UPDATES:
NBC's Dateline will be airing a 2 hour special on the Ramsey case Friday, Sept. 9, at 9 PM Eastern time.
Burke will be interviewed by Dr. Phil at 3PM this Monday on CBS. First of a series.
JonBenét: An American Murder Mystery, this Monday, SEPTEMBER 12-14 10/9C on Investigation/Discovery.
The Case Of: JonBenét Ramsey, first episode, Sunday 8:30 p.m., CBS, Sept. 18, continues on Monday, Sept. 19 (9:00-11:00 PM, ET/PT) and concludes Sunday, Sept. 25 (8:30-10:30 PM, ET/PT)
But don't you have someone who can tape the shows for you?
ReplyDeleteMinnesota Linda
Sensible suggestion, Linda. The problem is that I'm reluctant to share my obsession with this case with most of my friends, who have no idea that I'm one of those nut cases who thinks he's solved it. And I'd prefer to keep it that way. My girl friend knows all about it, but she doesn't have cable either. So I'm going to have to rely on you all.
DeleteI'm the exact opposite Doc haha. I'm extremely obsessed with this case and all my friends and girlfriend know it and encourage it. I'm extremely whimsical with it and can't hear the words case, window, note, glass without asking my friends what they're talking about. I post about this case on Facebook very consistently. I have the ransom note and autopsy report on my fridge. I've turned lots of people to the case due to my antics haha.
DeleteI am sure they will all be on youtube or somewhere on the internet days after they air so Doc can see them.
ReplyDeleteIt was the opinion of Werner Spitz that the abrasions on JonBenet's neck were caused by the friction of her red turtleneck collar. Someone yanked her by the collar. JonBenet then dug her fingernails into her own neck in an attempt to separate the collar, not the rope.
ReplyDeleteHercule
There is a 3 part special on JBR in Australia (over 3 nights). Is this the same one as being shown in the States?
ReplyDeleteI plan on watching all the shows coming up. Last night was the first, A & E's documentary.
ReplyDeleteDoc, you will pleased to know that in this documentary there was a clip of an interview of John and Patsy wherein Patsy CLEARLY states that she said she was going to call 911 and JR agreed:
Patsy: "I told him I was going to call 911, and he said OK."
This documentary is new so it's not the same one you've referred to in the past, but it did contain that segment where Patsy talks about calling 911.
The first half of the show seemed mostly unbiased, focusing on various theories of the case. They even showed clips of Linda Arndt's interview wherein she states she had that famous eye-to-eye contact with JR and knew from that point who had committed this murder.
The second half of the show shifted to defending the Ramseys because of the DNA evidence. DNA experts pointed out that there were several DNA profiles found on JB, but one expert pointed out that one set of profiles --- which were the same --- were found on 2 different items of her clothing, refuting the possibility that the DNA on the clothing came from individuals who were involved in the manufacture of the clothing.
Most interesting to me were the clips of interviews of Burke. They were taken early on, when he was still just 9 years old. In fact, one interview was conducted before he was even told his sister was dead. It was very clear to me that he was completely in the dark as to what was going on. As the narrator said, there were absolutely no signs that he knew more or was keeping things to himself. He was just a very normal 9-year old who knew his sister was missing. With so much talk recently about his involvement in this murder, these clips of him sitting in the chair, becoming restless and perhaps even bored with the questions, convinced me he had absolutely nothing to do with his sister's death or any possible coverup. Watching him makes one realize just how young he was and how completely naive he was as to what was going one.
They also focused quite a bit on Lou Smit and his investigation in this case. At the end of the show they stated that he left all of his investigative records with his family after his death, including a spread sheet which purportedly has 40-50 viable suspects on it that could now, though modern forensic technology, be either eliminated or focused on more heavily. The show ended with the suggestion that Smit's records needed to become available to the present investigators and that they might actually find the person who murdered JB.
All and all, the documentary was good. It was definitely new and, along with the clips of Burke being released for the first time, they had several clips of John Ramsey talking about the case in the present. He talked primary about how the the Boulder Police and media decided early on that the parents were the murderers and that this botched the entire investigation and from that point on, the investigators stopped looking at other suspects.
bb
Thanks so much for this summary, bb. That's good news about the bit where Patsy says the call was her idea. I was afraid that was going to be buried forever. And of course John was spouting nonsense, the police conducted an absurdly comprehensive investigation, running around like Keystone Kops from one "suspect" to another.
DeleteHercule, I don't recall anyone talking about the scratch marks on Jon Benet's neck coming from her trying to pull the turtleneck away from her neck. Maybe I just missed it. What I recall is that it was suggested by one of the people on the panel (expert?) that the marks on her neck were actually from her trying to pull the rope from her throat as it was being tightened --- that the scratches were caused by her fingernails. I can't imagine she would be so rough on herself if she was simply trying to loosen the turtleneck around her neck. This topic appeared to be brought up to suggest that she was alive when killed and that the garroting came much later. It was suggested that the garroting was either done as part of staging or by a very violent, vicious killer. The later was emphasized more, I think, pointing to an intruder, which is what this documentary left you thinking.
ReplyDeletebb
Doc, keep your eye on Netflix. They may air this documentary just like they did the "Making of a Murderer." They know how much interest there still is in this case, so they would be foolish not to air it.
That would be good news, as I do get Netflix.
DeleteThe nail marks are right above the garotte on the front of the neck, exactly where you would expect to see victim grabbing for whatever they are being strangled with. Lou Smit might have had alot of things wrong about alot of things but that does not mean he is wrong about everything. They showed a close up of JB's neck and he is clearly right about the nail marks. Those are flesh marks that look like Cs. The coroner either meant nail marks when he said abrasions or did a really crap job during the autopsy. However I think Cyril saw those marks as well and that attributed to his unwavering conclusion that the strangulation came first.
Delete"I don't recall anyone talking about the scratch marks on Jon Benet's neck coming from her trying to pull the turtleneck away from her neck. Maybe I just missed it"
ReplyDeleteHello, bb. I was glad to see that you commented.
The A&E documentary last night did not include Dr. Spitz's opinion. My reference came from Kolar's book:
"JonBenet reached up to her neck with her hands to attempt to pull away the collar causing some nail gouges/abrasions with her fingernails on the side of the throat."
Later in the book, Kolar also states:
"Moreover, it appeared to me that the garrote had been applied in one singular fashion and not repeatedly tightened during an orgy of torture. Dr. Spitz's opinion about the collar of the shirt causing the other abrasions on JonBenet's neck seemed consistent with the appearance of those injuries."
Hercule
From what I remember from last night's show, the forensic experts state she was hit on the head with such force that there was no way she would have been able to move, so they concede the garrote must have came first since they believe the marks on her neck were her fingernails trying to remove the rope. The blow to the head was secondary. I don't know why she would have been hit with such force after she was strangled. They also showed a clip where John talks about not taking her for a bike ride and he regretted not doing that with her when she asked, but the whole time he spoke he was smiling which I thought seemed like the wrong reaction for someone reflecting on something he felt truly bad about. He also said there is a killer out there, all the while shaking his head no, seemed like something was off with his body language.
ReplyDeleteThat's why it doesn't make sense. If someone was, as suggested, gaining masturbatory pleasure from strangling the child by this hand-fashioned homemade 'garotte' in a control fetish -
Deletethen it becomes cloudy as to why they'd hurry it along by giving her the blow to the head. Why wouldn't they just fulfill their fantasy? Let her die slowly. Do we need to assume the killer suddenly grew a heart? Oh, she seems to be choking and struggling too much so I'll help her out and bash her head in. The sadistic pedophile theory doesn't work for a number of reasons, including this. It's possible, I suppose, they heard a noise? and hurried it along --- but nothing else seems to suggest this pervert intruder was rushing anything. If you go with that theory, actually, he was relaxed and took his time to get his rocks off in multiple ways.
