbed the dirt, depending on how hard packed the dirt was. Apparently it was pretty hard packed, since it wasn't very disturbed in Steve Thomas's opinion.
But don't you think that John would have been aware of this hard packed condition when he did the scooping? Would that make him think his scooping motions sufficiently disturbed the dirt?
Also would there be a difference between how hard the dirt was at temps near or below freezing and temps that are higher during the day with the sun out. This might have been something Steve Thomas didn't consider. When Lou Smit slid his butt across the sill the dirt was disturbed but that was quite a while after the night of the murder, and during the day.
So I'm wondering if John really thought the staging was inadequate? Did he un-stage as a response to the 911 call? Or did he un-stage earlier? Perhaps he already planned on blaming someone with a key?
I can't shake the idea that if he knew of the spider web he would have knocked it down with a broom. And if he knew the dirt should be more disturbed he could have done that while scooping.
I can't believe the family would actually live with a broken window for several months. So, John must have broken it the night of the murder, and must have picked up the glass that night/morning.
I'll take my answer off the air :-)
I think the reason given for John's unstaging is that once the police arrived and started taking note of the state of the outside window grate, the window itself, and taking pictures, he knew this focus was going to be a problem for him. Remember, he thought he had all day to go over the scene he set and deal with the remaining details. He had to unstage when the police showed up and quickly started scrutinizing. Personally, I don't think these police were as inept as everyone says. I just think the leadership failed to provide support for Linda Arndt. At that point, maybe they doubted already that there had been a kidnapping.
DeleteWhen the investigation is bought, the evidence does not matter. The information that the public received was under unimaginable control. Money matters. I think people have a real Polly Anna view of our legal system. JR was off limits from the beginning. We have been so easily manipulated into even considering that a frazzled mother could or would sexually assault her six year old child.
ReplyDeleteAs Doc has stated, JR was ruled out. Why? Follow the rabbit hole, if you must, but it's not necessary. Money, power, "friends" who accepted money over justice in all the "right" places.
Who did that leave remaining? The mother and the brother...when your arms are tied behind your back in your investigation, what do you do? You try to solve the case, the best you can, with what you have.
Blame the only available character: the mom.
JR hired the best of the best. PR did not have the "dream team" that JR had. She was left totally vulnerable to attack, because JR's legal team was better.
Sick. sick. sick. JR is sick. His money was pulling the strings, behind the scenes, even without his wife's knowledge. Poor Patsy.
-H
Burke's testimony to the GJ, according to his attorney, was that he woke to the sound of raised voices during the 911 call and thereafter pretended to be asleep.
ReplyDeleteThe BPD collected clothing with bodily fluid stains, as specified in the three search warrants. They would not exceed the scope of the warrants and so did not collect unstained panties or new panties in plastic packaging. They simply left them in the drawer.
John had four months between the murder and the first police interview in which to manipulate Patsy's story about the window. Nothing spur of the moment about it. Had John carefully coached her or threatened her, she would not have said Linda helped clean up the glass, which John would know Linda would deny. In her mind, that's what would have happened.
You contradict your own threat theory, Blue Note, by admitting Patsy was a strong, confident woman. Such a woman would not be swayed by threats from a man who admitted killing her daughter; she'd get outta' Dodge.
CC
CC, I agree that at this point no prosecutor in Boulder would dare to try the case without some hard evidence.
DeleteRegarding exhumation, there are too many factors influencing decomposition to know absolutely how one would find the body. (E.g., amount of preservative used in embalming, the material utilized in a grave liner if the coffin was placed in one, the weather, etc.) I’m no expert. However, it’s been said the environmental factors in Georgia (warm and humid) would likely not have helped to preserve any body evidence.
Btw, and iirc, it was said the rest of the extra large panties, still in plastic wrapping, had been sent from Georgia by someone helping to unpack belongings of the Rs (or so it was alleged). A Daily Camera story in 2003 mentions this: "Also, investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her (though the DA's office now has them, Wood says)."
