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 12, 2015
Open Thread -- Part Six
Time for yet another thread. Keep those comments coming folks. It's heartening to see how many are still interested in this case after so many years.
Just saw the Lou Smit video, not at all impressed. We are to believe the intruded chose this awkward spot to enter the home, drop down in a dark maze like basement where he could have knocked over numerous items and made noise. Have to time to look around and find the perfect room, with the odd latch, and the door is hard to open at that, pretty lucky intruder.
Then he wants us to believe the intruder possibly hid under a bed upstairs waiting for JBR because a dust ruffle was moved? Really? The same bed PR had all the clothes on top of she was packing to take on her trip, could she have moved the ruffle with her foot herself? Uh, yes its very likely she did! Why would he not give the option of both ways to the viewers? Very misleading! This guy was all over the place with excuses to help exonerate the Ramsey's. How does he sleep at night? Did JR give him one of his melatonins?
Det. Smit was a very well respected detective and solved many murders during his career, some very high profile.
IMO we have two ways to go when reviewing Smit's findings. One is to assume he's on the take and was actively trying to get the parents off the hook. The problem is there is no evidence of this, so it might be his findings are the sincere beliefs of a highly regarded veteran investigator.
The other way we can go is to try to look at it without a knee jerk reaction to dismiss intruder evidence. I'm not saying we should accept the intruder scenario, but we ought to at least look at it as if it makes a modicum of sense. If Smit is on the level in this case then there could be more to the intruder scenario than we are perhaps willing to admit.
There is no way to understand Smit's role in this case unless we assume that either he was corrupted by Ramsey money, or there is more sense to the intruder scenario than we'd like to believe.
Actually there is a third way to look at Smit's role. We could assume he'd become a doddering old fool, with senility starting to set in, unable to think straight. But, there isn't anything to support this.
What if we looked at Smit's findings as an honest difference of opinion deserving of some respect? What would that do to our view of the case?
He was also a zealous Christian who refused to accept that two fellow believers could do such a thing. He went so far as to pray with the Ramseys in the back of a crime scene van parked in front of 15th Street in the early days of his investigation. Steve Thomas wrote that Smit and Smit alone was convinced IDI his third day on the job, looked high and low for a stun gun that fit his theory. There's an element of doddering in there.
Lou Smit sued for the right to present his theory to the grand jury when his employer, Alex Hunter decided not to include it. Highly unusual behavior, not very professional, at the very least obstinate and opinionated, possibly doddering. And that grand jury, which saw all available evidence, did not return a true bill against person or persons unknown, they returned a true bill against the Ramseys.
"He was also a zealous Christian who refused to accept that two fellow believers could do such a thing."
I don't know how many times I've seen this come up in this case. He had worked on 200 murder cases over the years. Just looking at statistical probability he would have had to have busted many Christians. It can't be the case that every crime he solved was committed by an atheist, and Hindu, etc.
"Lou Smit sued for the right to present his theory to the grand jury when his employer, Alex Hunter decided not to include it."
Is that strange behavior on the part of Lou Smit, or the DA? The DA is supposed to present all the evidence, not just one side.
The GJ saw all the evidence because Det. Smit insisted on it, even to the point of suing for the right. He was allowed to present his case to the GJ, which is what he was asking for. He had his day in front of the GJ, and they didn't buy his theory. The final decision was to indict both Ramseys, not just one.
Clearly Hunter didn't think Smit's theory rose to the level of evidence, which is all any DA is obligated to present. The decision of a DA's investigator to sue for the right to present a theory absent evidence was unprecedented and Smit was and continues to be highly criticized by law enforcement and the legal communities. One hopes it was merely the over-zealous action of an elderly, retired detective rather than outright malfeasance.
Probably not malfeasance because a judge would have to decide the matter. If it were malfeasance Smit would have lost. Kane petitioned to court to have the Smit evidence destroyed. That's very different than thinking the theory didn't rise to the level of evidence. Smit prevailed in front of a judge, being allowed to retain possession of his evidence and pitch his theory to the GJ.
If we allow ourselves to think objectively about the intruder scenario we wouldn't necessarily (or even probably) conclude it's true. But we would see that it has at least some merit otherwise a detective of Smit's caliber would not have believed it. Or, as I said previously, we can assume Smit is on the take, but that isn't based in evidence.
Smit very logically reasoned that "the Ramseys" would not have called 911 with the body in the house if they'd been staging a kidnapping. As a result, he became determined to seek out any evidence of an intruder, because he honestly believed no other scenario was possible. And, of course, he found what he was looking for.
This is an excellent example of how easy it is to make an unwarranted assumption, based not on facts but perception. The mistake he made was the same mistake everyone else made at the time: treating "the Ramseys" as a fixed unit, always acting in complete accord and with the same motive.
Smit also reasoned that Mrs.Ramsey was unlikely to be the writer of the ransom letter. There are some parallels between Smit's thinking and the reasoning presented on this blog.
He could not have found what he was looking for if it were not there. That's the point.
I respect that lou was a respected detective with many solved crimes notched up over the years. But what was his take on the paper and pen used from the Ramsey's home to write the RN if he believed it was an intruder.?
Doc, would you be willing to share how many independent hits your blog gets on a monthly basis? I know you have readers in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., but I imagine you also have followers from all over the world.
Last month there were 8,571 page views, 4,841 unique visits. All told there have been 283,835 hits. Hits from mobile devices haven't been counted, as I neglected to make the necessary software adjustment.
Doc, those are very, very impressive numbers. I understand your first choice is to attract the attention of an investigative journalist, but might not a petition do just that, as well as gain you even more readers, blog posters, supporters and credibility through increased exposure? To avail yourself of First Amendment protection, the petition should be directed to a government or its agent, in this case the State of Colorado or Governor H, and request a reopening of the investigation rather than an indictment of JR. I would think that such a petition garnering the signatures you could obviously muster would attract all kinds of media attention, first to the petition itself, secondarily to your theory, book and blog. Food for thought. CC
CC, anyone is free to initiate such a petition, so if you think something meaningful might come of it, by all means do so. I see my role primarily as that of fact finder and analyst, but it's not for me to prosecute, I'll gladly leave that to others.
I can't. I lack your ready-made forum to attract signatories, for one, and it would be deemed inappropriate or a downright conflict of interest by my professional peers. If you'll supply the former, perhaps by creating a stand-alone petition thread on your blog, and someone - or, even better, a group - wrote and posted the petition, I'll supply free legal advice, provided I can do it sub rosa. CC
Random question here . . . so why did the theory of intruder with key get so little attention? Aren't there several people the Ramseys knew who could be ones with keys or ones who possibly stole a key and made a copy? What ever happened to the Santa Claus suspect?
If i recall correctly, Bill McReynolds, who played santa at the Ramsey's party's was cleared through DNA and also had had some heart bypass op shortly before the crime and was thought too weak to have committed the crime. I think he died awhile ago. As i said in my earlier post regarding lou smit, how did he explain the paper and pen used from within the Ramsey home for the RN if he thought there was an intruder.
I'm having problems posting done it twice not sure if they will show up just wondered if you all had seen the Carney Hoffman video posted on YouTube https://youtu.be/yl5Ll3sLFs8 This is the link the Ramsey are under oath patsey is shown her handwriting from family photographs says she does not recognize it she also is asked who invited the friends round that morning and says oh that was me! Individual letters from the ransom note and her handwriting she is asked to compare I can say I understand now why her handwriting was under suspicion both their responses and demeanours are interesting
If Patsy wrote the ransom note why wouldn't she use all caps block printing like somebody suggested in last thread? Seems like that's Kidnapping 101, and whoever wrote that note had plenty of time and wasn't stupid.
The comparisons in this video should be compared with those in my post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence," and also the video comparing Chris Wolf's handwriting with that on the note -- see "Big Bad Wolf." It's all too easy to cherry pick similarities, especially when limiting yourself only to individual letters. Darnay Hoffman was convinced ahead of time that Patsy wrote the note, so he commissioned a group of "experts" to confirm his suspicion -- which of course they did. I've gone over their reports in a series of posts labeled "The "Experts" See Patsy" and revealed the shoddiness of their work. And by the way, all these "experts" had to go on were those very brief photo captions, which may or may not have been penned by Patsy.
When you examine longer samples of Patsy's hand the many differences become obvious.
A good example of how easy it is to go wrong when making such comparisons is the letter "d" at the top of the list. One "d" is made with two strokes only while the other is made with three strokes. While they might look alike to an uncritical viewer, the difference in the way these letters were formed tells us far more than what we get from a brief impression seen momentarily on a video screen. This is how an innocent person gets railroaded. Fortunately the DA didn't fall for it.
" The Basement Window - Part 4" It's from August, 2012. The first time I read it it seemed to make sense. Re-reading it I had a different reaction to it. I wonder what others think?
In this post DocG tries to explain how Mrs. Ramsey could be induced to go along with Mr. R's made up story about breaking the window when he forgot his key.
Quote:
"Look, as you know I was ruled out as writer of the note. And as you know very well, you didn't write it. So it had to be an intruder. Which means the window must have been broken by the intruder. But the police are convinced that this type of crime is always done by a family member, they have us in their sights, and since I was ruled out, they've become convinced you must have written that note and may also have killed JonBenet, with me helping you. Ridiculous, I know, but that's what they think.
Sure, I told Fleet and the police I'd broken that window earlier, but there was a very good reason for that. Because if I hadn't, they would have assumed the two of us broke the window that night, to make it look like an intruder did it. So I made up that story, because I had to, I had no choice. Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging. We are in this together, Patsy, and we have to present a united front, because they have no interest in any intruder and are out to get us. So I need you to help me out here and support my story, because if we start accusing each other of lying, that will give them what they need and we will both be done for."
Unquote.
Unlike other lies told by either of "The Ramseys", this lie requires a physical component, the sweeping up and disposal of the glass. Other lies just require imagination and can be told any time they are thought up. This lie could not have been dreamed up a few weeks, or even a few days after the 26th, it had to be dreamed up on the morning of the 26th because the glass had to be swept up to make it believable. There is no disagreement that the glass was taken care of on the morning of the 26th, before the body was found. So, all the reasons Mr. Ramsey gives for doing it had to be clearly in mind early in the morning on the 26th. Yet, the reasons would not come into play until weeks later.
On Dec. 26th, 1996 the police had not focused on either of the Ramseys to the exclusion of any other case theory. The Ramseys were not arrested nor even taken to the police station for questioning. All the police did was tell them they couldn't leave town. While parents are always suspects in cases of missing/murdered children the police had barely formed any theory of the case yet, much less did they have the Ramseys "in their sights".
On the 26th Mr. Ramsey had not been ruled out as the author of the ransom letter, that would come weeks later.
On the 26th there was no reason for the police to accuse the Ramseys of staging the window. In fact with the glass gone, a spider web intact, and lack of disturbance of the dirt on the sill, there was no reasons to suspect it had ever been staged. As far as I can see the idea of incomplete staging never occurred to the police.
So, if Mrs. Ramsey is going to accept Mr. Ramsey's rationale she'd have to wonder how he could be so prescient. Early on the 26th, he knew the police were going to accuse the Ramseys of staging the window. He knew the police would focus the investigation on them. He knew the police were "out to get them". He knew he'd be ruled out as the author of the letter and the police would focus on Mrs. Ramsey.
This is what Mrs. Ramsey is expected to believe ?
She's supposed to be consoled by Mr. Ramsey being ruled out, but not at all troubled that he seemingly already knew he would be on the 26th?
Why are you assuming John had this conversation with Patsy on the 26th? He had months, until they were interviewed in 4/97 to have that conversation with her.
I'm not assuming that he had the conversation on the 26th. But the glass had to be swept up on the 26th. In fact it had to be swept up before Fleet White went down the basement. So if his reasons for doing it don't materialize until weeks after the 26th, how could they be the reasons he swept up glass that morning?
The conversation would make sense just before the interviews on 4/97, except that the glass had to be dealt with on the 26th of Dec., '96. On that morning he couldn't know he'd be ruled out. On the 26th he couldn't know the police would focus on Patricia. On the 26th he could have no legitimate reason to think the police would accuse them of staging the window. So how did he know to sweep up the glass that morning? The lie only works by sweeping up the glass, so the lie had to be fully formed in Mr. Ramsey's mind the morning of the 26th. The reasons he gives his wife have not come into play yet on the morning of the 26th, and won't for weeks to come.
You're making this way more complicated than it is. He had to unstage the minute Patsy called 911. All he had to do was see snow or frost (there were both, and the latter shows footprints as well as the former) to realize he needed to sweep up.
He didn't even need to see it. He was a pilot. He knew the weather, they were flying that day. As soon as his wife called the cops he had to clean up the glass. dg
I understand why Mr. Ramsey actually swept up and unstaged. That's not the issue.
The issue is that Mr. Ramsey gives his wife a few reasons for fabricating the lie about breaking the window. But Mrs. Ramsey knows those reasons don't materialize for at least a few weeks afterword. So Mrs. R would have to wonder how Mr. Ramsey knew to sweep up glass, on the morning of the 26th.
She must have realized that his real reason was different than the reasons given in the hypothetical conversation. Certainly by the 4/97 interviews she knows the window will be asked about. By that time she knows the reasons Mr. R gives her for making up the lie had not yet materialized on the 26th. Yet he swept up the glass early that morning.
DocG disagrees with you, and me, that Mr. R had to unstage the minute Mrs. Ramsey called 911. He believes it's possible the unstaging was done later in the morning, after the police were on the scene. But the time doesn't matter. What matters is the date.
Ten days ago you thought the time mattered very much. Now you claim it's the date that's important. I think you're just obsessing over the glass clean up. Patsy was drugged out of her brain and grief stricken for who knows how long and I'm sure relied on John unquestioningly to filter her information, make her decisions for a long, long time, just as she always had. By the time she came to she probably had little recollection of who said or did what where and when.
Agreed. I've read in multiple places that Patsy was so drugged up for the first few weeks or even months by some accounts. I don't think she was having any rational conversations at all. It's easy to see what you want to see especially when you aren't all there due to grief and medication.
"Ten days ago you thought the time mattered very much"
Ten days ago I was talking about a very narrow issue, namely, the time of morning that Mr. R swept up the glass. After some discussion DocG agreed that my timeline made sense. He may still prefer his timeline, and that's fine, as his is possible too.
Today the issue isn't what time of morning the glass was swept up. The issue is the reasoning that Mr. R gives Mrs. R to induce her to go along with his story and present a united front.
The physical act of sweeping up the glass cannot be separated, in time, from the "reasons" he gives for making up the story. So for today's issue, it doesn't matter whether the glass was swept up at 5:55 or 6:45. What matters is it was done on the 26th. That means Mr. R's reasons for fabricating the story have to make sense on the 26th. But they don't. On the 26th he was not ruled out nor could he even foresee it. On the 26th the police were not "out to get them". On the 26th the investigation had not focused on Mrs. Ramsey. On the 26th the intruder theory had not been dismissed. But DocG has Mr. Ramsey giving her these as reasons why he had to fabricate the window story and for asking her to go along with his lie.
" I don't think she was having any rational conversations at all."
Well DocG thinks they were having a rationale conversation. After all, if he was going to induce her to go along with his lie she'd have to know what the plan was and he'd have to explain to her why he made it up the lie and why she needed to go along with it. DocG is right, they needed to present a united front.
She was not in her drug induced stupor right up until she walked into the police station for the interview. She'd have been prepped by her lawyer and advised that the window questions were coming.
I'm just suggesting the conversation could not have gone quite as DocG suggests, simply because Mr. R's reasons for making up the story have make sense at the time the glass was swept up.
This lie requires a physical act to make it believable. The reasons for making up the lie have to make sense at the time the physical act is performed. He cannot sweep up the glass first, and have his reasons for making up the story materialize later.
It's my conjecture that Patsy knew about John's prior molestations of JBR, but JR made her be quiet about it, using her cancer treatment as a weapon (e.g., you say anything, and I won't pay for your treatment - and spend all my money on my defense). Then JR used her culpability to get her to lie for him when things went south on that Christmas.
Divorce and half his assets would have paid for a lot of treatment with a lot less heartache and sacrifice. Plus she was in remission from 94 on, thought God had healed her.
Oh for pity's sake. His reasons could've changed. On the 26th he was going for a kidnapping by an intruder and planned to dump the body. Patsy foiled that by calling 911. Now he needs to make the scene less obviously staged, hope ambiguity leads to confusion, which it did. He only had to come up with a story for Patsy days or weeks later while she was drug- addled and confused. The guy could definitely think on his feet. Why do you persist in making this more confusing than it needs to be?
"The physical act of sweeping up the glass cannot be separated, in time, for the reasons he gives for making up the story. .." Sure it can. Why not? At the time he swept it up it was for the benefit of LE. At the time, days or weeks later, he gives Patsy his us-or-them rationale circumstances had changed. What's the problem?
I'm confused too, Blue Note. Are you suggesting that JR's story to PR about the broken window included "Honey, I swept up the glass"? Because I think the rest of us think that statement was omitted, and the conversation was more along the lines of "Honey, don't you remember when I locked myself out last summer while you were at the lake and you and Linda had to clean it up?"
The statement was omitted in DocGs hypothetical conversation. I assume it was omitted because it isn't necessary. The fact that Mr. R swept up the glass is implied in fabricating the story. If she'd given it any thought at all, and I'm sure she did, she'd have realized it had to be Mr. R that swept it up. He's telling her he made up a lie, so she has to realize he swept it up.
You raise the possibility of gaslighting. But again, all I've suggested is that the dialogue didn't go quite as DocG imagines. If Mr. R had said "Honey, don't your remember when I locked myself out last summer while you were at the lake and you and Linda had to clean it up?", that would not go with DocG's "So I made up that story, because I had to, ... . " Gaslighting and an outright admission that he made up the story don't mesh.
So, sorry to be repetitious, but the stated reasons are at odds with gaslighting, and they are at odds with a sweep up on the 26th. So, if we assume the window was broken the night of the murder, and we assume Mr. R swept up the glass on the 26th, then the conversation could not go as outlined. If she was gaslighted the conversation would go along the lines you suggest, but not along the lines DocG suggests.
AH HA! Blue Note is Hercule!!! He's changed his stripes, but the speech patterns, the convoluted sentence structure, the need to poke a hole in Doc's theory, the contrived screen names, even the double space and dash when he signs off --- it's him!
Bluenote, I get it, and yes, you make valid point. Patsy might have had a hard time reconciling the failure of the police to find any large pieces of glass with John's effort to convince her he made up that story because the police were focusing on them, which came later, yes.
However:
1. By the time John would have told her that story she'd have been convinced of his innocence since he'd been "ruled out." So even though every detail didn't add up, she'd have had no choice to go along regardless. She was not a detective in any case, just a housewife and not likely to challenge him. Even if she did suspect something, what could she be expected to tell the authorities, who were also convinced John could not have written the note, but she could? I don't see her cross-examining John over exactly why he got rid of the glass that morning, and such a question probably never occurred to her.
2. I don't think we can discount the possibility of gaslighting in this case. Patsy had undergone intensive chemotherapy and after the murder had been heavily sedated for some time. So it might not have been that hard to convince Patsy that she did something she actually didn't do. The fact that she included Linda in her story suggests that she'd been gaslighted into actually believing it -- and since she knew Linda would have helped her, she remembered it that way.
Neither I nor anyone else knows exactly what happened between them or how John actually convinced her to support that story -- but we do know it's a lie, as Linda denied any knowledge of a broken window, or any part in cleaning up any glass in that basement. And if Patsy was aware she was lying, then why would she have included Linda in her scenario?
"1. By the time John would have told her that story she'd have been convinced of his innocence since he'd been "ruled out." So even though every detail didn't add up, she'd have had no choice to go along regardless."
She has the choice of using common sense, and basic logic. She wasn't drug addled at this point. She had to be reasonably sound of mind in order to enter into this little conspiracy to support the window lie. While she may not have known what went on for weeks after the murder, her state of mind is no longer an issue when this conversation takes place. If she's sound enough to be trusted to conspire to present a untied front, she's sound enough to figure out that sweeping up the glass can't predate the reason for making up the story.
Mr. R being ruled out is no comfort if he's giving reasons that had not yet materialized on the morning he swept the glass. She's not dense, and she's no longer in a fog.
