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, September 22, 2016

Thinking Through the 911 Call

To me the 911 call is the most important aspect of the case, as it literally tells us who wrote the ransom note, and also, very likely, who killed JonBenet. It's also the most controversial aspect of my interpretation of this case, and many challenges have been offered ever since I first proposed it (see the first three posts on this blog). So I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify.


Here's the sentence I've found myself repeating over and over again, in one form or other, when responding to skeptics:

If both John and Patsy were conspiring to stage a kidnapping, then the 911 call would not have been made when it was -- with the body of the victim still in the house. 

Once this key point is made, then as I see it everything else falls into place. Patsy is the one who made the call, not John. If she had written the "ransom" note she would not have wanted that call made, and if an innocent John had told her to make it, she would certainly have resisted. At that point, there is no reason why he wouldn't have picked up the receiver and made the call himself. (While John has claimed that making the call was his decision, we have no reason to believe his version of what happened. See the third post on this blog for clarification.)

If there were any reason to believe the note was written by an intruder, then we might be tempted to see the call as evidence that both Ramseys are innocent. This was, I believe, the conclusion Lou Smit arrived at, which would explain why he went to such great lengths to defend them. But the intruder theory simply doesn't work. Not only is there no conclusive intruder evidence, no intruder scenario that takes all the evidence into account makes any sense at all.

So. Putting it all together, the 911 call points us to: John Ramsey -- not an intruder, not Patsy.

On first glance this sounds way too simple. How could the entire case hinge on one single sentence? Some of the best minds in law enforcement have been puzzling over this case for years and haven't solved it (though the CBS team seems to think they have). How could I possibly claim to have solved it in a single blow? Certainly there must be many other explanations for that call. I must admit, when this thought first came to me, I had a similar reaction. There has to be a catch. It could not be that simple.

Now before I continue, I must add that there are many other reasons for my reaching the same conclusion and identifying the same culprit, so this is not by any means the only one. But as far as I can tell, the reasoning encapsulated in that sentence is really all that's needed.

Let's take another look: If both John and Patsy were conspiring to stage a kidnapping, then the 911 call would not have been made when it was -- with the body of the victim still in the house. 

To understand the above it is first necessary to realize that the "ransom note" is in fact exactly what it seems: a ransom note. And if we rule out a real kidnapping attempt by a real intruder (see above), then we have no choice but to see it as a phony ransom note, written as part of an effort to stage a phony kidnapping. Some have claimed that if the two of them were in it together, they would have needed to present such a note as evidence of an intruder. Not so. They could easily have put together a very  different note, perhaps one expressing hostility to John or resentment over some of his business tactics, etc.. Or no note at all, just a broken window. There would have been no need to produce a ransom note unless the plan was to actually stage a kidnapping. And by producing a ransom note without actually staging a kidnapping by getting the body out of the house, they make it look like either a kidnapping gone wrong, or a staging effort gone wrong.

Now I've never in my life heard of anyone staging a kidnapping gone wrong. If anyone can come up with any case in the long history of crime where someone staged a kidnapping gone wrong, please post the reference here. Sorry, I can't buy that, and neither should you. Moreover, if that was in fact their plan, then what was the point of the note, since a real kidnapper who changed his mind would certainly not have left a possibly incriminating note for no reason. So if both were in it together and the 911 call was part of their plan, then their plan could only have been to stage a staging that went wrong. Come again? Yes you heard me right. What that note tells us is that this was not a kidnapping that went wrong, but a staging attempt that went wrong. Which is exactly how most from both LE and the general public saw it. That could not have been part of their plan.

Now some have claimed that the plan I see in that note, with John using it to buy time for him to dump the body the following night under pretext of delivering a ransom, would have been far too risky. And yes, I can't deny it, that would have been a very risky undertaking for sure. But obviously the writer of the note was willing to take that risk, or the note would not have been written in the first place. And there is a long history of murderers taking very similar risks to dump the bodies of their victims in out of the way places.

As might be expected, skeptics have presented a list of possible reasons why both Ramseys might have decided to make that call so early, and under such suspicious circumstances. I've already dealt with their reasons in an earlier post, and will repeat them here, with some slight modifications:
1. The call was made so early because they were scheduled on an early flight to Charevoix that morning, so had no choice but to call 911 as soon as possible.

Response: they could easily have cancelled that flight, either claiming someone was ill, or else explaining that JonBenet had been "kidnapped" and they needed time to collect the ransom and pay it.

2. They must have had a change of heart and decided they didn't want to dump JonBenet's body in some remote place where it wouldn't get a "proper burial."

Response: if they'd changed their minds about dumping the body and decided to call 911 right away, then they would not have mentioned the potentially incriminating "ransom" note at all, but either written a very different type of note or simply reported that their daughter had been assaulted and killed while they were asleep. They would also have removed the body from the windowless basement room, since there would have been no reason for her attacker to hide it.

3. They were in a panic and not thinking straight.

Response: the note was not written by someone who wasn't thinking very carefully about what to say and how to say it. Just about every i is dotted, every t is crossed, the margins are strictly observed, the spacing between words is consistent and the grammar is, for the most part, faultless. Precise instructions are provided, with specific dollar amounts for the ransom and very clear timing information as to when to expect a phone call. Very specific warnings are given, in a consistent, coherent manner. The note is consistent and clearly organized overall, with a beginning, middle and end. While the writer must have been extremely stressed, he or she was clearly in complete control of his or her emotions. If, as so many assume, Patsy wrote this carefully prepared two and a half page note, it's impossible to believe she would have been so out of control as to ruin her own staging by calling the police so soon. And if for some reason she decided to call 911 anyhow, despite all the work she'd put into the note, then she would certainly have had the sense to destroy it before the police arrived.
4. Patsy and John are not professional criminals. They got confused and made mistakes.

Response: Sorry, but John Ramsey was the very successful CEO of a billion dollar business, dealing with major tech companies such as Lockheed and Sun Microsystems. While he may not have had any criminal experience, he certainly would have understood very well that calling the police with a dead body hidden in a tiny, remote, basement room and handing them a "ransom" note written by his wife was not the way to stage an effective kidnapping scenario.

5. Regardless of how nonsensical it might seem to you, their staging certainly worked for them, as they were ultimately "exonerated" by the DA.

Response: while John's carefully staged kidnapping scenario was certainly undermined by Patsy's 911 call, he got lucky when the handwriting "experts" decided to rule him out, which shifted the focus to Patsy. And since there was no way to make an effective case against her, the case ultimately went nowhere. This, and not the ransom note was what got him off -- very effectively supplemented by the efforts of his lawyers and media consultants.
If anyone can come up with some other reason why the Ramseys would have wanted to call 911 at that time, you are invited to present your theory below.


325 comments:

  1. I think patsy expected john to follow the instructions. She wanted him to not call police but be at bank when it opened. While he was gone, she would remove the body. Once he returned and 10:00 a.m. passed, he would call the police. I agree John was too smart and too worldly to have a part in that note. The reason he made her make the call, is that he was still reading the note and making a cursory search of the house. If she protested too much, he would have been suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BASED ON THE FACTS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY PATSY RAMSEY RAPED, SEXUALLY ABUSED, CRACKED THE SKULL WIDE OPEN & STRANGLED HER DAUGHTER SO TIGHTLY WITH A GARROTE TO EMBED THE ROPE IN HER CHILD's NECK.

      The facts indicate JBR was murdered using 2 different methods. Why do we actually think a very emotional mother would be capable of such a heinous crime? In every instance her emotions under such extreme duress were as real as one can be.

      Instead JR found a very sinister way to MAKE HIS WIFE A PATSY. ~CG

      Delete
    2. Mothers snap and kill there children. Unfortunately things like this happen. Patsy wrote the note, her fingerprints were on the pineapple bowl, her coat fibers were on the tape and she was still in the same clothes as night before.

      Delete
  2. Why has law enforcement grouped JR & PR together as ONE SUSPECT? Have they considered one may have done it without the other knowing? ~CG

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is hard for me to envision a scenario where Patsy is in bed sleeping and Jon is downstairs molesting, redressing, and garotting his daughter and then writing a 4-page ransom note and staging the scene. Patsy would quite probably have noticed he was out of bed at some point and wondered where he was or what was wrong. At any rate, Jon would have had to have been worried she would wake up at some point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If John had no problem killing his daughter to keep her quiet, what makes you think he'd have had a problem killing his wife for the same reason? If she had discovered him, then there would have been two victims murdered by that nasty intruder.

      Delete
    2. What the what?? You always go way...too...far

      Delete
    3. That is a really interesting point Doc. I wonder if he did contemplate killing Patsy that night? It probably would have made it a lot simpler for him.

      Delete
    4. Well, no, not too far. I agree - and it's probably why Burke is even weirder as an adult than when he was a child. He probably saw something he shouldn't have and is afraid of his dad. I have a feeling the "behind closed doors" JR was a lot different than the public JR.

      Delete
  4. I want to start off by thanking Doc for this blog. I have been following this site for over 4 years and he was able to keep my interest in a very cold case. Whether it was watching specials about the case or commenting on this blog my only goal was to figure out WHO killed JBR and not about my theory being right or wrong. Just like so many of us, I wanted the mystery solved. In the past few weeks, I’ve watch Dr. Phil, A&E, Investigation Discovery and finally CBS take their shot at the case and I watched each with an open mind. But, it was somewhere during the CBS two part special that for me it all just lined up and I knew they had FINALLY figured out this 20 year mystery. EG, CH, BB, Rsmith, Zed, Sandman, Doc, etc I have been reading your comments over the years and my opinion would always go one way or another which made all of this so interesting and I have appreciated the friendly banter!


    • Who gave JBR the pineapple –makes complete sense it was BR’s bowl of pineapple in milk (disgusting btw)
    • I always thought the head blow could only be from an adult male and that has been 100% completely disproven. It was really the only thing that eliminated BR for so long. The Ramsey’s even pushed this agenda in their book
    • The DNA found in the underwear also never made sense as there was no intruder and after their experiment I’m not only convinced but I’m definitely going to wash all clothes I have before wear them
    • For years I have searched for motive thinking that was the key to the case and in reality there never really was one. BR got mad about something (her taking pineapple, her taking his toy, etc) and I think he hit her over the head in a moment of rage
    • The cover up and staging is very hard for anybody to fathom, but I am not sure it needs to be dissected. JR had already lost a daughter, just lost JBR and even if he knew BR couldn’t be prosecuted, he still would have been the 9 year old who murdered his beauty queen sister. Forever BR would be a pariah and NEVER have a chance at a normal life.
    • Why they didn’t just call 911 when the head blow happened we may never get the answer, but an affluent well respected family may not have wanted the stigma of having a child murderer in their family.
    • Lastly, BR’s timing of when he finally talked to the public for the first time convinced me further of his guilt. Coming on a CBS show where lollipop questions were asked portraying his innocence a week before another show names him as the suspect is not a coincidence.

    I know this post is long, but it will be my last. After years of running my theories past my wife I think she is glad I finally got the answers I wanted. Burke in a moment of rage hit his sister (who he was already starting to resent) over the head with a flashlight. His complete lack of emotion and drawing a picture without her in it can be explained by a brother who wasn’t getting the attention from his mother due to JBR stealing the attention from him. Not to mention, JR probably wasn’t around much, so PR was what he had. After she is struck in the head, he has to know she isn’t getting up, but doesn’t see blood, so that’s when he pokes her with the train tracks. At this point I believe he gets JR to help him (maybe PR) not sure, but from there the parents might already think she is dead and they start an elaborate staging job. They must not have been aware that JBR would have eaten the pineapple, nor did they see it as anything that might be a clue and forgot to clean it up. I believe now PR was involved in the cover up. I never thought I would say this as the 911 call sounded so believable, but I now believe was staged and scripted. There is zero evidence of molestation and even if there was evidence, it would be impossible to know if it was done by BR or JR. Good luck to any of you hanging onto a theory just because or still searching for answers. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that BR did it and maybe one day we will see JR charged as an accomplice. (Mic drop)

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evaluating a case purely on the basis of what strikes you as the most likely motive is a huge mistake. You are in good company because that's what many professionals have done as well. I urge you to read the Rolling Stone review of the CBS presentation if my comments aren't enough for you. The name of the game, when it came to Patsy or now to Burke, is "confirmation bias." Once you zero in on a suspect then anything that might strike you as suspicious seems decisive.

      It's very easy for people to get carried away by a one-sided "documentary" presented via a major media outlet. The original A&E documentary convinced a great many people that "the Ramseys," all of them, were perfectly innocent victims. And after the DA "exonerated" them, that became a mantra in the media for years afterward. Now a group of pretentious and (imo) incompetent "experts" presents yet another one-sided view of the case and suddenly all eyes have shifted from Patsy to Burke.

      All they've demonstrated is that yes, it was possible for him to crack his sister's skull, and yes, there are times when it sounds like he's being evasive or untruthful. The possibility that he could be covering for his father is something I proposed a long time ago, so it doesn't surprise me that he sounds like he knows more than he cares to reveal. But John is very clearly off the radar for this group, which only has eyes for Burke.

      It saddens me that intelligent people who've been following this blog for some time could allow themselves to be led by the nose in this manner. There is no WAY two parents who were not certified lunatics would cover for their son in such a preposterous manner. Every aspect of the case must be considered, not only whatever fits best with some preconceived theory.

      Delete
    2. Well, I thought I wrote my last post but I just had to see what you replied with and you didn't disappoint.

      "Once you zero in on a suspect then anything that might strike you as suspicious seems decisive."