-joe
@cc
DeleteYou misunderstand the reason it takes time. It takes repeated attempts to undermine someone's confidence in their own memory. It takes multiple instances. If John wanted to be sure Patsy would play along he'd have to undermine her confidence repeatedly, with multiple examples of her bad memory, not just repeatedly tell her she swept up glass.
John did have months. And we don't know whether or not John undermined her memory during this time with multiple instances. But we have no evidence of that.
Clearly Patsy went off script in suggesting Linda followed with the vacuum. Linda is going to deny that whether it's gaslighting or a threat, so yes, I agree, John would never have told her to say that. That would be as true for gaslighting as for a threat of implication.
If John had gaslighted her about sweeping up glass he'd have been careful to also implant the false memory that Patsy herself had run the vacuum. He'd have told her it was Linda's day off and that would explain why Linda had no recollection of vacuuming glass.
IMO it's unlikely that he would have tried to convince Patsy that she was involved at all. It would be much easier to convince her she took no notice of a broken window that she had no involvement with. As I see it, it would be difficult to convince her she swept up glass then completely ignored the broken window thereafter.
"In her mind, that's what would have happened."
In her mind, she would have wondered why the hell the glass had been laying on the floor for weeks or months waiting for her to sweep it up upon her return from Michigan. Why do they have a housekeeper? In her mind she'd have tasked the housekeeper with the entire job. In her mind, had she been keenly aware of a broken window (she'd have to be keenly aware of it if she swept up glass from right underneath it) she'd have wanted it fixed and would have seen to it that it got done, yet it wasn't done. In her mind she'd find it odd that she'd swept up glass then completely ignored the window thereafter.
If John had gaslighted her, and had months to work out the details of how to do it, he'd have claimed to have swept up the glass himself. The story needs an explanation as to why John didn't have Linda clean it up in July or August. The story needs an explanation as to why the glass was left on the floor until Patsy and the kids returned from Mich. Had he claimed he swept it up himself he wouldn't have to explain those points.
She couldn't get out of Dodge. John had been ruled out. The focus was on her by default since John couldn't be the killer. Her only chance of not going down for the crime was to support the IDI theory, and to do that she'd have to support John's window story. If she didn't the police would feel that "The Ramseys" (or possibly just Patsy) had staged the window and thus were guilty.
Perhaps threat is too strong a word. John would have made it clear to her that if she didn't support his story they'd both be in jeopardy, her even more so than him.
It could have gone down more or less as DocG writes in Basement Window Part 4. But, as I've pointed out in the past, the fact that he sweeps up the glass the morning of the 26th clearly tells Patsy, if her brain isn't in neutral, that he's the murderer.
But I'm glad you agree she's a strong confident woman. She's an unlikely subject for gaslighting.
I have not been doing well in keeping my promise not to talk about this anymore. I will renew my effort to ignore this topic.
-Blue Note
I do not agree that Patsy was a strong, confident woman. Those are your words. I pointed out that believing so contradicts your threat theory, which I do not find credible.
DeleteCC
I've already provided a fact based reason for calling her smart, capable, competitive and confident woman.
Delete-Blue Note.
after reading almost half of everything on this site , it's funny how "carefully chosen facts" explain DocG's theory of this planned murder
ReplyDelete1-it's clear that the 118 000$ on the RN has only 1 goal ! ...to give the idea that a JR working colleague did it , if as lately DocG still think the RN was prepared in advance , why that he never really speaks about it in the theory he supposed ? ...is the police investigation got something from that prepared in advance crime?
2- Lou Smit argument about uses of the taser gun by the killer "Lou Smit made up this argument from nothing" DocG answer couples of months ago...lol
3-Patsy would have never abuse her daughter like that!! lol!! so DocG fans believe that it is impossible that a little girl killed by her mother , would never been abused by her father not long before the event ? come on !
4-a computer screen can help to be more precise but there is no way you can disguise a writing by doing this !
Better read the other half.
Delete... if you think it's not possible to be sexually abused and being killed not much longer after by someone else , you know nothing at all ! or you are an idiot !
DeleteI'm sure it's possible. Almost anything is. Just don't think that's what happened here.
Deletemy previous post : about my no 1 point of the 118000$ note , i was not clear , sorry , yes DocG speaks in detail abour this prepared note but he never took seriously the fac that JR could have prepared physically something else at the office or at the home of a working colleague !
ReplyDeleteSomewhere on these threads is the answer to a question I have ,but to save me time in finding it ,post a reply to this question-- If John planned the killing without any of Patsys involvement ,why the indictment of Patsy? I see references to one covering for the other--I see references to the GJ not knowing which one did what,but that both was guilty . There much have been testimony at the GJ that included Patsys guilt ---robert
ReplyDeleteA major component of this blog/theory of Doc's is the fact that John was ruled out based on bogus handwriting analyses, there was no evidence of an intruder, and Burke could not have done this. Doc's book is called "Ruled Out..." So you need to go to the beginning of this blog, as recommended, and read the posts that Doc asks everyone to start with in order to understand the overarching argument.
DeleteObviously you believe the answer to the question is in the recommended reading-- Why not just answer the question in YOUR understanding of the answer.
DeleteI have read the recommended reading and failed to grasp the answer. Likely because my comprehension ain't that good-- Thats why I ask for help
We don't know what evidence the grand jury saw because those proceedings are still sealed. The indictment they handed down was not for murder, it was for child abuse which caused a murder. That's really all we know. Everything else is just speculation.
DeleteRobert, I think I did answer you as best I could. Its as simple as this: John was "ruled out" due to the handwriting. There was no real physical evidence of an intruder. There were reasons to be skeptical that Burke did it. That left Patsy. Patsy was indicted because investigators backed into her as the culprit, but then when they realized that Patsy doing this alone did not make total sense, John was named as being "under the umbrella of suspicion." So they both were indicted, to let the grand jury figure who should be charged with what. As you know, the GJ didn't figure it all out. Beyond this, I don't have time to summarize the very thorough analysis done by DocG.
DeletePlenty helpful-- Child abuse leading to murder as apposed to child abuse leading to an accidental death.
Delete--I have been stuck on an accidental death which is not murder, only staged as a murder
The indictment referred to "murder in the first degree," which rules out accidental murder.
DeleteNeither one was indicted for murder. Both were indicted by gj for child abuse which led to murder.
ReplyDelete1. Who knew of the $118000 Christmas bonus?
ReplyDelete2. Was the made and people around thoroughly investigated?
Any fingerprints and or DNA on the note?
3. Is writing new line with an offset to the left so common and with which generations?
4. Can one's handwriting be forged to look similar? Can the note be a forgery to look similar yet to be different in trying to hide, i. e. purposely made as to be the same just when trying to hide? Who can do so? I guess many but who knew the handwriting?
5. Why was the previously broken window not repaired for 6 months? Who knew of this window other than one who checks just before?
6. Why was a blanket from the laundry used and not a blanket from the bedroom other than when in the bedroom the person did not know a blanket would be needed.
7. Why was not JonBenet pushed through the window and or pulled with the available rope?
8. Were there any cars around? Any guest to the neighbours and or friends and relatives?
9. Does the governor have a power to force an FBI investigation due to the obvious lack of knowledge of the local police? Who does?
1. JR and a few people at Access Graphics
ReplyDelete2. Yes.
3. Margin alignment became more widespread with computers.
4. Probably yes to all. Family members would know each other's handwriting.
5. It wasn't broken for 6 mos.
6. Blanket was from dryer outside JBR's bedroom where it was always washed and dried.
7. Because she wasn't kidnapped.
8. No one in neighborhood reported observing anything helpful.
9. No. FBI for federal crimes like kidnapping. No one.
"The indictment referred to 'murder in the first degree,' which rules out accidental murder."
ReplyDeleteAs you know, first degree murder is differentiated from second in that it is willful and premeditated.
Time to concede premeditation, Doc, and perhaps take another look at those three calls to the pediatrician on 12/17, and admit JR likely began thinking about it eight days before he did the deed.
CC
new theory as to who really killed jonbenet, hint not the Ramseys.
ReplyDeleteclick
http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934
or copy and paste in your url
Deletehttp://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11934
To believe anything other than the BDI theory is utterly ridiculous! IMO
ReplyDeleteEverything points to Burkes involvement and John and Patsy covering it up.
Cookie
OMG! Mr Cruel??? Really???
ReplyDeleteWTH is wrong with people!!
Cookie
Same thing that's wrong with BDI believers. Both theories pop up here every few months.
DeleteI have devoted the past 20 years to investigating and learning everything I could about this case.
ReplyDeleteIf you stick to the evidence and the interviews statements and behaviors there really is only one person who could have done this and only one person the Ramseys would have protected to this extent.
BDI was my theory long before Kolars book.
Its the only thing that makes sense.
Cookie
"BDI was my theory long before Kolars book.
DeleteIts the only thing that makes sense."
I commend you on your perseverance, however, I believe you are mistaken. Burke is a more viable suspect than John, but I cannot conceive of any BDI scenario that makes sense unless he wrote the ransom note, which is certainly not feasible.
I give you credit for being able to discern that Patsy lied too many times to be considered a victim of gaslighting, especially the lie to one of her close friends that screens had been removed from the windows to be professionally cleaned, yet she told investigators that John had removed them to gain access into the house on several occasions through several different windows. Gaslighting? Not a chance.
Hercule
But after the murder Patsy allowed Burk therapy, would you do this if you knew your son had committed murder, accidental or otherwise.?
Delete@Cookie.
DeleteExcept that it doesn't make sense to risk indictment for a crime you didn't commit. BDI explains everything except why John and Patsy would both be willing to risk prison, life sentences or possibly execution, for a crime they didn't commit. Burke was beyond the reach of the law.
-Blue Note
I've never seen that about the screens. What interviews are you referring to?
ReplyDeleteYes, Hercule, can you supply us with a reference? I'd never heard that story either. The screens are in fact present in the window well, they can clearly be seen in the photos, so why would she lie about that?
DeleteLook at how convinced we are that Patsy did not write the ransom note. Now imagine if you actually were Patsy: you would literally be 100% certain that you did not write the ransom note. If I'm a smart, confident woman who above all else wants justice for my daughter's murder, these "handwriting experts" can go **** themselves.
ReplyDeleteLook at how many lies we are pretty sure John has told. As Patsy, witnessing John firsthand, I'm going to be even more sure he is lying. Again, if I'm a smart, confident woman who above all else wants justice for my daughter's murder, I'm getting my own lawyer and calling out John on all of his BS.
NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE doubted the decision to rule John out, that was never questioned by anyone other than myself and Fausto Brugnatelli -- so why would Patsy question it?
DeleteFor the 1,000 reasons you've given us to doubt John...
DeleteYou put all of this together despite being separated by time and distance. If you were Patsy you would have figured this out in 15 minutes.
DeleteDocG
DeleteWhy wouldn't Patsy question John being ruled out? As you've so ably pointed out, Patsy was ranked as a very low probability for being the author, yet as the investigation developed she was seen as being the author. Then when D. Hoffman got involved his paid for experts all saw Patsy as the author. Cina Wong was 100% certain. Patsy would have little faith in the handwriting experts as their analysis applied to her so I don't see why that wouldn't extend to John being ruled out.
-Blue Note
Ubowski from the CBI was the first to analyze the RN, and he determined it to be PR's writing within a week of the crime. This was promptly leaked to the R's legal team by Pete Hofstrom.
DeleteEverything we know about Patsy tells us there is no way she'd have continued living with John if she suspected him of murdering her daughter. She accepted the decision to rule John out because 1. everyone else accepted it; and 2. that's what she wanted to believe. Also, the same "experts" who ruled John out also claimed it was unlikely that she wrote it, so she would have had no reason to doubt them. It was the "experts" hired by Darnay Hoffman who pointed the finger at her.
DeleteHercule is making things up again. I just read the 3 interviews with LE and what she actually says is that screens were off the windows and stored in basement because John didn't like a "cloudy" view. She says nothing about him getting in several times through different windows.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for our so called psychology expert to explain why he called John Ramsey psychotic in an October post. I looked it up. Psychosis is a break with reality, delusional, serious mental illness. Not even close, Hercule. I'm surprised you have the nerve to post here at all, much less make up more nonsense.