Once the investigation focused on her she may well have been reluctant to challenge Mr R's story. I can agree with that. But she could not have failed to see through his explanation the way you have written up the conversation.
I'll agree gaslighting is a possibility, but then the conversation would have been quite different, running along the lines that anonymous above suggested. Now this is all I've suggested; the conversation had to take on a different character. If she's not in on the crime or at least the cover-up, but is only in on this little lie to present a "united front", then gaslighting may be the only answer.
"And if Patsy was aware she was lying, then why would she have included Linda in her scenario?"
If Mr. R was trying to gaslight her, why would he include Linda in the story? He knows or should at least assume Linda isn't going to back up something that never happened, and it would be quite dangerous to include her and have her deny the whole story. Which is of course exactly what happened. It's hard to believe that was by design. I would imagine the conversation went more like this "Honey, don't you remember cleaning up the glass after I broke the window? You had to do it yourself because Linda was off that day". Something to that effect. I don't see Mr. R including a potentially non-compliant witness in the attempt to gaslight.
So why did Mrs R include Linda ? Patsy may have let her guard down a bit and embellished the story more than she should have, but this suggests she knew very well she was lying.
My reluctance to fully accept gaslighting, while admitting the possibility, is that the event had to take place "last summer" so no drug induced fog can explain why she can't recall what happened months before the murder. But gaslighting is a real thing and it has been done. So ok, that's a possible explanation.
"Neither I nor anyone else knows exactly what happened between them or how John actually convinced her to support that story -- "
Well there is no disagreeing with that statement. My guess is either she went along because she's a co-conspirator from the word go, or she was gaslighted into "remembering" an event that never happened. But if she was gaslighted, the conversation couldn't go as you've suggested in the post I referenced.
IOWs I'm suggesting something that probably no writer wants to hear, you've got a little revision to do. :-) It's more convincing as gaslighting but that's a different conversation.
"Bluenote, I get it, and yes, you make valid point. ... "
Thank you. I felt sure you'd get it right away. I was a little surprised that some posters didn't. I must not be able to express myself clearly.
I think Patsy including Linda in her story is further evidence of gaslighting or just suggestibility resulting from confusion. She was, according to anyone who knew her or saw the house, a lousy housekeeper. To her it would be natural to assume that if she cleaned something up it was with Linda's assistance.
Well that's a good point. Perhaps I'm wrong to suggest Mr. R would tell her Linda was off that day. But there must be regular "off" days when Mrs. R had to take care of the bedding and other tasks.
It's pretty dangerous to include the housekeeper when there's every chance she will deny the whole story.
Then there is Mrs R's inability to remember whether or not the window was fixed. Did Mr. R implant a false inability to remember as well as a false memory :-)
It's important to realize though that Mrs R is not confused when they are having this conversation. She may not remember, she may misremember, but she's of sound mind, otherwise why bother having the conversation?
She saw nothing dangerous in including Linda be cause she wasn't consciously lying, just repeating what had been suggested to her, and in her mind Linda would have helped. Which also explains why she didn't remember having the window fixed - the whole window thing was a false memory, she would naturally be clueless as to why itwas or wasn't fixed.
Because LE had waited four months for ANY conversation. They didn't care what she'd taken, what state she was in, they just wanted her on record making a statement.
Looking again at the words I put in John's mouth, I see nothing that implies he made up the story because the police were convinced of their guilt. Here's "his" explanation as it appears on the blog post (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html):
"Sure, I told Fleet and the police I'd broken that window earlier, but there was a very good reason for that. Because if I hadn't, they would have assumed the two of us broke the window that night, to make it look like an intruder did it. So I made up that story, because I had to, I had no choice. Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging."
That's his explanation for making up his story, which also explains why he cleaned up the glass. The following portion, about them "being in this together," is where he makes the point that the police are out to get them. That's not his reason for making up the story, it's his reason for expecting Patsy to go along with it.
When I wrote that I'd never heard of gaslighting. But when someone commenting later referred to it, I agreed that gaslighting did make a lot of sense. It still makes the most sense to me, but realistically we can't possibly know what motivated Patsy to lie. All we can be sure of is that John lied, and somehow manipulated Patsy into covering for him. The reference to Linda speaks to her confusion over that lie. It's certainly not something John would have told her to say. And her inability to recall whether the window was repaired is consistent with her being manipulated into reporting something that didn't happen. If it never happened, then how could she possibly recall whether the window had been repaired or not?
"Looking again at the words I put in John's mouth, I see nothing that implies he made up the story because the police were convinced of their guilt."
From the second paragraph of your hypothetical conversation.
"... Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging. We are in this together, Patsy, and we have to present a united front, because they have no interest in any intruder and are out to get us. ...'
You have Mr. R saying "They are out to get us" You are either implying the police are convinced of the R's guilt, or you're implying they wanted to railroad a couple they knew to be innocent. Either way, such an event had not taken place on the 26th.
You're becoming tedious on this topic. Doc makes no claims to mind reading, frankly acknowledges speculating. Does not impact his theory. Stop nitpicking to no good purpose. What's your point? That Doc is fallible? He acknowledges that freely as well. Move on.
I have to say the quality of commentary has really taken a nosedive lately. If some of you can't be bothered with details, or can't withstand the mildest disagreement with any of DocG's points, then what the heck are you doing here?
Blue Note, your discussion about the conversation between John and Patsy makes for good reading, however:
The only facts that we have to go on for this topic are: 1) the floor was cleaned of glass by the time the broken window noted by LE; 2) John gave a reason to LE for why the window was broken; 3) Patsy supported the story of the window having been broken previously and stated that she and Linda cleaned it up. The rest is conjecture. As Doc has often said, we can speculate to connect certain facts but we can't really know for sure. So for you or Doc to come up with different ideas on how the conversation with Patsy went down is just that, speculation. Neither of your versions changes the facts. Patsy called 911. John disappeared for a while, acted oddly detached, and was the one who found the body, with Fleet noticing that he screamed before the light was turned on. So, I really don't care if, how, or why John convinced Patsy to "recall" certain things. She was not looking at her husband as the perp for a number of reason, some probably selfish, some not logical, some protective of Burke.
I can even think of another version of conjecture: the glass had been broken in the past for some reason, but as part of the staging, John messed with the window some more. After Patsy called 911, he realized that not only was his intruder plan not fully set up at this point, but that the glass on the floor must be removed or Patsy would point out that it was "new" because she DID remember cleaning it up before. I personally think John's story about being locked out was a fabrication, so in this scenario the prior break that Patsy cleaned up would be for some other reason, like perhaps Burke throwing things while playing. In fact, JR may have explained to her that he named himself as the breaker so that Burke and his behavior with the golf club and other rambunctious acts would not be brought into the equation.
Regardless of why Patsy did or didn't do certain things, the fact remains that she would not have called 911 if she were involved in the killing or coverup. She would not have agreed to staging sexual abuse of her daughter. She would not have allowed for a note to be written that could sound or even remotely look like she wrote it. She would not have taken a lot of meds afterwards, knowing what a vulnerable position she would place herself in by being out of it.
"... So for you or Doc to come up with different ideas on how the conversation with Patsy went down is just that, speculation. Neither of your versions changes the facts ".
This is true. Neither is it a fact that Mr. R convinced Mrs. R to falsely "recall" sweeping up glass. It could be that Mrs. R lied because she was in it up to her neck, right from the word go.
That Mr. R is lying about the window is central to DocG's thesis. An important part of that thesis is that Mrs R is innocent. Yet Mrs R makes a claim which can't be true if Mr. R broke the window the night of the murder. How to reconcile this conflict? Mrs. R is gaslighted into "remembering" something that never happened.
If you want to see gaslighting you'll see it, and I agree it's possible. But I'm much less willing than DocG to accept it as the absolute truth.
"I can even think of another version of conjecture: the glass had been broken in the past for some reason,"
This might have happened too. We don't know. Another possibility is that the window really was broken last summer. I wouldn't bank to heavily on that, but it is possible.
I would question why Mr. R thought the staging was incomplete. I could write about that, and maybe I will some time, but I've introduced enough food for thought in recent weeks.
"...the fact remains that she would not have called 911 if she were involved in the killing or coverup. "
This isn't a fact, it's an assumption. A sensible one, but still an assumption. It may be they simply chickened out and decided they had to call 911. It may be a 3rd party was to take care of the body but didn't and Mr. R really was surprised to find the body in the WC.
DocG has a pretty well thought out thesis which includes the idea the ransom letter gives Mr. R the opportunity to dump the body the next day. That might well be the case, but it's not a fact. It's a very good assumption.
"She would not have agreed to staging sexual abuse of her daughter." Why not? Someone sexually abused her that night, for some reason. I see no basis to think of this as a fact rather than an assumption.
"She would not have allowed for a note to be written that could sound or even remotely look like she wrote it. "
Well one of the two Ramseys wrote a ransom letter that had a few earmarks of their writing. The letter had to be written to get the kidnapping scenario off the ground. If Mrs. R didn't write a letter that sounded or looked like she wrote it, then Mr. R wrote a letter that sounded and looked like he wrote it. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. To me the whole point of DocG's analysis of the ransom letter is that we can't tell who actually wrote it, at least not from handwritting.
"She would not have taken a lot of meds afterwards, knowing what a vulnerable position she would place herself in by being out of it."
This too is assumption, not fact, but a very interesting assumption. Once she's is given drugs her re-dosing isn't up to her, it's up to Dr. Beuf. (sp?) Either that or she was not as out of it as DocG would have us believe.
These are the assumptions necessary to make the DocG thesis work. I have no problem with these assumptions, they seem pretty sensible to me. But, to suggest that they are facts closes our minds to other possibilities. They aren't facts.
I have nothing else to offer on this particular topic.
Am i missing something here.? for the JDI,once Patsy called 911, his plan to get the body out was not happening. So, why would JR unstage by picking up glass and break the window in the first place if he needed LE to believe an intruder broke in. As someone posted before an unlocked door would be suspicious. What other staging was there to complete other than to show an entry point. I'm a "Brit" Canuck, don't see what that matters here.
He swept up the glass because the cobwebs, lack of disturbed dust and dirt on sill, lack of footprints outside would eventually lead even the incompetent BPD to conclude broken window was staged, there was no intruder and it was therefor an inside job.
It doesn't matter a bit, evej. I was only asking because Blue Note's tendency to use "Mr" and "Mrs" reminded me of how British newspapers refer to people. That's all.
I know quite a few British people and they've always referred to themselves as Brits, so it certainly wasn't meant in a derogatory fashion. Not sure why anyone would take it that way.
From what I gather, Blue Note has not come to a conclusion as to who murdered JonBenet; a wise stance when you do not have all the facts. Blue Note has an open mind and does not settle for loose ends that can be tied off with premature assumptions. By the way, I have never used a dash next to my name.
Well, I generally go along with DocG's theory as it's the best thought out overall. I do have some trouble with a few details, especially Mrs. R's lying about the window. But you're basically right, even though I think DocG has the best theory I don't rule out other possibilities.
This ground has been covered, but if Patsy, or Patsy & John together, wrote the ransom note, here are some pretty reasonable assumptions: 1) the note would not have to be of that length/detail, 2) the handwriting could have been done in block letters to totally disguised both of their handwriting styles, 3) the note would not need to have the appearance of needing time, size of attache case, and all those other red flags we see in the note. As for Patsy needing a reason for why John swept up the glass on that morning, before he apparently needed a reason -- how do we even know that she found out he swept it up? She was told to go along with a story, given any number of reasons to go along with it, and she obeyed. Or, John could have said, I swept it up because I thought JB was gone, stolen from us in the night and I didn't see anyway someone came in through that window. I was just in autopilot with stress and swept it up. Then they started these implications about a staging so we just need to be clear with them and say this window was already broken, months ago.
Finally, who in their right mind, on a jury, would buy an accident theory where the mom then agreed to have her little sexually abused?
Repeating this over and over isn't convincing anyone who believes, as most of us do, that he did not tell her he made up a story. He just told her the story.
A lawyer who posts on here told a story a while ago about Rob Westmoreland suing a blogger. He was able to track him down from a nonsensical screen name. After that a lot of people here became Anonymous. So no thanks, but you have at it.
I'm a long time follower of DocG's blog and upon first reading his thesis I vividly remember a feeling of being chilled to the bone with the magnitude of evil implications. I inexplicicity found it to be most possibly credible, more so than any other theory I'd ever read. I watched this drama play out in real time Christmas of 1996 with astonishment let loose at every strange turn of events. Stymied it seemed so quickly on, JR got 'pronounced' as being "ruled out" (as the RN writer only) it appeared he latched right on to the fully false notion that it then 'completely ruled him out' in anyway complicit (imo) thus leaving only PR in mind, and boy did he ever take the ball and ran with it. It blatenly screamed first and foremost "I, I, I.. ruled out = proof it wasn't I, and-do-not-even-think-twice about it or look closer, else I will strike you (PR or anyone)D-O-W-N!" (imo & thought only). Odd to me, so hallowed be thy non-guilty name(?), then certainly show and tell timely everything openly to those they beckoned present (immediately the broken window to police, peering through binoculars upstairs-garbage trucks anyone(?), instantly and w/LE privately questioningly BR appropriately for his age and safely securing his whereabouts nearby) etc. Simple, simple, oh so simple. On and on it flew up into an intentionally unearthly entropious Ramsey manufactured mysterious black hole of nonsense. To this day JR still sells this ridiculous "Nonsense" over any simple common sensible truth to anyone dopey enough to buy into it. Can no one cease to be amazed... or struck by watching his sickness of deluded lying?! With no disrespect intended to this blog, I'd like to add, hearing Blue Note's comments doesn't necessarily annoy me, in fact I find it important to keep in mind, I for one, have always found PR's words and behavior on the extremely zealous in nature. From the belief her medically sought out treatment, remission, and recovery for her terrible physical cancer got translated into some mix of spontaneous miraculous spiritual healing, befits her mentality of irrational blind allegiance to her evolving reality. It's a given, individually, we all have our own perception and experience to reality. This bent combined with JR's fast and furious revision scheming lends itself to constant head scratching by any average level headed thinking person. Of JR or PR which one done it, and why the constant compulsion to delude at literraly all costs to themselves and/or everyone...?? In regard to DocG's theory I agree mostly. 1)The note handwriting could be either JR or PR's, but the piticular way the letter "q" is written gives me pause, it's an odd letter in the alpabet not often written the same way by any two people. 2)Lying and intentional vagueness from the get go (on the 911 call) by both JR & PR before anyone else came on the scene. 3)And very important (to me at least) the slick slight of hand of instantly having the presence of mind to erase everything BR out of the frame. There is proven and no mere coincidence made in those matters and what would be the driving common denominator? Picking through the few facts we all can use as a basis, combining the picture with what we can see of JR, PR, & JBR for ourselves AND what we were not supposed to see (and told to disregard) of BR, I look it as a way to see a more whole complete family dynamic view. To me, that's where I find sadly the most likely truthful satisfying believable answers (imoo). *A teacher once taught me you must listen to what -is not-being said as much to what -is- being said. DocG thank you for offering your brilliant mind, time and blog space to this debacle of justice. 99
Sorry for my ignorance but wouldn't it be extremely easy to work out if the basement window was a fresh break or not? Wouldn't the edges of the break be dirty if it happened "last summer". If it was found that the window was a fresh break then why is John still walking free?
There continues to be a lot of discussion about the significance of John Ramsey being eliminated as the author of the ransom note by a few select handwriting experts. Do you really think that the Boulder PD, FBI, and DA completely forfeited their suspicions on John simply because he was ruled out as the ransom note writer? It's not that simple. Could that have supplemented what they already suspected? Of course. Was it the sole reason that John was never again seriously considered as suspect? Ridiculous. Let's give these people a little more credit than that.
Hercule, some time ago I learned, directly from Darnay Hoffman himself, that the DA's office originally suspected John and that their theory closely resembled mine. According to Darnay, it was the handwriting evidence that turned the tide in Patsy's direction. Of course, for him the handwriting evidence was all important, which is why he invested to much of his time and money in the effort to prove Pasty wrote the note, based largely on handwriting analysis alone.
Hercule, its hard to give the PD much credit when they badly botched this from the beginning. The DA's have been shown to be inept politicians in Boulder, although I happen to believe Alex Hunter did the right thing to not indict a "couple" based on the findings of a grand jury. Not sure how much the FBI was allowed to help - I heard the PD kept them at arm's length for a while. But...to your point, if they deserve credit for being competent, why hasn't there been an arrest? What is your reasoning?
Look, I figure it is one thing to try and poke holes in parts of Doc's theory, but arguing over assumptions gets us where? Unless someone can present another end to end theory that connects the known facts, I'm really getting bored with the point-counterpoint stuff. Hercule, you promised for a long time to present an end to end case. You said you were real busy and for us to be patient. You never came back with anything other than some hogwash about pageant mom syndrome, some teasers that you have inside information, yet you never provided anything to back up your statements and opinions. Blue Note's discussion has been interesting but doesn't provide any real gotchas to me. So for everything you think is wrong in the theory, plug in your own conclusions and put it all together to explain what happened from about 10 pm Christmas night to 1 PM the next day. Take the time to write it down and present it here, please. Personally, I have tried to do just that, my version always breaks down. I cannot come up with any fully thought out scenario that works. However, there are still big reasons I could be sold Doc's case if I were on grand jury: the handwriting analysis that Doc did. It very much appears to me to be JR's handwriting, apparently disguised by an amateur attempt to trace a font. The evidence of prior abuse is impossible to ignore. The head injury being far too severe to be an accident, unless someone held JBR over the staircase and dropped her on her head (in which case there would have been a lot of blood), the behavior of Fleet White after he locked in on John's behavior, the complete lack of reasons for not reporting an accident had there been one, John wanting to fly to Atlanta right after discovering the body, Patsy being believable in her display of grief, while I've never seen John shed one tear, not one. BTW, I saw PR and JR at a restaurant in Atlanta in the 2003 time-frame. After watching the body language and hearing bits of the conversation at their table, I can tell ya, one of them gave me the creeps and the other one seemed like a completely normal person.
"BTW, I saw PR and JR at a restaurant in Atlanta in the 2003 time-frame. After watching the body language and hearing bits of the conversation at their table, I can tell ya, one of them gave me the creeps and the other one seemed like a completely normal person."
Can you elaborate? I understand you mean PR was the latter but what creeped you out? What was their conversation like? Thanks
I just saw your question. I'll try to answer without leaving you with the idea that I was not just reacting to a case of one being more sociable than the other. What creeped me out is that a friend who was joining my spouse and I for dinner was a young, blonde and pretty young lady of about 24. She got "eyed" when she got up to go to the restroom. When she got back to the table I mentioned to her that she got checked out as she walked by that table. She looked over at the table and said "ew, he's looking now, ew, he's older than my dad." I told her who they were and then she was really uncomfortable. As we watched them get up to leave, there were hugs and "so great to see you's" but this guy held back and was at best cordial. It was like watching an actor feebly trying to mix in with a bunch of real people. I may have imagined it, but I did see an aura of sadness about her, even though she was enjoying good company. Who knows, maybe she was not feeling well. She did seem like a genuinely friendly person who was interested in chatting with everyone at the table, making eye contact and smiling. I know this doesn't mean anything on the surface. All I can say is, I find it creepy when someone checks out a young lady even when their wife is right there, and in the presence of other friends, in a nice restaurant.
What strikes me most from reading the various, very interesting, posts by Hercule, Blue Note, and also HG, is how bizarre this case would look if John were put on trial and his lawyers actually tried to use any of these arguments in an attempt to establish reasonable doubt.
"Gentlemen of the jury, how can the prosecution argue that Patsy was innocent when it's obvious that she lied about cleaning up the window glass. Clearly she was in on this from the start, along with John." Whoops, I don't think so.
Or: "Patsy calling 911 doesn't necessarily mean she didn't write the note, because maybe there was a third party who was expected to remove the body but failed to do so." Sorry, but John wouldn't be too happy about that one either.
Or: "Patsy's reason for calling 911 is that she wanted an excuse to invite friends over to contaminate the crime scene." Would THAT get John off the hook? Hmmmm, I don't think so.