      I wish you would listen to your own advice. I was respectful in my post and thanked you for all of your work on this case/blog. Unfortunately, because I disagree with your theory, its easier for you to be condescending and cut people down. The last few days you are coming off more and more as the last holdout in 12 Angry Men as opposed to a guy that "wants the truth." You are entitled to your opinion just like mine, but your absolute refusal to even consider BR could have done anything more than witnessed your boy John kill her is troubling to me. Then searching out an article in some desperate attempt to find anything that somewhat backs your theory or tears down the one that makes perfect sense.
      It was Burke's pineapple bowl. She ate a piece of pineapple and was most likely killed within half an hour of eating it. It just makes sense. I know it doesn't go with CRAZY JOHN THE MAD PEDOPHILE THAT HAD TO SHUT HIS DAUGHTER UP theory. You can fight every person on this blog till you are blue in the face, but I think these people you quickly want to tear down are using LOGIC and common sense. Both logic and common sense led me where CBS EXPERTS went to and that is with BR.

      -J

      Delete
    3. Umm...wow! You remind me of the great scene from Broadcast News where Holly Hunter is scolded for thinking she's always the smartest person in the room--we're just wrong & you're just right?

      Where does anybody get off condescending to people who merely disagree on a question that's surely open to debate, where the correct interpretation of any number of facts could still lead to a mistaken conclusion? The truth of which we'll likely never know.

      Delete
    4. J,

      I agree with you totally. It's the only thing that makes sense. To say that JR was molesting his daughter, when there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that, is anything but logical.
      I will miss your input, as I believe you and I are on the same page with this.
      I am not sure how much of the staging PR was involved with, but I do believe she physically wrote that RN with JR dictating and her adding her own twist here and there. There is also no evidence to prove PR was sexually molesting her daughter or abusing her in anyway, as well.
      They would not cover for each other, but they would both cover for their very troubled son, for all of the reasons people listed here.

      EG

      Delete
    5. "There is no WAY two parents who were not certified lunatics would cover for their son in such a preposterous manner. Every aspect of the case must be considered, not only whatever fits best with some preconceived theory." This is the crux of why BDI is wrong. Also, from an alternate view there's no way John doesn't wake Patsy for help. And, if they're both awake and involved the whole scenario falls apart.

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry if I come across as disrespectful, but it's disheartening to learn that someone who's been following this blog for so long understands so little of what I've written. It's as though you think I just got some idea in my head, formed an opinion, and keep insisting I'm right. Nothing could be further from the truth. I go to a lot of trouble to back up my theories with facts and logical inference. But I'm treated as though I'm just another casual onlooker with a nutty idea. Sorry, but that hurts.

      Delete
    7. That makes no sense. If someone was covering up for Burke, they would have made a better job. It's not plausible that they would leave the body in the basement and expect nobody would never find.
      Besides, if Burke killed Jonbenet in the kitchen or in the dining room, why would he poke the body with pieces of the train set that was in the basement and his room?

      Delete
    8. That makes no sense. If someone was covering up for Burke, they would have made a better job. It's not plausible that they would leave the body in the basement and expect nobody would never find.
      Besides, if Burke killed Jonbenet in the kitchen or in the dining room, why would he poke the body with pieces of the train set that was in the basement and his room?

      Delete
    9. J, Jck14, EG - just want to say excellent job on your comments. They are very well done and perfectly encompassing of the real point - if this murder was so easy to solve and all the evidence pointed one way, it would've been done years ago.

      Your posts are all sincere, logical and thoughtful. While I agree with your conclusions, even if I hadn't I would respect the process you all worked through to reach them.

      Don't let anyone else speak down to you solely because it's "their blog."

      Delete
    10. Thanks Dog....and I know Doc isn't disrespectful. I know it has to be frustrating putting so much time and effort into a blog with a theory that on the surface has made sense for a long time, only to have people question it after seeing a few specials. Now, that being said, I want everybody to completely forget about the staging, the 911 call, EVERYTHING for 1 second. Unless you feel this was premeditated (I 100% don't see it) lets take a look ONLY at the head blow that started the chain of events.

      *We know the Ramsey's get home from the White's probably around 9.
      *BR tells Dr. Phil he sneaks out of bed to go downstairs and play with his toy conveniently leaving out the pineapple story
      *WE 100% KNOW that JBR had undigested Pineapple in her system
      *Actually, the fact that the picture of the pineapple bowl showed a pretty full bowl of pineapple SHOWS the person eating it (BR) didn't finish the bowl nor did he take the time to put it by the sink which he knows thats what his mom wants to do.
      *So something interrupted him finishing his pineapple, we know JBR had a piece, so to me the logical conclusion is that he got agitated, left his snack and struck the fatal head blow out of a moment of rage.

      Everybody is entitled to their own interpretation of this case, but PLEASE just think about the head blow only and come to your own determination of what you think is most likely based on the evidence. Alsom quick side note.....if you want to say Burke was 9..OK. He was 9 and 11 months....essentially he was a 10 year old.

      -J

      Delete
    11. EG....thanks for your post above. I very badly want to leave this blog behind me, but I keep getting pulled back in.

      -J

      Delete
    12. You've placed Burke at the scene of the pineapple bowl with no real evidence to back that up. His fingerprints were apparently not even on the bowl, but on the glass. But even if they were on the bowl there are a great many ways they could have gotten there. If these were the prints of a stranger, that would be meaningful. But Burke lived in that house and had free access to everything in it, so his prints on anything in that house are easily explainable.

      The CBS experts were reaching, and built a fantastic edifice on sand. Aside from the dubious prints, there is NO evidence connecting him to the pineapple, not to mention the head blow. For all we know JB just went down there all by herself and helped herself to some pineapple. Maybe that's when John found her. And maybe Burke heard something at that point, or saw something. Which could explain his suspicious behavior.

      Delete
    13. You aren’t being serious with this post are you? You boast yourself as somebody who makes logical conclusions based on the evidence and facts of the case, yet you are now going to argue that wasn’t BR’s pineapple.

      I believe on the special they said he liked to eat it with milk, but that’s beside the point. He tells Dr. Phil he snuck downstairs after being put to bed. You aren’t arguing he was downstairs now right? Eating pineapple is such a silly inconsequential detail on the surface, YET he is vague to Dr. Phil if he ate it that day. Then the big moment comes when the detective asks him what’s on the dining room table. All of sudden his somewhat confidence demeanor goes away…he says “Oh” like a kid who realized they know and proceeds to say that it looks like cereal.

      So just to recap…..BR says he went downstairs…..he liked pineapple and pineapple was found on the table NEXT to a glass with his fingerprints on it. He has NEVER denied eating pineapple that day, just said he doesn’t remember. Im honestly waiting for your post linking JR to the JFK assassination and maybe OJ didn’t do it…it was CRAZY JOHN RAMSEY!

      I honestly do not care whatsoever if you change your opinion because Burke could say he did it and you would argue that JR convinced him to lie. But using logic, its laughable and insulting you are now claiming that BR wasn’t eating the pineapple. If you were being truthful with yourself you would know it makes the most sense!

      -J

      Delete
    14. Doc, I thought I remembered reading years ago, that Burke's fingerprints were on the can of Pineapple that was found in the garbage. I think it was in Perfect Murder Perfect Town? Does anyone else recall seeing this?

      Delete
    15. CBS confirmed his fingerprints were on the bowl. They even showed the precise locations.

      Delete
    16. -J,
      I agree with your theory, and not b/c it's "most likely" the case. I too have a hard time with not checking back here to see how DocG thoughts have evolved with developments of this case over time. What draws me back, and maybe others, is he's such a brilliant, talented and convincing writer, which takes complete conviction and investment on his part. His theory is his life's lens of the only way such a crazy convoluted case could have possibly ever taken place. My fascination has become more about how we as the reader can become swayed by the most powerful presentation.

      From my personal observation something I've always been very fascinated by is the 'absence of details' of whatever is being presented to me - by people, media, a book, whatever it may be. Make no mistake I'm not making any sort of personal accusation here, it's just a generalization and fact of everyday communication.

      By law I accept BR being a minor child, because of this fact it was able to be conveniently exploited for him to be exclude. However in MY logical mind and personal lens I'm left wondering why is BR always so quickly erased-out of any dynamic to do with looking at such essential piece of this puzzle? I for one will NEVER believe he was too fragile, innocent, sleeping, dumb, mute, blind, clever, lame or invisible not to have been included and involved within the overall picture. Of course now it becomes all conjecture concerning him and it's up for grabs believing whatever happened in the Ramsey house that Christmas.

      Readers here at DocG's blog may wish, like I admit I do, to shake him loose from his stance but in my view I'd be very surprised to see that happen, just like I'd be surprised to ever hear anything different from JR & BR, furthermore whatever PR's role her pathologically was evident as well.

      Besides saying thanks to DocG for his contribution with this blog which has lead me to completely resolve my own conviction and belief to conclusion in regard to sad family drama, when understanding the complexities of human dynamics and what drives motives you have to really be able to look beyond the scope of "hard facts" DocG wouldn't you agree real intelligence is the ability to apply the variables??

      Delete
    17. I appreciate it when anybody has something positive to say about me, even if it's mostly my writing style. So thank you for that. But truly folks, to quote Patsy Ramsey, "you are barking up the wrong tree." The only aspect of my thinking with respect to Burke that has changed is my admission that he could have delivered the head blow, which I had previously rejected as a possibility. I was wrong. Aside from that my position has not changed. I always suspected that he was not telling the whole truth and that he knew some things about this case that he wasn't permitted to reveal, and the interview tapes presented on CBS only confirmed my suspicions.

      But I can't go along with a theory that places Burke at a certain place at a certain time with ZERO meaningful evidence. All you have are some prints on a bowl and a glass and fingerprints are not time-stamped. He lived in that house, he ate from bowls in the house and he drank from glasses in the house. Sure, he may have been there when JonBenet had her pineapple, but there is NO solid evidence placing him there. That's pure conjecture.

      I keep seeing complaints that I'm only trying to protect my own theory at all costs, but that's not how I see it, because the case I've been making is based on facts and logic, not imaginative assumptions. I see a bunch of people led down the garden path by a misleading TV show, unwilling to admit they could be wrong and insisting on a scenario for which there is NO real evidence. Not to mention facts or logic. Talk about fitting the evidence to suit your theory.

      Delete
  5. I already posted but it isn't showing up so I'll do it again, sorry if it appears twice. I'm willing to accept that Patsy had nothing to do with the ransom note and didn't know JBRs body was in the basement when she called 911. If that's true, JR did a heck of a job copying PRs handwriting! But let's say that's what happened. How that equates to therefore, the only possibility is that JR hit JBR with the flashlight during a sexual assault is beyond me. You'll probably say because if had been Burke, JR would have told PR right away. Not necessarily, in fact I think it's more likely he wouldn't have. He knew Patsy would go berserk when she found out JBR was dead, and might mess up his kidnapping cover-up (which she did anyway). She was battling cancer and would have to deal with the fact that her only son had killed her precious daughter. He planned to tell her after his staging was completed and her hysteria had subsided. So, she must have gotten on board with the cover-up at some point. Unless you think she went to her grave thinking JBR was killed by the foreign faction in the RN. I don't think you do. So, accepting your theory, until her death she covered up for her husband who had sexually molested and murdered her child, even when she became the #1 suspect for a long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it had been Burke, then yes, certainly, both parents would have known about it. Moreover, there would have been no need for a coverup. 911 would have been called and there would have been an effort to revive her. Her heart was still beating, after all. And no, the parents would never in a million years even considered penetrating her vagina and then strangling her. And no, the parents would never consider staging a kidnapping as well as a pedophile attack. Two for the price of one? Whatever for?

      This theory might have sounded reasonable as it was presented on CBS, but these "experts" wisely omitted any reasonable consideration of what could have happened after the head blow to produce the very disturbing evidence found in that little room.

      Delete
    2. So you think PR knew JR did it and she covered it up until the day she died.

      Delete
    3. No, of course not. I think he manipulated her, just as he's manipulated everyone involved in the investigation from day one. If she had ever suspected him she'd have taken Burke and left.

      Delete
    4. How could she have not suspected him with her intuition? She became so subdued into submission through heavy sedation. Way to weak to do anything or go anywhere on her own. So she stands by her husband with all the lies for security.

      Delete
    5. By the time she came out of her fog, John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note, and no one connected with the investigation ever expressed the slightest shred of doubt regarding that conclusion. So why should she have doubted it?

      Delete
  6. To me the most important thing is that JR must have known a cover-up especially a messy cover-up like they were doing (even if it had worked out perfectly it would have looked highly suspicious) would have far worse consequences than simply say BDI there would have been trouble but handled right they could have easily kept their status and money. But there are enough cases of families who lost everything after a mysterious disappearance or death of a child because of suspicion and police investigations for JR to know how bad a cover-up would work out, but he chose a messy cover-up anyway, that must mean something worse than BDI was going on. If JDI JR would have lost everything and would have gone to jail, compared to that the mess this cover-up gave is worth it. The only reason to do a crazy cover-up like this is JDI.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Find the motive and you solve the crime." ~Scotland Yard's advice to Robert F. Kennedy regarding his brother's assassination.

    Why do people insist there "was no evidence of molestation"? When the autopsy noted the evidence? ~CG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is the evidence has other possible explanations. The prior molestation is not a fact. JBR's pediatrician said there was no evidence of molestation. Of course if he had suspected it and he hadn't reported it he would have been in serious trouble.

      Delete
  8. Patsy is way too emotional of a person to have done this and held it together until the day she died. No way. I agree with DocG - JR did it. I think BR might have seen something he shouldn't have....