Viewing the A&E documentary, it was evident that the panel of experts were not randomly selected. The network's objective in accordance with John Ramsey and Lin Wood was to convince the viewers that JonBenet had to have been murdered by an intruder. It is not difficult, if you look hard enough, to find a handful of "experts" to back up the intruder claims. Doc, you would be miffed to know that these "experts" totally dismissed the evidence of prior sexual abuse using logic that I support. This, however, does not mean that I endorse them as legitimate experts in their field. I expect more of the same in the upcoming JonBenet programs that will air this month. John and Lin took the proactive position of controlling this 20th year anniversary by first whetting the public's appetite with Ollie Gray's premature certainty that Michael Helgoth was the murderer. Interestingly, the documentary last night deduced that the unknown DNA was most likely of a Hispanic male. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly certain that the blond-haired Helgoth was of Germanic descent and did not have an ounce of Hispanic blood running through his veins. Now the accusing finger is moving around in circles again. This tells me that there is simply no evidence that Michael Helgoth had anything kind of connection to JonBenet, despite the erroneous claims of Ollie Gray and John Kenady.
ReplyDeleteHercule
Well there's a huge chunk of this case we can agree on, Hercule. Thanks for the info.
DeleteThe first person I thought about when the experts concluded that the intruder was most likely Hispanic was the Ramsey's pilot, Mike Archuleta. Doc, do you know if his DNA was ever tested? Lou Smit also had a list of suspects that could NOT be eliminated by DNA testing. I thought that was extremely interesting. I would love to know if one of those suspects was Archuleta. He was obviously a close friend of the family and babysat JonBenet and Burke. JonBenet had a crush on him so it's possible that Mike succumbed to her playful advances. She was obviously trained to perform in pageants using sexually suggestive movements so it would not surprise me that someone like Mike would ignore the fact that she was only six years old. He clearly had a problem with self control. His wife, Pam, noted in her book of Mike's infidelities. To me, he is as good as suspect as any. Rich
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine that Archuleta's DNA wasn't tested. In any case, this was not your simple breaking and entering and assaulting type of thing. A 2 1/2 page ransom note was left at the scene so obviously we're dealing with something other than a purely sexual motive.
DeleteDoc I agree with almost everything you say, you've even turned me from a IDI to a JDI but please could you re-phrase "purely sexual motive"? Sexual assault is not sex nor is it sexual.
DeleteThat's news to me. As I see it, penetration of the vagina is sexual assault. I'm not claiming it's particularly sensual, but the vagina is a sex organ, no?
DeleteThe show last night said the police could not find any of the duct tape or the rope used on Jonbenet in the house, also the paint brush end was not there. Does anyone know if the neighbors trash was ever checked? Did JR walked those items out of the home?
ReplyDeleteSeems the documentary last night was aimed at clearing JR and cementing the intruder theory. Watching the detective go through the window was impressive. The Hispanic DNA I guess would point to Gary Oliva. Still the show doesn't explain the why and how of a ransom note written on a pad from the Ramsay house. That ransom note is a huge problem for anyone with a crazy sex offender theory, it doesn't fit.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 issues that got my attention on the A&E program were: 1. The small moon-shaped marks above the garotte appeared to be her own little fingernail gouges from trying to pull the garotte away from her neck. (Was DNA collected from her fingernails?) This showed that she was still alive and happened BEFORE the head injury. 2. How more than one pediatric expert stated that the swelling in her vagina was extremely common and absolutely showed NO signs of sexual abuse. 3. The "trace" DNA has been tested again with newer and better equipment and shows the same DNA on both sides of the waistband of her longjohns as well as on her panties. Two different articles of clothing, and all traces point to a Hispanic male. WHAT?
ReplyDeleteThe red marks on her neck were identified as petechial hemorrhages in the autopsy, not nail gouges. No skin cells were retrieved from her nails, to my knowledge. It was determined that the DNA found was due to a contaminated nail clipper.
DeleteAccording to Steve Thomas's book, a group of pediatric physicians was consulted by the BPD and all agreed that the injuries to her vagina were consistent with prior sexual abuse. None believed they could have been produced by any other means.
The report on the DNA contains nothing new, except for the identification of a "hispanic" source, which tells us next to nothing. Yes, DNA was found in three different places, but this was very miniscule amounts of DNA that required very sophisticated methods to retrieve. That sort of DNA evidence means little as it could easily have been transferred to her hands from some innocent source, and then to other parts of her clothing and her body via her own hands. The DNA evidence is discussed at length, and dismissed, in James Kolar's book.
I KNEW there had to be a LOGICAL explanation! Thank you so much!!
DeleteThe forensic specialist who said the DNA trace belongs to a Hispanic male isn't a qualified DNA expert and was removed from the Casey Anthony case because of it.
ReplyDeleteI had heard about the case a while ago, but hadn't really gotten interested until now, I did in fact watch A&E's show last night, and really wasn't convinced of their theory. I do indeed believe it was an inside job, although I am not sure it was only John's work, nor am I saying that Patsy was involved. I just think that it goes a bit beyond just simple fact, although they are very astonishing ones.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started reading about it, bits and pieces really, the first thing that blew me, was that there was no time table ever established. Now correct if I am wrong, because like I am telling I just recently, and by that I mean just yesterday, started paying attention to this. Every time there is a murder you have to establish a time line. What is the approx time of her death?, how long did they torture her.? That way you can also try and find out if the attacker could have come in and out without no one seeing him.
If the theory of the intruder is right, did he really just walk out the window, and headed home? If he used a car, nobody heard it?
Another thing that caught my eye, was the blow to her head. I haven't, seen nor read anywhere, where they try to identify what was used to give the blow. What type of object was used?, Was anything consistent with the weapon used in the house? The basement? Did he take it with him? Or in the case he hit her against the wall, the floor, or some furniture, is the mark of the blow consistent with any of that?
Also, I honestly don't know if they interviewed anyone from the party they had assisted to earlier. Asking if their behavior was normal throughout the evening, how was the relationship between them as a family.?
Last, if it was just John what was his real motive? Yes, he wanted to stage a kidnapping, but why? For money? Didn't he have a lot? I've read your theories pointing towards him, and yes it is quite obvious he had something to do with it, but why? Why did he want her dead? Or was it something a bit more sinister, with even more people involved? Think about it, that could be the reason his DNA (John's) was never found at the actual scene. I am just wondering, but it could be more people where there that night, with the sole intention of torturing and killing here.
Your thinking on this case makes a lot of sense, but you have a lot more to learn. I urge you to continue reading here.
DeleteWill do, thanks!
DeleteDoc, I,ve been reading and now understand about John's theory, and why he would have wanted to kill her. But I really doubt it makes much sense. First of all, he had an older daughter, if he actually were a child molester, I think some traces or some kind of evidence would have been found. And I don't mean only physical evidence, but in her personality, which is where I wanted to get. He couldn't just have become a child molester, at the age of 50.
DeleteOK let's say he had been abusing Jonbenet for quite some time, she was a six year old girl, how old could she have been when he started, probably 4? I think it is very reasonable to say that it would have shown somehow. We all now by common sense or psychology that when someone is abused he or she is more likely than not, to become a very quiet, shutdown person.
He or she does not become a very very confident beauty pageant, who wins most of the times. Who is never afraid of performing in front of so many people.
I mean yeah sure, it could probably be that she was different, that it didn't affect her that much, but there would have been signs, of that I am sure.
I know of No case, where a molested person leads such a normal and Active life, especially at such young age, when whatever they are doing to you, is something that you of course don't understand, but also suffer it, because it hurts you, and yes I mean physically. If that had been the case, lets investigate if there were any times at all, when she couldn't even walk properly, justifying with some "accident", she fell off her bike or whatever.
I really really doubt that he had been doing this for some time, I do in fact share your theory, He did have something to do with her murder probably even planned it, but I don't think it was his hand that did the job, more people were involved, an I also honestly believe Patsy was involved as well.