Or "Actually that suitcase just happened to be sitting there under the window prior to the night of the crime and had nothing to do with the break-in." Interesting theory, but I don't see how that could help John either.
Bottom line: while all these notions are interesting and some possibly even correct, none would have any bearing on the case if John were actually put on trial, unless John were willing to confess that he'd been lying through his teeth for all these many years. And given the accumulated evidence of sexual assault, prior molestation, handwriting similarity (as demonstrated on this blog), content similarity (as demonstrated on this blog), plus the knotting on the "garotte" (consistent with what a navy man would have learned, not a pageant mom), and also given his many obvious lies regarding the broken window, there is clearly more than enough probable cause to indict HIM and (assuming she were still with us) not Patsy, for murder one.
Now once put on trial, if he so chose, he'd be free to argue that Patsy was the one who really did it and he "only" helped cover it up. A likely story, as I see it, but it would be very interesting to see him give it a try.
I think that's exactly what he'd do at trial, argue that Patsy did it and he just helped cover it up.
I suspect a jury simply wouldn't be able to figure out who did what and they'd be reluctant to convict even though they'd also be sure Mr. R was in on it in some way.
But I see your point, most of his "defenses" put him in the hot seat right along with his wife. As I see it this doesn't help Mr. R, but does suggest that Mrs R being involved is a real possibility.
I'll stand by what I wrote in my post titled "Patsy's Role." There are just too many reasons to seriously doubt that they could have been in it together, or that she could have done this on her own. Regardless, there is more than enough evidence to bring charges against John on probable cause, and once faced with such charges he'll have the opportunity to argue that Patsy dunnit and he was just trying to protect her. He'd also have to explain why he'd want to protect someone responsible for the death of his daughter.
If I understand CC correctly he's saying John would claim he didn't know anything for sure until Patsy confessed on her death bed and so no need to explain any protection because there wasn't any.
Yesterday while discussing gaslighting, DocG asked me a good question.
"If it never happened, then how could she possibly recall whether the window had been repaired or not?"
Of course she couldn't. However,
She'd know one of two things. If the window had been repaired then this hole that appears on the night of the murder is fresh and Mr. R's story is a fabrication. Or, if the window never was repaired then they've had a hole in their window since "last summer". But it would be nearly impossible for Mrs. R to remain unaware of a hole in the window for several months.
If there had been a hole (and we know there wasn't) then bugs would have come in during the summer. As the weather turned cold air would have blown in through the hole. The children played in that room and they'd have complained about the broken window. The housekeeper would have mentioned it and would probably have suggested her husband could fix it; A little extra money for the Pughs. Workmen were in the basement remodeling, they'd have mentioned it and probably offered to fix it. Mrs R herself would have gone in that room numerous times during those months, how could she not notice a broken window? She had her Christmas present wrapping station down the basement, she'd have noticed the cold air as she walked by that room. In short, Mrs. R knows very well the window has not been broken since "last summer".
Tricking her into "remembering" sweeping up the glass with Linda might be possible, but where are her memories of the broken window? She wouldn't be able to remember ever seeing it broken. She'd have to wonder how she'd been completely unaware of it all those months. She'd have to wonder why no one in the household ever mentioned it. It just isn't enough to convince her she'd swept up glass last summer, other false memories would need to be implanted as well, and that's just too much to believe.
I don't see how gaslighting could have worked. She's not so unobservant of her own house that she could believe she'd swept glass last summer yet also believe she remained completely unaware of the broken window until sometime after the murder.
Once again, there is a physical aspect to the window story. It's not enough to make up the story. The physical condition of the window has to jibe with the story line.
IMO gaslighting isn't the answer. It doesn't work. Patsy knows there was no broken window. Convincing her she swept up glass when she didn't, while possible, isn't enough. She knows the actual condition of the window. It just wouldn't work.
That was lot of assumptions about what Patsy would notice! For starters, I try to put myself in her shoes. I have a large basement, as large as the Ramseys. I got down there a lot, to do laundry, wrap gifts, do craft projects. There are a lot of things I don't notice as a rushed mom - for example, a leak that my husband told me about and asked had I not noticed it. I had not. I'm busy, I have 2 kids and a thousand things on my mind all the time. Are there that many bugs in Colorado in the summer? Can cold air blow that hard through a baseball sized hole that is down in a window well? It can definitely cause a draft, I will give you that.
Bottom line, I think John gave Patsy a reason to go along with the story. He simply said look Patsy, they are making a big deal about this window and they think we staged this crime. Just say that you cleaned up the glass after I broke the window. That ties us both to that window with a logical explanation and gets them off of our backs. If she said, but when did that window get broken, really? I don't recall it being broken? He could have said, well Burke was down there over the holidays throwing things. He could have broken and been afraid to tell us, you know kids. The cops say there is no disturbance outside the window so Patsy, i think someone we know got in our house easily and hid, waiting until we got home. Lets not drag Burke into this but he or JB probably made that small hole while playing.
You make a lot more sense than Mr Note, who's trying too hard to hang onto his broken window hypothesis; too many assumptions. And you're right, there are few bugs in Colorado, people don't even put screens on their windows.
I don't have a broken window hypothesis, DocG does. I'm just pointing out that gaslighting wouldn't work. Patsy knows the window hasn't broken for several months.
Sure you do. ". . . there is a physical aspect to the window story . . ." and you go on to theorize about Patsy's inevitable involvement. Sounds just like a hypothesis.
I don't think it would have been that difficult for John to convince her the window had been broken and she just hadn't noticed it. It was a small break in a small window pane in a small window, in a space she rarely entered. The hard part would be convincing her that's she'd cleaned up the glass, something she'd have been more likely to remember. The key, as I see it, is that Patsy would have had every reason to believe him, thanks to his being "ruled out." And she would also have wanted to believe him, because for her there was no alternative. How could she go to the police accusing John when SHE was the one who was not ruled out?
A space rarely entered? Let's be realistic. Burke played with his trains there. That's why the family called it the train room. The hole, while small, is prominent, in the center of the bank of windows.
Being "ruled out" would not make any difference. She's been in the train room any number of times during that 4 to 5 month period when the window is supposed to be broken. She knows the window hasn't been broken that whole time.
The hard part, imo nearly impossible, would be convincing her that she'd been completely oblivious to a broken window after she herself swept up the glass. She'd have to believe she'd swept up glass from a broken window, then just completely forgot about the window and ignored it for several months.
It's a shame to see you clinging so desperately to such a silly argument, because there is still a way that an innocent Patsy can be induced to go along with the window story. John threatened her. "Support my story because if I do down, you're going with me".
But I do agree with you're last statement. She can't go to the police when she is suspected of writing the ransom letter. Thus, when threatened, even though her first instinct is to turn on Mr. R, she can't. She risks prison and she'd never see Burke again, except maybe on visiting day. She had a lot to loose, and it wouldn't bring JonBenet back anyway.
I gave a another plausible idea earlier. John could have said, "Patsy, they are trying to say we staged the window. The reason they say this is because there are no signs from outside that an intruder got in thru that window. If its true that the intruder did not do this, then either we forgot to fix it from last summer or perhaps one of the kids broke it again - that's my best guess. But Patsy, they will drag Burke into this if we suggest that he could have broken it. Let's just stick with the version that I broke it, you helped clean it up, that way we each can have personal knowledge about this window and they will get off our backs about their ridiculous staging implication. If she says, "But you did see glass on Dec 26, why did you clean it up?" JR says, "Patsy, I went down there with Fleet and saw a few shards of glass. Fleet is exaggerating on how much was there. I picked up the shards so that no one would get hurt, it did not occur to me at the time that anyone came thru that window. Our daughter was kidnapped as far I knew, and I thought they must have gone out one of doors or lowered her off of the balcony. I wasn't even thinking about that little window being a point of entry at the time. Now that Lou has tried to demonstrate that an intruder could have gotten in that way, I guess I'll say that its possible. But please, we need to keep Burke out of this regardless, so let's stick with what I've already said about the window."
There would be no jury. Lin Wood or whomever would request a bench trial, as is any defendant's right, and he'd get it. JR would claim he knew nothing until PR made a dying declaration to him in 2006, and it's game over, JR walks. CC
Patsy's family were with her when she was dying, in fact she was living at her father's home while under hospice care. They would vehemently dispute that Patsy made any such declaration, and in fact could claim that Patsy told them that she believed John did it.
Doesn't matter what the Paughs say about their conversations with PR, it's inadmissible hearsay. A dying declaration is a hearsay exception and is admissible. You're trying to say JR couldn't spend a few minutes alone with his dying wife, or at least claim to have done so? CC
Dueling Dying Declarations, huh? The only case notes I've seen are from a case in India, so I can't speak to that, but my initial reaction is that regardless, JR has raised reasonable doubt and with a judge rather than a jury he'd walk. CC
Ideally, it would be witnessed and videotaped, and some are, but the short answer is no. The premise, rooted in common law, is that a person in extremis, aware of their imminent death and with no hope, will tell the truth. Construction varies from state to state and even within a state. Colorado and Oregon have uniquely liberal construction and allow great latitude, going so far as to permit dying declarations to be offered in civil as well as criminal cases. CC
I'm not a lawyer but I'm skeptical about John offering Patsy's dying declaration.
I can see a nurse offering the dying declaration under the heresay exemption. Or a doctor, or anybody really, Including the Paughs, ir anyone who heard the declaration, (or claims to) except the defendant. Are you sure a defendant can offer someone else's dying declaration that gets him off the hook?
Unfortunately the law doesn't address the putative trustworthiness of a witness to a dying declaration, so it would be left to the trier of fact to determine. Given Colorado's construction, a judge would likely let it in. CC
How does it work in the US with the judicial system that some imformation about the crime is not released to the general public. It's frustrating to think that certain people have more knowledge to obtain an opinion based on a clearer view of things than we do. Has anyone here read anything on the madeleine MCcann case it's very similar in many ways, with the exception that she has to date never been found. Many people in the UK believe the parents were to blame. They both were fairly well to do doctors who ate each night on the complex of their holiday apartment with friends where the children were left unatended in their bedrooms and checked on at regular intervals. They profess an intruder came in and snatched her. many people believe an accident occured and the parents disposed of her body, as does the sacked portugese police chief. Some very cleverly proven cadaver dogs were brought in from the UK, and detetcted death outside at the bottom of the stairs and inside the apartment. They alerted to the boot of their hire car, and also the mothers clothing and the missing childs cuddly toy. The chief reported that the parents action and demeanor at the time seemed contrived at the least.
Evej, I have read extensively on the Maddie McCann case. I believe the cadaver dogs are reliable, which in effect "rules in" the parents. it is interesting to me how the experts (in this case, cadaver dogs) are being used to rule in, while in the JBR case, experts are used to rule out. In both cases, confusion is used to thwart the investigation. In both cases, high powered officials seem to hold some sway. In both cases, the parents behavior is in question. If they disposed of the body, they had to have had some help with that. It is so amazing to me that the body has never turned up. In watching the McCanns, I have to say that if they are involved, they are very good actors now -- much better than JR is at playing out the grief stricken parent.
"And you're right, there are few bugs in Colorado, people don't even put screens on their windows."
I live in northern Colorado. Believe me, there are LOTS of bugs in Colorado! I get bitten all the time. And I don't know anyone who doesn't have screens on their windows. Maybe things are different in Boulder.
Maybe up there in the woods, around Estes, or out on the plains, but we have very few insects along the Front Range in Boulder and almost no one has screens.
Maybe it's the wind, blows the bugs away. Boulder is one if the windiest cities in the country because of the jet stream and the front range. 100 mph and above is fairly common.
Hello everyone. There is a youtube channel and a website regarding a local Boulder resident who is also a pastor. I believe he has his own radio show. I hesitate to name him because there is a couple accusing him of murdering JonBenet (along with many other children, so they claim). Does anyone know what I'm talking about? What do you think about it? I easily found their youtube channel while searching for JonBenet Ramsey documentaries.
Honestly, I think these people sound out of their minds but it is fascinating.
Thanks for the reply! :-) Yes, Bob Enyart from Denver Bible Church. I don't know about him but the couple accusing him of killing JonBenet...they have a few screws loose. Sorry to say, but yea they are loopy.
What could her motive have been? If her intent was kidnapping and she wanted the money, then she'd have removed the body. And if she'd collected the ransom what would she have done with it? Any sign that she had suddenly become more prosperous would have invited suspicion.
If her intent was to frame Patsy, then she'd have tried to forge her hand, but the writing on the note, contrary to public opinion, looks nothing like Patsy's hand, when you move from individual letters to complete sentences and compare overall styles. Neither Linda or her husband were educated beyond high school, but the vocabulary of the note is consistent with someone with at least some college education.
In any case, her and her husband's handwriting and DNA were tested, with no matches found.
Yes, a 6 year old can say "daddy touches me there, I don't like it. It hurts." Why does a child have to be "articulate"? They can simply state that someone touched them somewhere, it can even be an innocent remark in some cases.
JonBenet would not have to threaten to tell--her pediatrician could assess her for sexual abuse and question her himself or have her questioned by experts who are trained in assessing and counseling victimized children. He would be required to take action as a mandated reporter. The pediatrician was phoned several times just a week before Christmas for unknown reasons. Also her teachers noted how unusually clingy JonBenet was to her mother in December. The truth was inevitably going to come out--and soon.
Some of you seem to think I'm arguing for Mrs R's involvement in the murder and/or the cover up. I'm not. I'm open to the possibility, that is, I' have not decided it's impossible, but there's too much good reasoning presented on this blog to the contrary. It's sad that any critique of any aspect of DocG's theory is seen as support for some competing theory of the case. There are some "true believers" who can only think in terms of "you're with us or against us".
So what am I saying with respect to how an innocent Mrs. R was persuaded to go along with her husband's lie?
First, I said the reasons given in "The Basement Window - Part 4" don't work because they have not materialized yet on the 26 and therefore Mr. R has no plausible reason for sweeping up glass on the 26th.
I had thought that gaslighting made a lot of sense. But now I realize that it wouldn't work because Patsy wouldn't be oblivious to a broken window that she herself is supposed to have swept up after. She might be made to believe she swept up glass and forgot about it, but she's not going to be made to believe she was thereafter completely unaware of a broken window; a window she must have been aware of if she'd swept up the glass. Additionally, Patsy had likely been in the train room many times over the months. She knows the physical condition of the window and knows that it hasn't been broken for 4 to 5 months. She knows no one in the family has ever mentioned a broken window. She knows the housekeeper has never mentioned it. I could go on, but why bother? It's obvious that the entire household, friends, family, workmen, the housekeeper, cannot have totally ignored a broken window all summer and half the winter.
Now if DocG wants to stick to the gaslighting theory that's up to him. I'm moving on to a more realistic reason for an innocent Mrs. R to go along with her husband's window story.
I suspect Patsy was simply threatened. Something along the lines of "Support my window story or I'll tell the police you wrote the ransom letter and you murdered JonBenet. They already think you may have written it and they know I didn't. There's no way you can turn me in without putting yourself in jeopardy so think carefully before you decide what to do."
Now you may balk at the idea of Mr. R coming right out and admitting his guilt. That's understandable. But at that point he either secures Patsy's cooperation, or he's done for. So what option does he have?
As DocG says Patsy can't really incriminate John w/o incriminating herself. John's been ruled out and can probably convince the cops he only helped with the cover up. Patsy is suspected of writing the letter. Her best option is to go along with the story. Possibly going to prison for a murder is her other option. As I see it it's obvious which choice she'd make.
The one thing this changes though is that we no longer have an innocent Patsy. At the point where John tells her to support the window story she knows beyond any doubt John is involved in the murder. So we can have an innocent Patsy who supports the window story, but we can't have an innocent Patsy who is also ignorant of who did it.
So you have options. You can believe she was persuaded by the reasons in part 4 of the the basement window posts, or you can believe gaslighting, or you can believe she was persuaded by an "or else" type of threat. IMO it's more likely the last one.
I don't agree with the with us/against us thing at all. Lots of posters have made contributions that have refined Doc's theory. You did OK with the timing thing, but this threat business is just too out there, too contrived, too complicated, has too many moving parts. Keep thinking, though. Half the fun is sparking new ideas off each other.
You're right, generally, most posters are making contributions. It's just a few who seem to regard any deviance from DocGs theory as an attack. I get tired of dealing with that attitude, but you're right, I went too far in my comments.
As to your other comments I respect your opinion but as I see it the threat idea has very few moving parts, and is pretty basic.
I also agree that sparking new ideas from each other is half the fun. Maybe more than half.
Ditto, I am not interpreting any of the posts as being presumptious about what your total theory is regarding Patsy, Blue Note. I'm not sure why you are feeling so sensitive or defensive. I just don't think the theory about Patsy's understanding of the glass makes or breaks Doc's theory, that's all. There are several scenarios that could explain Patsy's willingness to go along with the window-was already-broken scenario. Yours hinges on the belief that Patsy knows there was glass found on Dec 26, that someone (John) cleaned it up, and she later would want to understand why John cleaned it up on the 26th. A valid question. There are various plausible answers, this has been discussed at length, but you want to keep discussing it. Personally, this horse has been beaten enough for me; I've moved on.
" I'm not sure why you are feeling so sensitive or defensive."
Because one or two posters keep accusing me of arguing for Patsy's involvement.
" I just don't think the theory about Patsy's understanding of the glass makes or breaks Doc's theory, that's all. "
I don't either. It wasn't meant to make or break his theory. It was meant to try to look a little deeper at why Patsy may or may not have been gaslighted.
" but you want to keep discussing it. "
People keep replying to me, and I reply back. I won't reply anymore on this topic after I reply to DocG and CC.
Here's what's basic: Patsy was suggestible, was well-accustomed to taking direction from John. She wanted to stay in Atlanta with friends and family, let him continue to commute to Boulder, he wanted to move; they moved. She wanted a new McMansion in a new development in the flats, he wanted a place close to downtown; they bought 15th Street. She'd been traveling, to NYC, to pageants, having and going to parties, wanted to stay home for Christmas, he wanted Christmas in Charlevoix; they were going to Charlevoix. Not much of a leap to believe he suggested a broken window for little reason or no reason, she unquestioningly went along.
It's not that hard to overlook a broken window when the window isn't broken. Because an unbroken window is easy to ignore. If someone were to try to persuade me that one of my basement windows had been broken for months even though it hadn't, I wouldn't know what to think, because an unbroken window doesn't call attention to itself, so I couldn't be sure. As I said before, this was a small break in a small pane in a small window. And the pane was NOT broken before the night of the crime, so obviously there would have been little to no reason for anyone to pay attention to it.
But it's very hard to ignore a broken window when it is broken.
An actual broken window calls attention to itself.
" this was a small break in a small pane in a small window."
In the middle of a bank of windows, above the sill, about eye height for someone Patsy's size. It would have been very difficult to enter that room and not notice the broken window.
Patsy knows she didn't live with a broken window for 5 months.
If the window had been broken, she'd have noticed it. If it hadn't been broken she might well have been confused about whether it had or hadn't.
If my fly is open, I will sooner or later notice it and zip up. If someone tells me my fly is open when it isn't, then I will definitely check, regardless. And my friend will have a good laugh. It's not difficult to notice something when it's there, but easy to get confused when it's not.
And considering the strong incentive Patsy would have had to accept John's version of what happened, I can see her going along with that. That's how I see it, anyhow. The real challenge would have been convincing her she cleaned up the glass. But John could have dwelt on all the meds she'd been taking and how they might have affected her memory.
Nevertheless: I do agree that Patsy's support of John's window break-in story is the weakest link in my theory. I agree that my version does seem to be quite a stretch. And if John were ever indicted, and were actually willing to implicate Patsy (I doubt he would, but you never know), then I suppose he could use her cooperation as the basis for some sort of reasonable doubt, pointing to her as murderer and him as abettor. I seriously doubt he'd ever want to try such a ploy as it could easily backfire, but you never know.
In casual photos, without heels, Patsy looks about 5" shorter than John. In the crime scene photos I've seen with a cop standing by the suitcase and the window the broken pane is above his eye level. So I don't think you're right about that, Blue Note.
I wasn't going to reply anymore on this topic so I hope everyone will forgive me for going around one more time.