ReplyDeleteYes, I am well versed on psychology terms so there is no need to enlighten me on the definition of psychosis. I am afraid you took my statement out of context. Since you insist upon bashing my credentials and demanding an explanation then I shall give you one with the hope that it will extinguish your obsession on the subject. Let us take a look at my comment from October:
Delete"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."
I was not stating that it was my belief that John was suffering from psychosis. I was stating it from the viewpoint of all the bloggers who feel that John is psychotic.
Since you have already made up your mind that I am a fake, your interpretation of my statements will undoubtedly be negative and accusatory. My advice is to stop obsessing over my qualifications and focus on the case. Perhaps that will help you understand the points that I have attempted to make.
Hercule
All what bloggers who feel John is psychotic? I've never read anything anywhere that describes him as psychotic, except you.
ReplyDeleteIf you mean that no one has specifically mentioned John being psychotic then you are correct. There have been some bloggers, however, that have implied it. Some have hinted that John is delusional in how he views himself while others have asserted that he is a narcissist, which of course would mean that John would appear to be psychotic on the surface but in fact could not be if that were the case because he would be fully cognizant of what it is true and not true or real and make believe.
DeleteHercule
I played golf this afternoon with a shrink...a real one, and I showed him this paragraph. He said it was gibberish, laughed out loud at the "appear to be psychotic on the surface" and he said the words narcissist and psychotic should never appear together in one sentence.
DeleteExcept, he just reminded me, for malignant narcissist which has sadism involved and sadistic sex and serial killers.
Delete". . . Perhaps that will help you understand the points that I have attempted to make. "
ReplyDeleteThere is no failure of comprehension on our part, Hercule. Rather, it is - again - a failure on yours to make a valid point, and to back it up with anything but empty opinion, false assumption and outright misrepresentation of facts.
No one is obsessed with you or your qualifications, and judging by the thousands of posts on this blog, we have no difficulty focusing on the case.
CC
When I am absent, your focus on the case is keen. When I share an opinion, however, the focus shifts dramatically, as your last comment exemplifies my point.
DeleteHercule
That's cause it takes 8 people to dig out from under the bullshit you shovel.
ReplyDelete"...and he said the words narcissist and psychotic should never appear together in one sentence."
ReplyDeleteDid you not read my entire comment or is your reading comprehension lacking? I clearly said:
"... John would appear to be psychotic on the surface BUT in fact could NOT be if that were the case because he would be fully cognizant of what it is true and not true or real and make believe."
Hercule
My reading skills are just fine, you phony windbag. You conveniently left out the first part of your sentence: "...others have asserted that he's a narcissist, WHICH OF COURSE WOULD MEAN that John would appear to be psychotic on the surface. .."
DeleteBecause some people say he's a narcissist you say he appears "psychotic on the surface", what does that even mean? He appeared kind of schizophrenic? Kind of paranoid? Kind of had delusions and hallucinations? And NOBODY NOTICED??? You're a fake, and nobody believes anything you say.
DeleteThe last two posts were mine. I'll sign them from now on.
DeleteGolfguy
I really do not expect you to comprehend anything I post so why should my last comment produce different results? It is quite maddening at times to make a point on this blog. I might have had better luck trying to putt with a driver, eh Golfguy?
DeleteHercule
As CC told you, it is not a failure to comprehend on our part.
DeleteGolfguy makes a good point, and quotes the definition of psychosis as including schizophrenia, paranoia, delusions and hallucinations that I found online, too.
So it's a fair question. Why would you say narcissism, a Cluster B Personality Disorder according to the DSM-5, cause someone to display symptoms of psychosis "on the surface"? How is it that as Golfguy asked no one noticed?
I bet I can putt with a driver a lot better than you can make a coherent point.
DeleteGolfguy
I really don't care if John is found to be a narcissist, a psychotic, even a borderline personality. It does not matter. If he killed Jonbenet, the evidence of sexual abuse means at least indicates that he is a sexual deviant. Of all the child abusing, sexual deviants in the world, I'm sure there are a variety of diagnoses or classifications for these people. Sicko control freaks can be found to have no regard for other humans. I think John did this because I believe an intruder did not, and we know that Burke couldn't have written the note and couldn't have pulled off the coverup. Patsy called 911. She wanted her daughter found, wanted the perps to be caught before they could harm her. John, who cordially invited the police in that morning, has a whole consciousness of guilt air about him. The handwriting looks like his, for goodness sake! Forget the reason why -- the only thing that matters is that he had the means, motive and opportunity to kill his kid.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing you can say to convince me that no one other than Patsy wrote the ransom note. The author was clearly female and the handwriting matched 24 out of 26 letters of the alphabet from Patsy's numerous handwriting samples. She also made a clear attempt to disguise her handwriting after the murder. The fact is, Patsy had several different handwriting styles and often could not recognize her own writing when detectives questioned her. Doc has often said the ransom note handwriting does not look like Patsy's handwriting. Well, perhaps Doc did not look at the right samples! The ones I have seen have an uncanny resemblance.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the investigation, both Patsy and John exhibited deceptive behavior in their actions and answers. So you tell me: Which spouse is more likely to cover for the other? Patsy, whom has been described here as a loving, devoted mother that loved JonBenet more than life itself and would never allow someone to hurt her children much less protect the offender; Or John, who would have been put in a position to lose his daughter then lose his wife to prison and face the embarrassment of being the head of a highly dysfunctional family. That certainly would not be good for his business that he worked so hard to be successful. I never said John was an angel, but he obviously was not a murderer. He was very businesslike in his approach to everything. Is he arrogant? Yes. Is he condescending? You better believe it. Was he a narcissist? Possibly, but so is Donald Trump and most alpha males that are wealthy.
Hercule
I find DocG's analysis of the handwriting quite convincing. For the most part it doesn't look like either John or Patsy. Here and there, if cherry picked, one can see similarities to both Patsy and John.
DeleteThe important point DocG makes is that we are dealing with intentionally disguised writing. This isn't like telling someone that the signature is or is not that of Abe Lincoln.
As for John covering for Patsy, why would he risk indictment/trial for a murder he didn't commit ? If Patsy became unhinged enough to kill Jonbenet why would he run the risk of leaving Burke with her? How could he be sure it was a "one time" thing?
-Blue Note.
CC - Could P have claimed marital privilege and protect J by refusing to testify? My husband says it doesn't apply to murder, but I thought it was true across the boards. Sunny D
ReplyDeleteIt varies from state to state with regard to murder, but all fifty states prohibit the assertion of marital privilege when the crime concerns the abuse or death of a child.
DeleteCC
Hercule, with statements that most alpha males that are wealthy are narcissists, you lose creditability with me. For one thing, we have no idea if John was an alpha type. I agree that he probably is one, but my point was that it does not matter what we all label him as being. There is nothing you can say to make me believe Patsy would go along with ramming a paint brush in her daughter's vagina, no matter what had already transpired that night. And...she would not have called 911 if she had been involved in any of it.
ReplyDeleteJohn most assuredly is an alpha male. The question is, to what extent? There are different levels. By the way, this is not psychology. We need not psychoanalyze John in the confines of my dimly lit office highlighted by a comfy leather chair and Peace Lily to surmise that he is an alpha male.
DeleteIf Patsy did kill JonBenet, and I have no reservations about that, why would she not do something drastic in her staging to have investigators or people like you saying, "I would never believe Patsy could do such a thing..."? That is precisely why she did! Furthermore, she would have to call the police. Is she going to dump the body late at night and risk being seen? Is she going to tell John, "Don't worry honey, I'll take care of this. You and Burke go over to the Whites while I wait for the kidnappers to call." What choice did she have but to play the dramatic role of a devasted mother in crisis? A role in which a well-trained former beauty queen (who was already genuinely upset about what transpired that night) was far more comfortable playing.