For some reason it strikes me as odd, that being the mom she didn't go running to every single corner and spot of the house, looking for her. Or why she didn't wake Burke screaming to help find his sister.
I am a mother of two, and there this time when my son, the youngest one, decided he wanted to play hide and seek, without telling nobody of course. But when I started calling him and heard no answer, obviously I started looking for him, but also told my oldest son to come help, not very calm of course. And yes there no note left at my house, but still I thought someone had come and taken him or worse, he left the house and had been taken by a person in the street.
Anyway why I am trying to say is that my body would have never stopped looking, over and over and over again, thinking that by some miracle, he was or she was lying somewhere asleep, and I would have made sure that every single person in the house were looking as well.
Of course this is just my opinion, I am no detective nor agent, or anything like it, I've just always been attracted to cases especially murder cases, and it does happen every now and than, that the reason of the murder, goes beyond any logical explanation.
By beyond logical explanation, I do not mean any supernatural power, or anything like it, but something rather not the typical cliché.
DeleteYour comments make sense, up to a point. The problem is that everyone has their own interpretation of the psychology behind this case. Some people think a child molester's family would know, but in many cases no one but the victim knew, and kept it quiet for many years. And there is first time for everything. We don't know how long John could have been molesting his daughter. It might have been for only a few days before her murder. Or perhaps he wasn't molesting her and there was some other motive.
DeleteJust as we can't know why Patsy reacted the way she did. The note said JonBenet was kidnapped, so maybe she never thought to turn the house upside down looking for her. John didn't either. Nor did the police, for that matter. They were just looking for entry and exit points.
This case is filled with all sorts of questions that can't be answered. Which is why I chose to focus mainly on the facts and the logic. The facts are something we DO know, and the logic is something we can infer from what we know. Imo that is all that's needed.
This case, truly is one very messed up event, I mean there really is no way of knowing exactly what happen in the early hours when the whole mess started. And the worst part being that almost everyone is contradicting everyone else. So yes, something very very weird went down that night, but I think its going to be very difficult to know exactly what happened. I really hope they find out someday. Jonbenet deserves justice, and whoever did this should be put in jail, probably even in death penalty.
DeleteBut like I said almost every detective and cop, that were in the scene, have a different version, I would say that probably the first person to be there would be the closest to the truth, being that the scene was probably tampered before he even got there. But his finding would be the first and closest to the truth.
You also have the 911 call, in which certain things were heard, that should also be vital to figuring out what happened.
Lets just hope that sometime in our lifetime this case is finally solved.
EH86, did you watch the A&E show? The interview with Burke was the most interesting part. He stated that her heard Patsy downstairs "going physco". And he said she burst into his room and turned the light on, obviously looking for JBR.
ReplyDeleteJohn could have been molesting her for only a matter of months. I remember reading that it was reported that JBR was acting differently before the murder - she was being very clingy with Patsy. And there was the bed-wetting.
Hey Doc, I wish you and your girlfriend lived close to me. You guys could come over to my house and watch everything - I wouldn't tell anyone :)
I am not going to judge Burke in a big way but looking at those interviews it doesn't seem like Burke gets too emotional when it comes to Jonbenet.
DeleteYes, she did go physic, but as Doc says they looked for entry and exit ways of the intruder, if you don't see any unlocked door or anything suspicious, you keep looking inside right? And why was Burke so scared to get up at all? I mean its not like it happened every other night, I believe he world have indeed jumped out of bed because of the madness going on in his house.
DeleteAt least thats what I think.
Would* not world, sorry
DeleteWell I don't know why you would want to keep looking for her in the house. A kidnapping means you TAKE the kid. She did look for JBR in her bedroom area and Burke's area. With the RN why would Patsy think this was other than an actual kidnapping? Of course it wasn't but how would she know that.
DeleteTwo questions
ReplyDeleteThe preview for the CBS Doc shows that they believe the train set left the marks on Jonbenets face. What do you guys think left them a train set, a stun gun, something else?
And do you think the goal was to get Jonbenet out of the house? Or was the plan all along to keep her in the house? If so why leave the ransom note?
Kolar made a big deal about the train tracks because he has his eyes on Burke. It's easy to imagine Burke going after his sister with a train track before bopping her over the head. Smit made a big deal about some imaginary stun gun because he had his eyes on an intruder and the Ramseys didn't own a stun gun.
DeleteAs for me I don't see any reason to explain every single mark on a victim's body. There are many things that could have caused those abrasions, possibly something she slammed into after being clubbed.
And yes I think it's clear from the ransom note that getting JonBenet out of the house before calling the police was the plan. As you say, there was no other reason for leaving such a note.
A%E documentary
ReplyDeletethey are showing JR writing in his diary but the overlapping images blur his handwriting out...any idea why?
Yeah, I noticed that in the trailer. You can stop it and examine the handwriting to some extent. Whether it's his or not is hard to say, as it could have been faked. But it certainly looks nothing like either the ransom note or John's writing on the deposition we've all seen. I found what looks like a better sample of this type of thing from another source and I'm thinking of posting on it soon.
Deletethanks for the reply
Deletebtw, I agree that the note makes sense as an excuse NOT to call the police.Maybe Patsy made the call without JR even knowing?He was still upstairs in the shower?I tend to believe that the note was meant for her, he knew best what stairs she is coming down on.I think what ruined his plans was her grabbing the phone without even telling him what she found?Another thing, is it possible that what people hear on the 911 tape are PR and JR and not her and Burke?Is it possible that he surprised her making the call?What did you find??
Truly a novice compared to many of you, but having followed this story I have one thing that really has always bothered me, and the A&E show really confirmed my discomfort with one fact of this terrible tragedy.......Patsy found the letter and maybe not immediately, but soon after finding it, both Patsy and John read the entire thing, one thing that they knew for SURE was that someone had been or even possibly was STILL in their home, this home was HUGE.....think about this for a moment, everyone, especially those of you who are parents......the very first emotion that I think everyone would have is TERROR, and PROTECTION for your child and yourselves....by Burkes OWN words he said they left him ALONE in his room for a long period of time....ANY parent who learned that their was a stranger in their home, especially as massive home such as theirs would not let their remaining child out of their site for a moment, having NO way of knowing if an intruder was STILL in the house.....this FACT has always bothered me.....truthfully, upon finding the letter I would have grabbed by child and with my husband LEFT the house immediately not knowing if the intruder(s) were still there.....what do you all think?
ReplyDeleteYes you are very right about this, that would be indeed the the first instinct of probably any parent, protect your other child, especially since you see that no door is unlocked, or any open window, of course you wonder if the intruder is still in there, I mean it was very early in the morning.
DeleteI totally agree! I would never leave my un-kidnapped child alone in their room knowing an intruder had been in and could still be in the home - I would hold on to them so tight and not let go until someone physically removed him from my arms. I too agree that I'd search the house top to bottom (even if I had a note) in desperation to do SOMETHING proactive while waiting for the police. Although, that letter (if one had not written it and knew it a fake) would be terrifying so who knows what you may do in their spot. I'm sure John encouraged Patsy to think it was an intruder and not look around too hard so he could finish up - well until she messed up the plan and called the police that is. It's all so strange. I also can't believe everyone who thinks that Lou Smit fitting through the window means anything - don't they have a crime scene video where the window has undisturbed cobwebs on it?! No one could have gotten through that and left those intact. KDinVA
DeleteI believe PR and JR awoke (according to them) at approx. 5:30 A.M. Patsy calls 911 at approx. 5:45 A.M., and the first cop arrives at approx. 6:00 A.M. Not 100% sure about this timeline (difficult to find one on the internet). But 1/2 hour is a short time period for them to get up, be getting ready, then find the RN, check on Burk, call 911, etc. Theoretically they would have felt a little safer once the police arrived which was in short order.
DeleteVicki
*my child, sorry for error
ReplyDeleteWhy would they think an intruder was still in the house? That's not the way a kidnapping usually works.