@DocG
"If the window had been broken, she'd have noticed it. If it hadn't been broken she might well have been confused about whether it had or hadn't. "
Except that she would have had to live with the effects of a broken window for 5 months, and she knows she did not see or feel the effects of a broken window all that time. And she knows no one in the household has mentioned the broken window the whole time. Or is she supposed to have forgotten whether they did or not?
"If my fly is open, I will sooner or later notice it and zip up. If someone tells me my fly is open when it isn't, then I will definitely check, regardless. And my friend will have a good laugh. It's not difficult to notice something when it's there, but easy to get confused when it's not."
But, assuming you wear underwear, you wouldn't feel any draft, so yes, you could go several hours with your fly down, even in the winter.. But you couldn't go several months. You're friends would point it out to you, and they wouldn't be joking.
"The real challenge would have been convincing her she cleaned up the glass. But John could have dwelt on all the meds she'd been taking and how they might have affected her memory."
With respect, the real challenge would have been convincing her that after she swept up glass the window fell off her radar, despite the security risk, the possibility of the children hurting themselves (the remaining broken glass in the window frame could easily fall out) the cold air, bugs, mice. No one mentioning it. Sorry for the repetition but it's the real physical effects of a broken window that make gaslighting so unlikely.
"Nevertheless: I do agree that Patsy's support of John's window break-in story is the weakest link in my theory. I agree that my version does seem to be quite a stretch. "
Well, it is very troubling that she goes along with his lie. To me a threat of implicating her would seem to all but guarantee her cooperation. Gaslighting, even if it seemed to be working, might backfire because she could always change her mind about what did or didn't happen. She might, at the interview be unsure since by definition her memories are false ones. John is better off if she corroborates the story than if she simply can't remember quite what happened. A threat would seem to secure not only cooperation but corroboration too.
" I seriously doubt he'd ever want to try such a ploy as it could easily backfire, but you never know."
The idea that he's willing to kill (which frankly doesn't happen in most molestation cases) is central to your overall thesis. A willingness to implicate his innocent wife pales in comparison.
A couple other aspects of the story which I don't have time to analyze right now:
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. (http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-basement.htm) I
Also, the break was in the summer (supposedly) but Patsy says she swept up after her return from Charlevoix, in the fall. She's been away but must sweep up glass that has apparently been lying there for most of July and all of August while neither John or Linda has made the slightest effort to sweep up. (Was Linda off for the summer?)
Near the bottom of my long reply to DocG, some words are spaced far apart. I'm not sure why that happened. I did not space them that way for any emphasis.
I don't get it. No one seems to have been converted to your window theory, it's been successfully refuted many times, yet you just keep on. And on. And on. What are you looking for here? Approval? Validation? Some tiny meaningless victory over Doc?
No I won't forgive you. The window wasn't broken all summer, it doesn't matter if Linda was off, why do you keep harping on this? Patsy was gaslighted lije Doc says or just automatically went along with John because she always did like. CC said. Enough!
What I don't get is why the two of you (if it is two different people) are getting so exercised about a post not directed at you. (But how can anything be directed at you when you are hiding behind anonymous?)
DocG, the author of this blog, replied to me. So, I replied to him.
If you'll look at DocG's last reply to me, on the topic of the window and gaslighting, you'll notice that he had nothing new to say. He had a new scenario about his fly being open but he made no new point that he hasn't made 3 times before. Yet, he took the time to reply, so I took that as an invitation to continue the conversation. I find it odd that you are angry with me for bringing it up again but not with DocG for bringing it up again.
So, this is how it's going to be. If the author of this blog replies to me on the same topic, even when he has no new point to make, I may very well reply to him on the same topic and I may well make the same points again too.
Now if DocG wants to put the brakes on the topic all he has to do is say so. It's his blog. But, none of the rest of you have any say in what can or can't be discussed, or how many times it's replied to.
If you don't want to talk about the window and gaslighting, then don't. You don't have to read every comment made.
Now, I'm done bringing it up, but if DocG wants to bring it up again, I'll very likely reply to him.
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.
It sounds to me like a combination of Doc and CC fits. Patsy would be very susceptible to gaslighting from John because she was used to him calling the shots and was used to believing whatever he said. dg
Linda put PR's paint tote in the basement not long before Christmas. She routinely used the washer and dryer there for the elder Ramseys' laundry. She would almost certainly have noticed a broken window - and suggested her husband be hired to fix it. CC
Sorry, don't know where that came from, it's irrelevant. BN has repeated and rephrased his broken window/gaslighting arguments a number of times in varying ways, and I lost track of the point. CC
I think the problem you're having, BN, is the same one Hercule ran aground on: facts rather than assumptions. We'll listen to and entertain all kinds of assumptions, even pitch in and try to make them work, but at some point you need to be able to hang your speculations on a framework of facts. When the structure collapses due to the heaviness of the former or the flimsiness of the latter, we tend to lose patience. Don't take it personally, and as an earlier poster advised, keep thinking. CC
If you mean DocG and I are caught in a quagmire of dueling assumptions, I agree. Hopefully it's clear that I'm not making any more assumptions than DocG is making. We are operating on the same facts; the window was broken, the glass was swept up, John tells FW/police his break-in story. We are making different assumptions as to why Patsy might have gone along with the story. If you have not lost patience with DocG's assumptions, there is no reason to loose patience with mine.
I'm not able to understand your reference to Hercule. I never read his posts. Well, maybe a couple of the very short ones. Hercule told us from the get-go that it was all about psychology. Since I'm not at all interested in a psychological approach to solving this case I didn't read his posts.
The difference is that my assumption leads to an explanation for her testimony while your assumption leaves us hanging in mid-air. If he was unable to either convince her, or gaslight her, then why would she have lied to support his story? And if you want to argue that she must be telling the truth, then John's story is also true and I suppose that means an intruder after all? Are you willing to buy THAT?
When I indulge assumptions I prefer they be based on facts. The available evidence indicates that PR went along with JR's decisions throughout their married life, hence it's easier to believe she followed her husband's lead vis-a-vis the broken window. There's no evidence at all that the dynamics of their marriage involved threats or coercion. CC
I was drawing a parallel between you and Hercule, insofar as he too tosses out unsupported assumptions, and who also came to grief from posters who require more. CC
Then why don't you require more of DocG? He's making unsupported assumptions about Patsy being gaslighted. That's all right with me as I don't see any factual basis for deciding whether or not she was gaslighted. It's going to come down to what one person or another thinks Patsy is likely to believe.
I don't necessarily support some ornate theory of gaslighting, don't believe JR would have had to do more than say "I broke the window last summer" and that's what she'd believe; no big conspiracy, no lies. CC
And "you and Linda must have cleaned up the glass cause we know I don't clean up anything." I can see that. That goes with the kind of relationship they had.
John would never have mentioned Linda's involvement, because he'd have known she'd deny it. Imo Patsy included Linda because she knew that Linda would have helped her clean up, just as she cleaned up every other mess. This error is consistent with gaslighting, not lying, and is the strongest argument for gaslighting.
Hey, Doc, you invited me to ask you again in about a week about attracting the interest of a prosecutor or investigative journalist. It's only been about ten days, but ... any progress?
I was contacted last week by a producer planning a program devoted to the JonBenet case, but I'm not sure yet whether I want to participate. At this point I'm awaiting further details. If anything materializes I'll definitely announce it here.
That's one of the issues. I don't mind revealing my identity on a program like 60 Minutes or 48 Hours, where the focus is on my theory of the case. But I'm reluctant to reveal my identity on a panel of crackpots with absurd theories, since I'd be seen as just another nut case. I believe in my theory, but it's not easy to defend in a 5 minutes sound bite.
I understand why he wouldn't want to participate. John or should I say Johns lawyers aren't exactly known for turning a blind eye. They are quick to slap a lawsuit or gag on anyone questioning Johns involvement. Honestly it is one of the things that has me convinced of his guilt. It's no small feat to try and take on John. I also think the clock is ticking John is already in his 70s so I find it hard to imagine that with our slow justice system he will live to be held accountable. Sadly justice for Jonbenet is unlikely to ever happen. My big hope is that after Johns death more information will come to light and the truth will be revealed. Good luck Doc. I wish you all the best if you follow though but completely understand if you aren't able to. This blog has already provide an amazing service with the sheer amount of information provided and your willingness to discuss and analyze with us. -SM
Doc has said he believes he doesn't have enough money to interest John in suing him, and said he'd welcome such a suit as a way to expose John by questioning him in court. So it's a valid question, Doc. Why wouldn't you participate?
I'm not afraid of a lawsuit. In fact, I'd welcome it, as it would give me the opportunity to put John on trial. If he sued me then he'd be forced to testify and answer all my questions, which I feel sure he would not want to do. He didn't sue Cyril Wecht, probably for the same reason. In any case, it wouldn't be hard for his team of sleuths to identify me if they wanted to, so if a suit were in the works it would have happened some time ago.
My reluctance to appear on this show is due to my suspicion that I'd be one of several people with theories and since imo they are all crackpots, I would not want to be perceived as just another nut who thinks he's solved the Ramsey case. My theory can only be understood by studying my book or this blog, a short synopsis won't convince those who are already committed to either IDI, PDI or BDI and I'll end up looking like just another fool.
That said, I'm not yet sure what the ground rules will be for this particular media event, so I'm withholding judgement for now.
Is it possible that Patsy did not notice the ongoing sexual abuse of her daughter? Wouldn't there have been blood, discharge...something? And if she did notice, why didn't she try to stop it?
Thousands of little girls are abused for years under their mothers' noses. In this case it was probably a matter of months.
Jonbenet was beginning to have problems with vaginitis, so there may have been some physical symptoms. As CC pointed out, 3 calls to pediatrician within an hour on 12/17/96 may have been leading up to a thorough exam and exposure.
Pam Griffin, the pageant coach, and Suzanne Savage, the former babysitter, spoke about how much Jonbenet adored her father and missed him when he traveled. I bet the poor little kid was thrilled with the extra attention, the special secret love or whatever the creep told her it was.
DocG, The part of your theory that seems very implausible is John's motive. Jonbenet was only 6. How could she possibly articulate any abuse? If she was absurd she could understand what was happening was not right but how is a 6 year old able to threaten their abuser with "telling on them"
My sister was abused by a grandfather. She was 7 when she told my mother that granddaddy pulls my pants down and I don't like it when he does that. Little girls know at that age know that you don't let boys see your privates. Especially once they go to elementary school. JBR may not have overtly threatened JR, but she could have said I don't want to do this, started objecting to the game, and JR realized that it could be soon that she'll blurt something out to Patsy, her older sister, a teacher, a nurse, or some other adult.
So basically no one read the part where I said a child could know what happened to them was wrong. But a 6 year old threatening their abuser (I'll tell on you) is so implausible.
I am a nanny and I will tell you lots of little girls can express themselves at a young age. I know one little girl who was 4 who was able to express inappropriate behavior from an adult. It just depends on the kid. As someone else mentioned Patsy was determined to get to the bottom of jonbenet's vaginal issues even if she didn't necessarily understand why they were happening. I personally have a feeling as has been mentioned in previous forums John was getting extremely nervous about the January doctors visits and that may have been the motivation he needed to come up with his plan. I tend to fall into the premeditated camp. -SM
I tend to fall into the opposite camp, thinking it was not premeditated. The reason is that most men who do these things to their daughters don't kill. I'm not saying it's unlikely, but I am saying it isn't the norm. Mostly they manipulate the victim into not telling.
Leaving elements of staging uncompleted suggests to me a lack of prior planning. Sure, the ransom letter gives him the time he needs, but prior planning would also give him the time he needs. I've always thought the ransom letter was too long, even with the understanding that it had to give Mr. R time to do things and an excuse to go driving around looking for a place to dump the body. There didn't need to be any mention of a foreign faction, nor anything about an adequate sized attache case. It's always struck me that the letter was too long to be well thought out ahead of time.
But if he hadn't planned it, then there had to be some event that caused him to kill. I don't know what that would have been, other than keeping her from talking. Certainly premeditation is a real possibility. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I just lean a bit to the not premeditated side.
I don't necessarily think he planned the whole thing out but I think he may have started realizing sometime in December that he may be caught. Thinking of the multiple calls to pediatric doctor and such. I think maybe the day before or 2 days before he realized it was now or never. If he waited until after Michigan he might lose his chance. But again we will never know for certain. I just don't buy the heat of the moment while he was molesting her. As has been stated they were catching a plane super early and they were already coming home quite late I just can't imagine anyone thinking that would be a good window of opportunity...but than again I'm not a child predator so who knows how they think. All I know is that from my experiences sadly I know of 3 people I know who have been hurt by their fathers. It's much more prevalent than people care to think.-SM
It gets worse if you think about it. Not only did he premeditate the murder of his daughter to cover up his incest, he actively encouraged suspicion to fall on many innocent people, including Fleet White, his best friend. He caused his wife to suffer not just grief at JBR's death, but the anguish and stress of being the primary suspect for the rest of her life. They say stress contributes to cancer. Ovarian cancer is very aggressive, so who knows, but he may have thereby contributed to her death as well. And then there's his son, who faced some of the same accusations.
This is a bad, bad guy. Words like narcissism don't begin to describe his self-absorption. CC
I agree with you CC. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Just because he puts up a facade of being a nice Christian man, it doesn't mean that he is one. For me, his body language, lack of emotion, strange actions and comments, all just support my belief in Doc's theory. I don't base my beliefs on his demeanor, but his demeanor sure does align with the conclusions.
Sorry; I was interrupted in mid-rant: AND HE MADE MONEY FROM IT. Eight successful defamation lawsuits against publishers, networks and media outlets and two published books. CC
Good rant. It looks so evil all piled up like that.
You're right about strange comments Anonymous. I'll never forget his answer when some interviewer asked him how the murderer should be punished and he said they should have murderer tattooed on their forehead. Not I'll tear him limb from limb or let me push the button at his execution. A tattoo.
Wow, yes I forgot about that one. Strangest comment of all! Also, Just like OJ, he made no efforts to find the "real killer." He talks about a DNA datasbase. Easy to say, knowing what he does about the only DNA found, which is likely transfer DNA. Another thing: who besides me wonders why he was leaving in Utah? I know it was for a job, but isn't Utah also a good place to hide when someone comes looking for you?
I have just read a quote which I think might have been from his book other side of suffering but not 100% sure on that where he said when he found her he thought she 'had sweet look of peace' not sure how a parent could ever say that about a child who had been tortured and murdered also remember the crime scene pictures of her she looked anything but peaceful
If John had a couple days/weeks to plan the murder do you believe he had the opportunity to kill her a different way (make her disappear while just the two of them were together, make it look like an accidental fall, poison her etc.)?
Was something like poisoning out of the question in John's mind because he was worried the medical examiner would by default or due to her medical history discover evidence of sexual abuse? In other words, was it crucial that her body was never found?
I think John Ramsey planned this murder at least a week in advance. There was careful attention paid to each sentence in the ransom note with the attempt to have investigators suspecting everyone. John is a very intelligent, cold, calculated monster who had a history of deception (cheating on his first wife for two years). I really don't think he would ever do anything spontaneous, especially something that involved so many risks.
The "large attache" always puzzled me, but if you look at every line as an important component as Gumshoe suggests, it was probably to remove the rope, duct tape, flashlight and whatever else from the house. CC
And his decision to not video tape the kids on Christmas day now seems planned. He said he didn't want to miss the experience by being tied up with the camera. Yeah, he didn't want to miss JB's last Christmas. Or - he didn't want a tape to forever remind him of what he'd done that day.
Spending 4 hours in his private hangar at the airport on Christmas Day is highly suspicious. John said he was cleaning the plane in preparation for their early morning departure and that he just liked going out there. On Christmas?!?! Instead of being with his family all day on the most celebrated holiday of the year, John decided to clean his little plane for 4 hours? My guess is that he used that time to finalize the ransom note (which the handwriting looked neater on the last page) and go over his plan with a fine toothed comb. The quiet hangar on Christmas Day was the perfect place to do just that.
Doc: I don't know if you have a timeline of all the events that transpired before, possibly during, and after the murder on your blog. If so I'd love to be linked to it.
Why would JR put the ransom note out for Patsy to find if he wasn't done with staging the scene and dumping the body? Why couldn't he claim he went out to deal with the kidnappers, pay the ransom, while keeping the note out of view? By putting it out, his plan could be interrupted, as it was with the 911 call. This is the only problem I have with the entire plan.
Just saw the Lou Smit video, not at all impressed. We are to believe the intruded chose this awkward spot to enter the home, drop down in a dark maze like basement where he could have knocked over numerous items and made noise. Have to time to look around and find the perfect room, with the odd latch, and the door is hard to open at that, pretty lucky intruder.
ReplyDeleteThen he wants us to believe the intruder possibly hid under a bed upstairs waiting for JBR because a dust ruffle was moved? Really? The same bed PR had all the clothes on top of she was packing to take on her trip, could she have moved the ruffle with her foot herself? Uh, yes its very likely she did! Why would he not give the option of both ways to the viewers? Very misleading! This guy was all over the place with excuses to help exonerate the Ramsey's. How does he sleep at night? Did JR give him one of his melatonins?
Det. Smit was a very well respected detective and solved many murders during his career, some very high profile.
DeleteIMO we have two ways to go when reviewing Smit's findings. One is to assume he's on the take and was actively trying to get the parents off the hook. The problem is there is no evidence of this, so it might be his findings are the sincere beliefs of a highly regarded veteran investigator.
The other way we can go is to try to look at it without a knee jerk reaction to dismiss intruder evidence. I'm not saying we should accept the intruder scenario, but we ought to at least look at it as if it makes a modicum of sense. If Smit is on the level in this case then there could be more to the intruder scenario than we are perhaps willing to admit.
There is no way to understand Smit's role in this case unless we assume that either he was corrupted by Ramsey money, or there is more sense to the intruder scenario than we'd like to believe.
Actually there is a third way to look at Smit's role. We could assume he'd become a doddering old fool, with senility starting to set in, unable to think straight. But, there isn't anything to support this.
What if we looked at Smit's findings as an honest difference of opinion deserving of some respect? What would that do to our view of the case?
-Blue Note
He was also a zealous Christian who refused to accept that two fellow believers could do such a thing. He went so far as to pray with the Ramseys in the back of a crime scene van parked in front of 15th Street in the early days of his investigation. Steve Thomas wrote that Smit and Smit alone was convinced IDI his third day on the job, looked high and low for a stun gun that fit his theory. There's an element of doddering in there.
DeleteLou Smit sued for the right to present his theory to the grand jury when his employer, Alex Hunter decided not to include it. Highly unusual behavior, not very professional, at the very least obstinate and opinionated, possibly doddering. And that grand jury, which saw all available evidence, did not return a true bill against person or persons unknown, they returned a true bill against the Ramseys.
Delete"He was also a zealous Christian who refused to accept that two fellow believers could do such a thing."
DeleteI don't know how many times I've seen this come up in this case. He had worked on 200 murder cases over the years. Just looking at statistical probability he would have had to have busted many Christians. It can't be the case that every crime he solved was committed by an atheist, and Hindu, etc.
"Lou Smit sued for the right to present his theory to the grand jury when his employer, Alex Hunter decided not to include it."
Is that strange behavior on the part of Lou Smit, or the DA? The DA is supposed to present all the evidence, not just one side.
The GJ saw all the evidence because Det. Smit insisted on it, even to the point of suing for the right. He was allowed to present his case to the GJ, which is what he was asking for. He had his day in front of the GJ, and they didn't buy his theory. The final decision was to indict both Ramseys, not just one.
-Blue Note
Clearly Hunter didn't think Smit's theory rose to the level of evidence, which is all any DA is obligated to present. The decision of a DA's investigator to sue for the right to present a theory absent evidence was unprecedented and Smit was and continues to be highly criticized by law enforcement and the legal communities. One hopes it was merely the over-zealous action of an elderly, retired detective rather than outright malfeasance.
DeleteProbably not malfeasance because a judge would have to decide the matter. If it were malfeasance Smit would have lost. Kane petitioned to court to have the Smit evidence destroyed. That's very different than thinking the theory didn't rise to the level of evidence. Smit prevailed in front of a judge, being allowed to retain possession of his evidence and pitch his theory to the GJ.