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am commenting on this site for the first time and have another question for anyone. I lived just a few blocks from this horrific murder and every day for what seemed like forever nothing in the news brought the police or anyone any closer to solving this crime...and now 20 years later it is still unsolved. There were red flags everywhere even before the public knew the depth of the circumstances of the crime. One that always stood out for me was why both Patsy and John Ramsey almost immediately hired their own individual attorney's. I have not heard that discussed but maybe it has been and just was not important to the case. It is amazing to me that anyone of them it appears after all the speculation could have done it but still the question remains who? Two people know what happened and they are still alive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy may have been represented by her own lawyer, but the legal team as a whole was certainly directed by John. Patsy was a basket case, under heavy medication for weeks and in no position to adequately work with her lawyer on a separate defense.

      Delete
    2. IMO the heavy sedation of PR was part of the cover-up. PR's intuition must have suspected JR & JR knew this so he ordered heavy sedation.

      Also I'm sure it is possible BR may have been sneaking around the house, watching the entire murder scene unfold, without his father knowing it?

      Delete
    3. Heavy sedation part of the cover up? I highly doubt that. As a mother, if my child died you'd probably just need to go ahead and shoot me too. I would be SO devastated that I would have to be highly sedated too.

      Delete
  10. I guess we are in two camps on this blog: JDI or BDI. At least no one is entertaining the theory that PDI anymore. That was the popular thinking for years after this murder. I don't see why in all of these TV specials and all of the books written on this case absolutely no one definitively has filmed a show recreating JDI. Here CBS goes to the trouble of staging a warehouse to look exactly like the Ramsey floor plan, complete with stuffed animals, a bowl of pineapple, Christmas bric a brac all around and they don't take the time to show JR carrying his daughter out of bed and down to the basement? Is it because it's just too horrific to imagine that, or could it be threat of a lawsuit. I knew when they were going to put Kolar on there that that is how it was going to go, that BDI. So I'm getting the feeling here on this blog site that neither camp is going to convince the other that JDI if you think BDI or BDI if you think JDI. But at least we all seem to be on the same page that P didn't do it. All along JR has given bizarre statements regarding this "mystery." Like that the killer should be forgiven. Meaning he should be forgiven if it's ever found out he did it. And that we need to find out "why" the person did it, not "who." Now I know some of you are going to take that as meaning Burke should be forgiven. But to me it's John talking about himself. And I suspect even he doesn't know why he did it. By the way the autopsy can be downloaded easily from the internet. I suggest everyone read it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The BDI camp is based on a known pattern of behavior in the past and BRs strange behavior in his interviews. 1. Hitting JBR in the face with a golf club in a fit of anger 2. Smearing feces on her things 3. Has a form of autism, Aspergers Syndrome, which can lead to sudden outbursts of anger. 3. Acting out how JBR was killed while saying she was hit on the head with a hammer, pretending he didn't recognize a bowl of pineapple, general odd statements and demeanor. 4. Grinning and smirking throughout his interview with Dr Phil. JDI camp-please give a few examples like the above to explain why you're convinced JR did it.



      Delete
    2. Also, the BDI camp thinks JR did all those horrible things to JBRs body as part of his kidnapping staging, to protect Burke. The JDI camp says that impossible, he did it to cover up his sexual abuse of JBR, to include hitting her with the flashlight when she resisted.

      Delete
    3. Has it been verified that Burke has been diagnosed with Asperger's? To me it definitely seems like he does, but is it verified? Thanks!

      Delete
    4. Good question, I admit I don't know. I've heard this so many times, from so many different sources, plus he has all the attributes of an autistic disorder in his demeanor. That's why I mentioned it.

      Delete
    5. Aspergers syndrome is not associated with violence. Burke might suffer from any number of personality disorders or even anxiety. While I don't know if he committed the murder, I don't like associating autism with violence of any kind.

      Delete
  11. I think doc's "sticking to the facts" theory holds for either BDI or JDI. It could be Burke if he hit her and possibly messed with her body afterwards. Then dad comes and does his staging, trying to keep Patsy in the dark. Or it could be just as Doc suggests.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The problem with Burke upset about JBR taking some of his pineapple is that the bowl was still full of pineapple!

    ReplyDelete
  13. And here's the thing about the ransom note. Patsy Ramsey did not know that her husband received a bonus. She learned about it the morning of the commotion! She told the police this in her interview.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. REALLY! Did not know this! This is another "smoking gun" PR DID NOT WRITE the RN.

      IMO, the $118,000 was the amount JR knew he could easily part with & had readily liquid. As he premeditated getting the cash while at the same time removing the body.

      Delete
    3. That's completely made up. It's well known she knew about the bonus before the night of the murder. This blog is turning into people just making up facts now.

      Delete
  14. Linda Arndt in a later interview with Barbara Walters finally reveals when she was "inches apart" from JR as he placed a very dead JBR down... asks the question... is she dead?

    Rigor mortis had set in... HOW THE HELL DOES A NAVY VETERAN not know what death or rigor mortis FEELS LIKE after he carried the body through the maze basement & up a flight of stairs?...

    Linda Arndt said she knew right then John Ramsey was the GUILTY.

    Here's the most DAMNING revealing interview of the entire case. If you are objective enough to "let go of your pre-programmed cognitions" watch this interview again or whatever... https://youtu.be/f_hi3OVE6Og

    ReplyDelete
  15. FIrst post, and it is a bit of a long one so I will try and break into segments. Looking forward to responses as I enjoy reading all of the theories, logic, explanations, etc. Here goes:


    Found this blog about a week ago as I was searching the internet for information about the case due to the recent buzz. I have followed the case for about 10 to 12 years now after I read about it in a FBI Profiler book and in many true crime books while I worked as a correctional officer. I first heard about Jon Benet Ramsey shortly before her murder. I was stationed in Camp Casey, South Korea walking around the PX when I heard the breaking news and I thought to myself, “Man, I just heard about her the other day and now she is dead?”


    I, like many on this blog, watched the CBS special Sunday and Monday. I was really put aback watching the psychologist interviews with Burke. Before the CBS special, and after reading through this blog, I was firmly on the side of JDI. That belief took a little bit of a hit after watching the CBS special; however, I have thought through what I know, which is only what I have read, been told and recall, and I still believe JDI and I have a plausible story of the events that happened that night/early morning. Before I provide my story, I want to address why I still do not believe BDI with or without the help of his parents.

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  16. BDI – I agree It is a plausible theory that BR hit JBR over the head with a blunt object (flashlight or golf club) because he became angry with her for whatever reason (jealousy, took his pineapple, etc.). I will also say, all theories are plausible in how she could have died, what happens is that the plausibility fades when you analyze the crime as a whole. Where the plausibility for this theory fades for me is that I cannot believe that BR finished out the rest of the elements of the crime – strangled his sister (hard to believe he could tie the knot unless he was a boy scout or something [Also read today someone said there was testimony from a military individual that stated all military training includes knot tying. I was in the U.S. Army and I never had formal knot training. Perhaps the U.S. Navy does, or knot tying was a part of training when JR was in the military, but the statement that all military are trained in knot tying is false.]); sexually assaulted his sister (I can buy that he could do this element of the crime); wrote a long ransom note (I believe this was above his capability intellectually); went back to bed without alerting anyone to wait out the events of his crime; never tell anyone, or never tell anyone that came forward. BDI acting alone is not plausible in my opinion. I do not believe he could have done each element necessary to do this crime in the way the evidence and facts say the crime was committed – especially without help. If he was able to do this without help, he is a very dangerous person. Perhaps he did do it and the parent’s genuinely believed an intruder came in the house and killed JBR and could never fathom that BR did it. No, I am not buying that either. The intruder story is better than that!

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The general consensus is that BR had nothing to do with the rest of the elements of the crime, just the head blow in a fit of anger.

      Delete
    2. No way could a child pull all that off and there not be any evidence.

      Delete
  17. BDI with JR/PR help – I find it hard to believe that a parent would not instinctively call 911 for medical help in this situation in which one child strikes a sibling, not killing the sibling, and the parents decide instead of getting medical help to stage a kidnapping which includes in the least strangling the injured child to death. Of course, if BR had hit JBR and already strangled her, then the cover-up story is more plausible. However, until it can be proven that BR could tie the knot used for the garrote or his DNA is found in the knot, I do not believe he could have done the strangling element necessary in my mind to prompt the parents to stage a cover-up. Additionally, if they had staged a cover-up with a kidnapping element that includes a ransom note, which is intended to buy time and provide the excuse why the cops were not called right away, why would they call the cops right away? Calling the cops right away would infer that one of the parents was not in on the cover up. Either PR was not in on the cover-up (initially at least anyway meaning JR wrote the note) and called instinctively after finding the note or JR was not in on the cover-up (initially at least anyway meaning PR wrote the note) and he told PR that he didn’t care what the note said and told PR to call 911 to get the cops there right away. Again, there are ways to make most theories plausible, but the BDI theory, with or without parental help in a cover-up, is not likely when you look at the crime as a whole and not just individual elements. Yes, BR could have hit JBR knocking her out. Yes, BR could have sexually assaulted her. No, in my opinion, BR could not have tied the knot for the garrote (or the wrist restraints). No, in my opinion, BR could not have written the ransom note. No, in my opinion, did the parents finish killing their daughter to cover an accident. No, in my opinion, did the parents write a ransom note to buy time and an excuse to not call the cops and then call the cops right away (I firmly believe that if one parent was in on the cover up, they both were). This crime has a sequence of events that cannot all be satisfied with a BDI theory.

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  18. If John did it and not Patsy, if Patsy had approached John about whether to call the police, why couldn't he have just said "No lets not call them"? Seems like he could have easily said don't call them based on what the note says.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Now for my opinion on what happened that fateful night/early morning of December 25/26, 1996:


    The Ramseys returned home the night of December 25, 1996 around 9:30 or 10:00. By their accounts, JBR was asleep. If she is like my six-year-old, she would have probably been carried from the car to the bed and she never woke up. Burke on the other hand was awake and putting together a toy before going to bed. Since it was getting late and they had to get up early in the morning, I would estimate BR was put to bed or told to go to bed around 11:00. I believe that JR and PR went to bed shortly after that, or perhaps PR was already in bed. JR had stayed up with BR to help put together the toy. Once JR went to bed, he might have had wanted to have sex with PR, a request she either denied him or was too exhausted or too medicated to oblige. Frustrated, JR either tries to go to sleep or gets up to read (possibly pornographic material). I believe JBR wet the bed, went into her parent’s bedroom for assistance. PR was asleep and didn’t wake up and/or JBR noticed her father not in the room and she went looking for him. JBR finds JR reading (JR now more frustrated as he has been interrupted) and she asks him for help changing (I have read that a six-year-old should be able to change themselves, and I agree; however, my six-year-old wets the bed on occasion and comes into my bedroom in the middle of the night needing help). After changing her, JBR asks for something to eat or a drink so JR takes her to the kitchen. JR is still frustrated with PR’s inability to oblige his needs and then being interrupted by JBR, that he turns his attention on JBR. Now, from what I have heard there was no evidence of past sexual assault per the pediatrician. However, JR may not have ever ‘touched’ JBR, but she might have ‘touched’ him or he satisfied himself while watching her dance or strut in her pageant dresses/clothing. While in the kitchen, the pineapple and milk is still out from some time earlier and JBR decides to eat that, possibly only using her fingers to grab the pineapple (the pineapple is still a focus of debate in that I have not heard definitive information about when she ingested it as digestion is different for everyone so the pineapple might be nothing more than a moot point and offer nothing to this case). JR decides he wants JBR to dance or strut for him or wants her to play a game. She declines because she is tired or just doesn’t want to. Perhaps the game startled her and she started to run upstairs to tell PR. So either out of frustration or anger, or to prevent JBR from running away from him, JR strikes her with the flashlight. Now JR is in a bad situation. He has hit his child in the head. He cannot allow her to live now because she will tell someone about JR’s advances or his game, and he can’t let it out that he just struck his child with a weapon. JR needs time and comes up with the story of a kidnapping with a ransom note. He first has to finish off JBR to prevent her from coming to and running for help while he is staging a crime scene. He takes her to the basement in case she cries out so it will be harder to hear upstairs. He strangles her and sexually assaults her. He may even have used the train track piece and jabbed her to make it look like a stun gun might have been used to incapacitate JBR (I am not an expert and I don’t think I read anything anywhere if those two small wounds might have been a day or two old and, like the pineapple, could be moot points).

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  20. These elements (strangulation/sexual assault) might be due to JR’s remaining anger or frustration that he lets out during this element of the crime. He is angry and frustrated with PR, he is angry and frustrated with JBR and he is angry and frustrated at himself for his perversion and getting himself into this situation. JR next stages the break-in with the basement window. Now he has to write a ransom note which will solve a few things – prevent anyone from calling the cops by threating JBR’s life if they do contact authority; provide an excuse why law enforcement was not notified right away which buys time; provide a way for him to transport the body, the attaché. I believe the ransom note is longer than it needs to be because it outlines excuses for future steps and JR is subconsciously playing out his moves in his head – do not call the cops and cops can’t put microphone on him or any electronic devices; exhausting collection meaning the money for JBR hand-off will take a lot of time (this would allow JR to drive all over the place looking for a place to dispose of the body and say the kidnappers told him the route to prevent anyone tailing him); and a way to transport the body (attaché); cops better not intervene as kidnappers are familiar with law enforcement tactics and countermeasures. I believe JR had intended to put JBR in the attaché covered in the blanket to prevent or minimize hair, blood, saliva, etc. from getting on the inside of the attaché, leave the house with JBR to head towards the bank to withdraw money once the bank opened, disposing of the body on the way; withdraw $118,000 which he knew he had readily available to withdraw; put the money in the attaché and head home. Once home he would move the money from the attaché and put in a brown paper bag per the note’s instructions (possibly so he could clean the attaché since it carried JBR’s body). Once the ransom call didn’t come, the cops would be called. Of course, we know PR did not heed the warning of the ransom note (if she even got that far in the note – note doesn’t threaten JBR’s life until the third paragraph). Once PR calls 911, JR’s plan has to change and he must improvise and un-stage some things he has staged – bring in the basement window. I think something happened that prevented him from finishing staging that window and that is why he went back and un-staged it. Perhaps he heard PR on the phone to 911 and came running upstairs and then had to go back to the window when he was unaccounted for later in the morning. What convinced me that the basement window story was a lie was PR’s statement that she and the housekeeper had to clean up a ton of glass. Since the window break was smaller than a volleyball there would not have been a ton of glass. However, when PR is trying to corroborate a story about JR breaking the window last summer, she adds to the false memory what she thinks a broken window a grown man crawled through would leave behind, or just a broken window period would leave behind. I am not sure if she knew that JR killed JBR, the window memory might have been implanted by JR over months of retelling. The broken window probably seemed like a plausible entrance/escape for an intruder to PR and she probably believed it and thought corroborating JR’s story would help that cause. Anyway, the rest is unfinished history. JR is dismissed as writer of the ransom note and therefore blame is cast away from him and placed on PR, later and more recently to be placed on BR. Touch DNA comes out and exonerates the Ramsey family – what a stroke of luck for JR. If DNA is extracted from the garrote and it shows to be JR’s (or BR’s), hopefully this case will move forward. Until then, almost everything is speculation or educated guesses.

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  21. Idea about Ransom Note – I had an idea that perhaps JR, to explain why the ransom note was written with the notepad and marker found in the house, was that he had intended to tell the cops he copied it because the kidnappers wanted the original back when he was to pick up his daughter or he had to drop it somewhere during the exhausting delivery. The problem with how things happened is that PR would have surely thought the copied note looked exactly like the original ransom note if JR tried to pass that note off as a copy. I might be reaching here, but JR might have thought about this originally and never was able to put the plan together and turned it over hoping not to be linked to him. I am confident that he had thought of an excuse that would explain the ransom note being written on a pad in the house with a marker in the house, but once PR called 911, things changed. Just brainstorming here.

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wonder if JR, or his legal team is monitoring this blog? Trying to discredit, misdirect all incriminating opinions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also my impression of the CBS show was to present new evidence and show how current forensic pathology technology should be applied to all the existing evidence & OPEN THE CASE for a new indictment?

      Delete
    2. I wondered that, too, since we can post anonymously - if anyone is monitoring it. It's not me :)

      I almost hope they are...I hope it makes them nervous, too.

      Delete
  23. Idea about the garrote - I was reading the posts today and someone kept questioning why the garrote was left when all other evidence was taken away from the scene. I initially thought it was due to lack of time; however, the body was washed and wrapped in the blanket so I moved away from that reason. I really think it was for shock and awe and to prevent unwanted excess searching for the item used to kill JBR. Just my opinion.

    I apologize again for my multiple posts and length. I am unable to post from work and my posts were a accumulation of ideas as I read the blog and made mental notes and scenarios.

    GEH

    ReplyDelete
  24. Many of the things we remember from this crime way back in 1996, were things that came out in the National Enquirer, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what they wrote. Just the facts ma'am.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I could see patsy getting cold feet about the staged kidnapping and removal of the body and wanting to give JonBenet the proper burial. Hence... the changer of plan. Or maybe she went rogue and called and once she had already mentioned the ransom note she couldn't back track from it. Just so many possibilities on what had been going on. I Doc loves to cite logic and fact but when your child dies not everyone thinks logically.

    ReplyDelete
  26. BR was up till late after having some pineapple, was sent to bed but was not yet asleep.

    JBR was awake after bedwetting, trying to change herself in her bathroom.

    BR heard the noise and came to JB's room and asked her to go downstairs to play.

    JB had some pineapple downstairs.

    Children were playing and were chasing each other and BR was chasing her with a flashlight. He somehow accidentally hit her head. While that was going on JR heard the noise downstairs and came down to witness his daughter knocked down unconcious.
    He sends his son to go into his bedroom.
    Because of his previous abuse, he does not want to call 911 straight away.
    He doesnot know what to do for another 2 hours and when it was clear that JB was not waking up or brain dead, he stages kidnapping. He goes to tell BR not to mention anything - part was the reason why he was sent away to his friends house - so that he is not around detectives / people around who could be asking BR questions.
    PR passed out after taking Valium from the night before, she knows something is up and helps JR.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It was suggested the BR's fecal issues may have been related to jealousy in tv documentaries, but there are different childhood causes like health issues etc. I'm not a pscychologist, but think bed-wetting and fecal issues may be indicative of abuse. Is it possible that fecal smearing (if cause by BR) around JBR's bed was an attempt to protect her from abuser. ie feces in JBR's bed, would be subconscious attempt by child to control their environment and deter abuser from entering bed of another child. Not sure how children would react if witness to sibling being physically/sexually abused/or even psychological abuse. Did any expert/psychologist ever ask BR about candy box and bed fecal findings, if it was him, and why he was acting out in that matter? It seems like there could be more possibilities for a child acting out than jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also BR and JBR seemed to like to sleep in the same room together, there were even spare beds in the rooms for this. Surely this means they liked each other!

      Also the fecal incidences could be simply gross pranks the type that young boys sometimes do. And they seem more directed at the maid who discovered them than JBR. (or maybe directed at JR if they were meant as a defence against the abuser). Surely if JBR was the target she would not have wanted to share a room with him. Maybe she was in on the jokes (or the defence)?

      Delete
    2. I would think that, if he knew his father was having an incestuous relationship with his sister, he'd be pretty disturbed.

      Delete
    3. Fecal smearing is very common in people with autistic disorders.

      Delete
  28. Its the cop smiling with a beard then later in the case he shaved the beard!

    ReplyDelete
  29. This heinous crime is the most abusive, exploitive TRUST of FILIAL PIETY. The perpetrator hiding behind his fatherly mask... needs a garrote tightened as tight as possible around his balls... and hoisted up by a wench attached to the garrote handle... and allowed a very slow death until his ball sack stretches to the ground & he bleeds to death.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Has anyone seen the Yahoo article where the Ramsey's lawyer says the head blow was delivered AFTER DEATH according to the autopsy? I've never heard that, is it true?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's theory. But all the evidence points to the head blow preceding the strangulation, and most of the pathologists who've studied the autopsy agree.

      Delete
    2. I'm really surprised there could be any question of it. I've watched lots of medical and coroner shows-when there's a traumatic closed skull brain injury, the brain swells until there's no more room, then starts dying. Seems it would be pretty obvious at the autopsy. If JBR was no longer alive when she was hit, the brain wouldn't have done anything. It's either one or the other, right? It's not really open to interpretation. The Ramsey's lawyer flat out stated the autopsy found the head blow came after death.

      Delete
  31. Fascinating crime. JR implemented the same strategy as the Zionists in their successful assassination of JFK... "Stage-a-Patsy" ~CG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always been hell bent on solving why a President of the United States had to have his brains blown out by a sniper a few feet away in the sewer under the sign at Dealey Plaza?

      Delete
    2. no not at all. do you know the motive?

      Delete
  32. Bgh--- I've heard that too and find it hard to believe. The pathologists on the CBS special said the blow to the head came first. Lou Smit said the strangulation came first. There are some who have said there was clear sexual abuse and others have said there was no evidence at all of sexual abuse.
    If the experts can't give definitive answers on those two issues, how can anyone hope to solve this case.

    Here is a question I'd like input on. John claims he broke that window months prior when he was locked out. Those of us who think he staged the "break in" think he broke that glass that night as part of the staging. Can't it be determined that the glass was freshly broken or not. Surely if that glass was broken months prior, it would've shown that. A fresh break wouldn't have any dirt, snow, moisture, anything on it. No?

    There is just so much about this case that wasn't looked into properly. Even the pineapple..PR claimed she never served the kids pineapple. When BR was shown the picture of the pineapple, he couldn't even say the word pineapple.
    But then again, the police couldn't speak to the Ramseys, they refused to cooperate with police.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  33. Good question. If the glass were coated with dirt, then John's story would have been confirmed and there would have been no need to question him further on that topic. And yet he WAS questioned at length about his window story, not only in 1997 but also 1998. He and Patsy were also asked if the window had been repaired. Neither could "recall".

    It makes no sense for them to ask such questions if they knew the edges of the glass were dirty and it was an old break. Hopefully the glass is still sitting in an evidence drawer, encased in plastic. A re-examination of that glass could make a huge difference. If the edges are clean, as I feel sure they are, then John lied.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point exactly, Doc. That would prove he lied. There has to be something to it, if they questioned him about that glass. Wish we could see that report and what they asked him.

      The broken window bothers me the most. The kids played down there, and PR was down there getting decorations, presents, etc. Someone would've noticed that. How don't you know if a window was repaired in your house? These two can't seem to recall much of anything, that anyone else would know without hesitation. That's just fishy.

      EG

      EG

      Delete
  34. Seriously people. Evidence just doesn't fall into place taken by itself. The motive makes the evidence fall into place.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Tsk Tsk Tsk....the 911 call doesnt tell us much at all. It might tell us Patsy was involved. Or it might not. It certainly doesn't mean Patsy was in the dark and it doesn't mean John molested his daughter....

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why did PR call 911 so early? Is that your question? The answer is very simple. This would have been done after consultation with JR just to sow further confusion into the case. Remember they are trying to protect their son, and so they don't want anyone to solve the case. Obviously fake RN, early 911 call, garotte, vaginal penetration, everything was orchestrated by JR with help from his wife to confuse people, so no one could solve the case and thereby protect their son. The RN was physically written by PR, but the words were dictated to her by JR, again to further confuse would-be case solvers and again protect BR. A love/hate relationship between 6 and 9 year old siblings that ended with a sudden fit of violence by the 9 year old is far more believable than JR sexually molesting his own 6 year old daughter. I do have one question for Doc if he has time to respond: if the Ramseys had been completely honest about her death from the beginning, what legal punishment do you think the courts would have given to the 9 year old boy? In retrospect, don't you agree with me that Burke's life would have been a lot easier for him if his parents had simply reported everything honestly in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about Doc but I certainly agree with you. There would have been no legal punishment, Burke was too young. There would have been mandated counseling, I imagine. The main thing would have been the stigma and guilt. I truly think they felt Burke couldn't handle it because of his mental disorder. Not only did they try to cover it up, they convinced Burke he had nothing to do with JBRs death because she was killed by outside intruders, not by him hitting her in the head. He may still believe that! They made a poor decision in a time of grief and panic, IMO.





      Delete
    2. "everything was orchestrated by JR with help from his wife to confuse people,"

      But it didn't confuse the BPD. They zeroed in on "the Ramseys" very quickly. Precisely because of the obviously phony ransom note. The only confusion had to do with the question of who did what? Which has never been resolved.

      Delete
  37. Doc G I had to read the beginning of this blog page about the 911 call three times to wrap my mind around what you are saying. It's almost like a mind twister. Staging a staging that went wrong. And then for just a second that clicks into place. If I try and pick it apart again it goes away but for a brief moment I absolutely get it. There was going to be no kidnapping, because she was dead. A real kidnapper doesn't murder someone at home, leave them there and then demand a ransom when she'll be found. But the staging went wrong. Do you think then he was going to let the note read as stands, while he removed her body so that it would look like she was kidnapped but ran out of time? Or he ran out of PLAN because Patsy ran and called 911. So then the note will go down in history as a piece of evidence, instead of a phony note that would have been destroyed when he removed the body. So he wrote the note to be read only when he had completed his staging. He wasn't finished. Do you think he simply ran out of time because she would be coming downstairs to make coffee that morning so he had to have her see the note first off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing that went wrong for him is Patsy made the 911 call. I'm sure she went berserk and he didn't expect it.

      Delete
    2. Your comment is a bit confusing. But I'm pleased to learn that my post got you thinking and forced you to do some rereading. Because you are absolutely right, it IS a bit of a mind twister. For me also.

      I think his original plan was to frighten Patsy into not calling the police and at the same time discourage her from turning the house upside down looking for JonBenet. He succeeded on that second point, but failed on the first, since she called the police anyhow.

      That ruined his plan. What was the plan? It's actually outlined very clearly in the note. The "kidnapper's" call is to come TOMORROW, not that morning as is often assumed. (How could he possibly get to the bank before the bank opened?) That would have given him an entire day to get rid of all the evidence and dump the body under cover of darkness the following night.

      He could also have gotten rid of the note, claiming the kidnappers wanted it back. Or maybe he felt confident enough in his powers of deception to keep the note and hand it over after all. If it occurred to him that the note could be traced to that notepad, he could have discarded the pad along with all the other incriminating evidence.

      He would then have called the police the following morning, claiming the kidnappers never returned his daughter after he paid the ransom.

      You with me so far? I admit this is all very speculative, but it does explain basically everything we find in the note. And it outlines a plan that could have worked, though of course there would have been considerable risk. If his car had been spotted in the vicinity of where the body would eventually be found, he'd have claimed he was delivering the ransom.

      The note is addressed to him to make it easier for him to take charge of the situation at home. He probably would have insisted on Patsy and Burke going to stay with friends for their own safety while he was dealing with the kidnappers. He could have smuggled them out of the house in his car while on the way to the bank. If you read my post titled "The Purpose of the Note" you'll learn all the details.

      I'm not saying this was exactly what he had in mind, but it does demonstrate that he could have had such a plan in mind. If he had no such hplan, then I see no reason for writing that note.