ReplyDeleteHi, thanks for your reply......I try to think about if I woke up between 5-5:30 am, still dark out, and found a bizarre letter like that I would be terrified that they were still there and my first reaction would be to have my other child attached to my hip.....think about it, it is still dark....how did she/they know that they did not catch them in the act....I keep thinking how huge that house is....I know I would be terrified that the intruder(s) might still be in the house.
DeleteWell yes, its not the way a kidnapping works, in that case neither does a murder, who tries to kidnap someone, but then somehow ends up killing him or her inside the house, with people sleeping there. That does not make since either. You'd have to be a very very confident person, to do such a thing. Anybody could have waken up at any time during the murder, yet he still has time to right the letter, torture her, and finally kill her, I mean come on, that doesn't even happen in the movies.
DeleteEH86 - I could not have said it better! NO one takes a child from bed in a full house of people, hits them on the head hard enough to kill them, wait some time (couple of hours based on forensics of head hit and strangulation), finally kill them (with tools from in the house and nothing they brought with them), take the time to write a LONG ransom note (and put the pen and notepad back, thanks honey!), then leave the body after all with the incriminating ransom note in their handwriting there! Who hangs out that long at a murder/kidnap scene!? If you had enough time to do all that, you'd take the time to take the note with you if you had meant to kidnap her and not really kill her. Not even in the movies. It is that John thought Patsy would not call police, give him time to get the body out of the house, use the suitcase (large attache referenced in note) to take her out of the house unbeknownst to Patsy, deliver the ransom (botched so no daughter back alive), get rid of the note at the same time. I mean the fact that "they" told him to get rest because it would be hard and take a long time, BUT with the option that if they see he got the money early they may call earlier - he was just creating all the scenarios to give himself plenty of time or if it all went quicker, he had an out there as well to have them call earlier. "They" told him to bring a large attache - what kidnapper tells you what to put bring their money in - who cares if he uses a duffel bag or suitcase or whatever? So in his mind, writing that in the note, he has an excuse to tell Patsy - honey, I have to go to the basement to get an attache case (aka the suitcase in the broken window room) for the ransom money...then puts JBR in it and carries her right out of the house. I think in one long ago post I read from DocG (or someone else?!) that he speculated that the amount of $118,000 was because it was his bonus and found money - he knew he could get that easily from his account and it wouldn't really be missed and he could pretend to give that to the kidnappers and never get it back. Getting more money than that would cause the bank to possibly question him and get the police involved. At that point he thought he was going to be able to get out of the house without the police being called yet, to fake a ransom drop-off, dump the body and destroy the note. Too bad for him Patsy called the police.
DeleteKDinVA
Pretty much Doc's theory. Only he didn't think the attache case would be big enough to hold the body. Minnesota Linda
Deleteperhaps another, larger suitcase, then? one to hold all those $100's $20's..1,900 paper bills takes up a lot of space I assume? ....KDinVA
DeleteTrue. Minnesota Linda
DeleteI really doubt that the Samsonite suitcase was large enough. Someone speculated that she could have been beheaded so she could fit. But that would have produced lots of blood, so I can't imagine why he would have wanted to do that.
DeleteTo me the suitcase just represents the staging of an object that could boost the intruder high enough to leave via the window. That seems to have been Lou Smit's theory as well. Trouble is: no sign anyone went through that window either way.
This emotive "How I would have reacted" is part of the attraction/reaction of the case - many people have an opinion based on what they feel (usually as a parent). But people do not respond universally. I think the idea that John could manipulate Patsy has merit and that this should be taken into account when assessing Patsy's "deficiencies" as a parent (in the emotive eyes of other parents). If Patsy did jump the gun in calling 911, then it makes sense that John would have voiced his anger at Patsy under Doc's scenario.
ReplyDeleteThis may explain why they were distant on the morning (separate rooms, not consoling each other) and why in addition to the police. friends and their minister were called. More people, more confusion would have aided John if he did kill JonBenet and Patsy's call derailed his plans, plus would have kept him isolated from Patsy to continue to scheme/react.
I can see John taking control of the situation post phone call which would explain Patsy's "unnatural" "maternal instincts".
-Sisu
Well this case may now finally be solved. The perp’s name might be Gary Howard Oliva, age 52, now in the custody of Boulder PD.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_30041518/jonbenet-ramsey-murder-suspect-gary-oliva-charged-boulder-child-porn-case
Incriminating Evidence -
registered sex offender.
known drifter, who traveled to Boulder, CO often.
frequented a soup kitchen 10 houses away from the Ramsey home, ie, he was proximate to the crime.
at the time of his arrest, he had a picture of JBR in his possession and a stun gun.
confessed to friend Michael Vail that he had done something terrible to a young girl in Boulder. This was reported to the PD at the time of the crime.
admitted being obsessed with JBR.
was very familiar with knot tying (strangled his own mother).
was schizophrenic.
was obsessed with little girls (seen in his artwork repeatedly).
CC2
Oliva is one of roughly 20 or 30 people seriously considered as suspects in this case at one time or other. What they have in common is aspects of their background that make it all but certain that they MUST be the Ramsey intruder. However, it seems just a bit unlikely they all could have done it.
DeleteOliva was investigated years ago. I'm sure they took a sample of his DNA. If the dimensions of his stun gun fit the marks on JonBenet's body, Lou Smit would have made a huge fuss over him. Clearly they did not.
The bottom line is that NO intruder theory makes sense. This is NOT a pedophile breaking and entering to rape, torture and kill his victim. Such a person would have had no reason to write a ransom note, not to mention a note penned on a notepad from the house. JonBenet would not have accepted a pineapple treat from such a person. Such a person would have had no reason to hide her body in a remote basement room. The list goes on.
This had to have been an inside job, no question.
Honestly, even the sickest pedo probably wouldn't kill a kid on Christmas. There's too much pointing to something amiss within the home and the murder would have to be preventative measures. With the upcoming family trip, the idea of the little girl telling is too feasible. I mean, John may have chosen this night to bother her for the first time an the child flipped out and he killed her. Even Patsy's crazy bed-wetting tirade theory makes more sense than the pervy intruder.
DeleteDoc,
ReplyDeleteI obviously think the DNA is irrelevant to the case but what are the odds that JonBenet could transfer the DNA from an innocent source to her clothing then to her body in three different places without the sample being too weak to transfer to other places more than once? Pardon my understanding of DNA evidence transfer. It's just crazy how lucky John got. Not only did he get a break with incompetent police not securing the scene, but he got another break when he was able to disappear for an hour. But there's more! On top of this astronomical luck jbr transferred some foreign degraded DNA that would be enough to break him from suspicion. Jbr didn't have the best hygiene habits and I wonder if she were more clean if there would be the six profiles on her.
Zack,
DeleteI share your's and Doc's passion for this case for sure. I agree with your point here that the DNA may not continue to be a major factor in this case, although perhaps for (two) reasons:
1. LE didnt collect enough DNA / there wasn't enough to collect to begin with
2. the possibility of contamination explained via:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn
Im not sure JR got lucky. Associating JR with paraphilia is a huge stretch, there's just zero evidence of this anywhere in the man's life, that I can find.
"Mr. Smit, a former Colorado Springs detective who worked on hundreds of homicide cases before joining the Ramsey case at Mr. Hunter's invitation in 1997, has often said that he believes the parents are innocent. He contends that JonBenet was a victim of a pedophile who molested her, used a stun gun to disable her and, after JonBenet began screaming, killed her with a blow to the head, possibly with a flashlight. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/10/us/jonbenet-s-mother-was-killer-detective-says.html
According to this source Smit did believe a stun gun was used. Since Smit concluded that RDI was not the truth of the case, sufficient fuss was in fact raised.
"what are the odds that JonBenet could transfer the DNA from an innocent source to her clothing then to her body in three different places without the sample being too weak to transfer to other places more than once?"