Hercule
Yeah yeah yeah. We've heard all this from you before. You still got no evidence or proof just half ass psychobabble. When you try to come up with evidence it's all lies, like the screens this last time. If you think we're all so stupid why do you keep on blogging here? So far as I can tell you have not convinced anybody of anything in six months of trying. mb
ReplyDeleteAgree with MB. Hercule, you make a lot of smug assertions, and its all frankly BS. If you believe Patsy killed JB, assaulted her private area, wrote that note, then called the police because she reasoned, after placing the note on the stairs, that it was a real good idea to call the police right then and there, then you on one hand are giving her credit for being a great actress (because we all know that pageant winners are actresses and role players and in the 70's got lots of "training" - and yes I'm being snarky), but on the other hand you give her zero credit for having the ability to carry out her scene as set in the ransom note. You make no sense to me. You ramble on about John and what type of person he is, to make what point about his role in this? You apparently have all kinds of notions about women who participate in pageants, but nothing is cohesive in terms of explaining why this note was written to thwart someone from calling the police, why the note appeared to be buying time on behalf of the perp(s), you present no real reason for Patsy to kill her daughter in this manner, and most importantly, you ignore that JB had signs of chronic sexual abuse. My only question to you is, if you have a daughter, would you dismiss any findings of sexual abuse and go after a woman as the suspect, dismissing any males who had access to her? You my friend, are why I protect my children so strongly. You are scary. You are someone who I would never trust in the role of psychologist, judge, mental health professional, social worker, school counselor. People that think like you are the reason why so many girls never get justice for sexual abuse. You want to sweep this sexual abuse under the rug and blame the victim, blame the mother. After all, if JB didn't wet the bed, crazy-mommy wouldn't have been so put out, and wouldn't have clobbered her, strangled her, sexually assaulted her, and then darn it, had to re-apply her makeup. Good God. I hope my daughter never encounters the likes of you in her life. Ask yourself why you are so eager to excuse John in this. HE DOES NOT GET A PASS! There is no reason, as Doc as so eloquently explained, to give him a pass.
ReplyDeleteDoc: H posted something upstream, on 12/19 at 2:22, about Patsy and narcissism, that I'd like to enlarge on, but I'm not as smart as my smartphone, and can't figure out how to cut and paste. Could you post it here? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteCC
OK. Here it is:
DeleteNo, I'm saying that PR married into a family that was already established. JR had older children. PR had to step into a routine and behaviors that had already been established for quite some time.
We all have narcissistic tendencies, but narcissistic personality disorder is rare. It effects less than 1% of the population, and mostly males. Please, keep reading and researching the NPD and the family dynamic of an NPD family; i.e. children of narcissists, adult children of narcissists, etc.
There are adults out there in therapy, right now, who are just finding out that this is what was wrong with their mother or father. They have been totally unaware of what narcissism even was. It's the (nervous) feeling of knowing something was off or wrong or cruel or cold or deliberately critical, impossible to please, judgmental, dishonest, harmful, resentful, hostile, hateful, etc. about their parent, caregiver, etc.
PR was the perfect magnet for a narcissist. She was a people pleaser. She enjoyed making things look good. She made John look good. She craved acceptance and liked "fixing" things and dolling things up. She was trusting, to a fault, unfortunately. She believed everything he told her, faithfully, and she believed in JR like she believed in her bible. She may have been very easy to take advantage of, unfortunately. If she were a raging psycho, I doubt the housekeeper would have had the nerve to ask her to borrow money. LPH probably felt a sense of friendship with PR. By all accounts, PR was easy to approach.
Please, keep studying this area of personality disorders and family dynamics. Thank you for your response.
-H
Flame wars have been extremely rare on this blog and I'd like to keep it that way. So from now on, any comment containing a personal attack is going to be deleted. I've never had to do that before, but things are getting a bit out of hand. Thank you for your cooperation.
ReplyDeleteYour next to last paragraph is the best analysis of Patsy I've seen, H; I think it's spot on. This is was the basis of my point to Blue Note in his threat vs gaslighting argument, but didn't know enough about P to articulate: classic gaslighting would not have been necessary, as P was predisposed by temperament and habit to believe John. Thanks, H.
ReplyDeleteCC