      Delete
    3. Yes, you did say this in the very earliest of blogs, which I read carefully. I hadn't considered this prior to reading and lucking into finding your blog - and your kindle book - but then with all of the comments going in a million directions I lost sight of the purpose of the note. It is a logically thought out note, from someone who is able to separate emotion from logic. It is concise, it gives instructions, it gives direction, and it was for Patsy to read. But not for her to then call 911. Since they have both sputtered over who suggested 911 be called and have given conflicting accounts of that one could say "because they were distraught and can't remember who said what" but I think they know full well who said what - although she could interpret it as being disraught (that he was) but surely she remembers her feelings and emotions that morning and needed help. Wanted to get help. Immediately. I'm just thinking ahead to his plan though, he would have had to give her implicit directions to not mention any of it to her friends, and they would have known something was wrong with her, and possibly called the police themselves. So he took a big risk. As was it backfired anyway so he had to go with it, and got lucky.

      Delete
  38. Totally off topic but I wonder if any hucksters out there have approached CBS with an offer to buy the warehouse with the replica house? Haunted tours, that sort of thing? Frankly, nothing surprises me anymore!

    ReplyDelete
  39. My theory is that John murdered JonBenet. Then he convinced Patsy that Burke murdered her and got her to conspire to cover up for Burke's sake. He got her to write the note and he helped compose it. Everything he did was a to create misdirection. Nothing could be traced to him, and he could control & manipulate Patsy. I think he wanted the suspicion to fall to Patsy, knowing that nothing could be pinned on her.

    ReplyDelete
  40. With respect, you just can't impute rational thinking into an irrational situation. Your theory is based on two massive, unfounded assumptions and from there descends into speculation and conjecture. It's fatally flawed.

    First, you have no evidence that JR molested anyone, let alone his daughter. Secondly, you cannot assume what anyone would do in such an horrific event, just because you define it as 'logic' based on 'facts'. The whole situation was tragic chaos, regardless of how JB was murdered. But you are basing your theory around how you feel people ought to react and behave from the comfort of your keyboard in your own time. I don't say this as criticism, but it is bona fide fact that you weren't in the situation the Ramseys were.

    Whilst I know there are very strange occurrences in this case, I'm not convinced of the Ramseys guilt, but I do think it was someone who knew JB. I'm inclined to believe that not enough focus was shed on those with access to the house. And, no, I don't believe footnotes that just say they were thoroughly checked out.

    Original Unknown poster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't assume anything. My thinking is based on facts and logical inferences based on those facts. The note is obviously intended as a ransom note. If there were no intruder, then it was obviously intended to stage a fake kidnapping. Sorry, but I see no assumptions in that at all. You seem to be implying that someone wrote that note for no reason at all -- because they were distraught? Now THAT is an assumption for sure.

      And it's also no assumption that there was no intruder, because no intruder scenario makes sense. Not even a hopelessly drugged out maniac would have done all that this "intruder" was supposed to have done that night.

      Delete
    2. DocG: it is not a FACT that JR molested anyone and it is not a fact that Patsy would not have called 911 with JB's body still in the house. It is also not a fact that the note was an attempt to stage a fake kidnapping. We can assume, but we don't know, not even by inference. How do we know the kidnapper didn't change plans? This wasn't a sane person ...

      I'll grant you that the latter is a 'logical' inference. But everything else descends into the realm of speculation and unfounded assumptions, no matter how many times you repeat to the contrary. Maybe evidence law is different in the US, but from where I am, my knowledge of evidence law informs me that there is no credible evidence from which to lead to conviction. Not within a bull's roar.

      I'm guessing I might be right because otherwise, JR would be arrested by now, no?

      Where did you get the notion that I said someone wrote the note because they were 'distraught'? I never said or implied any such thing. Maybe someone wrote the note to torment the Ramseys?

      Delete
    3. No, it's not a fact that John was molesting his daughter. But that possibility enables us to suggest a plausible motive. Regardless, my case does not hinge on molestation, it hinges on what happened prior to the 911 call and the logic of that call.

      "it is not a fact that Patsy would not have called 911 with JB's body still in the house."

      No, but it is a clear logical inference. Aka: common sense. If she wrote the note, she was staging a kidnapping. If she was staging a kidnapping the plan would have been to get the body out of the house. If the body was still in the house, she would have waited to call the police until after the body had been removed.

      But she called the police anyhow. Telling us that she could not have been a part of the kidnap staging. It's called a chain of reasoning. If you see a flaw in that chain, by all means reveal it. No one has found a flaw yet. And yes, there is a huge difference between a logical inference and an assumption.

      It's not good enough to say that nothing makes sense because we have no way of telling what was on their minds at the time. If that line of reasoning were taken seriously then no one would ever be convicted of any crime. Doubt can't just be doubt, it must be REASONABLE doubt.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I don't fault your logical 'chain of reasoning'. But it falters under its premise. You have no grounds for submissions, nothing from which, with respect, I'm apprehending.

      Taking your argument at its highest (which I don't concede), there could have been numerous reasons why Patsy called 911, the most logical of course being that she didn't know JB's body was in the basement by virtue of innocence. But how do you get from that to JR's guilt of molestation of murder? I'm not talking about theories based on the facts as you define them, I'm talking about facts and evidence, which can lead to credible arguments.

      In any event, no prosecutor can possibly lead any credible evidence to convict JR. How do you suppose they would get around that to arrest and charge him? Sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but your theory is so flawed, it's pure fiction at this point. There is not one shred of evidence against JR and yet you purport that you have solved this case (which could lead to a conviction). In legal terms, this is a nonsense, with respect, no matter what country you're from where there is a presumption of innocence and, as you say, the standard of proof being reasonable doubt. It's a high hurdle to jump.

      And, I've just picked up that you aren't quite as legally skilled as you appeared: no lawyer or judge can ever guess what is in a person's mind. That is never admissible in court. Unless CC tells me otherwise as in the US ... no judge can allow evidence which attempts to read a person's mind.

      Delete
    5. Doc and I have gone several rounds on this topic, most recently, I believe, at the very end of the thread he entitles Part Ten. As I've told him repeatedly, his is a dandy little theory, but it ain't evidence.
      CC

      Delete
    6. Thanks CC, I'll definitely go and read it.

      Delete
    7. I read your professional and informative posts, CC - thanks. I ought to be in bed, but this 20th anniversary has stirred up my interest in this case to the point of distraction.

      We don't have Grand Juries here and haven't for centuries, so all that is a learning curve. I believe your DA positions are political. That could be compromising, I suspect. Our equivalents are appointed, not elected.

      I apprehend that you believe in Doc's theory, but not all his links in the chain.

      As for me, I just wonder whether anyone with an axe to grind or were just plain weird were investigated thoroughly - or was too much attention placed on the Ramseys for any objective theories to be followed through? The Ramseys were rich, as we know. Such wealth attracts a great deal of envy and resentment.

      Delete
    8. The titular head of any District or State or Commonwealth Attorney's office is usually elected, so to that extent they can be perceived as political. But, and this is a big but, every attorney takes an oath, and most of us take it quite seriously. Alex Hunter was a political animal, but only in a minor key. His great transgression was his overarching belief in rehabilitation rather than punishment, and an almost total lack of experience with homicide.
      CC

      Delete
    9. "Taking your argument at its highest (which I don't concede), there could have been numerous reasons why Patsy called 911, the most logical of course being that she didn't know JB's body was in the basement by virtue of innocence. But how do you get from that to JR's guilt of molestation of murder? I'm not talking about theories based on the facts as you define them, I'm talking about facts and evidence, which can lead to credible arguments."

      Please by all means, suggest one reason why Patsy would call 911 if she'd been staging a kidnapping. That's a question I've been asking myself for years and so far I've come up empty. The reasons that have been proposed so far are listed in the above post where they've been refuted. Feel free to challenge anything I've written -- but please be specific.

      How do I get from that to John's guilt? By demonstrating that there could not have been an intruder. I have my own way of doing that, but a great many others, including the CBS invesigators, have arrived at the same conclusion in their own way. This is not a case of some pedophile breaking in and assaulting a little girl. No intruder would have done all that was done that night. And it looks like almost everyone who's investigated this case has come to the same conclusion.

      Consequently, once we rule out Patsy, and rule out an intruder, then we are left with John -- at least as the writer of the note. And since in my view Burke has always been extremely unlikely, for reasons I've provided over and over on this blog, John is the most likely to have killed JonBenet. I can't prove he molested her previously, no - although the evidence certainly suggests that. But he certainly molested her on the night of the crime.

      You, like CC, seem to expect that some sort of smoking gun is necessary. And with all due respect to CC's legal training and experience, I can't accept that. The case I've made is circumstantial admittedly. But people are convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence all the time.

      If we rule out an intruder, and we rule out Patsy and we rule out Burke (which imo is very easy to do, CBS notwithstanding), then what remains is John. And since there are many other good reasons to suspect John, including his many lies, notably the huge fib about breaking the window the previous summer, then I do think it possible to convict him of murder one, yes. At least I see no reason not to indict him on probable cause.

      And if you want hard evidence, I have a feeling the evidence is there, sitting in an evidence drawer somewhere in Boulder -- in the form of some pieces of broken glass. If the edges of those pieces are clean, as I feel sure they are, then John lied about breaking in earlier -- and the only reason for him to lie is if he broke that window on the night of the crime, to stage a phony break-in. So if you must have evidence, there it is. And if the edges are not clean then I'll be willing to (reluctantly) back off.

      Delete
    10. I don't require a smoking gun, and I love circumstantial cases. Again, to be tried successfully the chain of circumstances comprising such a case must lead incontrovertibly to ONE individual. As has been amply demonstrated by the BDI and PDI advocates hereon, yours do not. In addition, most juries need a motive, particularly lacking a smoking gun or hard evidence. You know I agree that that the prior sexual abuse was John's motive, but there is no evidence said abuse was committed by him.

      C'mon, Denver Law and Dog, give me a hand with this.
      CC

      Delete
    11. CC - don't think you need validation to confidently know you're 100% right.

      Doc says his whole theory is based on logic. We certainly reach logical interpretations very differently.

      Delete
    12. No one has yet challenged any specific point of logic presented by me. No one has yet been able to find one single assumption in the case I've built. Rejecting my theory as a whole isn't good enough. If the logic is solid, the case is solid.

      The logic of the case points to John and only John, acting alone. It amazes me that so many are unable to see that. The BDI and PDI advocates on this blog, or anywhere else, have argued on the basis of assumption, conjecture, profiling (based almost exclusively on personal prejudice) and sheer imagination, supported by large helpings of confirmation bias.

      Please, if you think you can challenge my take on this case, then point to one single place where I got a fact wrong, or my logic is flawed, or where I have made an unwarranted assumption. Sure, there are places where I've been forced to speculate, and I've been honest about that. But the core of my case is facts and logic, and as I see it, that is all that's needed. I presented the core of my case in the above blog post and challenged everyone here to find a flaw. No one has yet done that. I'll toss out that challenge one more time. But please, be specific.

      Delete
  41. I wonder if this lawsuit is to ensure Burke stays quiet?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Doc, your simplifying this part ofthe case too much, and not looking at other facts, to me it is obvious Patsy was in on it. Burke claimes he was left in his bed the morning. This tells me they were all in on it. Any parent who just discovered a ransom note in an enormous house would be terrified the kidnappers were in the house or very close and Patsy would have kept Burke close to her and woke him up immediately and asked him questions to see what he knew. He claims they never asked him anything during the crisis time early that morning. They never tried to keep him safe or get him to safety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are basing your thinking on what you would do. Not everyone reacts the same way to the same circumstances. The ransom note obviously threw Patsy into a state of confusion, fear and panic. Her first instinct was not to worry about Burke, whom she had already checked on, by the way, but to get help.

      Delete
    2. Touche! Correct me if I'm wrong, but your whole theory rests on assuming what John and Patsy did in their dire circumstances.

      Delete
  43. Also CBS' take on the pineapple was very telling, Burkes prints were all over the bowl and tea glass, yet JBR had one undigested piece in her stomach, in the police interview Burke would not acknowledge the picture of the pineapple bowel, even thought they repeatedly asked him what it was. He knew it was key evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Burke's reaction looks very suspicious. And I also must say I understand the investigator's reasons for focusing on Burke. As I've already written in an earlier post:

      "once John is ruled out, the only possible alternatives to the scenario I've offered above are too fantastic and literally beyond belief to present in court. Not too fantastic, however, to be widely accepted by a great many people following the case, including some experienced law enforcement veterans who should know better."

      Once you leave John out of the picture, that opens the door to all sorts of crazy scenarios, and in such a context, then yes, BDI does seem like the most reasonable choice of the lot. Certainly better than the intruder theory.

      The problem with the CBS show, and so many other similar attempts, is that there is no reason to assume John is not the culprit -- and once you consider the possibility that he could be the culprit, then a theory such as BDI becomes far less convincing.

      Once John comes into the picture, then Burke's behavior makes a lot more sense. I think he saw or heard some things he wasn't supposed to see or hear and was intimidated by his father into clamming up. That too would explain Burke's suspicious behavior. But the investigators simply refuse to consider John as a possible rape/ murder suspect, so the only alternative for them is to assume that Burke is hiding his own complicity in the crime.

      The problem there is that such a theory fails to explain the nature of the subsequent coverup, which totally contradicts any BDI scenario. The rape and strangulation were part of the crime, not part of some bizarre coverup, and the only reasonable suspect in that case is John Ramsey.