DeleteNot sure what you mean by that last phrase, Zack, but I don't see the DNA as a problem at all. Since the DNA on her longjohns came from skin cells, we can rule out the "sneeze at the factory" theory. But it's important to realize that the techniques used to retrieve "touch DNA" are very sophisticated and capable of retrieving DNA from a truly minuscule source, possibly even a single skin cell. If this was the DNA of her attacker, there would certainly have been much more of it, and such extremely sensitive methods would not have been necessary.
It was not until several years after the crime that such methods became possible. Before that, all they had was some fragments of DNA found mixed with JonBenet's DNA in a blood stain.
What probably happened was that she had gotten some stray skin cells on her hands at some point, possibly from petting a dog or cat that someone else had petted, or from touching something someone else had touched, such as a ball or a toy or whatever. Once they were on her hands, they could easily have found their way to articles of her clothing, including the inside of her panties, where the blood stain was found. They weren't found all over her body most likely because there were so few cells to begin with, hardly any at all. This is an ongoing problem with DNA forensics, as the methods have become so sensitive that the DNA of perfectly innocent people is now turning up at crime scenes.
I read that piece on the Phantom_of_Heilbronn, thanks for the link, very interesting. But in this case, the DNA wasn't collected from a swab, but from a method where, as I understand it, pieces of cloth from her clothing were pulverized in such a way that any DNA found on them could be retrieved and analyzed.
DeleteWhile imo Smit got many things wrong, he was motivated by an understanding of the case that went deeper than that of the other investigators. He realized, as do I, that "the Ramseys" would not have called 911 at that time if they'd been staging a kidnapping. What he, like all the others, failed to imagine was the possibility that one could be guilty and the other innocent, one a master manipulator and the other simply a dupe.
The stun gun tests were done on pigs to compare and looked at by many experts and they all concluded that they were not made by a stun gun. The marks did not match up with any stun gun on the market. The Boulder Police wanted to exhume the body to prove that they were not made by a stun gun and John Ramsey balked and did not want her body exhumed. I wonder why ???
ReplyDeleteThe whole stun gun thing really annoys me. It was made up by Lou Smit out of thin air and was never more than a red herring. There was never any reason to even suspect that a stun gun was used. Certainly none was needed. And if one had been used, she'd have been screaming and would have woken up the whole neighborhood.
Deletere: JBR's scream:
Deletehttp://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What%20Neighbors%20Reported
According to sources mentioned here, she did scream. She was heard by a neighbor not more than 100 feet away, Melody Stanton. From what Ive read no neighbor was closer than her, to the Ramsey’s residence if “within earshot” is to be considered. IMO - JBR’s screaming caused the perp to smash her head so brutally as to cause the scream to stop almost immediately. I would be extremely willing to believe those two events are linked (screaming and resulting head smash). What is so bizarre about this case however, is how the Ramsey's, under any scenario, could not have heard their own young child scream(ing) for her life! In what universe does that occur ? No mother as intimately connected to a daughter as PR was to JBR, and I think most of us agree here, those two were a picture of true love if it ever existed on the planet, could sleep through that scream if she heard it. She’d be up and about and investigating on the double (assuming she was physically able, there have been reports of cancer medications that could have been debilitating).
Well the obvious answer to the “what universe” question is - one in which JR/PR/BR did it. A coverup for one or the other. However, when I factor in the obvious paraphilia dominated torture JBR was subjected to, I personally must factor them out. Impossible for them to stage, they aren’t that sophisticated, coordinated, or smart, and no previous histories of paraphilia.
However, lets assume I wrong and float JDI (because BTK also had no previously known history of paraphilia), surely PR and BR must have heard it, that is a quiet neighborhood. And even if PR/BR didnt immediately react, how could JR be sure it wasn’t still heard ? By the passive (eg, minutes elapsed and nobody wakes / rises to investigate) reaction of PR / BR ? Perhaps so. But that's a huge stretch to my view. The screeching treble of her juvenile voice would have pierced the night with a blood curdle !
re: stun marks
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682467/Evidence%20of%20a%20Stun%20Gun
Specific citation: Expert Opinion. "Moreover, defendants have presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Doberson, a forensic pathologist who examined the Boulder Coroner's autopsy report and autopsy photos, and who concluded that the injuries to "the right side of the face as well as on the lower left back are patterned injuries most consistent with the application of a stun gun." (Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 5(A) attach. as Ex. 3 to Defs.' Ex. Vol. I, Part A.)." (Carnes 2003:98).
There are pictures of the (possible) stun marks on her body as well, publicly accessible still.
CC2
It saddens me that people new to the case and even old to the case will take everything from the last A@E Pro-Ramsey show and consider it fact. Alot of that show I personally consider to be nothing other than total BS. However at this point, where experts disagree on every single fact and piece of evidence that their is in the case, it is almost impossible to decipher what is and what is not the truth. The only valuable shred of truth that came out of that show was the close up showing of the nailmarks on her JB's neck, thus proving JB was alive when strangled. What did not change a bit is who is guilty, and that is John Ramsey. He can throw up however much smoke and mirrors and less educated people will buy the charade and believe it but I never will.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the way people are so easily misled by what they see in the media. And if Lou Smit's ideas on this case were the basis for this most recent A&E presentation, then that's really unfortunate, as he got so many things wrong.
DeleteHowever. As I've said before, no nail marks were found on her neck. I don't see any and the med. ex. didn't see any. A scratch looks like a scratch, it's a line, not a point. Someone being strangled would not simply dig her nails into her neck, she'd move them in an effort to dislodge whatever was strangling her. Moreoever, as I've also mentioned, no skin cells were found under her nails. The DNA got there from a contaminated clipper.
John Ramsey, the 1 so saddened by his daughter's killing and completely dedicated to a manhunt to find his daughter's killer does not want the body exhumed to help the case. How ironic .....
ReplyDeleteIn this A & E documentary, a DNA expert talked about how two exact DNA profiles were found on two separate pieces of clothing that JonBenet had on. He said that would dispense of the theory that this trace DNA came from the people who manufactured the clothing, because what would be the odds that the same person made both articles of clothing? True. But it's quite simple how that same DNA got on her clothing. What if Patsy bought each article of clothing at the same store and the clerk who rang up the order touched each piece of clothing while scanning it or putting it in the bag? Seems simple enough to me.
ReplyDeletebb
The panties were probably enclosed in plastic. Also a direct transfer from the clerk would probably have produced more skin cells than were found.
DeleteI'll repeat what I wrote above:
What probably happened was that she had gotten some stray skin cells on her hands at some point, possibly from petting a dog or cat that someone else had petted, or from touching something someone else had touched, such as a ball or a toy or whatever. Once they were on her hands, they could easily have found their way to articles of her clothing, including the inside of her panties, where the blood stain was found. They weren't found all over her body most likely because there were so few cells to begin with, hardly any at all. This is an ongoing problem with DNA forensics, as the methods have become so sensitive that the DNA of perfectly innocent people is now turning up at crime scenes.
Or JB could have touched 1 spot where the DNA was then touched the other spot. What I have always found interesting is that these are thought to be skin cells off of someones hand correct ? Thus meaning that the person was NOT wearing gloves. If this person was not wearing gloves then there should be an abundance of evidence and fingerprints everywhere. Yet not so much as a partial print has ever been found, which would seem to point to transfer being the most likely scenario. Were there not 5 other profiles found on JB as well ?
ReplyDeleteHere I basically agree. As I've said before, if her attacker was wearing gloves no touch DNA would have been found and if the attacker was not wearing gloves, his DNA would have been found all over the crime scene -- along with his fingerprints as well.