DeleteIf we allow ourselves to think objectively about the intruder scenario we wouldn't necessarily (or even probably) conclude it's true. But we would see that it has at least some merit otherwise a detective of Smit's caliber would not have believed it. Or, as I said previously, we can assume Smit is on the take, but that isn't based in evidence.
-Blue Note
Smit very logically reasoned that "the Ramseys" would not have called 911 with the body in the house if they'd been staging a kidnapping. As a result, he became determined to seek out any evidence of an intruder, because he honestly believed no other scenario was possible. And, of course, he found what he was looking for.
DeleteThis is an excellent example of how easy it is to make an unwarranted assumption, based not on facts but perception. The mistake he made was the same mistake everyone else made at the time: treating "the Ramseys" as a fixed unit, always acting in complete accord and with the same motive.
Smit also reasoned that Mrs.Ramsey was unlikely to be the writer of the ransom letter. There are some parallels between Smit's thinking and the reasoning presented on this blog.
DeleteHe could not have found what he was looking for if it were not there. That's the point.
-Blue Note.
I respect that lou was a respected detective with many solved crimes notched up over the years. But what was his take on the paper and pen used from the Ramsey's home to write the RN if he believed it was an intruder.?
DeleteLou Smit died in 2010, so presumably he's sleeping just fine.
ReplyDeleteDoc, would you be willing to share how many independent hits your blog gets on a monthly basis? I know you have readers in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., but I imagine you also have followers from all over the world.
ReplyDeleteLast month there were 8,571 page views, 4,841 unique visits. All told there have been 283,835 hits. Hits from mobile devices haven't been counted, as I neglected to make the necessary software adjustment.
DeleteDoc, those are very, very impressive numbers. I understand your first choice is to attract the attention of an investigative journalist, but might not a petition do just that, as well as gain you even more readers, blog posters, supporters and credibility through increased exposure? To avail yourself of First Amendment protection, the petition should be directed to a government or its agent, in this case the State of Colorado or Governor H, and request a reopening of the investigation rather than an indictment of JR. I would think that such a petition garnering the signatures you could obviously muster would attract all kinds of media attention, first to the petition itself, secondarily to your theory, book and blog. Food for thought.
ReplyDeleteCC
CC, anyone is free to initiate such a petition, so if you think something meaningful might come of it, by all means do so. I see my role primarily as that of fact finder and analyst, but it's not for me to prosecute, I'll gladly leave that to others.
DeleteI can't. I lack your ready-made forum to attract signatories, for one, and it would be deemed inappropriate or a downright conflict of interest by my professional peers. If you'll supply the former, perhaps by creating a stand-alone petition thread on your blog, and someone - or, even better, a group - wrote and posted the petition, I'll supply free legal advice, provided I can do it sub rosa.
DeleteCC
I'm in the UK and use a mobile so figures for hits on your blog are evidently going to be much higher in reality
ReplyDeleteI use Mobile as well and I check your site several times a week.
ReplyDeletePray for Paris.
ReplyDeleteRandom question here . . . so why did the theory of intruder with key get so little attention? Aren't there several people the Ramseys knew who could be ones with keys or ones who possibly stole a key and made a copy? What ever happened to the Santa Claus suspect?
ReplyDeletebb
The intruder with a key theory got lots of attention. The police would eventually find that many many people had a key to the house.
DeleteOf course it could be someone with lock picking skills too.
If i recall correctly, Bill McReynolds, who played santa at the Ramsey's party's was cleared through DNA and also had had some heart bypass op shortly before the crime and was thought too weak to have committed the crime. I think he died awhile ago. As i said in my earlier post regarding lou smit, how did he explain the paper and pen used from within the Ramsey home for the RN if he thought there was an intruder.
DeleteHe thought intruder wrote note while inside home prior to murder.
ReplyDeleteBill McReynolds' DNA was tested against which DNA evidence at the crime scene? The touch DNA?
ReplyDeleteI'm having problems posting done it twice not sure if they will show up just wondered if you all had seen the Carney Hoffman video posted on YouTube https://youtu.be/yl5Ll3sLFs8 This is the link the Ramsey are under oath patsey is shown her handwriting from family photographs says she does not recognize it she also is asked who invited the friends round that morning and says oh that was me! Individual letters from the ransom note and her handwriting she is asked to compare I can say I understand now why her handwriting was under suspicion both their responses and demeanours are interesting
ReplyDeleteSorry should be Darney above
ReplyDeleteIf Patsy wrote the ransom note why wouldn't she use all caps block printing like somebody suggested in last thread? Seems like that's Kidnapping 101, and whoever wrote that note had plenty of time and wasn't stupid.
ReplyDeleteThe comparisons in this video should be compared with those in my post titled "Some Handwriting Evidence," and also the video comparing Chris Wolf's handwriting with that on the note -- see "Big Bad Wolf." It's all too easy to cherry pick similarities, especially when limiting yourself only to individual letters. Darnay Hoffman was convinced ahead of time that Patsy wrote the note, so he commissioned a group of "experts" to confirm his suspicion -- which of course they did. I've gone over their reports in a series of posts labeled "The "Experts" See Patsy" and revealed the shoddiness of their work. And by the way, all these "experts" had to go on were those very brief photo captions, which may or may not have been penned by Patsy.
DeleteWhen you examine longer samples of Patsy's hand the many differences become obvious.
A good example of how easy it is to go wrong when making such comparisons is the letter "d" at the top of the list. One "d" is made with two strokes only while the other is made with three strokes. While they might look alike to an uncritical viewer, the difference in the way these letters were formed tells us far more than what we get from a brief impression seen momentarily on a video screen. This is how an innocent person gets railroaded. Fortunately the DA didn't fall for it.
" The Basement Window - Part 4" It's from August, 2012. The first time I read it it seemed to make sense. Re-reading it I had a different reaction to it. I wonder what others think?
ReplyDeleteIn this post DocG tries to explain how Mrs. Ramsey could be induced to go along with Mr. R's made up story about breaking the window when he forgot his key.
Quote:
"Look, as you know I was ruled out as writer of the note. And as you know very well, you didn't write it. So it had to be an intruder. Which means the window must have been broken by the intruder. But the police are convinced that this type of crime is always done by a family member, they have us in their sights, and since I was ruled out, they've become convinced you must have written that note and may also have killed JonBenet, with me helping you. Ridiculous, I know, but that's what they think.
Sure, I told Fleet and the police I'd broken that window earlier, but there was a very good reason for that. Because if I hadn't, they would have assumed the two of us broke the window that night, to make it look like an intruder did it. So I made up that story, because I had to, I had no choice. Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging. We are in this together, Patsy, and we have to present a united front, because they have no interest in any intruder and are out to get us. So I need you to help me out here and support my story, because if we start accusing each other of lying, that will give them what they need and we will both be done for."
Unquote.
Unlike other lies told by either of "The Ramseys", this lie requires a physical component, the sweeping up and disposal of the glass. Other lies just require imagination and can be told any time they are thought up. This lie could not have been dreamed up a few weeks, or even a few days after the 26th, it had to be dreamed up on the morning of the 26th because the glass had to be swept up to make it believable. There is no disagreement that the glass was taken care of on the morning of the 26th, before the body was found. So, all the reasons Mr. Ramsey gives for doing it had to be clearly in mind early in the morning on the 26th. Yet, the reasons would not come into play until weeks later.
On Dec. 26th, 1996 the police had not focused on either of the Ramseys to the exclusion of any other case theory. The Ramseys were not arrested nor even taken to the police station for questioning. All the police did was tell them they couldn't leave town. While parents are always suspects in cases of missing/murdered children the police had barely formed any theory of the case yet, much less did they have the Ramseys "in their sights".
On the 26th Mr. Ramsey had not been ruled out as the author of the ransom letter, that would come weeks later.
On the 26th there was no reason for the police to accuse the Ramseys of staging the window. In fact with the glass gone, a spider web intact, and lack of disturbance of the dirt on the sill, there was no reasons to suspect it had ever been staged. As far as I can see the idea of incomplete staging never occurred to the police.
So, if Mrs. Ramsey is going to accept Mr. Ramsey's rationale she'd have to wonder how he could be so prescient. Early on the 26th, he knew the police were going to accuse the Ramseys of staging the window. He knew the police would focus the investigation on them. He knew the police were "out to get them". He knew he'd be ruled out as the author of the letter and the police would focus on Mrs. Ramsey.
This is what Mrs. Ramsey is expected to believe ?
She's supposed to be consoled by Mr. Ramsey being ruled out, but not at all troubled that he seemingly already knew he would be on the 26th?
Is the cart before the horse here?
-Blue Note
Why are you assuming John had this conversation with Patsy on the 26th? He had months, until they were interviewed in 4/97 to have that conversation with her.
ReplyDeleteI'm not assuming that he had the conversation on the 26th. But the glass had to be swept up on the 26th. In fact it had to be swept up before Fleet White went down the basement. So if his reasons for doing it don't materialize until weeks after the 26th, how could they be the reasons he swept up glass that morning?
DeleteThe conversation would make sense just before the interviews on 4/97, except that the glass had to be dealt with on the 26th of Dec., '96. On that morning he couldn't know he'd be ruled out. On the 26th he couldn't know the police would focus on Patricia. On the 26th he could have no legitimate reason to think the police would accuse them of staging the window. So how did he know to sweep up the glass that morning? The lie only works by sweeping up the glass, so the lie had to be fully formed in Mr. Ramsey's mind the morning of the 26th. The reasons he gives his wife have not come into play yet on the morning of the 26th, and won't for weeks to come.
-Blue Note
You're making this way more complicated than it is. He had to unstage the minute Patsy called 911. All he had to do was see snow or frost (there were both, and the latter shows footprints as well as the former) to realize he needed to sweep up.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't even need to see it. He was a pilot. He knew the weather, they were flying that day. As soon as his wife called the cops he had to clean up the glass. dg
ReplyDeleteI understand why Mr. Ramsey actually swept up and unstaged. That's not the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that Mr. Ramsey gives his wife a few reasons for fabricating the lie about breaking the window. But Mrs. Ramsey knows those reasons don't materialize for at least a few weeks afterword. So Mrs. R would have to wonder how Mr. Ramsey knew to sweep up glass, on the morning of the 26th.
She must have realized that his real reason was different than the reasons given in the hypothetical conversation. Certainly by the 4/97 interviews she knows the window will be asked about. By that time she knows the reasons Mr. R gives her for making up the lie had not yet materialized on the 26th. Yet he swept up the glass early that morning.
DocG disagrees with you, and me, that Mr. R had to unstage the minute Mrs. Ramsey called 911. He believes it's possible the unstaging was done later in the morning, after the police were on the scene. But the time doesn't matter. What matters is the date.
-Blue Note
Ten days ago you thought the time mattered very much. Now you claim it's the date that's important. I think you're just obsessing over the glass clean up. Patsy was drugged out of her brain and grief stricken for who knows how long and I'm sure relied on John unquestioningly to filter her information, make her decisions for a long, long time, just as she always had. By the time she came to she probably had little recollection of who said or did what where and when.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I've read in multiple places that Patsy was so drugged up for the first few weeks or even months by some accounts. I don't think she was having any rational conversations at all. It's easy to see what you want to see especially when you aren't all there due to grief and medication.
ReplyDelete"Ten days ago you thought the time mattered very much"
ReplyDeleteTen days ago I was talking about a very narrow issue, namely, the time of morning that Mr. R swept up the glass. After some discussion DocG agreed that my timeline made sense. He may still prefer his timeline, and that's fine, as his is possible too.
Today the issue isn't what time of morning the glass was swept up. The issue is the reasoning that Mr. R gives Mrs. R to induce her to go along with his story and present a united front.
The physical act of sweeping up the glass cannot be separated, in time, from the "reasons" he gives for making up the story. So for today's issue, it doesn't matter whether the glass was swept up at 5:55 or 6:45. What matters is it was done on the 26th. That means Mr. R's reasons for fabricating the story have to make sense on the 26th. But they don't. On the 26th he was not ruled out nor could he even foresee it. On the 26th the police were not "out to get them". On the 26th the investigation had not focused on Mrs. Ramsey. On the 26th the intruder theory had not been dismissed. But DocG has Mr. Ramsey giving her these as reasons why he had to fabricate the window story and for asking her to go along with his lie.
" I don't think she was having any rational conversations at all."
Well DocG thinks they were having a rationale conversation. After all, if he was going to induce her to go along with his lie she'd have to know what the plan was and he'd have to explain to her why he made it up the lie and why she needed to go along with it. DocG is right, they needed to present a united front.
She was not in her drug induced stupor right up until she walked into the police station for the interview. She'd have been prepped by her lawyer and advised that the window questions were coming.
I'm just suggesting the conversation could not have gone quite as DocG suggests, simply because Mr. R's reasons for making up the story have make sense at the time the glass was swept up.
This lie requires a physical act to make it believable. The reasons for making up the lie have to make sense at the time the physical act is performed. He cannot sweep up the glass first, and have his reasons for making up the story materialize later.
-Blue Note
It's my conjecture that Patsy knew about John's prior molestations of JBR, but JR made her be quiet about it, using her cancer treatment as a weapon (e.g., you say anything, and I won't pay for your treatment - and spend all my money on my defense). Then JR used her culpability to get her to lie for him when things went south on that Christmas.
ReplyDeleteDivorce and half his assets would have paid for a lot of treatment with a lot less heartache and sacrifice. Plus she was in remission from 94 on, thought God had healed her.
DeleteMrs R knowing about the molestation has interesting possibilities for conjecture.
DeleteHowever, I'm sure a court would have forced him to pay for the treatments, if it came to that, so I can't agree on that point.
JR did, somehow, get her to lie for him.
-Blue Note.
Oh for pity's sake. His reasons could've changed. On the 26th he was going for a kidnapping by an intruder and planned to dump the body. Patsy foiled that by calling 911. Now he needs to make the scene less obviously staged, hope ambiguity leads to confusion, which it did. He only had to come up with a story for Patsy days or weeks later while she was drug- addled and confused. The guy could definitely think on his feet. Why do you persist in making this more confusing than it needs to be?
ReplyDelete"Why do you persist in making this more confusing than it needs to be?"
DeleteI'm afraid you are the one confused.
You seem to be completely missing the point.
I'm at a loss as to how to make it any simpler.
-Blue Note
"The physical act of sweeping up the glass cannot be separated, in time, for the reasons he gives for making up the story. .." Sure it can. Why not? At the time he swept it up it was for the benefit of LE. At the time, days or weeks later, he gives Patsy his us-or-them rationale circumstances had changed. What's the problem?
ReplyDeleteI'm confused too, Blue Note. Are you suggesting that JR's story to PR about the broken window included "Honey, I swept up the glass"? Because I think the rest of us think that statement was omitted, and the conversation was more along the lines of "Honey, don't you remember when I locked myself out last summer while you were at the lake and you and Linda had to clean it up?"
ReplyDeleteThe statement was omitted in DocGs hypothetical conversation. I assume it was omitted because it isn't necessary. The fact that Mr. R swept up the glass is implied in fabricating the story. If she'd given it any thought at all, and I'm sure she did, she'd have realized it had to be Mr. R that swept it up. He's telling her he made up a lie, so she has to realize he swept it up.
DeleteYou raise the possibility of gaslighting. But again, all I've suggested is that the dialogue didn't go quite as DocG imagines. If Mr. R had said "Honey, don't your remember when I locked myself out last summer while you were at the lake and you and Linda had to clean it up?", that would not go with DocG's "So I made up that story, because I had to, ... . " Gaslighting and an outright admission that he made up the story don't mesh.
So, sorry to be repetitious, but the stated reasons are at odds with gaslighting, and they are at odds with a sweep up on the 26th. So, if we assume the window was broken the night of the murder, and we assume Mr. R swept up the glass on the 26th, then the conversation could not go as outlined. If she was gaslighted the conversation would go along the lines you suggest, but not along the lines DocG suggests.
-Blue Note
AH HA! Blue Note is Hercule!!! He's changed his stripes, but the speech patterns, the convoluted sentence structure, the need to poke a hole in Doc's theory, the contrived screen names, even the double space and dash when he signs off --- it's him!
DeleteBluenote, I get it, and yes, you make valid point. Patsy might have had a hard time reconciling the failure of the police to find any large pieces of glass with John's effort to convince her he made up that story because the police were focusing on them, which came later, yes.
ReplyDeleteHowever:
1. By the time John would have told her that story she'd have been convinced of his innocence since he'd been "ruled out." So even though every detail didn't add up, she'd have had no choice to go along regardless. She was not a detective in any case, just a housewife and not likely to challenge him. Even if she did suspect something, what could she be expected to tell the authorities, who were also convinced John could not have written the note, but she could? I don't see her cross-examining John over exactly why he got rid of the glass that morning, and such a question probably never occurred to her.
2. I don't think we can discount the possibility of gaslighting in this case. Patsy had undergone intensive chemotherapy and after the murder had been heavily sedated for some time. So it might not have been that hard to convince Patsy that she did something she actually didn't do. The fact that she included Linda in her story suggests that she'd been gaslighted into actually believing it -- and since she knew Linda would have helped her, she remembered it that way.
Neither I nor anyone else knows exactly what happened between them or how John actually convinced her to support that story -- but we do know it's a lie, as Linda denied any knowledge of a broken window, or any part in cleaning up any glass in that basement. And if Patsy was aware she was lying, then why would she have included Linda in her scenario?
"1. By the time John would have told her that story she'd have been convinced of his innocence since he'd been "ruled out." So even though every detail didn't add up, she'd have had no choice to go along regardless."
ReplyDeleteShe has the choice of using common sense, and basic logic. She wasn't drug addled at this point. She had to be reasonably sound of mind in order to enter into this little conspiracy to support the window lie. While she may not have known what went on for weeks after the murder, her state of mind is no longer an issue when this conversation takes place. If she's sound enough to be trusted to conspire to present a untied front, she's sound enough to figure out that sweeping up the glass can't predate the reason for making up the story.
Mr. R being ruled out is no comfort if he's giving reasons that had not yet materialized on the morning he swept the glass. She's not dense, and she's no longer in a fog.
Once the investigation focused on her she may well have been reluctant to challenge Mr R's story. I can agree with that. But she could not have failed to see through his explanation the way you have written up the conversation.
I'll agree gaslighting is a possibility, but then the conversation would have been quite different, running along the lines that anonymous above suggested. Now this is all I've suggested; the conversation had to take on a different character. If she's not in on the crime or at least the cover-up, but is only in on this little lie to present a "united front", then gaslighting may be the only answer.
"And if Patsy was aware she was lying, then why would she have included Linda in her scenario?"
If Mr. R was trying to gaslight her, why would he include Linda in the story? He knows or should at least assume Linda isn't going to back up something that never happened, and it would be quite dangerous to include her and have her deny the whole story. Which is of course exactly what happened. It's hard to believe that was by design. I would imagine the conversation went more like this "Honey, don't you remember cleaning up the glass after I broke the window? You had to do it yourself because Linda was off that day". Something to that effect. I don't see Mr. R including a potentially non-compliant witness in the attempt to gaslight.
So why did Mrs R include Linda ? Patsy may have let her guard down a bit and embellished the story more than she should have, but this suggests she knew very well she was lying.
My reluctance to fully accept gaslighting, while admitting the possibility, is that the event had to take place "last summer" so no drug induced fog can explain why she can't recall what happened months before the murder. But gaslighting is a real thing and it has been done. So ok, that's a possible explanation.
"Neither I nor anyone else knows exactly what happened between them or how John actually convinced her to support that story -- "
Well there is no disagreeing with that statement. My guess is either she went along because she's a co-conspirator from the word go, or she was gaslighted into "remembering" an event that never happened. But if she was gaslighted, the conversation couldn't go as you've suggested in the post I referenced.
IOWs I'm suggesting something that probably no writer wants to hear, you've got a little revision to do. :-) It's more convincing as gaslighting but that's a different conversation.
"Bluenote, I get it, and yes, you make valid point. ... "
Thank you. I felt sure you'd get it right away. I was a little surprised that some posters didn't. I must not be able to express myself clearly.
-Blue Note.
No, Hercule always returns for abuse under his own name. Time and time again. I put no stock in psychology. Thanks for playing though.
ReplyDeleteBy the way a dash is a common practice.