      Delete
  44. Most comments now are Jdi or Bdi, if BdI with Jr covering, it brings my thoughts to the horrific autopsy pics. In my opinion, I don't see any reason for the sexual assault with the paintbrush or the need for the garotte unless BR was capable of all this before Jr helped stage the rest. If JR ,it makes a lot of sense except that PR looks guilty of involvement to me regardless of the 911 call. I've done some attentive reading into her statements etc and feel she was somehow covering, i believe she wrote the RN with JR helping dictate in part . As others have said, this would only be for Burke. I have not been able to watch cbs in the uk yet,so I am relying on what I read, on a previous post I read Burkes prints were not on the bowl only the glass, yet posters are still saying his prints were on both as we all were lead to believe. Can someone clarify. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A staging of a kidnapping gone wrong is exactly what it was. Saying it has never been documented before does not mean it did not happen here. Susan Smith is innocent because no parent ever drove their children into a lake.....really ? Amateurish.  You keep repeating the same exact things you did years ago despite some new evidence and views you just keep pretending to ignore the most obvious of things that make your theory impossible, which is why you are stuck.  Your argument about whose idea it was to call 911 is gone. Period. That is unless you now want to say BR is lying about whose idea he overheard it was to call the police. In that case Burke has to be part of the cover-up as well.  As far as LE looking at both Ramseys involved it is due to the overwhelming evidence that BOTH had knowledge of what happened to JBR and BOTH were at the least a part of the cover up. Only 1 Ramsey being involved was an afterthought to LE 19 yrs ago. I can prove this over and over and it is just a case of denial due to your investment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What new evidence? And Patsy herself was filmed on camera saying that it was her idea to call 911. And I don't think Burke was in bed the entire time that morning of the commotion. Hell, Burke admitted sneaking downstairs after everyone was in bed.

      Delete
    2. You seem to want it both ways, with Burke telling the truth about what his father said to his mother and lying about everything else. I've always claimed that Burke's version of what happened was unreliable, as he was very probably intimidated by his father into supporting John's version of what happened. Also I must remind you that Burke's words in that segment of the tape are garbled and it's not clear whether he is saying "he" or "it" at a crucial point. Not that it matters because I'm sure you'll agree that Burke is an unreliable witness.

      Delete
    3. Burke stated that he heard JR tell PR to call police while laying in bed. It makes much more sense if he was down there with them doesn't it ?

      Delete
    4. It means nothing if he was told what to say in advance -- which is a huge part of the BDI theory.

      Delete
  46. A few things that struck me from the CBS special: the only evidence they have that Burke was awake that morning is the enhanced 911 call. They apply heaps of technological tweaking and still produce only sound patterns that have to be interpreted - which is where confirmation bias comes into play. Their differing interpretations of what the alleged Patsy voice says shows how little evidentiary value this actually has. That said, I found the alleged John voice to be far clearer and more definite than I'd thought it would be. Even so, can I say for sure that what we hear is JR talking to Burke, rather than interference from another call? No. To build a case on a foundation this flimsy is a big call.

    Further on the 911 call; the police call handler Kim Archuletta claims she heard Patsy change gear and ask, "Okay. We've called the police, what now?" The tape - even after "enhancement" - captured no such thing. "What did you do? Help me Jesus" bears no relation to those words. And if the first thing the tape picks up is JR telling Burke "We're not speaking to you" then it follows that the first person to speak after the botched hang-up was Burke, not Patsy. Kim Archuletta's testimony was therefore not nearly as effective as the show would have us believe. In fact, if we take her word for it, and we imagine Patsy asking "Okay, we've called the police, now what?" there is nothing particularly incriminating about that anyway. If Patsy is completely genuine and innocent that's a question she might well ask her husband in any case. It's clear from her "help me Jesus help me Jesus" that the 'gear change' Archuletta alleges did not take place, and is the product of twenty years of hindsight.

    Patsy's call does not sound to me either rehearsed or fake.

    Fingerprints. After the dishes are washed in our house it's my job to put them away. Every dish, glass, and plate in the house probably has my fingerprints on them. What does this prove?

    Interesting that Burke demonstrates stabbing and bludgeoning in his interview two weeks after the murder. He substitutes knife and hammer for train track and maglite, but he even specifies that it's jbr's head that is the target of the blunt weapon. Before this show I hadn't realised that the jab from the train tracks was actually hard enough to break the skin. So Burke is right, she was stabbed, but not with a knife. The idea of a child picking up a nearby piece of toy train track to jab at the body of his sister to try to get a response was compelling. The track as the cause of those marks is persuasive, and I can't imagine anyone other than a child doing that.

    So in summary, for me, the enhanced 911 call is interesting but has very little value as evidence, too vague, too subjective. The pineapple evidence may prove nothing more than that Burke did what kids do, he left half his fruit uneaten and went to bed. And then Jonbenet helps herself to a chunk, before daddy comes in and suggests they go play in the basement.

    If I were a juror and the CBS case was presented to me I could not say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (ignoring the fact that there would be no trial due to Burke's age).

    One last thing: could the experts please stop calling it a 'note'?! It was two and a half pages of prose. It was an essay, a novelette, a letter, but it was not a note!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The way they set up the enhancement of the 911 call was definitely a hot mess.

      I think the pineapple business is a big thing because JonBenet had it before her death. And if Burke was up and saw her, it means he has information that is pertinent. I don't think he did it but he knows more than he's saying.

      Delete
    2. The enhanced 911 call was just a bunch of nonsense and a waste of time. I'm convinced Patsy didn't know anything when she made the call. And why does it matter whether Burke was awake that morning or not? Other than it would be just another lie to add to the many other lies that were told during the coverup

      Delete
  47. Just wondering if anyone checked out the possibility of DNA from a person that may do the wash for the family - whoever folds clothes. their DNA would end up on panties, pajama's ect. makes sense to follow through on that thought since dna did not match anyone else's and found on 2 separate garments JonBonet was wearing -

    ReplyDelete
  48. Didn't Patsy say she woke up and heard John taking a shower so she got up too even though it was very early? If that it is true maybe John expected Patsy to get up much later, maybe he was planning to be near when Patsy found the RN Instead he is in the shower while she finds the RN reads a few lines and immediately calls the police. John gets out of the shower only to find Patsy already busy talking to the police.

    ReplyDelete
  49. All that unknown DNA! I don't like it. People say it isn't important, it's just Innocent transfer, but it worries me. I believe JDI, but I can't dismiss IDI totally. A sociopath intruder could have lived in that huge labyrinth house, for many days sneaking around, even befriending JBR as her "secret friend", finding things out about them, then attacking and killing a trusting JBN, staging her body and writing a RN all to maximize pain and disruption. It is a very farfetched scenau, more a fantasy, and a lot of JRs actions don't seem to agree with it. But I can't dismiss it entirely. The case is so bizarre!.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget John's observing the open window, which he then closed without telling anyone. Don't forget his attempt to fly out of Boulder just after "discovering" his daughter's body. Don't forget his desperate attempts to claim the "Butler Door" was open even after he himself had checked it and found it locked. Above all, don't forget his fantastic broken window story, which is clearly a fabrication. So sorry, but for me the intruder theory is easily dismissed.

      Delete
    2. If JR was trying to take off on an OJ lile eacape out of Boulder right after his daughter's body was discovered then PR would have caught on to that right away. Period. That ends PR not knowing what happened.

      Delete
    3. "Patsy, darling, you're out of your mind with grief, and there's no way I can let you stay in this awful house in this terrible town. Let me rush you home to Atlanta, to the safety and comfort of your parents and sisters. "
      CC

      Delete
    4. Thanks, CC. But as I see it, Patsy probably never even learned about that phone call. After the discovery of the body, she was out of her mind with grief.

      Delete
  50. John's manipulation and twisting of how things went down is why so many are confused. And Patsy and Burke did go along with many white lies.

    Everyone and their mama thinks Patsy wrote the ransom letter but the police themselves interviewed her and she said she didn't know about John's bonus until the morning of the 26th when John mentioned it. How did they ignore that and not probe further. It's a key part of this so-called "shocking, confusing, long ransom letter in the history of ransom notes."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I sympathize with Patsy and see no reason why she would lie. But from the investigators point of view, she was a suspect and it would have been a mistake to take her at her word.

      Delete
  51. And there are many pieces of "evidence" that have nothing to do with the murder that have people confused or torn or speculating. Dr. Phil did such a thing with the baseball bat. JonBenet was not hit with a baseball bat and it had nothing to do with her murder. It was thrown out there to appease the intruder theory. Another thing is the friend who said Patsy "would never wear the same outfit twice in a row." An astute observation but Christmas is a hectic time and she had an early flight and wore the same outfit twice. Much ado about nothing. But people claim it proves she was involved. People either want Patsy to be a super killer or not. Red herrings have tainted the case for years and Doc has discussed this very thing in a post already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because of the long trip they were taking, Patsy likely had most of her clothes in suitcases that morning. She inadvertently might have left herself nothing to wear except what she had on the night before.

      JD Winston

      Delete
  52. We may move to a new post so if this comment gets lost, so be it. Last night I watched a 2015 interview of John Ramsey with Barbara Walters. I don't think I got it in it's entirety, but possible that it just was short. We see a much older JR now, a very "gentle" and genteel JR, who still has the air of money about him, now married to Jan having "gone on" with is life without Patsy. Yes indeed. Rather quickly too apparently. He still hopes the killer will be found although he hesitates that he "sort of" hopes he will be found, he's tiring of it seems to me, and he really wants felons to be entered into criminal databases so that we can know where their DNA is likely to show up next - most probably for instance in his daughter's panties or on her longjohns. His eyes are cold, and his face looks like a mask. He has gotten away with murder, because no one suspected the genteel wealthy logical kind (although no one really knew he by all accounts) JR. He gets very testy in older interviews possibly the deposition with Darnay (I forget where I saw that) about attempts to impugn his loving relationship with is daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who and how was the attempt to impugn JR's 'loving relationship with his daughter'? I've only ever read about positive, convivial relations amongst the Ramseys.

      Delete
    2. This was during an interview where John was being asked a question about his relationship with JonBenet. I don't remember now if it was during the deposition and Darnay Hoffman brought it up or if it was an interview with someone else. Sorry I can't be more specific, I've inundated myself lately with past interviews and videos.

      Delete
  53. The deposition with Darnay was hard to watch because that pompous ass Lin Wood dominated the proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes RSmith, but had Darnay not been blinded by his theory that PR wrote the note and so concerned with trying to tie her to it, he was actually a pretty effective questioner. In that - he stopped Lin Wood from posturing on more than one occasion.

      Delete
    2. You would want such a lawyer representing you though, wouldn't you? That's his job - to protect his clients at all cost and by all means.

      Delete
    3. Without Lin, John's ass would be grass & broke, so yes, Mr. Wood has effectively done his job.

      Delete
    4. Maybe so; that's the point, nobody wants to pay for a weak lawyer. Lin Wood is obviously one of the best. And I read on another thread by DocG that the Ramseys' defence lawyers have something to answer for. What? They are paid to advocate for their clients and unless they know their client is guilty, are not to speak or act contrary to their clients' interests.

      I simply do not understand any criticism of the Ramseys' lawyers because any one of us would expect the same unbreakable style, particularly if you were paying the fees of the most eminent lawyers.

      Delete
    5. Lin should have figured out the truth by now, and resigned as John's lawyer. That would have been the ethical thing to do.

      Delete
  54. I can't believe all the Red Herring posts since the bs tv shows aired. Truely pathetic.
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  55. I've come around to Docs way of thinking on the RN. Patsy wouldn't have called 911 knowing the body was in the basement. Yes she would have been upset, but she wouldn't have blown her lines that badly on the call! I only thought she wrote down the note because it looked liked her handwriting. I totally disagreed with the expert who thought the actual words sounded like a woman, I thought most of it sounded like a man. So I thought JR dictated it and she wrote it down. Now I think JR was totally responsible for the note. Regarding the gruesome state of the body, I've had second
    thoughts about that too. I thought JR did it to create a horrible scene, looking like a monster had attacked JBR. But really, was that necessary? No, as one poster said, he could have tied a simple cord around her neck and dumped the body somewhere. All that complicated preparation of the garrote and violating her with the paintbrush handle just increased the chances of getting caught. So, either it was done by BR after he hit her or by JR to cover up a sexual assault. They need to retest all the materials found at the scene esp the garrote knot. That may give the answer.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was no proof he used the paint brush handle. Only that there was birefringent foreign material, which could have found it's way there via a gloved finger after touching the paintbrush handle - as in varnish. The strangulation was done as she was still alive, after the head blow. Although I do have a problem with the wrists being loosely tied, what was the need for that - she wasn't going anywhere, nor could she use her tiny hands to stop the strangulation, so in that respect we could surmise the scene was staged. I"m also not so sure any kind of fingerprints would show up on the garrote knot but I'm not a fingerprint expert.

      Delete
    2. Regarding the garrote knot, I was thinking DNA. If it is found, whose will it be?

      Delete
    3. The person who attacked her was almost certainly wearing gloves.

      Delete
  56. I posted a few days ago. Denver lawyer and CU-Boulder grad with close friends who were involved in the investigation.

    At this point, short of a confession (deathbed or otherwise) we will never actually KNOW who killed JBR and what exactly happened that night. Nobody will ever be prosecuted - take that to the bank (and withdraw $118K while you're there). Doc obviously has forgotten more about the evidence than most of us will ever know and I'm certainly good with the JDI theory. But Burke is one strange dude and I'm not totally disregarding that he could have done it. Suffice it to say, whatever happened in that house that night was complete mayhem, hysteria, evil, and panic . . . logic, common sense and humanity was not part of the equation.

    For me, I am comfortable with the idea that I am now 1000% percent certain that there was no "intruder" and that the family - use them in whatever combination under whatever timeline that makes sense to you - is responsible for JBR's death. I never bought the intruder theory and Doc has done a helluva good job dissembling that preposterous idea link by link. The intruder theory is a monstrous lie and there are a lot of people who paid for it. "Santa" Bill McReynolds, the Whites and others all got thrown under JR's bus. Let's not even get into that poor psycho John Mark Karr.

    JR and Burke know who did it, they are still lying 20 years later to avoid responsibility and I hope that the guilt from that knowledge haunts them into the grave . . . and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you say why no one will ever know? Is there a specific reason?

      Delete
    2. I tend to agree with you. Even if new DNA technology finds DNA on the garrote knot, either BRs or JRs, they will come up with an explanation for it. The DNA might even include foreign DNA from the manufacturing or packaging process. But they still need to test it.

      Delete
  57. Let's put it this way. A lot of people KNOW who did it. Doc's one of them. And he probably right.

    But there's a difference between "knowledge" and "proof". And there's a larger gap between "proof" and "legal responsibility".

    Everybody "knows" OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. But he'll never pay for it.

    Same here. The Ramseys are no doubt responsible for killing JBR and then lying about it. But it's highly unlikely they'll pay for it legally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shortly after I experienced my "epiphany," realizing for the first time that the only culprit had to be John Ramsey, I got very excited because I was convinced I'd solve the case. Shortly after, I came to another, very sobering, realization: no one will believe me.

      Thanks to the support of so many on this blog, I have now found others who see things my way, and I'm really grateful. But as far as the world at large is concerned I have to admit that my original doubt still holds. To the world at large, JDI is just another theory out of many, and since my theory contains components that many will find hard to swallow, and there is no way to prove I'm right in the usual manner (no smoking gun), the case will probably never be resolved.

      Delete
  58. Okay, forgive me but I have a stupid question that I need answered or I'm going to drive myself crazy. If JDI WHY would he have said that he previously broke the window when it would have been to his advantage to have denied any knowledge of a broken window which helps an intruder theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. I think this is probably the question asked by the BPD when they interviewed him about it. His story was patently false, but they couldn't understand why he'd want to undo the effect of his window staging by claiming he himself had broken in earlier.

      Of course, they never figured out one of the key aspects of the case: that what they came upon was not what it seemed, but the wreckage of a plan gone wrong. When John broke that window he felt confident he'd have another 24 hours to complete his staging by crawling through himself. But when Patsy ruined his plan, he was stuck with his pants down and that broken window had to be accounted for.

      Since it was clear no one had passed through it, the break looked a lot more like insider staging than the work of an intruder. Especially because a spider web had been found connecting the grate to the adjoining lawn. John and Patsy may well have been arrested on the spot.

      So as I see it, John felt he had no choice but to concoct a story that would account for that window break. His story was totally unconvincing, but it didn't seem to matter because the cops had no idea that this was an alibi. Like you, they felt he must be telling the truth. Why come up with such a story if he'd been staging? Why indeed?

      The name of John's game has always been: misdirection.

      Delete
    2. only flaw with that Doc is that PR for sure would have known he wasn't locked out of the house. How would she not be aware of a broken glass in a basement window that could allow somebody to get in with 2 kids in the house? To further that, John was gone a lot, so PR surely wouldnt have left a glass broken for months. She HAD to know he was lying OR she was in on the cover up

      Delete
    3. In the police interview, John said it happened when Patsy was away. She had no way of knowing it was a lie since she technically wasn't there, according to him.

      Delete
    4. The one other person who would know...Linda...said she was not aware of a broken window.

      Delete
    5. Think about what Doc is saying. The police are so fixated on Patsy as the letter writer that they fail to see everything in front of them. Remove her as the writer and it all starts to add up. And they do not buy Burke as the killer.

      Delete
    6. Rsmith.....she wasn't there, but lived in the house for months after it happened. You honestly believe she wouldn't notice debris coming in thru a broken window and possibly critters/bugs? She knew that window wasn't broken previously therefore she either knew he was lying Or the more likely scenario is she was in in the staging

      Delete
    7. Many of you are new to this blog. The question that's been raised has already been discussed here in great detail. You might want to do a search on "gaslighting" to catch up. I don't have the energy to get into all that again. Ultimately the truth lies with those pieces of broken glass, which I hope are still available for testing. If the edges are clean, the break was fresh, regardless of what anyone said.

      And yes, from her testimony it does seem clear to me that Patsy version, which had the effect of supporting John's story, could not have been the case. But that does NOT mean they were both involved in the crime or coverup. This is the most vulnerable aspect of my theory, admittedly -- the one place where it looks like Patsy and John could have been in it together. But I have good reasons for thinking otherwise, as presented earlier in this blog. Do the search and you should find them.

      Delete
  59. This case is driving me nuts. I am even having dreams about it. I agree with the Denver Lawyer. I am 1000% sure there was no intruder and someone in the family did it. No, I was not there, but if I were on a jury, the intruder bit would not fly. I am sure PR did not do this. I am mainly JDI with a tiny percentage of maybe BDI with JR covering it up (not because of the TV specials - just because it seems slightly possible). I also agree no one will ever be brought to justice - but I wish they would. I wish they would start over with this case! Sometimes people get away with murder - O.J., Casey Anthony.... - I wish JBR would be solved. It's so obvious someone in that house did it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I can totally understand John's strategy as: misdirection. Everyone lies. Some are better at it than others. One strategy when caught in a lie is to throw out meaningless trivial information, to confuse and confound. Or offer up your own "theories" so that it looks like you are trying to help find out who could have done such a thing. But to what you said earlier Doc, about knowing others wouldn't believe you, I have worked this case out backwards and forwards with my friend who has been as interested in this as I. I have argued the PDI it theory, the BDI, then back to the JDI. My friend has been with me every step of the way, dissecting all known information, then seeing if it fits any kind of theory. After I read the Kolar book I wasn't even convinced that BDI. He left too many holes in his theory. But at least he didn't go with the IDI theory. It's just easier for some to buy the "jealous older brother" who turned violent, than the father who was abusing his daughter. Add to that a father who was wealthy, who built a successful company, who was in the military, and for all intents and purposes seemed like a nice individual. As for Burke, I agree he acts odd, but I know many oddballs like that. One need not go any further than silicon valley to see them. Computer geeks who are brilliant with programming and stilted socially. Burke was a very sheltered boy as well. Kept away from people after the crime and out of the public eye. Yes, he grins inappropriately, he doesn't seem to have confidence or the ability to answer questions perhaps like you or I would. But it's a stretch to think that he murdered his sister and then goes on Dr. Phil to clear the air. Twenty years later. What would he possibly have to gain? No one has gone after him in 20 years.

    ReplyDelete
  61. the paint brush handle: The autopsy report stated birefringent foreign material was present on the eroded surface inside the vagina, and the erosion was in reference to the wall/hymen. So just what is birefringence? It is the optical property of a material having a refractive index that depends on the polarization and propagation direction of light (I'm quoting, I'm not a scientist). I then looked up what material may have birefringent properties. Two such materials could be varnish, and paint. So we can surmise that since broken paint brush was used in the garrot that materials either from that stick could have gotten inside her vagina, either by handling with a glove on, or used as an instrument of sexual violation. I believe the investigators could not find the other end of that broken paint brush, so it was no doubt used and disposed of. So I don't think we can rule out that the handle may have been used, even though the perp was wearing gloves. But I see Doc's point, using the actual handle may have caused a lot more damage to the hymen and vaginal wall. So it's yet another mystery. But no doubt in my mind that he got rid of it, along with the tape, panties, and we've been over the rest of it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. PR and JR were never interviewed properly. I give them that it was months after when they were finally questioned, but they should've held them accountable for the inconsistencies in their answers or lack thereof. They both "couldn't recall" very much of anything and weren't pressed to do so. When they contradicted earlier statements, they weren't questioned further.

    I brought up the broken glass and being able to tell if it was a recent break or an older one, as JR stated that he'd broken the glass awhile ago, but couldn't remember if it had been fixed or not.
    Obviously, if the glass had just been broken, they could've proven that. It's a bit difficult to believe that JR would've found THAT window to break into his own house, when there were a ton of other windows to break and enter the house easily rather than climbing down into a well and squeezing through that basement window. That makes no sense to me at all. Or calling a locksmith and going in through the front or back door. They weren't exactly destitute and could've easily afforded to do that.

    But none of this is proof that they're guilty and that's why this case won't ever be solved. You'd have to go back to the beginning for a re-do, and too much has now changed to be able to do that successfully. The Ramseys were wealthy and were handled with kid gloves, according to the police.

    I hold to my theory that BDI and PR and JR covered it up. JR did the staging, PR wrote the RN as JR dictated most of it, but traces of PR can be found in it as well.

    There is no evidence that either parent was abusive or violent toward their children, but there is evidence of BR hitting JBR previously. There is evidence of BR being jealous by the fecal matter being smeared and left in JBR's room. Looking at BR today, you can clearly see that he is not a normal 29 year old male.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Burke told it, he lifted the golf club and didn't realize JonBenet was standing behind him. So it does seem to have been an accident. He could have lied, of course, but certainly there were witnesses.

      The notion that the feces in question originated with Burke and not JonBenet herself is totally unjustified. Once again we are dealing with confirmation bias. Since it was found in her room it's much more likely to have been hers. If she were being abused and resented it, that's as good a reason as any for placing feces in a box of chocolates.

      Delete
    2. BR said it was an accident and PR's friend said PR told her it was intentional and not an accident.
      PR's mother was staying with the kids while PR was undergoing chemo and instructed the housekeeper to clean the bathroom where BR had just smeared feces all over it.

      Are you saying the feces was never tested to see who it belonged to? This is something we need to know.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Whenever I've looked into hearsay evidence of that sort I've usually discovered that what was reported was misleading or simply untrue. If you can supply a reference for what PR said, that would help.

      What Burke did while PR was undergoing chemo is perfectly understandable. He was younger then and obviously it would have been very disturbing to know his mother could be dying.

      The feces we were discussing was the feces found in JBR's bedroom, not the bathroom. And no I can't imagine that they'd have tested that for DNA. Especially since Burke was never a suspect.

      Delete
    4. PRs friend was filmed saying this on both of the recent documentaries. She asked PR what happened to JBRs face and PR said "Oh, Burke lost his temper." So I guess you can believe either her or Burke. As I recall, the show also mentioned feces in the bathroom and showed a picture of it. I wouldn't imagine they would test the feces because after all, what difference does it make. If Burke has an autistic disorder, feces smearing is common.

      Delete
    5. Well, that's interesting. I seem to have missed that bit about Burke losing his temper. So yes, it's Burke's word against hers. That could mean something, as far as motive is concerned. But it doesn't change any other aspect of the case against Burke, which is mostly fantasy.

      Delete
  63. I apologize if someone has posted this already... but...

    I want to be down with the "Burke was/is a deranged nine year old who killed his sister after eating pineapple" theory. I really do. I think Burke is a weird guy. I think that interview with Dr. Phil was downright bizarre. The parents did have a book open to a page about children performing sexual acts or something like that. Burke probably wiped feces on JB's stuff. The 911 call did kinda sound like Burke's voice. Burke is a better scenario than John molesting and basically planned to murder his daughter to shut her up over molestation....

    However, let's say BDI and John heard her scream (along with the neighbors) and came downstairs. John proceeds exactly the same way as Doc lays out and Burke goes to bed. John writes note for Patsy and hides JB downstairs until Patsy leaves and he can dump the body.

    That would make total sense. Everything happens like Doc says except the reason for murder, which would be Burke doing it instead of John, with Patsy innocent the whole time.

    However that leads to this: when John finds JB with Burke caught red-handed there are two scenarios:

    1) She's dead: why garrote her!?!? she's already dead so why garrote her? Just hide the body in the cellar and write the note.

    2) She's breathing: why not call 911!?!!? why garrote her if she's breathing? Unless John thought she was so close to death he covered for Burke AND choked out his daughter out with a sophisticated asphyxiation device to put her out of her misery instead of calling an ambulance.

    To me the garrote is the thing that throws a giant wrench in the otherwise logical BDI theory. Garroting her after Burke hit her when she's either alive or dead make no sense.

    Burke tying the garotte is unbelievable too because he was 9 and he would've had to have been torturing his sister with a homemade garotte in the basement and then smashed her head in. I find that highly implausible.

    So the following must be true of the BDI theory: John choked his daughter to death with a garrote after finding Burke smashed her head in.

    I find that too hard to believe, and anyways that makes John guilty.

    The garrote is implausible for Burke to have done and implausible for John to have done if Burke smashed her head in first, so I agree 100% with Doc and I think that John and John alone murdered his daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm thinking something else too - they said she was still alive for 45 minutes to several hours after the head bludgeoning. IT was probably more like a few hours than 45 minutes - before the garroting. This would have been the time when John wrote the note, thinking her dead. Then the choking as part of the staging. He may or may not have known she was still alive. I'm thinking he didn't know. Of course he could have taken her pulse. We don't know.

      Delete
    2. I originally thought the head blow came first and the garrote and sexual part could have been either an actual attack or part of the kidnapping staging by JR to protect Burke from responsibility for the head blow. Thinking it over more, I decided the staging theory was off the table (only the garrote and sexual part, not the rest). It was horrible and unnecessary and exposed JR to more risk. It was supposed to be a kidnapping for money so doing that to the body just made it look more suspicious. So that only leaves either BDI did it (sorry to be gross, but sort of playing with the body) or it was an actual sexual assault by JDI, meaning that he first hit her, then did the other things. Or he was doing the sexual part, then hit her to shut her up, then garroted her. So, then I thought, well Burke couldn't have possibly made that garrote so it must have been JR. But I reconsidered that also. Burke spent most of his time in his room playing video games, apparently. Were they violent games? We don't know at this point what other kinds of things he was exposed to-did he have an unmonitored computer or TV, could he have gotten access to violent or pornographic books or magazines? We do know that he had previously attacked JBR, and seems to have several attributes of an autistic disorder-fecal smearing, sudden temper outbursts, social awkwardness, emotional distance from others, lack of empathy. The last three would explain his odd demeanor during his interview -EXCEPT, failure to recognize a bowl of pineapple, and reenacting the head blow. That to me is an indication of guilt. The garrote knot looked complicated on TV but maybe it wasn't . A nine year old boy is more than intellectually capable of making a garrote. And to say he wouldn't be curious enough about sex to take an opportunity to explore is just naive. Remember-emotional detachment and lack of empathy. It wouldn't even occur to him what he was doing was wrong. This would also explain the train track pokes-make sure she's not going to wake up and start screaming. So JR stumbles upon this scene, who knows how many hrs after? Now, we've gone from a head blow in a fit of anger, to a head blow, strangling, and sexual penetration. All the more reason not to call anyone, and try to cover it up. The other option is JR decides to molest his daughter on Christmas night and ends up killing her.