DeleteThere was foreign blood found in JB's panties that now matches 2 other spots. If I am not correct about this DNA (blood in panties) someone please enlighten me. I could see touch DNA being in a couple of places with transfer being a strong possibility. However, I can not reasonably see DNA in 2 other places that matches that same blood in her panties and dismiss that as nothing. If this is the case then a suspect other than the Ramseys has to be culpable for this crime. If anyone could explain this to me better because maybe I am missing something here ? J
ReplyDeleteYes, you are missing something. First of all the DNA found in her blood was just fragments of DNA, mixed with her own DNA. That could have gotten there in any number of ways. It looks as though some skin cells got transferred to her hands and then transferred to her long johns AND her private parts as she touched them. It's really that simple. Forget about the sneeze from some worker at a panty plant. Think more about all the many ways a little girl can get stuff on her hands and spread it to things she touches.
DeleteDocG is wrong in what he states and you are not quite correct either Anonymous. The foreign DNA found in JonBenet's panties is thought to have been contained in saliva (not blood) because an amylase test that shows the presence of saliva was positive for the blood spots. Incidentally the amylase test was positive ONLY in the blood spots and nowhere else on the panties. Doc's theory about the DNA in the blood spots coming from skin cells is completely wrong. I don't know where he gets the 'fragments' bit from. It isn't possible to get 'fragments' except in a test tube.
Delete"During the same week, the CBI discovered that the stain found on JonBenét’s panties contained the DNA of more than one individual. JonBenét’s DNA was the major component, but there was a minor component consisting of DNA from another person—or possibly more than one."
DeletePerfect Murder, Perfect Town (p. 182).
This tells us that the foreign DNA (the minor component) found in the blood stain was fragmentary, as it was mixed with JonBenet's DNA (the major component). And in fact they were never able to retrieve a complete set of markers from this foreign DNA.
There is no reference in any report I know of to any type of cell that this foreign DNA might have originated from -- in fact there are no reports of any particular type of cell from any foreign source found in JonBenet's blood.
The notion that this DNA might have originated from saliva, or from a sneeze from a factory worker is purely hypothetical. If traces of saliva were found in that blood sample that does not mean the foreign DNA originated from saliva. It was simply a few bits of fragmentary DNA that could have come from any source, including a degraded skin cell. That's how I understand it at least. If there was some new evidence reported in the A&E doc., that's a different matter and I'd love to learn more about it.
Ok, thank you for enlightening me. I think I thought I had read somewhere that it was unidentified blood mixed with her blood, not just touch DNA. So it is touch DNA in the panties as well ? It would seem hard to spread touch dna into so many places when the original sample size is so small ? I am no expert, I am just trying to make sense of the DNA. I always thought someone in the house was guilty until I watched a show the other night and they made the DNA sound like solid evidence of an intruder. J
ReplyDeleteNo, the blood where the fragments of foreign DNA was found was her blood, not her attackers. That sample was not touch DNA, by the way, though it may well have originated in skin cells. I do think the original set of skin cells must have been very small. But once it got onto her hands it could have easily been spread to anything she touched. The DNA is far from solid evidence and as I understand it, most law enforcement specialists dispute that, including James Kolar who was the lead detective at the time.
DeleteJR own words in his interview with the BPD and Lou Smit transcripts:
ReplyDelete1997 BDP Interview
JR: And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into the basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass.
ST: And you mentioned when you went down in the morning, the 26th, and it was unlatched, did that strike you as odd or did you bring that to anybody’s attention?
JR: I, I don’t know. I mean when I was, I think, yeah, I think it probably struck me as a little odd, but it wasn’t, I mean sometimes that window would be open because the basement got hot, or one of those windows would be opened. So it wasn’t . . .
ST: Particularly unusual?
JR: It was dramatically out of the ordinary, but, that is, I thought about it.
In 1998 he tells Lou Smit the following:
JR: I explained to him (Fleet) that this window had been cracked open and I closed it. That the window was broken, but I think it was broken by me once before. We got down on our hands and knees looking for some glass just to see.
LOU SMIT: What did you find?
JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments
of glass not enough to indicate that it was a
fresh break.
LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the
ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We
had only found one or two. We might have put them
up here on the ledge.
LOU SMIT: Could you have put them on the
suitcase?
JOHN RAMSEY: Ahhhh, it's possible but I don't remember doing that.
LOU SMIT: Was the suitcase, when you came back, in the same spot it was when you had been?
JOHN RAMSEY: I think I moved it to see or to look for glass then. But I think it was where I left it, where it was when I was down there before.
LOU SMIT: Did you look inside the suitcase?
JOHN RAMSEY: No.
LOU SMIT: You knew what was inside of the suitcase?
JOHN RAMSEY: I presumed it was empty. It should have been empty. I thought it was empty .
First interview he sates there is no glass, fails to mention he moved the suitcase, second interview there is some glass found and moved. He remembers he moves the suitcase to look for glass, yet he can't tell if there is something substantial in the case?
The fact he went down there "earlier that morning" by himself is very telling. According to JR he woke up, got dressed, then heard Patsy scream. He came downstairs and looked at the note and police were called. We are to believe he just read a ransom note, he then goes to the basement presumably to search for his kidnapped daughter, moves junk around he sees an open window, which could be a point of entry into the house according to him. Then he proceeds to latch the window closed and does not think this was anything unusual. On his second trip to the basement, all of a sudden he becomes a detective with Fleet by his side searching for glass on the floor? What changed from his first trip to make it so important, Fleet being there to witness this maybe?
Why the BPD did not nail him to the wall on this testimony is beyond me, and why are the documentaries not focusing on this fact? Hopefully the upcoming show will delve more into the window evidence, I think a lot more people could piece together all the facts. It's very clear to see who committed this crime. He admits he was in the basement, he admits he broke the window, he admits to moving the suitcase and the glass, he just needs to admit he wrote the letter.
After studying this case for the past 20 years I can buy JR manipulating PR about the window and the 911 call. Although the window seems very odd with her including Linda. I can not dismiss her stories about the boots, bear and heart as her being manipulated by JR as well. PR had to be complicit in this case. There is just no other logical solution.
ReplyDeleteDateline will cover it tomorrow night (Friday) at 9:00 pm est
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tip. I'll add that info to the above post.
DeleteThere is a Daily News article that has a clip from the Today Show from this morning from the Dr Phil show with Burke. Dr Phil also has a short clip on his site. The title of the Daily News article is "SEE IT: JonBenet Ramsey's brother Burke strangely smiles as he recalls moment Colorado family realized she went missing 20 years ago" I don't know what to say other than I feel sorry for Burke.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jonbenet-brother-smiles-recalls-disappearance-article-1.2784956?utm_content=buffer5100f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDNGossip+Twitter
What an odd strange personality Burke is ! It looks as if he is about to roll over laughing any second while talking about his sister's murder. This is the strangest case in the history of the world. The only thing I want to hear about is if he lies about being awake during the 911 call or not, he surely was so lets see if he lies.
ReplyDeleteI can see why Dr Phil describes him as 'socially awkward'
ReplyDeleteAt the age of 29 when asked why he left JBR out of the family drawing he should be able to answer with a little more grace.
What we learned tonite: Burke's interview from when he was 9 has him stating that he heard JR telling PR to call the police. Now one has to wonder why PR would in fact lie and say that it was her idea to call 911. I wonder if her changing story goes along with the timelins of her becoming the main suspect ? (then becomes her idea after) ? Back to the drawing board .....
ReplyDeleteWhat I heard him say was somewhat garbled. I recorded it and enhanced it but I still can't completely make it out. I can hear him say "call the police, call the police" but I don't hear him identify who said that. If anyone has a clearer recording I hope they'll share it.
DeleteAlso when the cleaned up 911 call was played during the grand jury investigation for Burke, he stated that is sounded like him even though he claimed to be in his room. Which now makes him a liar.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason for him to have lied about that. What got my attention is that the enhanced tape has never been released -- and I'm wondering why.
DeleteAeorospace does not release its work on the case public for whatever legal reason that there is, altho it was out on the internet before so someone has it. The fact of the matter is that I have heard it and Burke IS up. What is more clear in that call is that JR sounds angry and has a huge attitude with Burke. JR is clearly identifiable by voice. The 911 operator is even telling you she heard 3 voices that morning. The questiom is why is Burke, to this day, still lying about being awake and out of his room .