-Blue Note
Darn. Put my response in the wrong place.
Delete-Blue Note
I think Patsy including Linda in her story is further evidence of gaslighting or just suggestibility resulting from confusion. She was, according to anyone who knew her or saw the house, a lousy housekeeper. To her it would be natural to assume that if she cleaned something up it was with Linda's assistance.
ReplyDeleteWell that's a good point. Perhaps I'm wrong to suggest Mr. R would tell her Linda was off that day. But there must be regular "off" days when Mrs. R had to take care of the bedding and other tasks.
DeleteIt's pretty dangerous to include the housekeeper when there's every chance she will deny the whole story.
Then there is Mrs R's inability to remember whether or not the window was fixed. Did Mr. R implant a false inability to remember as well as a false memory :-)
It's important to realize though that Mrs R is not confused when they are having this conversation. She may not remember, she may misremember, but she's of sound mind, otherwise why bother having the conversation?
-Blue Note
She saw nothing dangerous in including Linda be cause she wasn't consciously lying, just repeating what had been suggested to her, and in her mind Linda would have helped. Which also explains why she didn't remember having the window fixed - the whole window thing was a false memory, she would naturally be clueless as to why itwas or wasn't fixed.
ReplyDeleteBecause LE had waited four months for ANY conversation. They didn't care what she'd taken, what state she was in, they just wanted her on record making a statement.
ReplyDeleteLooking again at the words I put in John's mouth, I see nothing that implies he made up the story because the police were convinced of their guilt. Here's "his" explanation as it appears on the blog post (http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-basement-window-part-4.html):
ReplyDelete"Sure, I told Fleet and the police I'd broken that window earlier, but there was a very good reason for that. Because if I hadn't, they would have assumed the two of us broke the window that night, to make it look like an intruder did it. So I made up that story, because I had to, I had no choice. Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging."
That's his explanation for making up his story, which also explains why he cleaned up the glass. The following portion, about them "being in this together," is where he makes the point that the police are out to get them. That's not his reason for making up the story, it's his reason for expecting Patsy to go along with it.
When I wrote that I'd never heard of gaslighting. But when someone commenting later referred to it, I agreed that gaslighting did make a lot of sense. It still makes the most sense to me, but realistically we can't possibly know what motivated Patsy to lie. All we can be sure of is that John lied, and somehow manipulated Patsy into covering for him. The reference to Linda speaks to her confusion over that lie. It's certainly not something John would have told her to say. And her inability to recall whether the window was repaired is consistent with her being manipulated into reporting something that didn't happen. If it never happened, then how could she possibly recall whether the window had been repaired or not?
"Looking again at the words I put in John's mouth, I see nothing that implies he made up the story because the police were convinced of their guilt."
DeleteFrom the second paragraph of your hypothetical conversation.
"... Otherwise, we'd have been arrested on the spot and accused of staging. We are in this together, Patsy, and we have to present a united front, because they have no interest in any intruder and are out to get us. ...'
You have Mr. R saying "They are out to get us" You are either implying the police are convinced of the R's guilt, or you're implying they wanted to railroad a couple they knew to be innocent. Either way, such an event had not taken place on the 26th.
-Blue Note
You're becoming tedious on this topic. Doc makes no claims to mind reading, frankly acknowledges speculating. Does not impact his theory. Stop nitpicking to no good purpose. What's your point? That Doc is fallible? He acknowledges that freely as well. Move on.
DeleteSorry to be tedious. I thought open forum meant we could raise any issue about the case, or about DocG's particular take on the case.
DeleteI didn't realize that someone who can't even come up with their own screen name got to dictate what I can and can't comment on.
May I suggest you skip my posts. That's a rather easy solution.
-Blue Note.
I have to say the quality of commentary has really taken a nosedive lately. If some of you can't be bothered with details, or can't withstand the mildest disagreement with any of DocG's points, then what the heck are you doing here?
Delete-Blue Note.
Agree with Anon above. You made your point, it was interesting for about two minutes, it was refuted.
DeleteYou sure you're not Hercules? You're sounding more and more like him, right down to the testiness over criticism.
Blue Note, your discussion about the conversation between John and Patsy makes for good reading, however:
ReplyDeleteThe only facts that we have to go on for this topic are: 1) the floor was cleaned of glass by the time the broken window noted by LE; 2) John gave a reason to LE for why the window was broken; 3) Patsy supported the story of the window having been broken previously and stated that she and Linda cleaned it up. The rest is conjecture. As Doc has often said, we can speculate to connect certain facts but we can't really know for sure. So for you or Doc to come up with different ideas on how the conversation with Patsy went down is just that, speculation. Neither of your versions changes the facts. Patsy called 911. John disappeared for a while, acted oddly detached, and was the one who found the body, with Fleet noticing that he screamed before the light was turned on. So, I really don't care if, how, or why John convinced Patsy to "recall" certain things. She was not looking at her husband as the perp for a number of reason, some probably selfish, some not logical, some protective of Burke.
I can even think of another version of conjecture: the glass had been broken in the past for some reason, but as part of the staging, John messed with the window some more. After Patsy called 911, he realized that not only was his intruder plan not fully set up at this point, but that the glass on the floor must be removed or Patsy would point out that it was "new" because she DID remember cleaning it up before. I personally think John's story about being locked out was a fabrication, so in this scenario the prior break that Patsy cleaned up would be for some other reason, like perhaps Burke throwing things while playing. In fact, JR may have explained to her that he named himself as the breaker so that Burke and his behavior with the golf club and other rambunctious acts would not be brought into the equation.
Regardless of why Patsy did or didn't do certain things, the fact remains that she would not have called 911 if she were involved in the killing or coverup. She would not have agreed to staging sexual abuse of her daughter. She would not have allowed for a note to be written that could sound or even remotely look like she wrote it. She would not have taken a lot of meds afterwards, knowing what a vulnerable position she would place herself in by being out of it.
"... So for you or Doc to come up with different ideas on how the conversation with Patsy went down is just that, speculation. Neither of your versions changes the facts ".
DeleteThis is true. Neither is it a fact that Mr. R convinced Mrs. R to falsely "recall" sweeping up glass. It could be that Mrs. R lied because she was in it up to her neck, right from the word go.
That Mr. R is lying about the window is central to DocG's thesis. An important part of that thesis is that Mrs R is innocent. Yet Mrs R makes a claim which can't be true if Mr. R broke the window the night of the murder. How to reconcile this conflict? Mrs. R is gaslighted into "remembering" something that never happened.
If you want to see gaslighting you'll see it, and I agree it's possible. But I'm much less willing than DocG to accept it as the absolute truth.
"I can even think of another version of conjecture: the glass had been broken in the past for some reason,"
This might have happened too. We don't know. Another possibility is that the window really was broken last summer. I wouldn't bank to heavily on that, but it is possible.
I would question why Mr. R thought the staging was incomplete. I could write about that, and maybe I will some time, but I've introduced enough food for thought in recent weeks.
"...the fact remains that she would not have called 911 if she were involved in the killing or coverup. "
This isn't a fact, it's an assumption. A sensible one, but still an assumption. It may be they simply chickened out and decided they had to call 911. It may be a 3rd party was to take care of the body but didn't and Mr. R really was surprised to find the body in the WC.
DocG has a pretty well thought out thesis which includes the idea the ransom letter gives Mr. R the opportunity to dump the body the next day. That might well be the case, but it's not a fact. It's a very good assumption.
"She would not have agreed to staging sexual abuse of her daughter." Why not? Someone sexually abused her that night, for some reason. I see no basis to think of this as a fact rather than an assumption.
"She would not have allowed for a note to be written that could sound or even remotely look like she wrote it. "
Well one of the two Ramseys wrote a ransom letter that had a few earmarks of their writing. The letter had to be written to get the kidnapping scenario off the ground. If Mrs. R didn't write a letter that sounded or looked like she wrote it, then Mr. R wrote a letter that sounded and looked like he wrote it. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. To me the whole point of DocG's analysis of the ransom letter is that we can't tell who actually wrote it, at least not from handwritting.
"She would not have taken a lot of meds afterwards, knowing what a vulnerable position she would place herself in by being out of it."
This too is assumption, not fact, but a very interesting assumption. Once she's is given drugs her re-dosing isn't up to her, it's up to Dr. Beuf. (sp?) Either that or she was not as out of it as DocG would have us believe.
These are the assumptions necessary to make the DocG thesis work. I have no problem with these assumptions, they seem pretty sensible to me. But, to suggest that they are facts closes our minds to other possibilities. They aren't facts.
I have nothing else to offer on this particular topic.
-Blue Note.
I didn't see it before, but these last three posts convinced me. You ARE Hercule and you're still blaming Patsy, albeit now in a backhanded way.
DeleteBlue Note, off topic here, but are you a Brit by any chance?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Delete-Blue Note
Am i missing something here.? for the JDI,once Patsy called 911, his plan to get the body out was not happening. So, why would JR unstage by picking up glass and break the window in the first place if he needed LE to believe an intruder broke in. As someone posted before an unlocked door would be suspicious. What other staging was there to complete other than to show an entry point. I'm a "Brit" Canuck, don't see what that matters here.
ReplyDeleteHe swept up the glass because the cobwebs, lack of disturbed dust and dirt on sill, lack of footprints outside would eventually lead even the incompetent BPD to conclude broken window was staged, there was no intruder and it was therefor an inside job.
DeleteIt doesn't matter a bit, evej. I was only asking because Blue Note's tendency to use "Mr" and "Mrs" reminded me of how British newspapers refer to people. That's all.
DeleteI know quite a few British people and they've always referred to themselves as Brits, so it certainly wasn't meant in a derogatory fashion. Not sure why anyone would take it that way.
Ah Canuck, i see what you mean. thanks for clearing that up.
DeleteCanuck, I wondered about that too. Thanks for clearing it up.
Delete-Blue Note.
From what I gather, Blue Note has not come to a conclusion as to who murdered JonBenet; a wise stance when you do not have all the facts. Blue Note has an open mind and does not settle for loose ends that can be tied off with premature assumptions. By the way, I have never used a dash next to my name.
ReplyDeleteHercule
From what I gather you're about the last person who should be lecturing anybody about facts and assumptions.
DeleteWell, I generally go along with DocG's theory as it's the best thought out overall. I do have some trouble with a few details, especially Mrs. R's lying about the window. But you're basically right, even though I think DocG has the best theory I don't rule out other possibilities.
Delete-Blue Note
Well that was predictable.
ReplyDeleteThis ground has been covered, but if Patsy, or Patsy & John together, wrote the ransom note, here are some pretty reasonable assumptions: 1) the note would not have to be of that length/detail, 2) the handwriting could have been done in block letters to totally disguised both of their handwriting styles, 3) the note would not need to have the appearance of needing time, size of attache case, and all those other red flags we see in the note. As for Patsy needing a reason for why John swept up the glass on that morning, before he apparently needed a reason -- how do we even know that she found out he swept it up? She was told to go along with a story, given any number of reasons to go along with it, and she obeyed. Or, John could have said, I swept it up because I thought JB was gone, stolen from us in the night and I didn't see anyway someone came in through that window. I was just in autopilot with stress and swept it up. Then they started these implications about a staging so we just need to be clear with them and say this window was already broken, months ago.
ReplyDeleteFinally, who in their right mind, on a jury, would buy an accident theory where the mom then agreed to have her little sexually abused?
-- how do we even know that she found out he swept it up?
DeleteShe would have figured it out. Who else could have done it? Once he tells her he made up the story it's implied that he swept up the glass.
-Blue Note
Repeating this over and over isn't convincing anyone who believes, as most of us do, that he did not tell her he made up a story. He just told her the story.
DeleteYou disagree. We get it. Tomato, tomahto.
Let's move on.
The question was asked. If you don't want to read about it just skip it.
DeleteAnd work up the courage to come up with a screen name.
-Blue Note
A lawyer who posts on here told a story a while ago about Rob Westmoreland suing a blogger. He was able to track him down from a nonsensical screen name. After that a lot of people here became Anonymous. So no thanks, but you have at it.
DeleteI'm a long time follower of DocG's blog and upon first reading his thesis I vividly remember a feeling of being chilled to the bone with the magnitude of evil implications. I inexplicicity found it to be most possibly credible, more so than any other theory I'd ever read. I watched this drama play out in real time Christmas of 1996 with astonishment let loose at every strange turn of events. Stymied it seemed so quickly on, JR got 'pronounced' as being "ruled out" (as the RN writer only) it appeared he latched right on to the fully false notion that it then 'completely ruled him out' in anyway complicit (imo) thus leaving only PR in mind, and boy did he ever take the ball and ran with it. It blatenly screamed first and foremost "I, I, I.. ruled out = proof it wasn't I, and-do-not-even-think-twice about it or look closer, else I will strike you (PR or anyone)D-O-W-N!" (imo & thought only). Odd to me, so hallowed be thy non-guilty name(?), then certainly show and tell timely everything openly to those they beckoned present (immediately the broken window to police, peering through binoculars upstairs-garbage trucks anyone(?), instantly and w/LE privately questioningly BR appropriately for his age and safely securing his whereabouts nearby) etc. Simple, simple, oh so simple.
ReplyDeleteOn and on it flew up into an intentionally unearthly entropious Ramsey manufactured mysterious black hole of nonsense. To this day JR still sells this ridiculous "Nonsense" over any simple common sensible truth to anyone dopey enough to buy into it. Can no one cease to be amazed... or struck by watching his sickness of deluded lying?!
With no disrespect intended to this blog, I'd like to add, hearing Blue Note's comments doesn't necessarily annoy me, in fact I find it important to keep in mind, I for one, have always found PR's words and behavior on the extremely zealous in nature. From the belief her medically sought out treatment, remission, and recovery for her terrible physical cancer got translated into some mix of spontaneous miraculous spiritual healing, befits her mentality of irrational blind allegiance to her evolving reality. It's a given, individually, we all have our own perception and experience to reality. This bent combined with JR's fast and furious revision scheming lends itself to constant head scratching by any average level headed thinking person.
Of JR or PR which one done it, and why the constant compulsion to delude at literraly all costs to themselves and/or everyone...??
In regard to DocG's theory I agree mostly. 1)The note handwriting could be either JR or PR's, but the piticular way the letter "q" is written gives me pause, it's an odd letter in the alpabet not often written the same way by any two people. 2)Lying and intentional vagueness from the get go (on the 911 call) by both JR & PR before anyone else came on the scene. 3)And very important (to me at least) the slick slight of hand of instantly having the presence of mind to erase everything BR out of the frame. There is proven and no mere coincidence made in those matters and what would be the driving common denominator?
Picking through the few facts we all can use as a basis, combining the picture with what we can see of JR, PR, & JBR for ourselves AND what we were not supposed to see (and told to disregard) of BR, I look it as a way to see a more whole complete family dynamic view. To me, that's where I find sadly the most likely truthful satisfying believable answers (imoo). *A teacher once taught me you must listen to what -is not-being said as much to what -is- being said.
DocG thank you for offering your brilliant mind, time and blog space to this debacle of justice.
99
Sorry for my ignorance but wouldn't it be extremely easy to work out if the basement window was a fresh break or not? Wouldn't the edges of the break be dirty if it happened "last summer". If it was found that the window was a fresh break then why is John still walking free?
ReplyDeleteDocG covers this question in "The Basement Window - part 4"
Delete-Blue Note
There continues to be a lot of discussion about the significance of John Ramsey being eliminated as the author of the ransom note by a few select handwriting experts. Do you really think that the Boulder PD, FBI, and DA completely forfeited their suspicions on John simply because he was ruled out as the ransom note writer? It's not that simple. Could that have supplemented what they already suspected? Of course. Was it the sole reason that John was never again seriously considered as suspect? Ridiculous. Let's give these people a little more credit than that.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Hercule, some time ago I learned, directly from Darnay Hoffman himself, that the DA's office originally suspected John and that their theory closely resembled mine. According to Darnay, it was the handwriting evidence that turned the tide in Patsy's direction. Of course, for him the handwriting evidence was all important, which is why he invested to much of his time and money in the effort to prove Pasty wrote the note, based largely on handwriting analysis alone.
DeleteHercule, its hard to give the PD much credit when they badly botched this from the beginning. The DA's have been shown to be inept politicians in Boulder, although I happen to believe Alex Hunter did the right thing to not indict a "couple" based on the findings of a grand jury. Not sure how much the FBI was allowed to help - I heard the PD kept them at arm's length for a while. But...to your point, if they deserve credit for being competent, why hasn't there been an arrest? What is your reasoning?
ReplyDeleteLook, I figure it is one thing to try and poke holes in parts of Doc's theory, but arguing over assumptions gets us where? Unless someone can present another end to end theory that connects the known facts, I'm really getting bored with the point-counterpoint stuff. Hercule, you promised for a long time to present an end to end case. You said you were real busy and for us to be patient. You never came back with anything other than some hogwash about pageant mom syndrome, some teasers that you have inside information, yet you never provided anything to back up your statements and opinions. Blue Note's discussion has been interesting but doesn't provide any real gotchas to me. So for everything you think is wrong in the theory, plug in your own conclusions and put it all together to explain what happened from about 10 pm Christmas night to 1 PM the next day. Take the time to write it down and present it here, please. Personally, I have tried to do just that, my version always breaks down. I cannot come up with any fully thought out scenario that works. However, there are still big reasons I could be sold Doc's case if I were on grand jury: the handwriting analysis that Doc did. It very much appears to me to be JR's handwriting, apparently disguised by an amateur attempt to trace a font. The evidence of prior abuse is impossible to ignore. The head injury being far too severe to be an accident, unless someone held JBR over the staircase and dropped her on her head (in which case there would have been a lot of blood), the behavior of Fleet White after he locked in on John's behavior, the complete lack of reasons for not reporting an accident had there been one, John wanting to fly to Atlanta right after discovering the body, Patsy being believable in her display of grief, while I've never seen John shed one tear, not one. BTW, I saw PR and JR at a restaurant in Atlanta in the 2003 time-frame. After watching the body language and hearing bits of the conversation at their table, I can tell ya, one of them gave me the creeps and the other one seemed like a completely normal person.
ReplyDelete"BTW, I saw PR and JR at a restaurant in Atlanta in the 2003 time-frame. After watching the body language and hearing bits of the conversation at their table, I can tell ya, one of them gave me the creeps and the other one seemed like a completely normal person."
DeleteCan you elaborate? I understand you mean PR was the latter but what creeped you out? What was their conversation like?
Thanks
I just saw your question. I'll try to answer without leaving you with the idea that I was not just reacting to a case of one being more sociable than the other. What creeped me out is that a friend who was joining my spouse and I for dinner was a young, blonde and pretty young lady of about 24. She got "eyed" when she got up to go to the restroom. When she got back to the table I mentioned to her that she got checked out as she walked by that table. She looked over at the table and said "ew, he's looking now, ew, he's older than my dad." I told her who they were and then she was really uncomfortable. As we watched them get up to leave, there were hugs and "so great to see you's" but this guy held back and was at best cordial. It was like watching an actor feebly trying to mix in with a bunch of real people. I may have imagined it, but I did see an aura of sadness about her, even though she was enjoying good company. Who knows, maybe she was not feeling well. She did seem like a genuinely friendly person who was interested in chatting with everyone at the table, making eye contact and smiling. I know this doesn't mean anything on the surface. All I can say is, I find it creepy when someone checks out a young lady even when their wife is right there, and in the presence of other friends, in a nice restaurant.
DeleteWhat strikes me most from reading the various, very interesting, posts by Hercule, Blue Note, and also HG, is how bizarre this case would look if John were put on trial and his lawyers actually tried to use any of these arguments in an attempt to establish reasonable doubt.
ReplyDelete"Gentlemen of the jury, how can the prosecution argue that Patsy was innocent when it's obvious that she lied about cleaning up the window glass. Clearly she was in on this from the start, along with John." Whoops, I don't think so.
Or: "Patsy calling 911 doesn't necessarily mean she didn't write the note, because maybe there was a third party who was expected to remove the body but failed to do so." Sorry, but John wouldn't be too happy about that one either.
Or: "Patsy's reason for calling 911 is that she wanted an excuse to invite friends over to contaminate the crime scene." Would THAT get John off the hook? Hmmmm, I don't think so.
Or "Actually that suitcase just happened to be sitting there under the window prior to the night of the crime and had nothing to do with the break-in." Interesting theory, but I don't see how that could help John either.
Bottom line: while all these notions are interesting and some possibly even correct, none would have any bearing on the case if John were actually put on trial, unless John were willing to confess that he'd been lying through his teeth for all these many years. And given the accumulated evidence of sexual assault, prior molestation, handwriting similarity (as demonstrated on this blog), content similarity (as demonstrated on this blog), plus the knotting on the "garotte" (consistent with what a navy man would have learned, not a pageant mom), and also given his many obvious lies regarding the broken window, there is clearly more than enough probable cause to indict HIM and (assuming she were still with us) not Patsy, for murder one.
Now once put on trial, if he so chose, he'd be free to argue that Patsy was the one who really did it and he "only" helped cover it up. A likely story, as I see it, but it would be very interesting to see him give it a try.
I think that's exactly what he'd do at trial, argue that Patsy did it and he just helped cover it up.
DeleteI suspect a jury simply wouldn't be able to figure out who did what and they'd be reluctant to convict even though they'd also be sure Mr. R was in on it in some way.
But I see your point, most of his "defenses" put him in the hot seat right along with his wife. As I see it this doesn't help Mr. R, but does suggest that Mrs R being involved is a real possibility.
-Blue Note
I'll stand by what I wrote in my post titled "Patsy's Role." There are just too many reasons to seriously doubt that they could have been in it together, or that she could have done this on her own. Regardless, there is more than enough evidence to bring charges against John on probable cause, and once faced with such charges he'll have the opportunity to argue that Patsy dunnit and he was just trying to protect her. He'd also have to explain why he'd want to protect someone responsible for the death of his daughter.
DeleteIf I understand CC correctly he's saying John would claim he didn't know anything for sure until Patsy confessed on her death bed and so no need to explain any protection because there wasn't any.
DeleteYesterday while discussing gaslighting, DocG asked me a good question.
ReplyDelete"If it never happened, then how could she possibly recall whether the window had been repaired or not?"
Of course she couldn't. However,
She'd know one of two things. If the window had been repaired then this hole that appears on the night of the murder is fresh and Mr. R's story is a fabrication. Or, if the window never was repaired then they've had a hole in their window since "last summer". But it would be nearly impossible for Mrs. R to remain unaware of a hole in the window for several months.
If there had been a hole (and we know there wasn't) then bugs would have come in during the summer. As the weather turned cold air would have blown in through the hole. The children played in that room and they'd have complained about the broken window. The housekeeper would have mentioned it and would probably have suggested her husband could fix it; A little extra money for the Pughs. Workmen were in the basement remodeling, they'd have mentioned it and probably offered to fix it. Mrs R herself would have gone in that room numerous times during those months, how could she not notice a broken window? She had her Christmas present wrapping station down the basement, she'd have noticed the cold air as she walked by that room. In short, Mrs. R knows very well the window has not been broken since "last summer".
Tricking her into "remembering" sweeping up the glass with Linda might be possible, but where are her memories of the broken window? She wouldn't be able to remember ever seeing it broken. She'd have to wonder how she'd been completely unaware of it all those months. She'd have to wonder why no one in the household ever mentioned it. It just isn't enough to convince her she'd swept up glass last summer, other false memories would need to be implanted as well, and that's just too much to believe.
I don't see how gaslighting could have worked. She's not so unobservant of her own house that she could believe she'd swept glass last summer yet also believe she remained completely unaware of the broken window until sometime after the murder.
Once again, there is a physical aspect to the window story. It's not enough to make up the story. The physical condition of the window has to jibe with the story line.
IMO gaslighting isn't the answer. It doesn't work. Patsy knows there was no broken window. Convincing her she swept up glass when she didn't, while possible, isn't enough. She knows the actual condition of the window. It just wouldn't work.
-Blue Note
That was lot of assumptions about what Patsy would notice! For starters, I try to put myself in her shoes. I have a large basement, as large as the Ramseys. I got down there a lot, to do laundry, wrap gifts, do craft projects. There are a lot of things I don't notice as a rushed mom - for example, a leak that my husband told me about and asked had I not noticed it. I had not. I'm busy, I have 2 kids and a thousand things on my mind all the time. Are there that many bugs in Colorado in the summer? Can cold air blow that hard through a baseball sized hole that is down in a window well? It can definitely cause a draft, I will give you that.
DeleteBottom line, I think John gave Patsy a reason to go along with the story. He simply said look Patsy, they are making a big deal about this window and they think we staged this crime. Just say that you cleaned up the glass after I broke the window. That ties us both to that window with a logical explanation and gets them off of our backs. If she said, but when did that window get broken, really? I don't recall it being broken? He could have said, well Burke was down there over the holidays throwing things. He could have broken and been afraid to tell us, you know kids. The cops say there is no disturbance outside the window so Patsy, i think someone we know got in our house easily and hid, waiting until we got home. Lets not drag Burke into this but he or JB probably made that small hole while playing.
You make a lot more sense than Mr Note, who's trying too hard to hang onto his broken window hypothesis; too many assumptions. And you're right, there are few bugs in Colorado, people don't even put screens on their windows.
DeleteI don't have a broken window hypothesis, DocG does. I'm just pointing out that gaslighting wouldn't work. Patsy knows the window hasn't broken for several months.
Delete-Blue Note
Sure you do. ". . . there is a physical aspect to the window story . . ." and you go on to theorize about Patsy's inevitable involvement. Sounds just like a hypothesis.
DeleteI don't think it would have been that difficult for John to convince her the window had been broken and she just hadn't noticed it. It was a small break in a small window pane in a small window, in a space she rarely entered. The hard part would be convincing her that's she'd cleaned up the glass, something she'd have been more likely to remember. The key, as I see it, is that Patsy would have had every reason to believe him, thanks to his being "ruled out." And she would also have wanted to believe him, because for her there was no alternative. How could she go to the police accusing John when SHE was the one who was not ruled out?
DeleteA space rarely entered? Let's be realistic. Burke played with his trains there. That's why the family called it the train room. The hole, while small, is prominent, in the center of the bank of windows.
DeleteBeing "ruled out" would not make any difference. She's been in the train room any number of times during that 4 to 5 month period when the window is supposed to be broken. She knows the window hasn't been broken that whole time.
The hard part, imo nearly impossible, would be convincing her that she'd been completely oblivious to a broken window after she herself swept up the glass. She'd have to believe she'd swept up glass from a broken window, then just completely forgot about the window and ignored it for several months.
It's a shame to see you clinging so desperately to such a silly argument, because there is still a way that an innocent Patsy can be induced to go along with the window story. John threatened her. "Support my story because if I do down, you're going with me".
But I do agree with you're last statement. She can't go to the police when she is suspected of writing the ransom letter. Thus, when threatened, even though her first instinct is to turn on Mr. R, she can't. She risks prison and she'd never see Burke again, except maybe on visiting day. She had a lot to loose, and it wouldn't bring JonBenet back anyway.
-Blue Note
I gave a another plausible idea earlier. John could have said, "Patsy, they are trying to say we staged the window. The reason they say this is because there are no signs from outside that an intruder got in thru that window. If its true that the intruder did not do this, then either we forgot to fix it from last summer or perhaps one of the kids broke it again - that's my best guess. But Patsy, they will drag Burke into this if we suggest that he could have broken it. Let's just stick with the version that I broke it, you helped clean it up, that way we each can have personal knowledge about this window and they will get off our backs about their ridiculous staging implication. If she says, "But you did see glass on Dec 26, why did you clean it up?" JR says, "Patsy, I went down there with Fleet and saw a few shards of glass. Fleet is exaggerating on how much was there. I picked up the shards so that no one would get hurt, it did not occur to me at the time that anyone came thru that window. Our daughter was kidnapped as far I knew, and I thought they must have gone out one of doors or lowered her off of the balcony. I wasn't even thinking about that little window being a point of entry at the time. Now that Lou has tried to demonstrate that an intruder could have gotten in that way, I guess I'll say that its possible. But please, we need to keep Burke out of this regardless, so let's stick with what I've already said about the window."
DeleteThere would be no jury. Lin Wood or whomever would request a bench trial, as is any defendant's right, and he'd get it. JR would claim he knew nothing until PR made a dying declaration to him in 2006, and it's game over, JR walks.
ReplyDeleteCC
Patsy's family were with her when she was dying, in fact she was living at her father's home while under hospice care. They would vehemently dispute that Patsy made any such declaration, and in fact could claim that Patsy told them that she believed John did it.
DeleteDoesn't matter what the Paughs say about their conversations with PR, it's inadmissible hearsay. A dying declaration is a hearsay exception and is admissible. You're trying to say JR couldn't spend a few minutes alone with his dying wife, or at least claim to have done so?
DeleteCC
No, just trying to say that they could claim she told them a dying declaration, and it could be different than what John claims.
DeleteDueling Dying Declarations, huh? The only case notes I've seen are from a case in India, so I can't speak to that, but my initial reaction is that regardless, JR has raised reasonable doubt and with a judge rather than a jury he'd walk.
DeleteCC
Wouldn't someone other than the defendant need to hear the dying declaration?
Delete-Blue Note.
Ideally, it would be witnessed and videotaped, and some are, but the short answer is no. The premise, rooted in common law, is that a person in extremis, aware of their imminent death and with no hope, will tell the truth. Construction varies from state to state and even within a state. Colorado and Oregon have uniquely liberal construction and allow great latitude, going so far as to permit dying declarations to be offered in civil as well as criminal cases.
DeleteCC
CC
DeleteI'm not a lawyer but I'm skeptical about John offering Patsy's dying declaration.
I can see a nurse offering the dying declaration under the heresay exemption. Or a doctor, or anybody really, Including the Paughs, ir anyone who heard the declaration, (or claims to) except the defendant.
Are you sure a defendant can offer someone else's dying declaration that gets him off the hook?
-Blue Note
Unfortunately the law doesn't address the putative trustworthiness of a witness to a dying declaration, so it would be left to the trier of fact to determine. Given Colorado's construction, a judge would likely let it in.
DeleteCC
How does it work in the US with the judicial system that some imformation about the crime is not released to the general public. It's frustrating to think that certain people have more knowledge to obtain an opinion based on a clearer view of things than we do.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone here read anything on the madeleine MCcann case it's very similar in many ways, with the exception that she has to date never been found. Many people in the UK believe the parents were to blame. They both were fairly well to do doctors who ate each night on the complex of their holiday apartment with friends where the children were left unatended in their bedrooms and checked on at regular intervals. They profess an intruder came in and snatched her. many people believe an accident occured and the parents disposed of her body, as does the sacked portugese police chief. Some very cleverly proven cadaver dogs were brought in from the UK, and detetcted death outside at the bottom of the stairs and inside the apartment. They alerted to the boot of their hire car, and also the mothers clothing and the missing childs cuddly toy. The chief reported that the parents action and demeanor at the time seemed contrived at the least.
Evej, I have read extensively on the Maddie McCann case. I believe the cadaver dogs are reliable, which in effect "rules in" the parents. it is interesting to me how the experts (in this case, cadaver dogs) are being used to rule in, while in the JBR case, experts are used to rule out. In both cases, confusion is used to thwart the investigation. In both cases, high powered officials seem to hold some sway. In both cases, the parents behavior is in question. If they disposed of the body, they had to have had some help with that. It is so amazing to me that the body has never turned up. In watching the McCanns, I have to say that if they are involved, they are very good actors now -- much better than JR is at playing out the grief stricken parent.
Delete"And you're right, there are few bugs in Colorado, people don't even put screens on their windows."
ReplyDeleteI live in northern Colorado. Believe me, there are LOTS of bugs in Colorado! I get bitten all the time. And I don't know anyone who doesn't have screens on their windows. Maybe things are different in Boulder.
Maybe up there in the woods, around Estes, or out on the plains, but we have very few insects along the Front Range in Boulder and almost no one has screens.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I don't live in the woods or on the plains and we have plenty of bugs in the summer!
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's the wind, blows the bugs away. Boulder is one if the windiest cities in the country because of the jet stream and the front range. 100 mph and above is fairly common.
DeleteMakes sense. I never realized Boulder is such a windy city.
DeleteHello everyone. There is a youtube channel and a website regarding a local Boulder resident who is also a pastor. I believe he has his own radio show. I hesitate to name him because there is a couple accusing him of murdering JonBenet (along with many other children, so they claim).
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what I'm talking about? What do you think about it? I easily found their youtube channel while searching for JonBenet Ramsey documentaries.
Honestly, I think these people sound out of their minds but it is fascinating.
Robert Enyart, Denver Bible Church? It's a cult, been under investigation for sone time. I think the FBI is involved now.
DeleteOld news. Enyart is a right wing nutjob for sure, and folks have been accusing him of all kinds of child murders. Doesn't seem to be anything to it.
DeleteThanks for the reply! :-)
DeleteYes, Bob Enyart from Denver Bible Church. I don't know about him but the couple accusing him of killing JonBenet...they have a few screws loose. Sorry to say, but yea they are loopy.
I was wondering, why was the housekeeper ruled out as a suspect? I haven't been able to find the information about that. Did she have an alibi?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Yes her husband!
Deleteyes her husband!
DeleteWhat could her motive have been? If her intent was kidnapping and she wanted the money, then she'd have removed the body. And if she'd collected the ransom what would she have done with it? Any sign that she had suddenly become more prosperous would have invited suspicion.
DeleteIf her intent was to frame Patsy, then she'd have tried to forge her hand, but the writing on the note, contrary to public opinion, looks nothing like Patsy's hand, when you move from individual letters to complete sentences and compare overall styles. Neither Linda or her husband were educated beyond high school, but the vocabulary of the note is consistent with someone with at least some college education.
In any case, her and her husband's handwriting and DNA were tested, with no matches found.
You talk about their education but you think a 6 year old can articulate sexual abuse?
DeleteYes, a 6 year old can say "daddy touches me there, I don't like it. It hurts." Why does a child have to be "articulate"? They can simply state that someone touched them somewhere, it can even be an innocent remark in some cases.
DeleteOmg. The child has to be articulate to threaten to tell on their abuser. Not just say I don't like this.
DeleteJonBenet would not have to threaten to tell--her pediatrician could assess her for sexual abuse and question her himself or have her questioned by experts who are trained in assessing and counseling victimized children. He would be required to take action as a mandated reporter. The pediatrician was phoned several times just a week before Christmas for unknown reasons. Also her teachers noted how unusually clingy JonBenet was to her mother in December. The truth was inevitably going to come out--and soon.
DeleteSome of you seem to think I'm arguing for Mrs R's involvement in the murder and/or the cover up. I'm not. I'm open to the possibility, that is, I' have not decided it's impossible, but there's too much good reasoning presented on this blog to the contrary. It's sad that any critique of any aspect of DocG's theory is seen as support for some competing theory of the case. There are some "true believers" who can only think in terms of "you're with us or against us".
ReplyDeleteSo what am I saying with respect to how an innocent Mrs. R was persuaded to go along with her husband's lie?
First, I said the reasons given in "The Basement Window - Part 4" don't work because they have not materialized yet on the 26 and therefore Mr. R has no plausible reason for sweeping up glass on the 26th.
I had thought that gaslighting made a lot of sense. But now I realize that it wouldn't work because Patsy wouldn't be oblivious to a broken window that she herself is supposed to have swept up after. She might be made to believe she swept up glass and forgot about it, but she's not going to be made to believe she was thereafter completely unaware of a broken window; a window she must have been aware of if she'd swept up the glass. Additionally, Patsy had likely been in the train room many times over the months. She knows the physical condition of the window and knows that it hasn't been broken for 4 to 5 months. She knows no one in the family has ever mentioned a broken window. She knows the housekeeper has never mentioned it. I could go on, but why bother? It's obvious that the entire household, friends, family, workmen, the housekeeper, cannot have totally ignored a broken window all summer and half the winter.
Now if DocG wants to stick to the gaslighting theory that's up to him. I'm moving on to a more realistic reason for an innocent Mrs. R to go along with her husband's window story.
I suspect Patsy was simply threatened. Something along the lines of "Support my window story or I'll tell the police you wrote the ransom letter and you murdered JonBenet. They already think you may have written it and they know I didn't. There's no way you can turn me in without putting yourself in jeopardy so think carefully before you decide what to do."
Now you may balk at the idea of Mr. R coming right out and admitting his guilt. That's understandable. But at that point he either secures Patsy's cooperation, or he's done for. So what option does he have?
As DocG says Patsy can't really incriminate John w/o incriminating herself. John's been ruled out and can probably convince the cops he only helped with the cover up. Patsy is suspected of writing the letter. Her best option is to go along with the story. Possibly going to prison for a murder is her other option. As I see it it's obvious which choice she'd make.
The one thing this changes though is that we no longer have an innocent Patsy. At the point where John tells her to support the window story she knows beyond any doubt John is involved in the murder. So we can have an innocent Patsy who supports the window story, but we can't have an innocent Patsy who is also ignorant of who did it.
So you have options. You can believe she was persuaded by the reasons in part 4 of the the basement window posts, or you can believe gaslighting, or you can believe she was persuaded by an "or else" type of threat. IMO it's more likely the last one.
-Blue Note
I don't agree with the with us/against us thing at all. Lots of posters have made contributions that have refined Doc's theory. You did OK with the timing thing, but this threat business is just too out there, too contrived, too complicated, has too many moving parts. Keep thinking, though. Half the fun is sparking new ideas off each other.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, generally, most posters are making contributions. It's just a few who seem to regard any deviance from DocGs theory as an attack. I get tired of dealing with that attitude, but you're right, I went too far in my comments.
DeleteAs to your other comments I respect your opinion but as I see it the threat idea has very few moving parts, and is pretty basic.
I also agree that sparking new ideas from each other is half the fun. Maybe more than half.
-Blue Note
Ditto, I am not interpreting any of the posts as being presumptious about what your total theory is regarding Patsy, Blue Note. I'm not sure why you are feeling so sensitive or defensive. I just don't think the theory about Patsy's understanding of the glass makes or breaks Doc's theory, that's all. There are several scenarios that could explain Patsy's willingness to go along with the window-was already-broken scenario. Yours hinges on the belief that Patsy knows there was glass found on Dec 26, that someone (John) cleaned it up, and she later would want to understand why John cleaned it up on the 26th. A valid question. There are various plausible answers, this has been discussed at length, but you want to keep discussing it. Personally, this horse has been beaten enough for me; I've moved on.
Delete@anon 11/18 11:25am
Delete" I'm not sure why you are feeling so sensitive or defensive."
Because one or two posters keep accusing me of arguing for Patsy's involvement.
" I just don't think the theory about Patsy's understanding of the glass makes or breaks Doc's theory, that's all. "
I don't either. It wasn't meant to make or break his theory. It was meant to try to look a little deeper at why Patsy may or may not have been gaslighted.
" but you want to keep discussing it. "
People keep replying to me, and I reply back. I won't reply anymore on this topic after I reply to DocG and CC.
Here's what's basic: Patsy was suggestible, was well-accustomed to taking direction from John. She wanted to stay in Atlanta with friends and family, let him continue to commute to Boulder, he wanted to move; they moved. She wanted a new McMansion in a new development in the flats, he wanted a place close to downtown; they bought 15th Street. She'd been traveling, to NYC, to pageants, having and going to parties, wanted to stay home for Christmas, he wanted Christmas in Charlevoix; they were going to Charlevoix. Not much of a leap to believe he suggested a broken window for little reason or no reason, she unquestioningly went along.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that hard to overlook a broken window when the window isn't broken. Because an unbroken window is easy to ignore. If someone were to try to persuade me that one of my basement windows had been broken for months even though it hadn't, I wouldn't know what to think, because an unbroken window doesn't call attention to itself, so I couldn't be sure. As I said before, this was a small break in a small pane in a small window. And the pane was NOT broken before the night of the crime, so obviously there would have been little to no reason for anyone to pay attention to it.
ReplyDeleteBut it's very hard to ignore a broken window when it is broken.
DeleteAn actual broken window calls attention to itself.
" this was a small break in a small pane in a small window."
In the middle of a bank of windows, above the sill, about eye height for someone Patsy's size. It would have been very difficult to enter that room and not notice the broken window.
Patsy knows she didn't live with a broken window for 5 months.
-Blue Note
If the window had been broken, she'd have noticed it. If it hadn't been broken she might well have been confused about whether it had or hadn't.
DeleteIf my fly is open, I will sooner or later notice it and zip up. If someone tells me my fly is open when it isn't, then I will definitely check, regardless. And my friend will have a good laugh. It's not difficult to notice something when it's there, but easy to get confused when it's not.
And considering the strong incentive Patsy would have had to accept John's version of what happened, I can see her going along with that. That's how I see it, anyhow. The real challenge would have been convincing her she cleaned up the glass. But John could have dwelt on all the meds she'd been taking and how they might have affected her memory.
Nevertheless: I do agree that Patsy's support of John's window break-in story is the weakest link in my theory. I agree that my version does seem to be quite a stretch. And if John were ever indicted, and were actually willing to implicate Patsy (I doubt he would, but you never know), then I suppose he could use her cooperation as the basis for some sort of reasonable doubt, pointing to her as murderer and him as abettor. I seriously doubt he'd ever want to try such a ploy as it could easily backfire, but you never know.
In casual photos, without heels, Patsy looks about 5" shorter than John. In the crime scene photos I've seen with a cop standing by the suitcase and the window the broken pane is above his eye level. So I don't think you're right about that, Blue Note.
DeleteI wasn't going to reply anymore on this topic so I hope everyone will forgive me for going around one more time.
Delete@DocG
"If the window had been broken, she'd have noticed it. If it hadn't been broken she might well have been confused about whether it had or hadn't. "
Except that she would have had to live with the effects of a broken window for 5 months, and she knows she did not see or feel the effects of a broken window all that time. And she knows no one in the household has mentioned the broken window the whole time. Or is she supposed to have forgotten whether they did or not?
"If my fly is open, I will sooner or later notice it and zip up. If someone tells me my fly is open when it isn't, then I will definitely check, regardless. And my friend will have a good laugh. It's not difficult to notice something when it's there, but easy to get confused when it's not."
But, assuming you wear underwear, you wouldn't feel any draft, so yes, you could go several hours with your fly down, even in the winter.. But you couldn't go several months. You're friends would point it out to you, and they wouldn't be joking.
"The real challenge would have been convincing her she cleaned up the glass. But John could have dwelt on all the meds she'd been taking and how they might have affected her memory."
With respect, the real challenge would have been convincing her that after she swept up glass the window fell off her radar, despite the security risk, the possibility of the children hurting themselves (the remaining broken glass in the window frame could easily fall out) the cold air, bugs, mice. No one mentioning it. Sorry for the repetition but it's the real physical effects of a broken window that make gaslighting so unlikely.
"Nevertheless: I do agree that Patsy's support of John's window break-in story is the weakest link in my theory. I agree that my version does seem to be quite a stretch. "
Well, it is very troubling that she goes along with his lie. To me a threat of implicating her would seem to all but guarantee her cooperation. Gaslighting, even if it seemed to be working, might backfire because she could always change her mind about what did or didn't happen. She might, at the interview be unsure since by definition her memories are false ones. John is better off if she corroborates the story than if she simply can't remember quite what happened. A threat would seem to secure not only cooperation but corroboration too.
" I seriously doubt he'd ever want to try such a ploy as it could easily backfire, but you never know."
The idea that he's willing to kill (which frankly doesn't happen in most molestation cases) is central to your overall thesis. A willingness to implicate his innocent wife pales in comparison.
A couple other aspects of the story which I don't have time to analyze right now:
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. (http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-basement.htm) I
Also, the break was in the summer (supposedly) but Patsy says she swept up after her return from Charlevoix, in the fall. She's been away but must sweep up glass that has apparently been lying there for most of July and all of August while neither John or Linda has made the slightest effort to sweep up. (Was Linda off for the summer?)
-Blue Note.
Anonymous, you are correct, and I was wrong. The broken pane is above Patsy's eye level.
DeleteOk, I'm done with this topic now. Promise.. Won't touch on it again for a good long while.
-Blue Note.
Near the bottom of my long reply to DocG, some words are spaced far apart. I'm not sure why that happened. I did not space them that way for any emphasis.
Delete-Blue Note.
I don't get it. No one seems to have been converted to your window theory, it's been successfully refuted many times, yet you just keep on. And on. And on. What are you looking for here? Approval? Validation? Some tiny meaningless victory over Doc?
DeleteNo I won't forgive you. The window wasn't broken all summer, it doesn't matter if Linda was off, why do you keep harping on this? Patsy was gaslighted lije Doc says or just automatically went along with John because she always did like. CC said. Enough!
Delete"I don't get it. "
Delete"No I won't forgive you."
What I don't get is why the two of you (if it is two different people) are getting so exercised about a post not directed at you. (But how can anything be directed at you when you are hiding behind anonymous?)
DocG, the author of this blog, replied to me. So, I replied to him.
If you'll look at DocG's last reply to me, on the topic of the window and gaslighting, you'll notice that he had nothing new to say. He had a new scenario about his fly being open but he made no new point that he hasn't made 3 times before. Yet, he took the time to reply, so I took that as an invitation to continue the conversation. I find it odd that you are angry with me for bringing it up again but not with DocG for bringing it up again.
So, this is how it's going to be. If the author of this blog replies to me on the same topic, even when he has no new point to make, I may very well reply to him on the same topic and I may well make the same points again too.
Now if DocG wants to put the brakes on the topic all he has to do is say so. It's his blog. But, none of the rest of you have any say in what can or can't be discussed, or how many times it's replied to.
If you don't want to talk about the window and gaslighting, then don't. You don't have to read every comment made.
Now, I'm done bringing it up, but if DocG wants to bring it up again, I'll very likely reply to him.
-Blue Note
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."
DeleteGood 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.
It sounds to me like a combination of Doc and CC fits. Patsy would be very susceptible to gaslighting from John because she was used to him calling the shots and was used to believing whatever he said. dg
DeleteBlue Note, the important part of what Doc just wrote is "I see no point in insisting that she did."
DeleteLinda put PR's paint tote in the basement not long before Christmas. She routinely used the washer and dryer there for the elder Ramseys' laundry. She would almost certainly have noticed a broken window - and suggested her husband be hired to fix it.
DeleteCC
Sorry, don't know where that came from, it's irrelevant. BN has repeated and rephrased his broken window/gaslighting arguments a number of times in varying ways, and I lost track of the point.
DeleteCC
I think the problem you're having, BN, is the same one Hercule ran aground on: facts rather than assumptions. We'll listen to and entertain all kinds of assumptions, even pitch in and try to make them work, but at some point you need to be able to hang your speculations on a framework of facts. When the structure collapses due to the heaviness of the former or the flimsiness of the latter, we tend to lose patience. Don't take it personally, and as an earlier poster advised, keep thinking.
ReplyDeleteCC
If you mean DocG and I are caught in a quagmire of dueling assumptions, I agree. Hopefully it's clear that I'm not making any more assumptions than DocG is making. We are operating on the same facts; the window was broken, the glass was swept up, John tells FW/police his break-in story. We are making different assumptions as to why Patsy might have gone along with the story. If you have not lost patience with DocG's assumptions, there is no reason to loose patience with mine.
DeleteI'm not able to understand your reference to Hercule. I never read his posts. Well, maybe a couple of the very short ones. Hercule told us from the get-go that it was all about psychology. Since I'm not at all interested in a psychological approach to solving this case I didn't read his posts.
-Blue Note
The difference is that my assumption leads to an explanation for her testimony while your assumption leaves us hanging in mid-air. If he was unable to either convince her, or gaslight her, then why would she have lied to support his story? And if you want to argue that she must be telling the truth, then John's story is also true and I suppose that means an intruder after all? Are you willing to buy THAT?
DeleteWhen I indulge assumptions I prefer they be based on facts. The available evidence indicates that PR went along with JR's decisions throughout their married life, hence it's easier to believe she followed her husband's lead vis-a-vis the broken window. There's no evidence at all that the dynamics of their marriage involved threats or coercion.
DeleteCC
I was drawing a parallel between you and Hercule, insofar as he too tosses out unsupported assumptions, and who also came to grief from posters who require more.
DeleteCC
CC
DeleteThen why don't you require more of DocG? He's making unsupported assumptions about Patsy being gaslighted. That's all right with me as I don't see any factual basis for deciding whether or not she was gaslighted. It's going to come down to what one person or another thinks Patsy is likely to believe.
I'm confused at the double standard.
-Blue Note
I don't necessarily support some ornate theory of gaslighting, don't believe JR would have had to do more than say "I broke the window last summer" and that's what she'd believe; no big conspiracy, no lies.
DeleteCC
And "you and Linda must have cleaned up the glass cause we know I don't clean up anything." I can see that. That goes with the kind of relationship they had.
DeleteJohn would never have mentioned Linda's involvement, because he'd have known she'd deny it. Imo Patsy included Linda because she knew that Linda would have helped her clean up, just as she cleaned up every other mess. This error is consistent with gaslighting, not lying, and is the strongest argument for gaslighting.
DeleteHey, Doc, you invited me to ask you again in about a week about attracting the interest of a prosecutor or investigative journalist. It's only been about ten days, but ... any progress?
ReplyDeleteI was contacted last week by a producer planning a program devoted to the JonBenet case, but I'm not sure yet whether I want to participate. At this point I'm awaiting further details. If anything materializes I'll definitely announce it here.
DeleteWell that's exciting. I know you've said in the past that keeping your anonymity is important to you. Can you participate w/o revealing your identity?
Delete-Blue Note
That's one of the issues. I don't mind revealing my identity on a program like 60 Minutes or 48 Hours, where the focus is on my theory of the case. But I'm reluctant to reveal my identity on a panel of crackpots with absurd theories, since I'd be seen as just another nut case. I believe in my theory, but it's not easy to defend in a 5 minutes sound bite.
DeleteI can understand your concern. It would be hard to cover your whole thesis in an hour, or even two.
Delete-Blue Note
An hour would be fine. But I'd more likely be given 5 minutes, tops. Not nearly enough to deal with all the questions that would be raised.
DeleteWhy would you not want to participate?
ReplyDeleteI understand why he wouldn't want to participate. John or should I say Johns lawyers aren't exactly known for turning a blind eye. They are quick to slap a lawsuit or gag on anyone questioning Johns involvement. Honestly it is one of the things that has me convinced of his guilt. It's no small feat to try and take on John. I also think the clock is ticking John is already in his 70s so I find it hard to imagine that with our slow justice system he will live to be held accountable. Sadly justice for Jonbenet is unlikely to ever happen. My big hope is that after Johns death more information will come to light and the truth will be revealed. Good luck Doc. I wish you all the best if you follow though but completely understand if you aren't able to. This blog has already provide an amazing service with the sheer amount of information provided and your willingness to discuss and analyze with us. -SM
ReplyDeleteDoc has said he believes he doesn't have enough money to interest John in suing him, and said he'd welcome such a suit as a way to expose John by questioning him in court. So it's a valid question, Doc. Why wouldn't you participate?
ReplyDeleteI'm not afraid of a lawsuit. In fact, I'd welcome it, as it would give me the opportunity to put John on trial. If he sued me then he'd be forced to testify and answer all my questions, which I feel sure he would not want to do. He didn't sue Cyril Wecht, probably for the same reason. In any case, it wouldn't be hard for his team of sleuths to identify me if they wanted to, so if a suit were in the works it would have happened some time ago.
DeleteMy reluctance to appear on this show is due to my suspicion that I'd be one of several people with theories and since imo they are all crackpots, I would not want to be perceived as just another nut who thinks he's solved the Ramsey case. My theory can only be understood by studying my book or this blog, a short synopsis won't convince those who are already committed to either IDI, PDI or BDI and I'll end up looking like just another fool.
That said, I'm not yet sure what the ground rules will be for this particular media event, so I'm withholding judgement for now.
Be good to get your theory out there, though, even without attribution. Perhaps a strawman?
ReplyDeleteCC
Is it possible that Patsy did not notice the ongoing sexual abuse of her daughter? Wouldn't there have been blood, discharge...something? And if she did notice, why didn't she try to stop it?
ReplyDeleteThousands of little girls are abused for years under their mothers' noses. In this case it was probably a matter of months.
ReplyDeleteJonbenet was beginning to have problems with vaginitis, so there may have been some physical symptoms. As CC pointed out, 3 calls to pediatrician within an hour on 12/17/96 may have been leading up to a thorough exam and exposure.
Thank you. Leading up to exposure for John, yes.
ReplyDeletePam Griffin, the pageant coach, and Suzanne Savage, the former babysitter, spoke about how much Jonbenet adored her father and missed him when he traveled. I bet the poor little kid was thrilled with the extra attention, the special secret love or whatever the creep told her it was.
ReplyDeleteDocG,
ReplyDeleteThe part of your theory that seems very implausible is John's motive. Jonbenet was only 6. How could she possibly articulate any abuse? If she was absurd she could understand what was happening was not
right but how is a 6 year old able to
threaten their abuser with "telling on them"
My sister was abused by a grandfather. She was 7 when she told my mother that granddaddy pulls my pants down and I don't like it when he does that. Little girls know at that age know that you don't let boys see your privates. Especially once they go to elementary school. JBR may not have overtly threatened JR, but she could have said I don't want to do this, started objecting to the game, and JR realized that it could be soon that she'll blurt something out to Patsy, her older sister, a teacher, a nurse, or some other adult.
DeleteSo basically no one read the part where I said a child could know what happened to them was wrong. But a 6 year old threatening their abuser (I'll tell on you) is so implausible.
DeleteSo basically you didn't read the replies to you at 6:24 AM and 10:58AM.
DeleteI am a nanny and I will tell you lots of little girls can express themselves at a young age. I know one little girl who was 4 who was able to express inappropriate behavior from an adult. It just depends on the kid. As someone else mentioned Patsy was determined to get to the bottom of jonbenet's vaginal issues even if she didn't necessarily understand why they were happening. I personally have a feeling as has been mentioned in previous forums John was getting extremely nervous about the January doctors visits and that may have been the motivation he needed to come up with his plan. I tend to fall into the premeditated camp. -SM
ReplyDeleteI tend to fall into the opposite camp, thinking it was not premeditated. The reason is that most men who do these things to their daughters don't kill. I'm not saying it's unlikely, but I am saying it isn't the norm. Mostly they manipulate the victim into not telling.
DeleteLeaving elements of staging uncompleted suggests to me a lack of prior planning. Sure, the ransom letter gives him the time he needs, but prior planning would also give him the time he needs. I've always thought the ransom letter was too long, even with the understanding that it had to give Mr. R time to do things and an excuse to go driving around looking for a place to dump the body. There didn't need to be any mention of a foreign faction, nor anything about an adequate sized attache case. It's always struck me that the letter was too long to be well thought out ahead of time.
But if he hadn't planned it, then there had to be some event that caused him to kill. I don't know what that would have been, other than keeping her from talking. Certainly premeditation is a real possibility. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I just lean a bit to the not premeditated side.
-Blue Note
I don't feel strongly one way or the other either. But I do think premeditation has to be considered as a possibility.
DeleteI don't necessarily think he planned the whole thing out but I think he may have started realizing sometime in December that he may be caught. Thinking of the multiple calls to pediatric doctor and such. I think maybe the day before or 2 days before he realized it was now or never. If he waited until after Michigan he might lose his chance. But again we will never know for certain. I just don't buy the heat of the moment while he was molesting her. As has been stated they were catching a plane super early and they were already coming home quite late I just can't imagine anyone thinking that would be a good window of opportunity...but than again I'm not a child predator so who knows how they think. All I know is that from my experiences sadly I know of 3 people I know who have been hurt by their fathers. It's much more prevalent than people care to think.-SM
DeleteIt's so chilling to think that John Ramsey planned the murder of his own daughter. But I'm beginning to think that was the case.
ReplyDeleteIt gets worse if you think about it. Not only did he premeditate the murder of his daughter to cover up his incest, he actively encouraged suspicion to fall on many innocent people, including Fleet White, his best friend. He caused his wife to suffer not just grief at JBR's death, but the anguish and stress of being the primary suspect for the rest of her life. They say stress contributes to cancer. Ovarian cancer is very aggressive, so who knows, but he may have thereby contributed to her death as well. And then there's his son, who faced some of the same accusations.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bad, bad guy. Words like narcissism don't begin to describe his self-absorption.
CC
I agree with you CC. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Just because he puts up a facade of being a nice Christian man, it doesn't mean that he is one. For me, his body language, lack of emotion, strange actions and comments, all just support my belief in Doc's theory. I don't base my beliefs on his demeanor, but his demeanor sure does align with the conclusions.
DeleteSorry; I was interrupted in mid-rant: AND HE MADE MONEY FROM IT. Eight successful defamation lawsuits against publishers, networks and media outlets and two published books.
DeleteCC
Good rant. It looks so evil all piled up like that.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about strange comments Anonymous. I'll never forget his answer when some interviewer asked him how the murderer should be punished and he said they should have murderer tattooed on their forehead. Not I'll tear him limb from limb or let me push the button at his execution. A tattoo.
Wow, yes I forgot about that one. Strangest comment of all! Also, Just like OJ, he made no efforts to find the "real killer." He talks about a DNA datasbase. Easy to say, knowing what he does about the only DNA found, which is likely transfer DNA. Another thing: who besides me wonders why he was leaving in Utah? I know it was for a job, but isn't Utah also a good place to hide when someone comes looking for you?
DeleteIt was a good place to hide for Butch Cassidy and the Hole in the Wall Gang. Maybe not so much now.
ReplyDeleteThat was meant to be lighthearted not unkind Anonymous. He doesn't seem to me to be hiding or even keeping his head down especially.
DeleteNo problem, I am laughing. I have a sense of humor!
DeleteTheres some touchy people on here lately, just wanted to be sure.
DeleteI have just read a quote which I think might have been from his book other side of suffering but not 100% sure on that where he said when he found her he thought she 'had sweet look of peace' not sure how a parent could ever say that about a child who had been tortured and murdered also remember the crime scene pictures of her she looked anything but peaceful
ReplyDeleteIf John had a couple days/weeks to plan the murder do you believe he had the opportunity to kill her a different way (make her disappear while just the two of them were together, make it look like an accidental fall, poison her etc.)?
ReplyDeleteWas something like poisoning out of the question in John's mind because he was worried the medical examiner would by default or due to her medical history discover evidence of sexual abuse? In other words, was it crucial that her body was never found?
It was crucial to make it appear as if someone else sexually abused her.
ReplyDeleteI think John Ramsey planned this murder at least a week in advance. There was careful attention paid to each sentence in the ransom note with the attempt to have investigators suspecting everyone. John is a very intelligent, cold, calculated monster who had a history of deception (cheating on his first wife for two years). I really don't think he would ever do anything spontaneous, especially something that involved so many risks.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
The "large attache" always puzzled me, but if you look at every line as an important component as Gumshoe suggests, it was probably to remove the rope, duct tape, flashlight and whatever else from the house.
ReplyDeleteCC
And his decision to not video tape the kids on Christmas day now seems planned. He said he didn't want to miss the experience by being tied up with the camera. Yeah, he didn't want to miss JB's last Christmas. Or - he didn't want a tape to forever remind him of what he'd done that day.
ReplyDeleteSpending 4 hours in his private hangar at the airport on Christmas Day is highly suspicious. John said he was cleaning the plane in preparation for their early morning departure and that he just liked going out there. On Christmas?!?! Instead of being with his family all day on the most celebrated holiday of the year, John decided to clean his little plane for 4 hours? My guess is that he used that time to finalize the ransom note (which the handwriting looked neater on the last page) and go over his plan with a fine toothed comb. The quiet hangar on Christmas Day was the perfect place to do just that.
ReplyDeleteGumshoe
Doc: I don't know if you have a timeline of all the events that transpired before, possibly during, and after the murder on your blog. If so I'd love to be linked to it.
ReplyDeleteWhy would JR put the ransom note out for Patsy to find if he wasn't done with staging the scene and dumping the body? Why couldn't he claim he went out to deal with the kidnappers, pay the ransom, while keeping the note out of view? By putting it out, his plan could be interrupted, as it was with the 911 call. This is the only problem I have with the entire plan.
ReplyDelete