      Delete
    3. You guys are missing a big point here, the head blow was not evident as there was no breaking of skin and thus no blood. Therefore it is possible that Burke hit her on the head and she fell to the floor and then Burke chocked her to death. It was these chock marks and possibly scratch marks that were evidence of her death to the parents. They would not have known that she was struck in the head. That's why the flashlight was not hidden but on clear display in the kitchen because the parents would not have known that it was used for the head blow.

      Delete
    4. That's a good point. All JR would have seen is the garrote and the sexual attack.

      Delete
    5. OP here. I find it too hard to believe that Burke made a sadistic sophisticated asphyxiation device with homemade supplies to torture and molest his sister on christmas morning so I'm ruling that out entirely.

      So then factoring in the above posters point that John wouldn't have seen the head wound... the only scenario then for BDI is that Burke hits JB with a flashlight over the head and then grabs her neck and chokes her to death. John comes downstairs and sees JB dead and decides to put a garotte around JB's neck to cover for his son. However, that doesn't make sense because if John's plan had gone right no one would see JB again, so why go through the trouble of making a torture device to cover for the fact that your son choked your daughter to death? He would have just hid her body in the cellar and not gone through the trouble of covering up the choking.

      There is no scenario in BDI where John isn't the one who ties the garotte and finishes his daughter.

      For that reason I believe we can rule out BDI and rule in John alone.

      Delete
    6. The bowl of pineapple and flashlight left out on the kitchen table is just more evidence to me that BDI. Both those items would have been removed if the parents knew they were connected to the crime.

      Delete
    7. So then you believe Burke made the garotte and tortured his sister and smashed her head and his parents covered for him?

      I mean... realy?

      Delete
    8. The head blow came first, probably in a fit of anger. She was then unconscience (and would never wake up again given the severity of the blow). The garrote would not have tortured her because she was in a coma. And yes, his parents covered for him. Is that more unbelievable than Patsy covering for JR ? She covered for someone--she didn't go to her grave thinking JBR was killed by foreign faction kidnappers.

      Delete
  64. When John was interviewed by Barbara Walters in 2015 he said he lost everything and he was destitute. He said "you really should give your checkbook to someone else when something like this happens." What was he implying that he was spending money like a bandit? He probably was, on attorneys, on PR experts, and the like. Is he saying someone should take your checkbook so that you don't spend it on lawyers to keep the police away from you? It's doubtful he meant that. He had three homes, all of the mansions, two planes and a boat. He also sold his company Access Graphics, a profitable company, for a (probably) large sum. Did all of his money go to attorneys? Maybe he's referring to the small company he started up after all this, that went belly up.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I think it's hard to come up with any plausible theory that works on every level, I think the Ramseys were a fucked up family in the ways that rich people families can be fucked up, John was always gone on business and philandering, Patsy was a bored rich housewife trying to live out her empty pageant dreams through her daughter while coping with illness and Burke was the awkward other son that didn't validate anyone. We don't really know what John and Patsy were thinking when everything happened, John had already lost a daughter and now JonBenet is dead. We didn't have the Internet back then to look things up, they probably didn't know if Burke could be taken from them from murdering his sister and the thought of losing both her children as well as completely losing any respect and status(in their mind) in their community pushed one or both of them to go to extremes to cover this up, I think some evidence points to the idea that they were going to dump JonBenets body but I don't think Patsy could handle The idea of her daughters little body rotting in a dumpster so they decided to do the staging as a back up. Also the CBS show noted that her arms were above her head and we're rigormortise, and to me that indicates that Burke dragged her body to try and hide it, John or Patsy could easily carry her tiny body and a parent would never drag their child in such a way to move it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I think one valuable thing CBS did was show that when John was asked to search the house around 1 p.m., and he took Fleet White with him, the first place he ran down to was the basement. He pointed out the broken window to Fleet White and then opened the wine cellar door that was bolted at the top of the door. He opens the door and screams something and runs and picks up JonBenet and runs upstairs with her. The room was pitch black. CBS showed this - you would not have been able to see what was inside the room .....yet John knows it's JonBenet in there and picks her up and runs upstairs with her. Thanks CBS! Yet CBS doesn't draw the conclusion that JR knew she was in there. Again, afraid of a lawsuit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CBS people did a good job of debunking the intruder theory, I'll grant them that. So did Steve Thomas and James Kolar before them. Where things get sticky is figuring out which of the Ramseys did what. On that point, imo, they stumbled. Maybe they were just trying too hard.

      Delete
  67. I personally am torn between JR and BR, but I believe whoever did it, did all of it. The garrote and restraints were not part of a cover up, vaginal penetration was not part of a cover up, I believe all of it was part of a very sick act by one of them. The impact to the skull could have happened before she was tied up, or during (perhaps she tried to get away). I don't believe any parent would go to the sick extremes used to cover up a head injury, it could easily have been explained away as an accident. My only reasoning for thinking it was BR was that he seeemed to have behavioral problems, like scatalogical behaviors, the family was reported to have been given books by PR's parents, with titles like "when Johnny doesn't know wrong from right" "growing up too fast", it was also reported that a dictionary was dog eared to the page for 'incest'. This leads me to believe that BR may have been sexually abusing JBR, however, I also believe that if that is the case, that he had likely been abused himself, perhaps JR was abusing both of them. One theory that kind of stuck with me was that perhaps BR was acting out a "tied to the traintracks" scenario with JBR which he could have easily seen in movies, it could account for the train track punctures, being tied up etc. The ransom note was a cover up, although I don't feel confident in who wrote it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good that you are intelligently trying to work it out Peegee. But for me what changed me from the BDI to JDI was going to the beginning of Doc G's blog, also reading as much of his kindle book as I could, then following all of his hypothesis up to this point. I think he has logically put as much of the pieces together of this mysterious case as is possible. Can't account for everything of course, but he uses logical inference rather than just opinion. I don't know if you want to go all the way back to the beginning of his blog site but I think it might be useful. Just a suggestion.

      Delete
  68. Ok. my biggest question? Will all the new interpretations, forensic technology... result in examining the evidence with the latest methods?

    And can this case be opened in order to process the new discoveries? ~CG

    ReplyDelete
  69. The two nails in John Ramsey's innocence coffin are:

    1) Patsy would not have called 911 with JB in the house if she was in on it. I don't care what you think the 911 call says, or how similar Patsy's handwriting is, or that she didn't change her clothes. She would not have called the police with her dead daughter in the house. Period. End of story. Patsy can be ruled out.

    So therefore the only suspects left are Burke and John. Which leads to nail number two:

    2) Burke Ramsey did not build an asphyxiation device with homemade supplies and torture his sister on christmas morning. He was 9. No way. So then John must have tied to garotte in the BDI scenario, however John would have found JB dead or alive, which in either case he would have had no need to use the garotte. If she's dead put her downstairs and commence operation fool Patsy. If she's alive call an ambulance because your daughter might be saved. There is no scenario where John innocently ties the garotte.

    So that means Patsy is ruled out by the 911 call.

    Buke is ruled out by the garotte.

    And therefore John and John ALONE is guilty. (unless he was truly sick and had an intruder with him).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the garrote could be explained in a manner that most normal people would rather not have to think about: as an erotic device. No, not erotic strangulation, because she was already unconscious, and John may have thought she was dead. I think he may have been sexually aroused during the entire episode, with the strangulation representing some sort of climax. This would explain the carefully tied knot, which for him could have had a ritualistic significance.

      I just now watched Dateline's version of the Diane Holik case, in which the killer, Anthony Russo, could only become aroused if he was choking a woman. He actually subscribed to a porno website that specialized in that sort of thing.

      That case is interesting also because they were unable to positively place him in Holik's house and that lack of evidence made prosecution very difficult. It was an essentially circumstantial case, with no solid evidence -- but he was convicted nonetheless - and I have no doubt he was guilty.

      Delete
  70. I don't understand why PR's making the 911 call makes her innocent. People call 911 all the time, even when they've murdered their spouse, etc and try to claim all sorts of things. Oh, I walked in and found him/her dead, oh it was self defense, oh the gun went off by accident..You name it, people have done it trying to get away with murder. In the case of Susan Smith...she called 911 and said she was carjacked. What does calling 911 have to do with anyone's innocence? I don't get that at all.

    BR was a troubled kid and was probably molesting his sister along with physically abusing her for awhile..hence the word incest being looked up, and the friend saying he was jealous and aggressive. A 9 year old child is capable of murder. Those two parents probably didn't have a clue as to what was going on beneath them, as the bedrooms were far enough away from them where they wouldn't know. They were negligent, which is why the GJ found them both guilty and decided to indict them.

    If JR was molesting his daughter and she threatened to tell, he wouldn't have needed a garotte to kill her. He could've done it with his bare hands, quite easily. The fact that the body was wiped clean and the RN was disguised with lettering purposely changed, indicates the killer/s didn't want anyone to be able to link the crime to them.

    EG

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't understand why PR's making the 911 call makes her innocent."

      It's not the 911 call in itself. It's the contradiction between staging a kidnapping with a phony ransom note and then calling 911 with a body in the house, thus undermining the staging outlined in the note.

      Delete
  71. Let's not get hung up on the garrote, it's not a sophisticated device. Just a stick with rope wrapped around it and tied in a knot, usually used to strangle someone easier if you're not that strong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The books given to the Ramseys by PRs parents as mentioned by Peegee: "When Johnny Doesn't know Wrong from Right", "Growing Up Too Fast", dictionary dog eared on the "incest" page-interesting. I don't have anything against Burke, I would just like for Burke and JR to tell the truth and accept responsibility for once. And say you're sorry! JonBenet and Patsy deserve that. If it was JR he needs to go to jail.

      Delete
  72. It is clear to me that it was an inside job.

    How it exactly happenned none of us will really know for sure unless someone confesses. I find the father to be arrogant and rude. I find the mother to be very sweet and most likely verbally abused by JR. You can tell by the interviews they took that PR was not the brightest light in the shed and JR is an asshole. This doesn't mean anything in terms of who did it but, it does explain the tale of the tape in my eyes especially in the live TV interview where Patsy is shaking her head NO and then JR says something totally different and she quickly changes her facial actions. I feel JR ochestrated the entire thing to cover up whatever did happen that night. There is no mistake that the tombstone says Dec 25th for a reason. If it was wrong and I was the father or mother I would immediately demand it be changed afterall money is not an object for these millionaires. My gut says BR was protected here and there was a bigger family issue going on that evening than we were led to believe. BR was up playing downstairs by his own admission but the parents say everyone was in bed by 10:30 PM. How did the pineapple get in JBR system? She went downstairs on her own to serve herself this food? Do not underestimate a child and their ability to hit their sister/brother on purpose or not. It happens and later in the night after a long day tempers probably flare more when kids are tired and cranky.

    The Flashlight, The Pineapple, The train track mark, The bogus note, JR's behaviour before and after, the parents conflicting interviews, and the creepy son lead me to feel they were all or partly involved somehow and someway.

    This is my opinion after studying the shows and the evidence through the various interviews that JR and PR gave on record.

    Lets start with the note which PR found. She doesn't remember what she did with it other than glancing at the first part from a distance and then immediately checking on JBR. She never goes into BR room but, yells for JR. This makes no sense of a mother of two kids. You would have grabbed BR immediately and get him up and keep him with you. Before they care for him and without reading the note in its entirety they call the Police. The note says if you do call the authorities your daughter will DIE. You would think someone between PR and JR would take a quick minute to read the note in detail. In the interviews the NOTE is treated like a HOT POTATOE. They are both educated people and have no reason to not quickly read the note in its entirety before making the call. It takes less than 1 minute. JR doesn't even reach or go immediately for a weapon to protect his family but instead lays the note on the floor to read it under a light in his underwear while PR is on the phone calling 911. Wouldn't it be natural instinct to protect your family at all costs especially your wife and son by grabbing a knife or a bat or anything and/OR keeping everyone together at the very minimum. Instead JR disappears in the AM before anyone arrives and leaves BR in his bed and PR in the house alone. PR says, I dont know where JR was? Are you kidding me?! Why wouldn't JR wait until the cops come over or at least the friends before disappearing? How long does it take to quickly put a shirt and pants on? Miss Beauty queen herself decides to wear the exact same outfit as the night before? She dresses JBR to the nines all the time but for her she is ok wearing the same clothes the morning of a long flight to MN. Are you kidding me?

    ReplyDelete
  73. Here's an interesting thought: a good prosecutor actually doesn't need to disprove BDI to convict John. They only need to prove:
    1.) IDI is impossible
    2.)Patsy could not have done it alone
    3.) she was still alive when she was garotted
    If u can prove those two facts u can convict John regardless of whether there is remaining ambiguity as to the specifics. There should be enough charges to put him behind bars for the rest of his life. I believe this is actually what BPD tried to do with grand jury (although they threw patsy in too, possibly to see which one would crack or turn on the other).
    -Sandhill

    ReplyDelete