DeleteWhat we've learned from the Aisenberg case is that it's possible for different people to hear different things in a low quality recording. In that case, the police swore they heard one thing, but the judge heard something else and the recording was tossed as evidence.
DeleteAfter that segment on Dateline, there's a brief interview with someone who also heard the enhanced tape, and he makes the same point: some people hear one thing, others hear something else and others don't hear anything. This is also someone who listened to that version of the recording. Sorry, but I'll defer judgement until that version is released -- and I'm still wondering why it hasn't been. What's the big secret?
"What we've learned from the Aisenberg case is that it's possible for different people to hear different things" You are correct, it is possible for different people to hear DIFFERENT things, what is not possible is for different people to hear the SAME THING. This is not the Aisenberg case. Most everyone I have read about who has heard it has reported the exact same thing, give or take a word or 2 from Burke, or whoever the young male is on the recording. I do not know why Aerospace just does not release it publicly but my guess is that it probably is not even their choice as it is part of an "ongoing investigation." Probably much like the grand jury documents and the evidence that has not been released to the public yet. That is most likely the secret. The police have it as well and maybe that is how it got on the internet before. The first time I heard it I was shocked because it is NOT HARD TO HEAR, this is not a case of oh maybe I heard this or that, as I have already told you. This is a case of oh yes, that is a young male and oh yes, that is John Ramsey. After recognizing it was a young male and undoubtably JR, I put on a good set of headphones and turned the volume up and could hear every word loud and clear, there is no mistaking it. When the recording was enhanced at Aerospace someone wrote down what they had heard, it was then played for the next person to see what they heard and after repeating what was said, the note was then passed over to the person who had just listened to it and it was a word for word match. What does that tell you ??? On top of that you heard what the 911 operator said, so crosstalk becomes eliminated. On top of that Burke even said it sounded like him on the recording. I would say it is something you want to hear in silence in a small room, probably not a courtroom. Even in a courtroom though, Burke could not deny that it sounded like himself in the recording.
DeleteSince it is my opinion that what happened prior to the 911 call may well have been very different from what was reported in the Ramseys' book, the presence of Burke in the same room with his parents after the call had been completed would not be a problem as far as my interpretation of this case is concerned.
DeleteThe fact that Patsy lied about the call is already part of that interpretation, so one more lie would not be a problem. In my view, she was manipulated into going along with the version John wanted the authorities to believe. And if Burke had been awake at that time, then we can assume he too was persuaded to go along with the same story. Unless you prefer to believe he was telling the truth, which would be contradicted by what you claim to have heard on the recording.
I suspect that Patsy and John quarreled about what to do after she found that note, and Burke might well have been awakened by the uproar.
In any case, my decision to defer judgement on the contents of the enhanced recording has nothing to do with defending my "theory," as what you think you heard would be totally consistent with it. No, it's just that I have a natural skepticism regarding the ability of any method of enhancement to produce something that clear out of an original recording in which we can hear no sign of either John or Burke's voice. I've listened to the recording many times and it's hard for me to imagine what's been reported regarding this remarkable "enhancement."
You may be absolutely right after all, but I'm going to defer judgement nonetheless until I can hear this engineering marvel for myself.
The problem with what is said during the 911 call, Burke asking JR or PR or both "what did you find" and JR angrily spouting back, "We are not speaking to you" seems to me that they surely were looking for JB's body before that 911 call was ever made. What it tells me is this whole thing is complete heist of nothing but lies by the Ramsey's about what went on that morning. It also tells me that Burke is telling lies and knows a hell of alot more than what he is telling us and LE. Whatever happened that night it seems to me that all 3 Ramseys are in on the "made-up story" from that morning and have done their best to stick to their story over the years. I am sure it is very hard for 3 people to keep to keep their lies and story straight, which is why you have seen inconsistancies and lies by all 3 Ramseys now. Your theory may be correct about who killed her but as far as the chain of events went in the morning I think we have been duped. We can probably agree on 1 thing though, you cant believe a word out of any of the Ramseys. Nothing that comes out of a Ramsey mouth can be considered fact.
DeleteThe only reason for Burke to truly lie about not being awake or downstairs is that it’s feasible he saw/heard John arguing with Patsy about NOT calling the police.
DeleteThis would inflict some level of suspicion on John if it was reported that Burke said, “My dad was telling my mom not to call the police, etc.”
It’s possible John yells “Call the police!” in exasperation because his plan of Patsy working by the ransom note wasn’t working on the clearly very despondent mother. Even “We’re not speaking to you!” is a sign of aggravation that his plan wasn’t working.
If Burke is placed downstairs then a battery of questions would form on what he heard, what exactly was said, etc. It’s easier to keep him in the room at all times. The sad part about that is that those lies actually brought on people theorizing that he could have had something to do with it.
Just my opinion.
Two things from Dateline:
ReplyDelete1. Someone stated the blanket she was found in was the blanket she was put to bed in by Patsy. Thus it would make sense fibers on JBR and the tape on her mouth came from Patsy's jacket. But I thought the blanket came from the dryer.
2. I never knew fibers from the suitcase under the window were found on JBR. ??
Patsy's fibers were found entwined in the "garotte" cord as well. But that's easily explained, as her fibers were probably all over JonBenet from earlier that evening, and most likely transferred from her to her killer.
DeleteNot a great documentary to watch, a lot of the same stuff that's been seen and nothing really new. And anything new was pretty much not something worthy of talking about.
ReplyDeleteStill fun to watch tho
Yes. The only new thing was the excerpts from Burke's interview. Mostly just a rehash of old stuff from years ago. The one good thing was their recognition that the DNA evidence is questionable and the parents were not really ever cleared. Most media reports over the last few years have simply assumed they were.
Deletehi DocG- So glad to have found this blog again, I had followed it many moons ago and now I am back to being obsessed with it with all the TV shows coming on. At the time my daughter was 3 months old; now she's almost 20 and watching these shows with me. How surreal. Anyway I have a question: Did I read on here that fibers were found inside (or on?) the suitcase under the window that belonged to JonBenet? I was thinking that the line in the RN about needing an 'adequate size attache' always seemed weird to me, but it would fit nicely with the theory that JR having murdered her, would need to get her body out of the house, so perhaps he intended to use that suitcase which could later be explained as being used to get all that cash at the bank for the 'kidnappers'. ?
ReplyDeleteAlso are there any pictures of the floor right under the open window in the basement? It would seem to me that there was so much focus on whether or not the debris was disturbed on the window sill, but if someone had slid thru the window I would think there would be debris on the carpet between the suitcase and the wall. Do you know if there are any pictures of this area? Thanks for your remarkable contribution to this case; I do indeed thing you have it right in JR being the culprit.
SH in NC
Good question. Packing peanuts from the window well were found strewn on the floor. However, there were no other signs that anyone had passed through that very narrow window, leading the police to conclude that there was no sign of forced entry. The window sill was encrusted with dust and dirt, so if someone had climbed through it, there would have been very obvious smudges -- but nothing like that was found.
DeleteIt looks to me like someone reached through the open window from inside, scooped up some packing peanuts and dropped them on the floor as part of a staging effort. It's not clear why the stager didn't bother to smear the debris on the window sill. Possibly he was planning on completing his staging the following day. Possibly he believed that what he'd already done was sufficient.
How could I have missed this on A&E? Just watched the program rerun and John stated that he called his banker to get together the $118,000, explained to him why he needed it, and it was delivered to his friend's home by 7:30 AM that morning!! He said he was fortunate to catch the banker because he was getting ready to go visit his father. Has anyone mentioned that the money was ready and waiting at 7:30 am??
ReplyDeleteOk
ReplyDeleteAccording to A&E an intruder did it.
According to Dateline the parents did it.
According to Dr Phil Burke did it.
Killer, you are safe.
Not from DocG!
DeleteI've only read about a half dozen pages of the blog, so if anyone has already posited this rather unlikely idea, I apologize. Is it possible someone is trying to frame John Ramsey by killing Jon Benet and setting it up for him to take the fall? I don't believe this far fetched theory, but it is possible. There very well could be strong motive.
DeleteThere's a three part special airing tonight on Investigation Discovery that's going to question the invalid DNA evidence so that's exciting. I didn't learn anything new from the previous two specials.
ReplyDeleteSo I wrote post above about the $118,000 being taken out of the bank and ready at 7:30 AM at John's friend's house. No comment on that? And today on Dr. Phil, snippets of John more than once stating that HE told Patsy right away to call police. Well, that's not what SHE said!
ReplyDeleteThe Dr. Phil interview was typical hype-trash. He didn't reveal anything, really. Just lots of teases and build-ups to nothing. The Burke interview came across as very irresponsible and sort of insulting, honestly. I feel like ... wow. He was basically insinuating in his questioning that Burke was lying about everything. He stuck in on the fact that Burke 'remained in bed' for hours while all this was going on and that he seemed unfazed by a policeman shining a flashlight into his room. I felt like Burke came across as someone with a lot of emotional problems and mistrust of the media and unsure of what to trust of his own 9-year old recollection - which you can clearly understand. He seemed super uncomfortable and my partner and I commented several times on how he kept nervously moving his hands. JR on the other hand - something is OFF ABOUT OL' DUDE. I know that's a mean reaction to have but it is the feeling I got.
DeletePatsy: I told him "I'm calling the police!" and he said ok.
ReplyDeleteJohn: I told her to call the police immediately!
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI wanted to begin by saying I extremely appreciate the posts you’ve made Doc! The effort, resources, etc. As a amateur true crime junkie, I’ve had a lot of fun reading this tonight. And I also need to apologize because I’m somewhat new to this case and I read the recommended things but I may come across scattered. Apologies.
I was 14 years old when this story first broke and I remember it well but I never followed it. I just randomly saw the A&E special and have dove headfirst into this case because I felt extremely manipulated watching this documentary. I don’t know how to explain it - just that it felt very much like I was given an illusion of unbiased arguments and then hit in the head with a one-track intruder theory to exonerate The Ramsey’s.
I cannot buy into an intruder because of one big thing: the ransom note.
No matter how much they appeal to my senses on other topics (all these weird DNA things, as Smit guy comments ‘no parent could be this brutal with their child, even for a night!’ - what? has he never watched the news??) the existence of this note makes no sense and derails all logic.
A thing that bugs me is that JBR pediatrician claims he was “super-observant” of any kind of child abuse and states there was never any indication whatsoever that she had been bothered while she was his patient. The documentary and all the things I’ve read seem very unclear about the sexual assault. Was she or not? It’s so weird and disorienting. If you remove sexual assault, it’s easy to shift to a PR did it and was a crazy stage-mom, if there was you can go with intruders and JR.
I feel like JR did this. I don’t feel like PR was involved (in the beginning anyway) and I can totally buy into the gaslit thing thereafter. However,
this documentary makes a huge point in saying that the previous claims of JR being unaccounted for were fabricated by BPD. It says that he was always there. Is the documentary just straight up lying about that?
So confused.
Anyway, thanks and I will read more of this tomorrow. Just wanted to show my appreciation and initial thoughts on this really weird A&E documentary.
I haven't seen the A&E show (no cable), but I'm really intrigued by the assertion that John was present along with everyone else gathered together by Linda Arndt that morning. Do they quote eyewitnesses on that? Because this is the first I've heard of it. According to Arndt John was out of sight for roughly an hour or so. And he himself is on record as saying that for at least some of this time, he was upstairs looking through a window to check the cars parked outside. He also said he went through his mail during that time. I see no reason for Arndt to lie about that and I'm wondering if John actually came out and accused her of lying.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think the documentary gives an illusory feeling concerning the original police reports. Much is made of Arndt's "incompetence" so that a) there was no snow so there wouldn't have been tracks and b) they straight-out state that it was reported John was unaccounted for for over 51 minutes but that it was absolutely not true. The main source? JR. Lol.
DeleteThere's also a whole section of the documentary where multiple 'experts' testify that there's no way the blow to the head came before the strangulation. They said such a blow would have rendered JonBenet physically incapacitated so that she would not have been able to claw at her neck. In fact, the main expert says that any such theories that the blow came first were 'downright fanciful.'
DeleteMaybe it's just as well I didn't see the A&E show as I'd have gotten really upset. First of all, the policeman didn't just report snow, he also referred to a pervasive layer of frost. No footprints were found on either the snow OR the frost. Smit then found some photos of the exterior of the house taken the following morning, well after sunrise, pointed to the irregular patches of snow, and accused the guy of lying. Well, even if the frost were still there it would not have shown up in these photos and chances are it had melted by then. Smit was either being deceitful, or, more likely, just ignorant.
DeleteAs for JR's version of what happened, my oh my. People get all worked up over Patsy's "lies" about the Santa bear or the oversized panties and all too often ignore the far bigger whoppers told by John. In many cases he has no problem simply contradicting himself -- and no one seems interested in catching him up on that. Move over Dr. Phil. I'd love to ask John Ramsey a few questions of my own, thank you.
"They said such a blow would have rendered JonBenet physically incapacitated so that she would not have been able to claw at her neck."
DeleteWow, looks like the producers drank the Lou Smit Koolaid all right. I suppose you can find "experts" to go along with any theory. Those marks were NOT identified as scratches or nail marks in the autopsy, but petechial hemorrhages. NO skin cells were found under her nails, not even her own. Furthermore, strands of her hair were intertwined with the knotting of the "garotte." There's no way that could have been assembled on a conscious person as she would have been kicking, squirming and screaming. Unless, of course she had been rendered unconscious with a stun gun. :-) Only as I understand it stun guns don't knock you out, they cause you to scream in pain.
JonBenet was not tortured and killed by a sadistic pedophile. She was "mercifully" bludgeoned from behind so she would not feel any pain or see who hit her. The garotte was applied later and for reasons unknown. Though I suspect John chose that method to avoid having to touch his victim directly.
Sadism was definitely alluded to. It cuts to Smit demonstrating how the ‘garotte’ was handled, loosening and tightening it (explaining the way the rope-burn marks move up her neck) and said that it was a ‘control-fetish' and that whoever did this had this specific torture fantasy? Lol.
DeleteEtc. It then cuts to the experts who corroborate this story and denounce the blow to the head being first.
I watched this with my partner and he was very disturbed by it. “Whomever did this was an extremely sick puppy!”, he said. I didn’t want to be disrespectful to what happened so I didn’t argue much but I would argue it to hell and back in a jury room.
DeleteHowever, I had the feeling that if this testimony was shown in a similar way to a jury with the extremely graphic photos they showed of the little girl’s dead head/neck area - it would be super easy to disable a jury’s ability to look at the facts and cry pedo/murderer. Smit is convincing and the emotions you feel at seeing a beautiful child’s body in this state with these applications is very disorienting. I also wanted to say that the experts all testified to the marks being most likely from a stun-gun.
From what I remember, they said it has been rumored that John left the house during that time. And then they stated that was absolutely false.
ReplyDeleteWell I never thought he left the house, just disappeared within the house. So I guess they think they are clever.
Doc try this
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/#/playlist?list=PL7CF589A1EED10C10
Sorry but I don't see anything related to the Ramsey case on that page.
DeleteThe Dr Phil one was on youtube this morning in 2 places but it's been taken off already. If you search for it in the middle of the night you might be able to find it before it's taken down. I was able to watch it. All of the Burke filmed parts are also on the previews, which are easy to find on youtube. The rest was the repeats of clips of the case, like advertising.
DeleteDona
The link was to an A&E Doc but it was an older one - 2012 I think. Sorry
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete