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.
I am not going to get involved in all the arguing going on in here, but I ran across this story by accident that I thought you all might like to read. It is about an 8 year old boy who is a serial killer, he strangled his baby sister then disposed of her body. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/01/india.randeepramesh%3f0p19G=e?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
Keiser, as many have said here countless times - it is not an impossible scenario for a young boy to kill his sister. It's relatively rare, but it certainly isn't unheard of. No one is disputing that, let's get this straight. What IS unbelievable is to accept that any parent would cover it up by finishing off the dying daughter with a garrote, stage a phony kidnapping - all the while managing to compose a three page ransom note even in their state of absolute grief, shock and horror - then complete the scene with a very unnecessary sexual assault (who really wants to violate their dead daughter's vagina just for dramatic effect?)
Now, when you cite another case that includes all of these elements, I'll definitely consider your point of view.
Why would the parents have to finish her off with a garotte ? This 8 yr old boy strangled his sister then disposed of her body. If an 8 yr old can do that im pretty sure an almost 10 yr old can do pretty much the same thing. Also, the parents if the child in the story above covered up 2 murders this child committed. You need to read the story before yelling at me ;)
I wasn't "yelling" at you, I was being polite. Where were the all caps and exclamation points to indicate I was yelling? This is getting ridiculous, you guys really think everyone's out to get you, don't you? You take everything so damn personally, wow!
O.K, thanks for clarifying......it's very difficult to tell, as a couple of others have really been getting their knickers in a twist lately whenever others disagree ;) Going by your posts, I always assumed you were BDI (I figured that's why you posted the link)......so you must be IDI or PDI in that case?
I think I am DADI now, Lol.(Devils Advocate) I began this case in its early days as a JDI, I over a few years was swayed to PDI and was there until I read Foreign Faction which left me comfused and in limbo. Now I have no clue and I take the evidence and theories as they come. There is no other way as I see it in this case. I am the same person who just a bit ago confirmed Doc's theory that after much studying believe JR wrote the RN. I, as much as anyone would like to have JR or BR on the stand. What I will do is argue and point or theory that I do not believe to be true in search of the truth.
The 1 thing that IMO, I feel is a fact is that at some point, PR knew and was in on the cover up. Me and Doc have had many a debate over this topic. PR's involvement throws many a theory into a tailspin.
But do you think it possible that B hit her and that then J, believing that an emergency trip to the doctor could reveal his abuse, proceeded to stage the elaborate murder scene? Burke went to bed that night just in trouble thinking everything was fine. And J, perhaps later, layers on the guilt to B that no one could know he hit her or he too would be taken away? Something like that?
If that's the case, I don't think Burke would be appearing on Dr Phil. I think it's safe to say that we'd never hear from him again if he was complicit in any way, in fact. If you got away with murder for twenty years, would you open yourself up to scrutiny again? I know I sure as hell wouldn't - I'd thank my lucky stars I escaped justice, let CBS say what they wish (especially if it's true anyway), and keep my mouth shut as I have done for the past twenty years.....
I've considered that possibility, Ajax. It's just that I don't find it very likely. I prefer to keep things simple. If it quacks like a duck . . . like that.
What I see is that the preponderance of evidence points to John and only John, and there is more than enough probably cause to indict him -- or at the very least arrest him and insist that he'd better answer some very tough questions or be prosecuted for murder.
While one can't totally rule out the possibility you suggest, it's only a possibility and an unlikely one at that, and I see no reason to give John a pass on that basis.
I have followed this case, as others here, since it began in 1996. I have followed this particular blog since its inception, having been made aware of it early on by a co-worker who told me I should read it as it uncannily mirrored my theories regarding this case, which I espoused quite frequently to anyone who would care to listen. I retired recently after 30 years in law enforcement at the military, state, and Federal levels. Much of my career consisted of working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), retiring as a high-level administrator within the BOP. I worked for several years at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina. For those of you who are not familiar with it, FCC Butner consists of the largest medical (both physical and psychological) complex for the BOP. There are more than 5000 Federal inmates incarcerated there. Within its mission, it encompasses the most comprehensive sexual offender treatment program (SOTP) in the U.S., which fortunately, or unfortunately, depending how you look at it, brings me to my point. I’ve read many posts here recently that promote the theory that JR had no previous instances (at least known to the public) of incest or child sexual abuse, so therefore, there is no evidence that he could have committed this crime, based on this theorized motive alone. Based on my professional experience, I can attest that this understanding is totally misconstrued. Although against my better judgement of weighing in on these discussions…lol, I finally decided I should take the plunge and try and put to rest some of these myths that are so inherently superglued to by a few posters on this blog. You probably know who you are at this point. Here’s why: our statistics show that 80% of child pornographers had no prior felony convictions. Of those offenders, 99.15% were male (.85% were female). The average median age of the offender was 42 years. The minimum was 16 years of age. Over half of those offenders had at least some college (many were Ph.D. candidates). Here’s a glaring highlight: Although 75% of those offenders denied any “hands-on” contact with children during their trial phase, over 80% of those same offenders ADMITTED to “hands-on” sexual contact with children post-conviction and during the assessment protocol upon entering the SOTP. Many of those offenders, of which I was in daily contact with, were fathers involved in child sexual abuse with daughters, and in some instances, their sons. As part of the protocol, each inmate was subjected to a psychosexual assessment, which most often included a plethysmograph, which is a tool to measure sexual arousal as the inmate is exposed to sexually suggestive content, such as pictures or a movie, ultimately evoking a response to stimuli depicting children. Trust me folks, there were no readily identifiable “monsters.” Most of these inmates would pass for any thoughtful, well-heeled next-door-neighbor type that you probably would trust leaving your child with. And through this unparalleled assessment program, we found that distortions in the inmates thinking made it impossible for them to take an honest look at their sexual behavior, e.g., they were able to function as ordinary every day citizens, unbeknownst to the average joe as anything but. They were able to conveniently and classically assign their actions to some justifiable-reasoning framework in their mind.
To summarize, sadly, an enormous segment of our adult population has engaged in the (always) inappropriate sexual contact with children, but are inherently (for many reasons) able to hide their actions from others, such as a spouse. Statistics show that most of these offenders were able to hide their inclinations and abusive mannerisms until the moment they were caught, no less. Their victims were reluctant to spill the beans for a variety reasons, such as the fear of shame, rejection by others and of course, assuming personal blame (i.e; I’ve done something to warrant this behavior of a parent). Therefore, saying there were no signs of previous abuse by JR is a non-sequitur for me – the bare facts show otherwise. I watched the CBS documentary with the same intense curiosity as the rest of you, but I arrived at the exact same conclusions as DocG – the end result was much more a contrived drama to secure viewers than a logical discourse on the provenance of this heinous crime. The facts (and logical inference), as DocG, et al, has so eloquently and coherently outlined, point to one solitary perpetrator only. If you strip out the “morass” as he puts it, as well as the red herrings, and boil it down to the essential common denominators, there is only one conclusion, and it does not include BR and/or PR.
Thanks for the post. Was a good one. But can you please post any evidence that JDI. Even the teeniest tiniest bit of evidence you can muster up. I'm honestly hoping you can come up with something because Ive read every comment on this blog and havent read anything close to evidence that implies JDI. Thanks, looking forward to your reply.
Thank you for your informative post. I have a question for you. I know you've said those most offenders are able to hide their crime right up to the very moment they get caught. However, once caught, wouldn't there be other evidence that would further cement the case. For instance, there was no child pornography on JR's computer, or anywhere else. His other daughter said he was nothing but a loving father. This leads one to believe that he only molested JBR and had no inclination to do so with anyone else, or look at child porn sites or pictures? Is that something you've found with other offenders you've come into contact with? Just curious.
There is no evidence that points definitively to one particular perp, as you know from prior discussions; hence the myriad theories. You've just found one you can support now, thanks to the recent TV specials, but there's no evidence against Burke either. CC
My very first inclination when this case occured, before it was ever mentioned on the news, was that JR was molesting his daughter and killed her. After some time and even moreso now, the facts of this case that have come out have changed my thinking. In a case where you say, for instance, a 6 year old girl was killed in her house and sexually assaulted, she was found murdered in her bedroom. Well my very first thought would be the father in the house is responsible. However, in this case you have many other facts and variables than my above parody. Surely the statistical probability would be 75%(example number) or whatever the statistic is, that the father was molesting his daughter. So that leaves 25% (example number) of the time where it is not the father. In this case, you have an obviously disturbed BR, who JBR slept with, in the same bed, on a regular basis. To me, this greatly increases the statistical possibility that BR was "sticking things in his sister". That coupled with the fact that if it was JR, following through on killing his daughter, then I would fully expect penile penetration to have occured and the motive to being to hide that. Anyone killing their daughter because they had "stuck a finger in her" just does not hold much validity to me. BR has swung things at JBR's head more than once and he is in therapy for some reason, before and after JBR's death. For incestual molestation possibly ? That would be a good reason the Ramseys would not let go of the medical records. That coupled with my biggest problem with this case, PR. She knew, she helped cover up and that is the 1 area of the case that I am sure of. I will not accept that ANY mother whose daughter was sexually assaulted and killed by her husband would turn a blind eye to that. Let alone stay married and sleep next to that person. I know and understand that some mothers turn a blind eye to molestation, as Fred pointed out above, of their daughter by a family member but no one would turn a blind eye to their daughter being murdered and what occured in that house. Statistics really mean nothing in this case because there is no evidence to substantiate any involvement of JR. All there is, are statistics, stories of other fathers who have molested their daughters and based on that, many here come to the conclusion that is the common or "most likely" scenario. For all we know the murder and molestation may be 2 totally seperate incidents with 2 different suspects and the vaginal penetration being done to hide prior molestation. Just because fathers molest their daughters does not mean that is what occured in this case and we are not just talking about molestation any longer but murder. I also do not find the blow to the head consistent with what JR would want to do to kill JBR, as that could have very easily been very messy and then surely incriminating. Why not just strangle her to begin with ? Again we can only assume things with the information that we have available. I would love to see JR put on the stand and have to answer some things but that is not going to happen, unfortunately.
Keiser Sozay, didn't you read any of what Fed just said??? It is more than possible John wasn't molesting anyone else, aside from his daughter. And how do we know he hasn't molested his other daughters? Two of them are dead, so they'll never tell.....
Of course its possible John was molesting JBR. But its also possible theres a much simpler explanation. Anyway not going to harp on because youve it heard it all before.
Considering all of the circumstantial evidence, I believe that IS the "simpler explanation". There is nothing remotely simple, or rational, about the BDI theory. It is the single most, convoluted theory, I have ever heard.
You're a BDI, aren't you, Zed? So, tell me, you really think the "simpler explanation" is that two, otherwise loving parents, decided to finish off their daughter in the most gruesome way possible in order to deflect attention away from their son? They could have called 911, or even staged an accident, but no, they go all out by defiling their beloved, dead daughter's body. Or perhaps you are in the camp that believes Burke did all of it before his parents discovered JB......the head blow, the garroting, the penetrating of JB's vagina? If so, the parents were still complicit enough to write a phony ransom note - none of which makes any sense if you're planning to call the cops before removing the body - even though they knew their son was a sadistic, psychopathic, monster?
Please enlighten me, how is this the "simpler explanation"?
Keiser, Patsy didn't "turn a blind eye" to John having murdered their daughter. Once he was erroneously ruled out as the writer of the note (which sounded the death knell in regards to the investigation ever being successfully solved, and I'm sure John still can't believe his luck), Patsy pushed her nagging doubts and fears aside and accepted that it must have been an intruder, because she knew it sure as hell wasn't her that committed the crime, so an intruder was the only other option, in her mind.
We know because his daughter that is alive spoke out long ago. It is possible JR did/was molesting JBR. You wont hear me say that its not. Would you or would you not expect JR to have had/have been having intercourse with her in order to want to murder her and have such a pyschopathic plan ?
No, it could be as simple as the night of JonBenet's murder whoever was molesting her murdered her because she said no and he couldn't stop abuse. Note 911 phone call on 12/23 didn't have to be related to JonBenet but if a molester was at that party they could certainly become paranoid that related to Jonbenet, there Jonbenet was at age where mom may discuss inappropriate touching. It could be as simple as on the night of the murder, whoever was molesting JBR tried to groom her into more abuse and JBR soiled herself, bit perp, screamed and perp slapped her/hit her over the head. It doesn't need to be about intercourse for a molester who couldn't quit molesting her to murder her in fit of rage. All hypothetically of course.
The Princeton Brookings Institute and others have done studies that indicate digital penetration is overwhelmingly the preferred method of abuse when pre-pubescent children are the victims. Google it; check for yourself. CC
Really ? I thought that the main goal of a molester was to have intercourse with the victim. Obviously it is a different mindset than adult sexual relationships but it seems like the goal would be the same.
I was molested for five years by my best friend's father (from the age of 9 - 14). He never attempted direct intercourse, though there was always penetration with fingers and various other objects, including a skipping rope handle. His brother had been molesting his daughter from the age of two, but it wasn't until age thirteen that the molestation turned into intercourse. She ended up becoming pregnant with her father's baby, and that is when the sexual abuse became known to the rest of the family (though I am almost certain some details were known prior to that - there were seven other girls that came forward after she admitted her abuse - my best friend and I being two of those girls - my friend's father used to often bring his brother over to participate). My point being, there are many forms of molestation, sometimes intercourse, sometimes digital penetration or whatever else the perpetrator has a penchant for, and most times, the victims don't speak up. I'm almost certain that had the girl in question not became pregnant, she would never have said a word about the abuse, and neither would have any of her friends. It is extremely shameful, embarrassing and stigmatizing to come out and say you have been violated. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Thank you, CC. I have thought about sharing my experience several times here before, but always deleted it before posting. However, after Fed's post, I figured now is the time to bring it up, as I feel it's relevant. I am quite tired of reading that John couldn't have molested JonBenet because no one else has ever come forward and accused him. Whether or not he molested JB, we can only speculate, but the fact no one else has ever come forward means nothing.
I feel it is important to add: my own experiences with sexual abuse do not cloud my judgement in regards to this case. Until a few years ago, I was a firm believer that an intruder committed this crime (as embarrassing as that admission is). I simply didn't have all of the facts, even though I had been following the case closely - I had only come across the possibility of 3 scenarios (PDI, BDI and IDI). John Ramsey had never factored into any of these scenarios - except for the ones where he had reluctantly assisted Patsy after the fact - which is why I was always left with more questions than answers. I am now a firm believer that JDI simply because, after gathering all the facts, it is the only logical conclusion one can draw, along with it being the only conclusion that makes sense of all of the "loose ends" the other theories inevitably presented.
I tried to find it CC but there are alot of Princeton Brookings webpages. If you have the link please post it. I found this article about children abusing other children. Doc was very wrong as far as his thinking that BR was too young to sexually abuse his sister. It happens at far younger ages than 9, and I am not just talking fingers but oral and sodomy. Crazy because I would have never thought it possible myself either. http://www.newsweek.com/when-kids-molest-kids-196410
The explanation in this blog requires that John spends probably 3-4 hours staging and writing, then going out the next day in broad daylight to dispose of the body. This runs a huge risk of Patsy realizing John is gone or Burke coming down and finding out what's happening, running the risk of Patsy or Burke finding a not-so-well hidden body, running the risk of Patsy calling 911 (which in this theory is what happened).
If I am John Ramsey and I have killed and staged JBRs death, and my plan is to dispose of the body, why wouldn't I just write a short ransom note and go out, in the dark, on Christmas night when few are out including cops, and dispose of the body? Seems like that would be far less risk.
I never said anything about John planning on dumping the body in broad daylight. He would certainly have waited till after dark. And as I've repeated many times, dumping the body on the night of the crime would be extremely risky. Less risky, by the way, if Patsy were a part of the conspiracy.
I wonder what your theory is, Tony, because if John and Patsy were in it together, then the same logic would apply, no? If the best bet were to dump her that night, then why wouldn't they have done that, if their in cahoots?
Unless your position is IDI? In that case you'd need to explain why the body was left in the house and not actually kidnapped. Or why the intruder would have left a meaningless note along with a dead body.
I am not saying the JDI theory isn't impossible, its just less likely than BDI.
My position is that Burke accidentally killed JBR. John and Patsy probably heard the fighting. Burke may have never realized he did it. One of them comes downstairs and finds JBR motionless. Both panic, but John quickly realizes there's going to be an autopsy. He's been abusing her and his DNA is in places it should not be. First and foremost he now needs to clean up the body. The problem is Patsy is right there, in shambles. This is where he comes up with the intruder idea under the guise of protecting Burke. The severity of the staging is to cover any previous markings. Patsy agrees because this is the second child John has lost and after all, if someone finds out, they can just admit it was Burke, it was an accident, and they didn't want to lose him. John instructs Patsy to write a LONG note. Take her time. Start over if its not right. Meanwhile John goes to work staging and cleaning. Maybe John proposed getting rid of the body, but Patsy wouldn't allow it, so leaving the house was not an issue.
They realize later John may have killed her. At that point there's no way they can just admit Burke did it.
I like the JDI theory. I just think this one makes more sense.
No John "may have killed her" about it - the garrote did kill her. Why, if they were working in tandem, didn't John complete the staging of the window? And why weren't their subsequent stories about it in synch? Sorry, Tony; that dog won't hunt. CC
I think we should look at Burke not so much as a sexual offender child as a Schizoid Personality Disorder child on the end of the autistic spectrum (autism - Asperger - schizoid). Impulsive behavior is a typical symptom of this disorder. However the cardinal symptom is "lack of empathy" of which Burke is a textbook example: from smiling at JBR's funeral to his attitude during the interviews with the LE to this interview with Dr Phil.
My belief is that he struck fatally his little sister in a fit of rage that Christmas night and JR convinced BR that they should cover up for him instead of calling the authorities. She should write the “ransom note” and he would take care of the rest.
The cover up was totally amateurish however and the only reason this case was not solved in the first 48h is because of BDP's incompetence and DA's reluctance to indict the "honorable" Ramseys.
Or maybe the DA understood very early the “tragic situation” and decided not to pursue further the parents. And being Greek I use the word "tragic" in its original meaning.
My questions to you, hioiam, are the same ones I directed to Tony, and the same ones I put to all BDIers: If John and Patsy were working in tandem, why didn't John complete the window staging? And why were their subsequent stories about it not in synch? CC
We dont know that he wasnt finished. Possibly he changed he changed his mind for whatever reason, he possibly got the idea that the edges of broken glass were noy dirty but clean as we did. I only say this because surely he had more than adequate time to complete anything he needed to.
Excuse me? Every BDIer posting here, including you, Inq, has insisted that Patsy was involved in the cover up. Now you're saying she and John weren't working together? What now, Patsy is solely responsible? Or was each staggering around the house, acting independently of one another?
And I'm sorry, KS, but that's just silly. He had no time at all after Patsy made the 911 call or there would have been glass on the floor, a smudged sill, and altogether better evidence of an intruder. CC
PR and JR's stories were pretty much in sync about the window. If it really were not broken then JR had to gaslight PR into believing that window had been broken for about 6 months. That is some good gaslighting, if possible. It would seem more logical to me that they had spoken about what to say about the window yet had not gone over fine details, such as who and when it was cleaned up. Which left PR in a position to come up with an answer, spur of the moment while being interrogated. If JR had gaslit her then surely she would have no memory of her and Linda cleaning it up. PR saying her and Linda cleaning it seems to me to be a last second, on the hotseat answer.
There was no need for a "last second, on the hot seat answer". They had four months in which to align their stories; the only reason they did not was because John acted alone. CC
John did all of it? All night long? Without being detected by Patsy who would have rolled over at some point in the night and noticed her husband was not in bed with her. Oh yeah, I forgot. He possibly slipped her a mickey over at the White's or when they got home.
'Cuse me, I meant to say the kidnap for ransom as stated in the note was Patsy's idea, Patsy authored the note and she couldn't be ruled out. John would have thought of a better scenario and a better note if he was let in on it. Don't you think so? CEO of Access Graphics, he would have come up with a better plan. I agree CC, if he had been in on the plan John would have thought of a better one. As is he had time after he was told and when he disappeared around 10 a.m. to make things look like an intruder. And yes, I agree Doc, he would not have called 911 until he could figure things out. That was completely her idea, and not a good plan but it was her plan.
I did not mean the broken glass obviously but JR was down in the basement more than once by himself that morning. Surely he could have been down there doing some staging. What that was nobody knows.
No, CC I was not quoting you or misquoting you. I was correcting myself, that I think if John was in on it he would have thought of a better plan. But as it turns out they kind of lucked into the plan working, as bumbling and stumbling as it was.
What "better plan" do you surmise he might have concocted in such a small amount of time? With dawn approaching and not being able to remove the body from the house, lest it wake Patsy, or the neighbors, John actually came up with a pretty decent plan, and one that included a written detail that accounted for everything when any questions were asked - which is just what I'd expect from a CEO of a billion dollar company: He came up with a pretty clever way of getting the body out of the house while still giving himself an alibi should he get caught in the location he planned to dump it (pure genius). He made sure to mention the size of the attache case in the note, lest someone should see John carrying out a large suitcase to his car on the very day his daughter goes missing (very clever indeed). He even gave himself some leeway, time wise, by including in his note that they were being monitored and therefore might arrange for an earlier delivery if he managed to pop into the bank a little earlier (Very accommodating kidnappers)! And, of course, he made sure - after scrapping his initial plan - to address the note solely to himself, being sure to put himself as the one in control - while making Patsy take a back seat - which is exactly what I'd expect from a CEO. So I'd say his plan was pretty solid, actually.....it was Patsy calling 911 that was the problem.
@Inquisitive, I'm re-posting a comment I left for you on the previous blog post. I want to make sure that you see it. It's in response to the following, which you said to CC:
"Okay, then what someone posted several days ago describing the law suit was perhaps superficial. I yield to you, you are the expert on things legal here. I do like information to be corrected, and complete, so thank you."
This was my response to that comment:
@Inquisitive, it was me who posted to you, regarding the complaint.
You said... InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM "I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"
I responded... HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM "@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."
Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.
Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.
Hi, CC. I have tried posting to you twice, but it will not show up. My comment is in reference to the one you made to me on the previous blog post. I just wanted to say, no apology necessary, but thank you. You are a class act.
Does anyone here have any information - published information - as to what time Patsy stated she went to bed that night, or Burke? (I'm guessing Burke got back out of bed anyway). I only find two places where John said he retired around 10 p.m., took his melatonin, read until approx. 10:30 and fell asleep shortly after - he says 10:30-10:45. However in that same "chronology" of events (and in the interview with BDP) there is a question mark after the time Patsy retired for the evening as well as Burke. I don't believe Patsy ever did go to bed that night. She would have had to have packed for two trips - Charlevoix and the "Big Red Boat" cruise. I believe after the event, Burke ran to tell his mother, who was already up, dressed, she may have even witnessed part of it, although that's a stretch as I'll never be able to substantiate that. When this all first happened in 1996 I at first believed it possible that John did not know what happened at all. That Patsy took the whole night to clean up the disaster and create the ransom note. That she took the white blanket from the drier and covered her daughter in it. In fact, she could not be ruled out from writing that note. Then that didn't completely jive because of the strangulation. But if look at it in the context of Burke having done all of it, then the other things could be explained by an "up all night" Patsy in her same clothing and make up, the coverup essentially, the note, the 911 call. Now did she at some point tell John? Oh I'm sure of it. He then did his "look around" early that morning, and then later in the morning, doing other things like disposing of evidence and breaking, then cleaning up the window glass. Moving the suitcase, etc. Anyway, all I wanted to ask here does anyone have anything I can look up where Patsy claims when she went to bed? And not just a statement from John that she was in bed. I also believe if you look at the pictures of their bedroom and bed wasn't there something about only one side of the bed looked slept in? That I'll have to look up again as that info I read 20 years ago. Thanks.
Here is what time she said she went to bed (BPD transcripts): April 30, 1997 TT: About what time did you head up to bed that night? PR: Um, probably around 9:30, 10:00 something like that.
JUNE 23, 1998 10 TOM HANEY: Approximately what time 11 did you get to sleep on the 25th? 12 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, I don't know 13 what time. I mean -- 14 TOM HANEY: We understand that-- 15 PATSY RAMSEY: Just before, I mean 16 it was 10 o'clock-ish. Probably something like 17 that. 18 TOM HANEY: When you actually went 19 to sleep? 20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was pretty 21 soon after I hit the bed, yeah, I was pretty 22 tired. 23 TOM HANEY: So about-- 24 PATSY RAMSEY: About 10:30-ish, I 25 think
Of course PR was involved in the cover up. She couldn't have pulled it off all by herself. JR ruled the roost and took charge of the situation, as he did in every other aspect of their lives.
If the head blow came first, then I believe it was a tragic accident, covered up by two desperate parents.
If the strangulation came first, then it was something entirely different perpetrated by a sick individual. The two lines around her neck indicate that the first one was tightened but not enough to kill her, but probably tight enough to make her scream, which might have caused the blow to the head, followed by the second tightening of the rope, which killed her.
Either scenario, there was a cover up. Only reason to write a RN is to mislead, which is exactly what happened. Tony made a good point--the RN should've been short and sweet, but it was long and full of advice, lines from movies, sarcasm, etc.I believe PR wrote that note, with JR adding something here and there.
I don't think a man would care if anyone got some rest, or carried the correct type bag, or grew a brain, or used his good Southern common sense. That letter SCREAMS female.
very good point EG. Of course we can speculate just when John was told, but I'm happy now to just feel that it all makes sense to me now. There were always those dangling things that didn't make sense to me, I couldn't make the pieces fit until now. IT does scream female. Thanks Anonymous for the script above. It sounds like she's trying to figure out how she should respond as to when she went to bed! John was very certain when he went to bed. 10p.m. he said, took his melatonin, read for a while, then estimated he must have fallen asleep around 10:30-10:45. Sounds like she has to go with his story that he said he thought she was already in bed so she has to make it 9:30, or wait a minute, maybe 10 or could it have been 10-ish? yep.
Has it occurred to you that there is a very good reason why John is clear on what time he went to bed, and Patsy is a little less sure? John's story is a well rehearsed fabrication. Patsy's is the truth, therefore she genuinely is a little unclear of the exact time she went to bed. I don't have a clock by my bed, so if you asked me what time I went to sleep, I could only narrow it down to an approximate, one hour, time frame. If I was making the story up, however, I could tell you *exactly* the time I went to bed.....I could also tell you ever, other thing I did right before hopping into bed, as John did, because I had very carefully memorized it.
Yes, PR was packing for two trips with TWO kids and she was in bed by 10, or so? JR took two melatonin pills so his head could be clear for the trip the next day. I guess they both slept through their daughter's scream that a neighbor across the street heard. It all stinks and none of it makes any sense.
Will be interesting to see how far Lin Wood gets. I am betting he gets nowhere.
If Lin focuses on Burke, and tricks the CBS lawyers to focus on Burke, then he will certainly win his case -- because there is no real evidence of Burke's involvement. Fingerprints on a bowl won't cut it. Some garbled noises on the 911 tape that sound like crosstalk won't cut it. Signs of "deception" based on pseudoscience won't cut it.
On the other hand, if the CBS lawyers are clever enough to downplay the Burke angle and concentrate on the intruder theory, then Lin may be forced to back off. If this goes to trial, we'll have a LOT to discuss for sure.
Why would Linn need to "trick" the CBS lawyers to focus on Burke? I had some comments/questions to you about this a couple a days ago, but never heard back from you. The only reply I received was from Inqisitive who dimissed everything I said, somewhat rudely in my opinion, with "this is a civil hearing, not a criminal one....it's all about the money." I thought you might at least come to my defense. If it was my question regarding your anonymity, I'd be glad to back off on that one. You obviously have your reasons for it you prefer not to share with me at this time, and that's fine with me.
But I stand firm by my suspisions (and please take note Inquistitive if you are reading this), that both sides are quite aware this isn't your run of the mill defemation suit- so, NO...it's not "all" about the money! Burke might think it is, but he's a pawn in a larger game with much greater stakes.
If CBS needs to be "tricked" into focusing on Burke, you must on some level agree with me that, should Lin suddenly drop the case, he may be seen, most importantly perhaps by CBS, that he is incriminating his other client John.
EG: "Yes, PR was packing for two trips with TWO kids and she was in bed by 10, or so? JR took two melatonin pills so his head could be clear for the trip the next day. I guess they both slept through their daughter's scream that a neighbor across the street heard. It all stinks and none of it makes any sense."
Firstly, you only have John's word he took a sleeping aid, don't you? To say he took one would fit in well with his alibi. There is zero evidence he actually did take any melatonin - after all, didn't he switch his dose from one to two over the course of the investigation? If so, that would indicate he is probably being untruthful. Secondly, if the scream came from the basement, there is every possibility it may not have been heard from the third floor - this scenario was tested, and verified. But, it was Lou Smit who proposed this idea, and I know he had an agenda, so I do take this with a grain of salt, admittedly. But, it is irrelevant really, as the "scream" heard could have been any number of noises, and may not mean much at all. It certainly doesn't point towards any, one, particular theory.
Mike G: As you may have noticed there has been an overwhelming number of comments lately. I simply don't have time to respond to every one, and in your case I have a feeling I somehow missed reading it. Sorry about that.
I don't think it's all about the money either. And if CBS offered an apology and retraction, that would probably be the end of it.
What interests me especially about this lawsuit is the complexity produced by its two different aspects. On the one hand, the question of whether Burke killed his sister, as alleged in the show, and on the other hand, the question of whether or not any intruder theory can be reasonably defended. I don't think the CBS investigators will be able to defend their BDI theory, as there is no evidence for it, only conjecture. But if they are as smart as they claim to be (doubtful), they may well be able to poke some huge holes into the intruder theory, especially the all-important DNA evidence that led to the "exoneration" of the Ramseys. This, I would imagine, would be an issue Lin would not want to address.
So if he manages to limit his lawsuit to their treatment of Burke, then as I see it he will have a slam dunk. But if things move in the direction of a critique of the intruder theory, and especially the DNA evidence, then he could be in serious trouble.
And yes, if he backs off that would look very bad for both John and Burke.
Some interesting information regarding DNA... http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/13/dna-wetterling-abduction http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/13/dna-match Minnesota Linda
The idea that Patsy wrote the ransom letter WITH the body in the house and then calling the police is absurd. People would rather blame her or Burke because the idea of John as a molester is mind boggling to them. Smdh! John has spent the last 20 years lying and manipulating the public and the police.
"If the head blow came first, then I believe it was a tragic accident, covered up by two desperate parents."
So the blow to the head was an unfortunate accident, thus they decided they may as well brutally finish her off by tying a garrote around her neck? That is still cold blooded murder, no matter which way you spin it.
"If the strangulation came first, then it was something entirely different perpetrated by a sick individual."
I would suggest, that even if the strangulation came second, it was still perpetrated by "a very sick individual". You do realize there were many other ways to cover for the blow to the head without resorting to using a garrote and vigorous, vaginal penetration, right? It just doesn't follow that this is the natural course of action to take after an accident occurs!
"The two lines around her neck indicate that the first one was tightened but not enough to kill her, but probably tight enough to make her scream, which might have caused the blow to the head, followed by the second tightening of the rope, which killed her."
Wrong. A. You can't scream whilst being choked, your lungs require air in order to scream. B. The blow to the head came a good 40 minutes, or longer, before the strangulation occurred, making your theory completely impossible, along with showing you haven't done your homework.
"Only reason to write a RN is to mislead, which is exactly what happened. Tony made a good point--the RN should've been short and sweet, but it was long and full of advice, lines from movies, sarcasm, etc.I believe PR wrote that note, with JR adding something here and there."
It was "long and full of advice" for a very, specific, purpose, and that is what everyone here keeps missing. Once you realize the true purpose of the note, there is no one else but John who could have written it. John needed to get Patsy and Burke out of the house so he could remove the body - to buy this time, he (under the guise of the intruder), had to outline his plan very carefully. The very fact the note is NOT "short and sweet", but full of very specific details actually points to it being more than just a red herring to throw off the cops, in which case it most certainly would have been "short and sweet".
"I don't think a man would care if anyone got some rest, or carried the correct type bag, or grew a brain, or used his good Southern common sense. That letter SCREAMS female."
And you think after reluctantly finishing off her daughter, Patsy would really care if John was well rested or not, lol? Or what size bag he took to the bank?! Again, there is a very specific reason the note asks John to bring an "adequate size attache", and to "be well rested", and one that has been covered here many times, and when one accepts why this is (and it's pretty, damn, obvious - let's face it) then it is rather clear that the author of the note is the very same person the note is addressed to.
I don't think PR would cover for JR AT ALL in any way, shape or form.
I am saying BDI, and his parents covered for him. That kid had problems, and you don't know and I don't know the how's the why's or the what's. We are ALL posting what we think MIGHT have happened.
I just don't think JR was molesting his daughter. There was NO EVIDENCE found anywhere. I do think BR might have been, though.
And yes, I am entitled to my opinion. And no, I don't agree with yours, BUT you're entitled to have it, nontheless.
Yep EG and it's even possible to consider that in Burke's mind it wouldn't be "molesting" or doing something for sexual gratification. More like tormenting and rough inappropriate play. Because I do agree that there was previous damage and as the coroner said, most probably digital, how frequent? don't know. But prior. And Burke.
EG: "I don't think PR would cover for JR AT ALL in any way, shape or form."
I wholeheartedly concur.
"I am saying BDI, and his parents covered for him. That kid had problems, and you don't know and I don't know the how's the why's or the what's. We are ALL posting what we think MIGHT have happened."
Burke may have had some problems......though, I do believe you're all obviously suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias, as you start with the premise that BDI, thus, you have no choice but to employ some rather mind contorting, mental gymnastics in order to make sure everything lines up with with your conclusion. You can say all you like that the JDI camp are merely stating "what they THINK happened", and of course, you are correct. But that assumption is based on everything we have learned from this case, not just some random, shot in the dark conclusion.
"I just don't think JR was molesting his daughter. There was NO EVIDENCE found anywhere. I do think BR might have been, though."
So you have evidence that Burke was molesting his sister? Please present it here then. Or you just "think" he was because you don't like the idea that John was?
"And yes, I am entitled to my opinion. And no, I don't agree with yours, BUT you're entitled to have it, nontheless."
You most certainly are entitled to your opinion, and no one here has ever stated otherwise. Just ask yourself what your opinion is based on. Doc's theory makes sense of all those nagging questions the BDI/IDI/RDI theories can't answer. With every other theory, there are still too many unanswered questions, which is why I came here, two years ago, to begin with. I was firmly an IDI, but I had a couple of nagging questions that I desperately wanted answers for, so I read Doc's blog - as I had so many other blogs - and it all became patently obvious who, alone, was responsible for this crime once I looked at the ransom note with the knowledge it wasn't simply a rambling piece of nonsense to confuse the cops, and that it actually had a very specific purpose. The ransom note is not a distraction, it is KEY to solving the crime. Once people realize this, there is nowhere else to look, but John.
Every, single thing in that note is exactly what John needed to happen (hence it being addressed to John, and only John) in order to remove the body from the house, while still having an alibi for the suit case, the drive to an obscure location and, most importantly, buy him a lot of TIME.
This from HK (I think), who wasn't able to post it here for some reason:
@Inquisitive, I'm re-posting a comment I left for you on the previous blog post. I want to make sure that you see it. It's in response to the following, which you said to CC:
"Okay, then what someone posted several days ago describing the law suit was perhaps superficial. I yield to you, you are the expert on things legal here. I do like information to be corrected, and complete, so thank you."
This was my response to that comment:
@Inquisitive, it was me who posted to you, regarding the complaint.
You said... InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM "I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"
I responded... HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM "@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."
Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.
Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.
It was not a "misinterpretation of information." I read about defamation law suits, wanted to know if Burke was considered a public figure, got my answer but the superficial answer (not meaning intentionally misleading, but the meaning of the word as "incomplete" was not given by HKH). And by the way, still waiting for that quote from Brookings Institute.
I have no idea what you mean by "but the meaning of the word as "incomplete" was not given by HKH." Nor do I know what quote you're waiting for. Was that last sentence directed at me?
DocG, I'd like to ask you a question. I believe you started this blog around 2012, correct? You wrote a book for kindle and you tried to interest LE in Boulder to consider John as the author of the note and explained why. You asked several questions as to why he was ruled out and said the case would have gone in a different direction if he had been ruled in. You got no response, am I understanding this? In fact no one was very interested in your theory even as well written and thought out as it was. So you started a blog site and by all accounts a successful one as it has been up and running for some time now, although I went back to 2012 and saw there weren't near the amount of participants that there are here now. This is probably due to the 20 year anniversary and the spate of television shows currently. But I'm interested, why did you start this blog site? What are your goals where it is concerned? have you met your goals for a successful exchange of ideas, or do you just want agreement? Do you encourage dissenting opinions, even when they can be verified, or is the purpose to have others on here who just agree with you? I mean there is a difference between educating someone, correcting misinformation and just plain ridiculing someone and calling them preposterous or ignorant as I have read in here. I sure as heck don't need a parental school teacher figure wrapping me on the knuckles every now and again. I'm beginning to think honest discourse is not the goal here at all. Or questioning. You said we were rehashing the same stuff and asked if anyone had anything new, yet when someone does have something new if it doesn't fit then here come the verbal critiques and reprimands. So I'm satisfied that I have made the pieces of this case fit for me now after being in mystery for 20 years and it's certainly not what I would have done say in the example of your straw poll, but it is what the Ramsey's did. But you have gotten your theory out there and now what? More agreement and disagreement? Is there any action being forwarded? What action would you like to see forwarded? Or is this just a bitch fest? What is your purpose for this blog site now, four years after you started it. I'm glad I worked it out for myself, the rest of it is very toxic and J or Zed if you ever want to email me let's work that out.
I await Doc's response to your post, along with you. I hope it doesn't end up on the cutting room floor as my post did a few days back. As I stated, I thought this was about brainstorming, sharing ideas, maybe coming to some conclusions, etc. Instead it's a platform for insulting and ridiculing people. Such a shame, really.
I'd like very much to keep in touch with you as well. I loved your posts and learned a lot about the case from them and thanks for that.
Hope this post stays here, so you actually see it.
I started this blog because I had ideas about the case that no one else seemed to share and I honestly felt I'd solved it. I wasn't ready to write a book at the time so I decided to start a blog, basically to get my ideas out there, in the hope that they might contribute to a solution to this case, and hopefully an indictment of the person I felt to be the guilty party.
As word got out, I received more and more comments, many in the form of questions, which I felt obliged to answer. The basic logic of the case is spelled out in the first three posts, but there were many other issues that needed to be addressed, which led to many additional posts.
I've always encouraged comments, first because I enjoy discussing the case and considering all the different possibilities, second because I was curious to see if anyone had found any holes in my theory that I was unable to account for. So far, as I see it, there have been none, but there were some issues that required further exploration and a certain amount of speculative thinking to work out. One good example is the question of whether the murder had been premeditated or not, which for me is still an open question, though originally I had discounted it.
I did contact some people from LE, sending them a link to the blog, in the hope that they might be willing, at the very least, to look into some of the issues I raised -- but I never got any response from any of them. Understandable because they no doubt are bombarded constantly by people with theories.
As far as my "insults" are concerned, if you go to any of the other websites where this case, or just about any case, is discussed, you will find a great many insults being hurled left and right and a great many posts and posters being censored or even banned. My policy has been to avoid insulting or demeaning anyone and to avoid banning anyone regardless of whether or not they agree with me -- though in a very few cases I've banned obvious spammers and/or trolls with nothing to contribute but insults and personal attacks. For the most part my responses to comments have been respectful. But as you've noted: not always.
I've never had anything disparaging to say about anyone simply because they disagree with my take on this case, nor have I ever attempted to censor any of their posts, so long as they don't descend to personal attacks.
However: when someone argues that two otherwise sane people would simultaneously morph into characters from grand guignol, driving a paintbrush handle into the vagina of their daughter and strangling her with some diabolical garrote-like device, producing a furrow in her neck so deep that the cord was no longer visible; following that up with a hand lettered 2 1/2 page ransom note as part of an effort to stage BOTH a pedophile attack AND a kidnapping, all for the purpose of protecting a son who had just bashed his sister's head in with a heavy flashlight, in a fit of anger: then I'm sorry but to me such a "theory" is preposterous, yes -- and I have no problem saying so.
I've never called anyone a fool or an idiot, outright, but when I see foolish or idiotic ideas being insisted on, as though they represent the ONLY theory of the case that makes sense, then sorry but yes, sometimes I lose it and get insulting.
I've always welcomed criticism of my theories and usually try to respond in a meaningful way. And I'd say that in the great majority of cases my responses have been respectful. But when people refuse to let go of ideas that I see as ridiculous, or insist on nitpicking endlessly over what I regard as trivial side issues, I do get impatient from time to time, yes -- especially when they won't let go and keep repeating the same objections over and over.
What you might see as an effort to "defend my theory at all costs," I see as a perfectly legitimate attempt to respond to criticisms I regard as misplaced. Everyone with a theory of any kind has a right to respond to criticism, so why shouldn't I? The impression I get from you and some others posting here is that I should immediately cave when presented with objections that seem reasonable to you, but not to me. Sorry, but I refuse to do that.
People! Go back and read. Doc has a) explained why he started this blog. b) Explained why he prefers to remain anonymous. c) Stated who he has contacted, d) offered thoughts as to why he hasn't gotten much of a reaction.
This blog, in my opinion, is not to open a wide forum for speculation - at least that is not why I'm here. It started as a theory based on the facts, just the facts, with inferences and speculation only where needed to fill in what we don't know. All speculation derived from Doc's theory is very clearly stated as just that, with concession that we "really don't know." Declarative statements are only made about things the facts point to: such as "no one would call 911 if the staging-in-progress was not completed" or something to that effect.
You guys are convinced that Burke had issues, probably has Asperbers, blah blah blah. Yet his school teachers said he was fine. All kids do things they shouldn't -- that's why we adults are training them in the way they should go! They have sibling rivalry, hit each other, fight, etc. Yes, these 2 kids had it somewhat rough while Patsy was sick, but at least there were loving grandparents there to help. What they lacked was discipline; everyone was too easy on them out of sympathy for the possibility of losing their mother. So naturally, there were going to be toileting issues if mom was too sick to focus on that. We don't know if Burke smeared poop more than once -- he could have done it once, been scolded, and never did it again. Yeah, he's sort of a quiet guy now, but honestly he's not that much different than my 26 year old son who is an engineer.
No one on this site has been particularly rude until recently. We had Hercules, who was rather stubborn and often condescending. But some of the new people here seem to think Doc "owes" them answers, owes it to them to keep this blog running as a free for all, and are misconstruing our impatience at rehashing the same old stuff as being ridiculing. So I suggest you try more to listen and understand, and stop being so unwilling to look at everything in its totality!
EG, if your post wound up on the "cutting room floor" it's because it contained a personal attack. You are finding it hard to refrain from such attacks lately and as a result other posts from you may also be deleted. The purpose of this blog is to discuss the Ramsey case, NOT to indulge in a personal vendetta, OK?
Thanks Doc! That was me, LE. I forgot to sign off as I had to dash to an appointment.
I guess you can tell that I'm one who wants to find legit ways to either refine your theory, improve upon it with any new information, or catch any mistakes in the reasoning. I'm not much interested in the rehash of PDI or IDI because they have already been debunked. And this whole BDI conversation is going nowhere.
To EG: We can safely say that Burke didn't write that note. It follows that Patsy and/or John wrote it. I believe that the analysis Doc did totally supports that John wrote it- the Johnism's alone were compelling. I doubt Patsy had a computer that she could have traced the note from. Now, if she provided input to that note, in collusion with John, she would have followed his lead and not called 911. Even assuming he mutilated JBR without her knowing, I think she would have eventually divorced him over what he did to her as part of a cover up. EVEN IF she thought the staging was what they had to do to cover up a head blow by Burke, the mutilation is not something an otherwise loving mother could ignore. Net, if she felt she had to help cover up what Burke did, she would have either gone along with John's plan or refused to be a part of it. She was smarter than you think, and I honestly don't think she would go along with such a stupid, desperate plan. No, this plan was born out of desperation. Someone had a lot more to lose than family honor over a disturbed kid. Someone was going to jail, was about to lose his livelihood, and would be shamed for life, unable to support his family.
Finally, I don't need proof that John did prior molestation. His victims are dead. He may have never touched Melinda -- so what? My grandfather molested only 2 of his several granddaughters, because of opportunity. They did not tell on him until after he died and they were young adults. He never touched his own daughter, making us wonder if this deviant behavior started after he had a stroke. My family still discusses how it could be that no one, not even my grandmother, ever caught him. She never noticed that he slipped out of bed around midnight when they were visiting. Incestuous men are smart and crafty!
If Patsy did it, she would have been arrested. They simply could not make a case against her. It was only the MONSTROUS mistake of ruling John out that derailed the justice for Jonbenet.
I had no idea I was coming off the way you've described in your post. If I've spoken out of turn or said anything that was insulting or led people to believe I was attacking them, then I apologize. I am a native New Yorker,and will blame some of my "in your face" attitude on that. *S*
I am also fairly new here, and can certainly understand that to you and others here, this is old stuff and we are rehashing it. I admit, I am not as well read on this case as yourself and others here, but have always had an interest in it and was enjoying the exchange of ideas and theories.
Inq - my email address is elisewaits@hotmail.com--I'd be more than happy to continue exchanging ideas with you regarding this case, if you are so inclined.
Thanks to all of you who listened, commented and shared your thoughts and theories. I've thoroughly enjoyed you.
And finally, thank you Doc, for this blog and allowing me to post here these past few weeks. Once again, my sincere apology for any wrongdoing on my part.
Doc's is the voice of reason. By the simple-seeming device of re-including John, he - in my opinion - broke the case. The rest of us have tried to chime in, in a minor key, by building a case for things like motive and premeditation. At the risk of sounding like our recent BDI/CBS visitors participating in a chat room: You're no slouch in the logic and reason department yourself. CC
Thanks, CC! I'm just a big believer in Occam's Razor :)
I feel that too many here are over complicating matters, when the simplest, most logical explanation is staring us right in the face. Once one begins with the all important instructions in the RN, the rest just follows....too many people dismiss the ransom note as merely a distraction, which is the biggest mistake LE made.
Gumshoe posted an analysis of the RN last December, iirc, in whatever thread was ongoing at that time, which was just excellent and worth a look, if you can find it. CC
JR's call to his pilot and trying to take off to Atlanta after JBR's body was found was in imo, him going to meet with his lawyers. Not sure if anyone has ever brought that up but I think that is where he was headed.
Were his lawyers located in Atlanta? That makes complete sense, of course. This was right after JB's body was found, and Linda Arnt knew John was responsible.....I imagine he thought the jig was up at that point. I bet he still can't believe his luck, huh?
I'm sure he had attorneys in Atlanta, Ms D, but they would have been hard-pressed to advise him on Colorado law. John retained Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, a very fine Denver criminal defense firm, on the 27th.
He was likely going to Atlanta just to get away from Colorado and it's law enforcement representatives, buy himself some time. CC
He met with lawyers while in Atlanta for JBR's funeral service. Linn Woods office possibly ? I would really like to see the Ramsey's phone records from back then. I wonder if there is any record of those still kept somewhere ?
After playing alot of devil's advocate on this site, alot of which I do for knowledge, I have to admit that the ransom note sure does sound like an exact blueprint for JR to dispose of JBR's body. I just can not get PR's behaviors or words to say John did it alone. Possibly, JR and PR's indifference the morning of the 26th was about what to do with the body. JR wanted to dump it and PR did not. Possibly there has been a mistake on the timeline of JBRs death. Possibly the strangulation occured much closer to 6am rather than earlier in the morning. I do believe that the sexual staging of JBR all occured AFTER the police were called. Once the police were called and the kidnapping was voided then there had to be a different motive as to why JBR was murdered and her body was in the house, thus the sexual staging, all done after the police were in the house.
Thanks for your response and I admit, there have been times when I've given the IDI theory a lot of thought. I still go back and forth with that, because of the heinous way JBR was murdered. My psyche', at times, won't allow me to accept the fact that a parent or a sibling could do such a thing to their own child or sister. And then I read what others have posted, proof that these things, though terribly unfortunate, sick and twisted, DO indeed go on.
As far as the JDI's you're basing your theory on conjecture and speculation. In short, you are doing the very same thing you're accusing the BDI's of doing. The difference is, the BDI folks have some proof to back that up.
For example:
1. JR molested JBR - There is no proof 2. JR was a deviant in Denmark - There is no proof 3. JR's other daughter said he was a loving father - fact 4. JBR told the gardener she missed her dad when he was away - fact 5. BR hit JBR with a golf club - fact 6. BR wet the bed WAY past an acceptable age - fact 7. BR smeared feces all over a bathroom in the house - fact 8. BR appeared on Dr Phil and looked and behaved like a psychopath - no eye contact made, no conscience when speaking about his dead sister, perpetual smile on his face - facts
I will give the JDI people one fact. He indeed WAS the only adult male in the house. That is a fact.
Now, having said all of that, I STILL don't know who did it. But I sure as hell welcome everyone's opinions, because TOGETHER, we just might come to a conclusion that fits and solve this case.
PLEASE listen to Real Crime Profile podcast on JBR. They have had 4 episodes so far and have gone into much more detail than what you saw on the show. If you have called them idiots or question them being experts, first I feel for you and second, that won't be your feeling after listening. In the most recent episode that launched yesterday, they talk a lot more about the White's. In no way was the show hiding them for any other reason than the White's didn't want to be on camera. They do talk about what they have discussed with them and some very troubling details emerged. * They took BR straight from the house when he woke up and at no point was there any questioning or mentions of JBR regarding where she was. According to BR himself, JR told Burke that JBR was missing. Yet all BR cared about what his Nintendo *The more troubling details for me was that neither PR or JR mentioned that there even was a RN to the White's on the phone or when they were sitting at the house for a few hours. The more I listen to the show and look at details of the case, you would have to be knowingly ignorant to not believe PR was aware and in on the staging. I know BDI and won't be convinced otherwise because it's fabricated nonsense. Believe what you want, but let's please stop acting like PR wasn't aware and involved in what was going on.
If you are going to argue against the podcast but haven't listened to it, then save yourself. If you care about this case and truly want to know who did it, then listen to all 4 episodes with an open mind.
Thanks J. I've been listening and it's very convincing. As I have said, I appreciate your steadfastness. Both parents covered for their son, and I do not believe JR molested (previously) hit his daughter on the head with a flashlight, and then 45 minutes to 2 hours later strangled her and assaulted her sexually, then wiped her down, changed her panties, etc. I think Burke did all of it, including the tying up and rough violent assault, told his mother who was still up, and she was distraught as any mother would be. As to when she brought John in on it I'm undecided. After she composed that note or after she called 911. Witnesses said they were not speaking to each other. That John seemed rather cold to her. I think had he been told about it sooner he would have done things differently. For one he would have not written such a rambling ridiculous note, he may have even tried to get the body out of the house. She went off "half cocked" so to speak. Then he had no choice but to go looking around the house and tie up any loose ends to have the house look as if an intruder came in. But think about it. John wasn't given much to work with! The note had been written (by Patsy) and the call had been made. Any prior abuse that showed up on autopsy to me points to Burke. I believe Patsy either knew given 27 pediatrician visits in 2 years (that comes out to one a month - a bit much actually - but not the extent of what her troubled son had been doing. Unless JB told her and she was under 6 so we don't know how much a child of that age would say. The Grand Jury felt that both parents put their daughter in danger didn't they? In danger of a disturbed son.
And thank you DocG for your reply. I came to this site because I thought your comments at the header of every site were logical, thought out. I read as much of the kindle book as I could without paying for it (!) I don't have the ability to get kindle on my PC, at least without difficulty. I also think you are an articulate writer. But there were always those pieces of the puzzle that didn't add up to me. I know fathers can sexually abuse their daughters. There are multiple studies on this. Including the former Miss America who lived with it for years before coming out about it. But not in this case. But I thank you for this blog because I was able to look deeper and find out things for myself that I may not been motivated to do otherwise.
I'm truly baffled by the how people have gone from blaming Patsy to blaming Burke. John is truly reprehensible for allowing his wife and son to suffer for his actions.
Listen, hundreds of experts have looked at this case and nobody but a guy who started a blog has said JDI. Everyone is completely entitled to their own opinions, but tremendous leaps have to be made for the JDI theory to make any sense. I don’t need to rehash the same arguments that have been made by so many on here, but the reality is that if you feel JDI, you are suspending reality.
The only other issue I care to bring up is I am beyond sick and tired of people saying that THEY would have called 911 if they stumbled upon a lifeless JBR on the ground. That type of thinking serves no purpose on any level, because unless one of you is John or Patsy Ramsey in 1996, it means absolutely nothing. 911 WAS called and obvious staging attempts WERE made to disguise the true killer of Jonbenet Ramsey. Doc can bring up Poll question after poll question, but they are all beyond useless and are just desperate attempts to get them to think the way he does. Not 1 person on here lived in the Ramsey house during JBR’s life and nobody in here (that we know of) is close to the family. The people that were (The White’s) describe the Ramsey behavior as odd and they never believed the RN either.
Inquisitive…thanks. I am steadfast in my belief, because without a shadow of a doubt, I know that’s what happened. Sure, we can adjust details of what caused Burke to hit her over the head, but what matters is that he DID hit her over the head and a cover up ensued.
What if you were planning a staged kidnapping to dump a body but then you end up with police in your house ? You realize that a kidnapping note with a body in the house is going to get you or someone in your house arrested. You then switch your modus operandi with police there into a sadistic pedo child killer because getting rid of of the body is not going to happen now. So you sneak into your basement to stage THAT with 1 officer still in the house. You then use only items in the basement and stage a sadistic pedo child killer scene complete with garotting. Now you have what looks like a staged kidnapping gone wrong with a sadistic pedo child killer. No one will ever figure out what happened in that house.
The theory about Burke doing it makes no sense! Especially considering he was sent to the Whites that morning. If his parents were covering for him, they would not have left him out of their sight. I do believe that John manipulated him to keep quiet about what he saw or heard that evening.
Nobody- except for JR - will ever know everything about what happened that night. Burke's gonna spend the rest of his life in therapy - that's one messed up adult.
It is enough for me that this cockamamie "intruder" theory has been utterly and completely debunked. There's isn't a shred of evidence to support it. Don't give me the Note - no intruder hangs out in the kitchen with a dead body downstairs and a sleeping family upstairs to draft 3 versions of a 3 page "ramsom" note. Especially with nothing to ransom. GMAFB.
And once you eliminate the intruder, you are left with the family. God only knows what happened. Maybe Doc nailed it. Maybe its something else. Who knows. What we DO know is that there was no intruder. I'll take that.
But John Ramsey has allowed his close friends to have their lives ruined because he's - at best - a gutless coward. At worst, he's a pedophile.
I disagree that Burke is one messed up adult. He earned a very difficult degree from Purdue. He has a job, a 401K, and he supports himself very well for his age. He apparently has, or has had, a girlfriend. He is socially awkward, as are many of the the software developers I work with in my job. He doesn't live with his dad, doesn't appear to mooch off of him, and he seems to have love for and fond memories of his mother. He's seen his picture on the front of the National Enquirer, and he's lived with his parents possibly having to go to jail while he was still in grade school. He may have a lot to deal with, but you can be sure there are way more messed up young adults. ESPECIALLY given how cold and self-centered his father seems to be.
We don't know if Burke is in therapy right now. If he is, it is probably for coaching on how to handle being in the public eye. I truly feel sorry for the young man, and I agee that JR is gutless, coward, a narcissist, and most likely a sexual deviant.
Let's talk about evidence pointing to John's guilt. John's own admission, about finding chair in front of the train room door when he first went down to check, clearly points toward his guilt. Even Lou Smit seemed skeptical about the chair. (You can find the part of the interview about the train room door here; http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-chair-basement.htm and other locations.) John claims a chair (and at different times both a table and Easter baskets) blocked his way into the train room and he had to move the items to enter. This door opens inward, thus it would be difficult for an intruder to pull the door closed behind him and drag the items in front of it at the same time. Difficult but not impossible. Fleet White apparently went down to the basement by himself at 6:06 am (before John claims he went down there for the first time) and never reported seeing a chair in front of the door, nor did Officer French. Besides if (as contended by Smit and the Ramseys) the "intruder" left thru the window--why not use that chair instead of the suitcase? This whole scenario makes no sense and clearly implicates Ramsey by his own admission, placing himself in the basement way earlier than he later claims. He's going to check an old refrigerator for his daughter but not check the wine room after visiting the basement two or three times? Clearly he's lying, about so many things. Sorry if this has already been addressed. I did a search and didn't find any posts about it here. If it was brought up, it might be worth discussing John's statements and timeline again. ~Cee
Thanks Cee. John wanted to control the narrative, but he kept messing up. Had he been a regular Joe, he would have remained a prime suspect. Thanks for reminding us that Fleet went downstairs early. I think Fleet knows that John lied about a number of things, I just wish he would come out and state what he believes. No wonder Patsy was confused; she could not keep up with his versions of events either.
I've never called 911 in my life, nor have I ever had a daughter, and, I'm not John or Patsy in 1986. I'm just a guy who reads a blog posted by "just a guy who started a blog that says JDI".
I'm not even close to being qualified to comment on anything that comes close to reality in this case.
So, by thinking JDI, I'm suspending all reality. The fact that I would call 911 if I found my daughter dead means absolutely nothing. I wasn't even there.
I feel completely useless and desparate trying to think like DocG does. I'm sure others are beyond sick of it as well.
btw, even though I've read this entire blog from the beginning, I just paid $6 for the Kindle book. Maybe that will help me feel less desparate.
Jon, the James Kolar book "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet" is a very good book and would round out your education. It was written by a real investigator into the murder, called in later.
Ya know Jon, I get it! Only because I'm older, married, and have raised 2 kids that I can relate at all to what might have been going on in that home. I've worked for a corporation for over 30 years and have met men like John - successful at what they do for a living but not so great in the area of personal relationships. Mainly though, I have 2 cousins who were molested by a relative. I've heard their stories and find it completely plausible that, along with the evidence of prior penetration, John could have molested JBR. But you don't have to think like Doc, or like me. The note alone -with all those motives, the Johnism's, the writing style, the content. Lies+Note+Behavior+Manipulation+Lawyering Up+Flight out of Dodge+evidence of molestation+he's not looking for the real killer = guilt.
CC, Inquisitive, LE- Thanks for noticing. If I made just one person laugh, it was worth it. I laughed the whole time it took me to write it. At an airport bar, btw. I'll check out the Kolar book after DocG's read.
Question and answer session on reddit with james kolar: www.reddit.com/user/jameskolar. He does say "In Colorado a person must be 10 years of age and older to be held criminally culpable." But I doubt the parents were thinking of that on Dec. 25, 1996
Yes. How convenient for the Ramseys. When I read Kolar's final breakdown, pointing out that Burke could not have been prosecuted because of his age, and that the statute of limitations had run out on aiding and abetting, leaving John Ramsey in the clear, I almost puked.
I almost puked also when hearing the final verdict of the CBS "experts," insinuating that "the Ramseys" were nothing more than dutiful parents, just doing their best to protect a wayward son. Right. And destroying the lives of countless innocent people in the process -- not to mention the astronomical cost of the investigation.
Why would John's involvement only be considered aiding and abetting? Aren't there other crimes that have no statute of limitations, with which John could be charged?
Hypothetically, if it could be proven that John did the staging, since JBR's COD was asphyxiation by strangulation, couldn't he be charged with murder or manslaughter? (Although, I suppose manslaughter carries a statute of limitations?) From what I read, Colorado has no statute of limitations for murder (obviously), sex offenses against a child, and even forgery (if John wrote the note.) Why couldn't he be charged with any of these crimes?
I think Doc means the statute has run on accessory to murder, HKH, which I believe is three years in Colorado. Voluntary manslaughter is either three or five years in most states. You're right about murder and sex offenses against a child. I don't believe the RN could be considered forgery, but I take your point, and it's an interesting one. CC
Kolar never reveals his full "theory of prosecution" in his book, though he hints at it in several places. While it's clear that he believes Burke was responsible for the head blow, and possibly also for the sexual assault, he has nothing to say, as I recall, about the "garrote" strangulation. Similarly the CBS "experts" downplay that aspect of the crime, concentrating for the most part on the head blow and the events supposedly leading up to it. If the strangulation is in fact what killed her, then, according to this theory, she was killed by the coverup, not the initial attack.
But as CC reminds us, the statute of limitations on manslaughter has probably also run out.
As far as I'm concerned, none of this matters, because, if Burke had struck JonBenet in the manner surmised by the CBS team (of which Kolar was a part), his parents would certainly have called 911 at once. The notion that they would have decided to perpetuate such an extreme, bizarre and disgusting coverup is simply beyond belief and I seriously doubt that any jury would buy it.
Manslaughter is off the table in any case, as it's defined as a "heat of passion" crime. Murder Two won't fly, either, as John had plenty of time between the head blow and the strangulation to form intent. CC
CC--does forgery only involve the falsifying, or altering, of a legal document? Is this why the ransom note wouldn't qualify as forgery?
Doc--Just for the record, I too find the idea of a parent doing what was done to JBR in an attempt to save their other child, unfathomable. I can buy BDI up until this point, and then it falls apart for me. I have two kids, similar in age to BR and JBR at the time of her death. I would do anything to protect them, with the exception of betraying one to save the other. That being said, I will concede that just because I couldn't do something, doesn't mean that others couldn't or wouldn't. Therefore, although I find it highly unlikely that a parent would do these things for the sake of their other child, without indisputable, solid evidence I have a hard time ruling it out 100%.
I only asked because I curious, if BDI and JR staged, why JR wouldn't be charged with a more serious crime, since he would have been the one who technically ended her life. Thank you both for answering.
Not to change the subject, but I just read a book, Devil in the Darkness. It is a book written about Israel Keyes, a serial killer/rapist. The things that made me think of the Ramsey case is that he a)randomly chose victims that he did not know at all prior to the attack b) he traveled extensively and killed far from where he lived for the most part. c) he left ransom notes even though his victims were already dead. d) he liked to strangle his rape victims with various materials. e) in at least one instance he broke a window to open the latch and enter the home of his sleeping victims. f) he enjoyed the suffering of his victims and their families.(ransom notes) So, it isn't that outlandish to think that a mysoped (I read that term used somewhere in blogs about the Ramsey case) might have targeted the Ramsey family. So, read that book and see what you think. It really made me rethink everything I believed about serial killers and rapists.
A typical serial killer/pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. And someone with an odd MO like the person you've described would have brought his note with him, not waited to write it while in the house of his victim. Also, I suspect that when this person left a ransom note he also actually took his victims from the house before killing them. I know of no case where a ransom note has been left but no one was actually kidnapped.
@Rose. I have not read the book, but I did search Israel Keyes after reading your comment. The only mention I could find of a ransom note, was in connection to his final victim. It's true that she was already dead when he wrote the note. However, he made it appear as though she was still alive by stitching her eyes open, and then taking a picture of her next to a 4 day old newspaper. He wrote the ransom note on the back of the photo, demanding $30,000 be deposited into the victim's account (he had her debit card.) The money, or at least some of it, was deposited. He then used her debit card to withdraw money in several different states.
My point being that clearly his purposed for writing the ransom note was to get money, which he did. He also led the police and the victim's family to believe she was still alive. The circumstances of the Keyes ransom note, are very different than those of the Ramsey ransom note.
Are there any other cases in which he also wrote a ransom note and the victim was already dead? I couldn't find any. Thanks.
Was anyone else put off by the editing in Dr. Phil's three part interview of BR? It seemed liked the last question Dr. Phil asked Burke before each commercial break was:
a) the best and most challenging question since the last commercial break b) wasn't answered by Burke until after the break was over and c) showed Burke's face doning caught off guard expression.
Even though Dr. Phil concluded Burke did not committ the murder, I wonder how many in the television audience may have been duped by this irresponsible editing-for-dramatic-effect to suspect or believe otherwise?
Question for person(s) who think that JR wrote ransom note and murdered JBR, how do you account for JR statements regarding JonBenet's grave date etc. during interview with Larry King Live (2006)...
Excerpt: [""CALLER: Hi.
This is kind of a petty question but it bothers me nonetheless. Why is it that on the gravestone for JonBenet it lists 12-25, Christmas Day, when according to the accounts that I've read, it was the early morning hours of the 26th when she actually passed away?
J. RAMSEY: Well, that's a good question. We don't know exactly when she passed away. I made that decision because the ransom note said, "I will contact you tomorrow."
And so my presumption was that that ransom note and her death occurred the night before. It was just -- there's been no clear definition of exactly what hour she died."]
Regardless of who the perp was, I think the ransom note clearly meant rushed time frame of 12/26 to complete crime(s) and staged/abandoned for various reason(s).
Correction: I meant question for person(s) who think that JR wrote ransom note and murdered JBR, and planned to dump JBR's body 12/27/follow-through with ransom staging: how do you account for JR statements regarding JonBenet's grave date etc. during interview with Larry King Live (2006)...
"Regardless of who the perp was, I think the ransom note clearly meant rushed time frame of 12/26 to complete crime(s) and staged/abandoned for various reason(s)."
I don't understand the above sentence. But I think I do understand your question.
I find John's response to be very revealing. If one believes, as I do, that John wrote the note, then he would have known very well that "tomorrow" meant the 27th and not the 26th. We know this because John could not possibly have raised the ransom from the bank before 8AM on the 26th, since no bank opens that early. Nor could he have been "rested." So clearly the writer of the note meant "tomorrow" to be the following day, and not the morning after the murder.
By giving this reason for dating JonBenet's death to Dec. 25th, John, as I see it, is playing dumb -- pretending he doesn't know that the real intent of the writer/killer was to buy 24 hours in which to complete his staging, dump the body of his victim and clean up the crime scene.
Hypo, just meant if JR sole perp it seems more likely that he would want to transport JonBenet's body sooner than later (less risk with having body/evidence around longer with PR/BR in house, friends involved etc.); PR would have been in shock morning 12/26; he could have made up any number of excuses to PR (he had enough in the safe, he had to drive out to distant bank/ Kidnappers followed/trailed him etc). If ransom note staged, it's about how events/things appear to others and how perp can explain it away to others/LE. suitcase-money-body, travel to drop off ransom-body etc. The longer the evidence/JBR stayed at house, the worse it would have been for JR to explain away to PR/BR/LE. But jmo
If Patsy hadn't called 911, there would have been nothing to explain away. The body would have been dumped the following night.
Remember: an intruder would have had no reason to wait until inside the house to write his note. No reason to fail to kidnap the victim. No reason to leave a possibly incriminating hand printed note if for some reason he'd changed his mind.
And if Patsy and John were in it together, then, according to your theory, it would still have been best for them to get rid of the body on the night of the murder rather than wait a day.
There are very good reasons why it would have been extremely risky to try to dump the body on the night of the crime. If John's car had been spotted either going or coming, that would have been it for him. On the other hand, if he'd waited until the following night, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom.
You are right it would have been suspicious to dump JonBenet prior to morning of 12/26, but the ransom note presents, if not an intruder, opportunity for perp to explain why he had to get attache (or even luggage for trip aka body dumped in woods, garbage site, etc.) out of the house that morning. Not only to explain movements to LE, but as a reason(s) to PR that morning on why she couldn't call LE and needed to allow JR to obtain money. Hypo, if PR hadn't called LE by 550a then the sole perp would have used the time between 6a-10a to (dump JBR, go to bank to obtain money+return with it in paper bag). Once PR/JR didn't receive kidnapper phone call by 10a, then it would have been safe to perp for any calls to LE and it would fit neatly into movements to obtain money, and why didn't call LE right away (threatening letter/fear etc). It also would have looked less suspicious to LE if call to LE came shortly after missed 10a 12/26 instead of waiting entire day. Regardless of who is perp+their additional plans, thankfully PR called LE first thing that morning, and that alone indicates to me she was terrified mom in shock and likely not involved in crime(s) intruder or otherwise.
Sorry, but I find it impossible to understand half of what you are trying to say. In any case, the note very clearly says the call is to come tomorrow, i.e., the morning of the 27th, NOT the morning after the supposed kidnapping. John would not have been so foolish as to dump the body in broad daylight and would have waited till the following night.
You've missed the point of the ransom note. John wanted Patsy and Burke out of the house. There was no plan to call LE (until after the bad guys failed to return JB - then we would call them). Foremost in John's mind would be to have time to erase every shred of evidence in the house and completely stage the scene.
-If Burke had anything to do with it, they would have kept him very close to them, not left him alone in his room and certainly not SENT HIM OVER TO THE WHITES!!!!
-why are JB's medical records sealed? Is it how it works in the states? Makes no sense to me
-why havent the cops questionned JR about his calls to that hardware store, trying to get his receipts?
About Doc: he was nothing but patient and welcoming when I first emailed him. (then I said some stoopid things about him maybe being JR (I know, I know!) and now he's shunned me, but I get it and i dont care because his work here is amazing and has helped me put all the pieces together.
Finally: JOHN RAMSEY DID IT. No doubt in my mind about that. (alledgedly, of course....)
Hello again, SK. Actually I didn't shun you, I just don't always have time to respond to every question.
I don't think any of us are sure why any of the medical records were sealed. Legally I suppose it's up to the parents and that's what they decided.
The calls to the hardware store were in fact investigated and it turns out that they were not from John but (as I recall) a reporter claiming to be John.
Thank you for thinking that I'm amazing. Maybe I should wear an appropriate costume?
Doc, lets just say you are correct. Then we should assume that all of the sexual staging, possibly even the garotting was done after the police showed up and that it was only going to be a staged kidnapping before PR called 911 ? JR could not have her body in the house with a staged kidnapping as he probably knew his jig would be up. That would surely explain what he was doing when he disappeared and why the police were and have been stumped by the pedo sexual kidnapping killer MO for all this time.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, Keiser. As I see it, the vaginal penetration and most likely the "garroting" as well were probably part of the original assault, and not staging. But who can say for sure?
All I know is that John is the only one who could have profited from that note and that he would not have wanted the police called until he could get the body of his victim out of the house. The rest is speculation.
The only thing I was getting at is that if your theory was correct then as I see it, it was just a staged kidnapping plot with a plan to dump the body. Due to PR's 911 call, I feel that he then changed his staging with police in the house to the sexual predator staging via last resort as he could not have her body in the house and only a kidnapping note. Not sure if you concur but I am also then thinking it is a good possibility that the timeline of JBR's death might have been much later. He might have even garotted her during 1 of his disappearances in the morning with the police in the house.
I know, I looked that up to see if it was possible and it set rigor mortis usually sets in from 2 to 6 hours unless it is in water or an abnormal enviroment. It just seems to make sense to me that if his kidnapping plan got blown up that he might have changed it and at that point police would have been in the house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
I'm no medical professional, and it's been a while since I had to know this, but my recollection is that it starts at 2-6 hours with the face, moves to the extremities, and the whole process takes about 12 hours, no? CC
You are correct about the face coming first and then then the extremities. It depends on age, sex, muscle developement and enviroment. It does not exactly say but from what I am understanding by wiki it seems like it occurs faster in small children because they have alot less muscle.
Yes, I thought there had to always be an ME available promptly, not 7 to 8 hrs later. So many mistakes, it is hard to find anything they did right in the beginning of this case.
I've considered that possibility as well, Keiser. The fact that torn out strands of her hair were intertwined with the knotting of the device suggests that it was constructed very quickly right on top of her as she lay unconscious. That would be consistent with a last minute attempt at staging, yes. And yes, it's possible she died after the 911 call was made.
Problem is that other explanations are possible, so we may never know.
I agree that without that RN the Ramseys are detained on the night of the 26th. Doc will argue that it cast more suspicion but I will say the exact opposite on this topic. LE never even gives a thought to an intruder that day because there would be no "possible" evidence of 1. LE spent countless hours, endless amounts of money, manpower and time running around getting, comparing and analyzing handwriting from a phantom thus deterring where ALL of the time and suspicion should have been, on the Ramseys. I disagree with you on who wrote the note. I think Doc was correct, JR wrote it. If you spend some time doing a little research, you will find that the writer of the RN note and JR BOTH have a spelling glich of not knowing when to use a single S or double SS. The RN misspellings were not done on purpose as experts mistakenly thought imo. Also you will find some pretty good matches in the handwriting, especially Mr Ramsey, which is exact. Another thing I found is that the RN switches off using 2 different type of Ys, 1 of which is very unique. A 30 word sample of JR's handwriting is all we have and guess what, JR switches off with the exact same unique Ys. What sealed it for me though, was the practice note. It was only addressed to Mr and Mrs R, the R was not even completed and then that practice RN was scrapped. Now why would someone scrap that before they had even finished addressing it ? That makes no sense at all ! Well yes, it actually does, someone changed it to only Mr Ramsey instead of Mr and Mrs Ramsey thus eliminating PR and putting only JR in charge of the kidnapping demands and all aspects of it. Only 1 person would want to do that and it surely is not PR.
Why employ all of the mental gymnastics, Inquisitive, in order to make Patsy the author of the note, when John being the author is so much more logical? When you were of the opinion that JDI, you had no issues with him being the author, so why now? The instructions in the note point to John, and John alone, as having written that note. Even if Patsy decided to write a note for the reasons you cited, there would be no reason for her to have included such specific instructions that all point to John needing time or an excuse to remove the body. You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be in order for it to fit your theory, when the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
"I agree that without that RN the Ramseys are detained on the night of the 26th."
Well, first of all, imo they should have been detained for questioning on the very first day, note or no note. Legally, however, they were not required to do so unless an arrest had been made. And the authorities were in no position to arrest anyone that day or in the ensuing weeks. To do that you have to find evidence and develop a case, or the judge will toss the whole thing out. Until they knew who did what, no case was ever possible.
As for the rest, it's important to understand that, if there had been no note, but the Ramseys had simply reported an intruder assault, the planning would have been very different from the start. For one thing, John would certainly have completed his window staging before 911 was called. For another, the body would not have been hidden in the basement, but displayed openly, probably in her own bedroom.
Home invasions by intruders are not at all uncommon, so no, it would not have been obvious that this was an inside job, though that possibility is always considered. What makes the whole story suspicious is the presence of that note, combined with the fact that the body was found in the house, meaning there was no kidnapping. And then, after the match with the notepad is made, I'm sorry but that looks a LOT like an attempt at staging that went wrong -- which is why they zeroed in on the Ramseys very early on. Without the note it could easily have been seen as a home invasion with the Rs as victims.
I agree with you they should have been detained note or no note. The note is the main reason LE was thrown off about what occured in that house. You are wrong about them legally not having to do so. LE has the right to detain anyone for 48 hrs if they have probable cause that a felony has been committed. The Ramseys could have and should have been forced if they were not willing to give formal interviews, that is standard procedure when there is a murder. People can not, just not not feel like giving statements when a murder has been committed because there are not warrants out for them. That is false. I also agree that after the notepad was matched to the RN suspicion on the Ramseys surely increased but that was not until days later. I am discussing that minute on the 26th and how the R's not being hauled down, seperated and interviewed that day was another huge mistake by LE and gave the Ramseys the time to lawyer up and stonewall. BPD said they were showing the Ramsey's compassion because they had just lost their child. Lost their child means LE had thought that an intruder committed this crime at that point in time. The fact that changed within days is irrelevant, the mistake was already made
You are probably also correct that if JR had staged differently there would been no note. That is neither here nor there. Had he staged a home invasion with a broken window and sexual assault and the whole family claimed to have not heard a thing while that occurred they would have been asked to the station. Had they denied they would have been detained and it would have looked even worse. I am not sure exactly what you think happens when a murder occurs and you have a dead body in your house but you cant just tell LE that you do not feel like giving them a statement and you have to go over to your friends. That IS NOT how it works.
You are probably also correct that if JR had staged differently there would been no note. That is neither here nor there. Had he staged a home invasion with a broken window and sexual assault and the whole family claimed to have not heard a thing while that occurred they would have been asked to the station. Had they denied they would have been detained and it would have looked even worse. I am not sure exactly what you think happens when a murder occurs and you have a dead body in your house but you cant just tell LE that you do not feel like giving them a statement and you have to go over to your friends. That IS NOT how it works.
Not quite correct. The cops can detain for a brief period provided they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been perpetrated by the detainee. It's an arrest that requires probable cause. CC
If that were the case then John Wayne Gacy could have just denied questioning after 28 bodies were found in his house and said he did not know anything about it and did not feel like answering questions right now, and left until there was a warrant issued for his arrest. I dont think so .....
Why couldnt he just unlock a door ? Also it is not that he would need a note for police to believe someone broke in. I get what you are saying as I thought the same for a long time but it is the CONTENT of the note that after studying from Doc's point of view that sure seems to be a plan or blueprint to put him in charge, stop police from being called, clear BR and PR out of the house and dump the body or take it out in an attache. It took some time for me but too many coincidences in the note.
Anyone else watch the documentary "Southwest of Salem" this evening? Interesting section on sexual abuse found in this Rolling Stone article about the case. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/southwest-of-salem-san-antonio-four-junk-forensic-science-w444481 Minnesota Linda
Oh darn I missed it. I hope it is on again soon. Maybe tonite because ID plays everything over a few times the same night in 3 hour blocks. That looked really good. My first thought on it sure made it sound like those girls got railroaded. What were your thoughts Linda ?
There's no question in my mind that the women are innocent. In fact, it scares me to think that it wasn't that many years ago that this "witch hunt" took place. And still, the judge didn't declare them innocent. Instead, he granted them new trials, which will extend their nightmare even longer. I'm sure you will be able to catch the documentary either online or when it's broadcast again. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts, Keiser Sozay, on the "junk science," as it relates to the Ramsey case. Minnesota Linda
I didn't see the program, MinnLin, but it's very, very unusual for a judge to reverse a ruling from the bench - a retrial is the usual remedy, and no small achievement. CC
Someone upthread mentioned that Kolar or other LE thought JonBenet was killed outside the storage area as her bladder emptied out, and then dragged or placed in the wine closet. This makes me wonder how well any evidence was collected on that. Since Thomas (and others) thought that JonBenet wet the bed, then her bladder would likely have not been able to produce much urine if she slept for any length of time. Unless she was awake for a few hours drinking something after every one in that house said they were asleep. Except for the 2016 admission of Burke saying he got up after everyone was asleep.
Also the mention of Israel Keyes. That is a guy we have on the message board I post on, (Cheri's Corner for the Missing), we've wondered if he could be tied to several of the case threads we have for missing people. He claimed to have never killed children, as he had a daughter. He had murder kits buried all around the U.S. and likely dozens of victims still buried out there.
I am not going to get involved in all the arguing going on in here, but I ran across this story by accident that I thought you all might like to read. It is about an 8 year old boy who is a serial killer, he strangled his baby sister then disposed of her body. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/01/india.randeepramesh%3f0p19G=e?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
ReplyDeleteKeiser, as many have said here countless times - it is not an impossible scenario for a young boy to kill his sister.
DeleteIt's relatively rare, but it certainly isn't unheard of.
No one is disputing that, let's get this straight.
What IS unbelievable is to accept that any parent would cover it up by finishing off the dying daughter with a garrote, stage a phony kidnapping - all the while managing to compose a three page ransom note even in their state of absolute grief, shock and horror - then complete the scene with a very unnecessary sexual assault (who really wants to violate their dead daughter's vagina just for dramatic effect?)
Now, when you cite another case that includes all of these elements, I'll definitely consider your point of view.
Why would the parents have to finish her off with a garotte ? This 8 yr old boy strangled his sister then disposed of her body. If an 8 yr old can do that im pretty sure an almost 10 yr old can do pretty much the same thing. Also, the parents if the child in the story above covered up 2 murders this child committed. You need to read the story before yelling at me ;)
DeleteAlso you will never find 2 cases of any kind that are EXACTLY the same. That being said, Ms. D, I am not BDI btw.
DeleteI wasn't "yelling" at you, I was being polite. Where were the all caps and exclamation points to indicate I was yelling?
DeleteThis is getting ridiculous, you guys really think everyone's out to get you, don't you? You take everything so damn personally, wow!
I was joking !
DeleteO.K, thanks for clarifying......it's very difficult to tell, as a couple of others have really been getting their knickers in a twist lately whenever others disagree ;)
DeleteGoing by your posts, I always assumed you were BDI (I figured that's why you posted the link)......so you must be IDI or PDI in that case?
I think I am DADI now, Lol.(Devils Advocate) I began this case in its early days as a JDI, I over a few years was swayed to PDI and was there until I read Foreign Faction which left me comfused and in limbo. Now I have no clue and I take the evidence and theories as they come. There is no other way as I see it in this case. I am the same person who just a bit ago confirmed Doc's theory that after much studying believe JR wrote the RN. I, as much as anyone would like to have JR or BR on the stand. What I will do is argue and point or theory that I do not believe to be true in search of the truth.
DeleteThe 1 thing that IMO, I feel is a fact is that at some point, PR knew and was in on the cover up. Me and Doc have had many a debate over this topic. PR's involvement throws many a theory into a tailspin.
DeleteDoc -
ReplyDeleteI lean heavily to JDI.
But do you think it possible that B hit her and that then J, believing that an emergency trip to the doctor could reveal his abuse, proceeded to stage the elaborate murder scene? Burke went to bed that night just in trouble thinking everything was fine. And J, perhaps later, layers on the guilt to B that no one could know he hit her or he too would be taken away? Something like that?
-Ajax
If that's the case, I don't think Burke would be appearing on Dr Phil. I think it's safe to say that we'd never hear from him again if he was complicit in any way, in fact.
DeleteIf you got away with murder for twenty years, would you open yourself up to scrutiny again? I know I sure as hell wouldn't - I'd thank my lucky stars I escaped justice, let CBS say what they wish (especially if it's true anyway), and keep my mouth shut as I have done for the past twenty years.....
I've considered that possibility, Ajax. It's just that I don't find it very likely. I prefer to keep things simple. If it quacks like a duck . . . like that.
DeleteWhat I see is that the preponderance of evidence points to John and only John, and there is more than enough probably cause to indict him -- or at the very least arrest him and insist that he'd better answer some very tough questions or be prosecuted for murder.
While one can't totally rule out the possibility you suggest, it's only a possibility and an unlikely one at that, and I see no reason to give John a pass on that basis.
I have followed this case, as others here, since it began in 1996. I have followed this particular blog since its inception, having been made aware of it early on by a co-worker who told me I should read it as it uncannily mirrored my theories regarding this case, which I espoused quite frequently to anyone who would care to listen. I retired recently after 30 years in law enforcement at the military, state, and Federal levels. Much of my career consisted of working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), retiring as a high-level administrator within the BOP. I worked for several years at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina. For those of you who are not familiar with it, FCC Butner consists of the largest medical (both physical and psychological) complex for the BOP. There are more than 5000 Federal inmates incarcerated there. Within its mission, it encompasses the most comprehensive sexual offender treatment program (SOTP) in the U.S., which fortunately, or unfortunately, depending how you look at it, brings me to my point. I’ve read many posts here recently that promote the theory that JR had no previous instances (at least known to the public) of incest or child sexual abuse, so therefore, there is no evidence that he could have committed this crime, based on this theorized motive alone. Based on my professional experience, I can attest that this understanding is totally misconstrued. Although against my better judgement of weighing in on these discussions…lol, I finally decided I should take the plunge and try and put to rest some of these myths that are so inherently superglued to by a few posters on this blog. You probably know who you are at this point. Here’s why: our statistics show that 80% of child pornographers had no prior felony convictions. Of those offenders, 99.15% were male (.85% were female). The average median age of the offender was 42 years. The minimum was 16 years of age. Over half of those offenders had at least some college (many were Ph.D. candidates). Here’s a glaring highlight: Although 75% of those offenders denied any “hands-on” contact with children during their trial phase, over 80% of those same offenders ADMITTED to “hands-on” sexual contact with children post-conviction and during the assessment protocol upon entering the SOTP. Many of those offenders, of which I was in daily contact with, were fathers involved in child sexual abuse with daughters, and in some instances, their sons. As part of the protocol, each inmate was subjected to a psychosexual assessment, which most often included a plethysmograph, which is a tool to measure sexual arousal as the inmate is exposed to sexually suggestive content, such as pictures or a movie, ultimately evoking a response to stimuli depicting children. Trust me folks, there were no readily identifiable “monsters.” Most of these inmates would pass for any thoughtful, well-heeled next-door-neighbor type that you probably would trust leaving your child with. And through this unparalleled assessment program, we found that distortions in the inmates thinking made it impossible for them to take an honest look at their sexual behavior, e.g., they were able to function as ordinary every day citizens, unbeknownst to the average joe as anything but. They were able to conveniently and classically assign their actions to some justifiable-reasoning framework in their mind.
ReplyDelete-Retired Fed
Just want to say thank you for this insight, Retired Fed!
DeleteThank you, Retired Fed. Now that the ice is broken, hope to hear more from you.
DeleteCC
Yes, many thanks. I'd like to hear more about your take on this case.
DeleteTo summarize, sadly, an enormous segment of our adult population has engaged in the (always) inappropriate sexual contact with children, but are inherently (for many reasons) able to hide their actions from others, such as a spouse. Statistics show that most of these offenders were able to hide their inclinations and abusive mannerisms until the moment they were caught, no less. Their victims were reluctant to spill the beans for a variety reasons, such as the fear of shame, rejection by others and of course, assuming personal blame (i.e; I’ve done something to warrant this behavior of a parent). Therefore, saying there were no signs of previous abuse by JR is a non-sequitur for me – the bare facts show otherwise. I watched the CBS documentary with the same intense curiosity as the rest of you, but I arrived at the exact same conclusions as DocG – the end result was much more a contrived drama to secure viewers than a logical discourse on the provenance of this heinous crime. The facts (and logical inference), as DocG, et al, has so eloquently and coherently outlined, point to one solitary perpetrator only. If you strip out the “morass” as he puts it, as well as the red herrings, and boil it down to the essential common denominators, there is only one conclusion, and it does not include BR and/or PR.
ReplyDelete- Retired Fed
Thanks for the post. Was a good one. But can you please post any evidence that JDI. Even the teeniest tiniest bit of evidence you can muster up. I'm honestly hoping you can come up with something because Ive read every comment on this blog and havent read anything close to evidence that implies JDI. Thanks, looking forward to your reply.
DeleteRetired Fed.
DeleteThank you for your informative post. I have a question for you. I know you've said those most offenders are able to hide their crime right up to the very moment they get caught. However, once caught, wouldn't there be other evidence that would further cement the case. For instance, there was no child pornography on JR's computer, or anywhere else. His other daughter said he was nothing but a loving father. This leads one to believe that he only molested JBR and had no inclination to do so with anyone else, or look at child porn sites or pictures? Is that something you've found with other offenders you've come into contact with? Just curious.
EG
There is no evidence that points definitively to one particular perp, as you know from prior discussions; hence the myriad theories. You've just found one you can support now, thanks to the recent TV specials, but there's no evidence against Burke either.
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy very first inclination when this case occured, before it was ever mentioned on the news, was that JR was molesting his daughter and killed her. After some time and even moreso now, the facts of this case that have come out have changed my thinking. In a case where you say, for instance, a 6 year old girl was killed in her house and sexually assaulted, she was found murdered in her bedroom. Well my very first thought would be the father in the house is responsible. However, in this case you have many other facts and variables than my above parody. Surely the statistical probability would be 75%(example number) or whatever the statistic is, that the father was molesting his daughter. So that leaves 25% (example number) of the time where it is not the father. In this case, you have an obviously disturbed BR, who JBR slept with, in the same bed, on a regular basis. To me, this greatly increases the statistical possibility that BR was "sticking things in his sister". That coupled with the fact that if it was JR, following through on killing his daughter, then I would fully expect penile penetration to have occured and the motive to being to hide that. Anyone killing their daughter because they had "stuck a finger in her" just does not hold much validity to me. BR has swung things at JBR's head more than once and he is in therapy for some reason, before and after JBR's death. For incestual molestation possibly ? That would be a good reason the Ramseys would not let go of the medical records. That coupled with my biggest problem with this case, PR. She knew, she helped cover up and that is the 1 area of the case that I am sure of. I will not accept that ANY mother whose daughter was sexually assaulted and killed by her husband would turn a blind eye to that. Let alone stay married and sleep next to that person. I know and understand that some mothers turn a blind eye to molestation, as Fred pointed out above, of their daughter by a family member but no one would turn a blind eye to their daughter being murdered and what occured in that house. Statistics really mean nothing in this case because there is no evidence to substantiate any involvement of JR. All there is, are statistics, stories of other fathers who have molested their daughters and based on that, many here come to the conclusion that is the common or "most likely" scenario. For all we know the murder and molestation may be 2 totally seperate incidents with 2 different suspects and the vaginal penetration being done to hide prior molestation. Just because fathers molest their daughters does not mean that is what occured in this case and we are not just talking about molestation any longer but murder. I also do not find the blow to the head consistent with what JR would want to do to kill JBR, as that could have very easily been very messy and then surely incriminating. Why not just strangle her to begin with ? Again we can only assume things with the information that we have available. I would love to see JR put on the stand and have to answer some things but that is not going to happen, unfortunately.
ReplyDelete@Fed-With this case and JR being as "famous" as he is, dont you think someone who was molested by JR would have come forward by now ?
ReplyDeleteKeiser Sozay, didn't you read any of what Fed just said??? It is more than possible John wasn't molesting anyone else, aside from his daughter. And how do we know he hasn't molested his other daughters? Two of them are dead, so they'll never tell.....
DeleteOf course its possible John was molesting JBR. But its also possible theres a much simpler explanation. Anyway not going to harp on because youve it heard it all before.
DeleteConsidering all of the circumstantial evidence, I believe that IS the "simpler explanation". There is nothing remotely simple, or rational, about the BDI theory. It is the single most, convoluted theory, I have ever heard.
DeleteYou're a BDI, aren't you, Zed?
DeleteSo, tell me, you really think the "simpler explanation" is that two, otherwise loving parents, decided to finish off their daughter in the most gruesome way possible in order to deflect attention away from their son? They could have called 911, or even staged an accident, but no, they go all out by defiling their beloved, dead daughter's body.
Or perhaps you are in the camp that believes Burke did all of it before his parents discovered JB......the head blow, the garroting, the penetrating of JB's vagina? If so, the parents were still complicit enough to write a phony ransom note - none of which makes any sense if you're planning to call the cops before removing the body - even though they knew their son was a sadistic, psychopathic, monster?
Please enlighten me, how is this the "simpler explanation"?
Keiser, Patsy didn't "turn a blind eye" to John having murdered their daughter. Once he was erroneously ruled out as the writer of the note (which sounded the death knell in regards to the investigation ever being successfully solved, and I'm sure John still can't believe his luck), Patsy pushed her nagging doubts and fears aside and accepted that it must have been an intruder, because she knew it sure as hell wasn't her that committed the crime, so an intruder was the only other option, in her mind.
DeleteWe know because his daughter that is alive spoke out long ago. It is possible JR did/was molesting JBR. You wont hear me say that its not. Would you or would you not expect JR to have had/have been having intercourse with her in order to want to murder her and have such a pyschopathic plan ?
ReplyDeleteNo, it could be as simple as the night of JonBenet's murder whoever was molesting her murdered her because she said no and he couldn't stop abuse. Note 911 phone call on 12/23 didn't have to be related to JonBenet but if a molester was at that party they could certainly become paranoid that related to Jonbenet, there Jonbenet was at age where mom may discuss inappropriate touching. It could be as simple as on the night of the murder, whoever was molesting JBR tried to groom her into more abuse and JBR soiled herself, bit perp, screamed and perp slapped her/hit her over the head. It doesn't need to be about intercourse for a molester who couldn't quit molesting her to murder her in fit of rage. All hypothetically of course.
DeleteThe Princeton Brookings Institute and others have done studies that indicate digital penetration is overwhelmingly the preferred method of abuse when pre-pubescent children are the victims. Google it; check for yourself.
DeleteCC
Really ? I thought that the main goal of a molester was to have intercourse with the victim. Obviously it is a different mindset than adult sexual relationships but it seems like the goal would be the same.
DeleteI was molested for five years by my best friend's father (from the age of 9 - 14). He never attempted direct intercourse, though there was always penetration with fingers and various other objects, including a skipping rope handle. His brother had been molesting his daughter from the age of two, but it wasn't until age thirteen that the molestation turned into intercourse. She ended up becoming pregnant with her father's baby, and that is when the sexual abuse became known to the rest of the family (though I am almost certain some details were known prior to that - there were seven other girls that came forward after she admitted her abuse - my best friend and I being two of those girls - my friend's father used to often bring his brother over to participate). My point being, there are many forms of molestation, sometimes intercourse, sometimes digital penetration or whatever else the perpetrator has a penchant for, and most times, the victims don't speak up. I'm almost certain that had the girl in question not became pregnant, she would never have said a word about the abuse, and neither would have any of her friends. It is extremely shameful, embarrassing and stigmatizing to come out and say you have been violated. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
DeleteVery brave of you to share it with us here. Thanks for that.
DeleteCC
Thank you, CC. I have thought about sharing my experience several times here before, but always deleted it before posting. However, after Fed's post, I figured now is the time to bring it up, as I feel it's relevant.
DeleteI am quite tired of reading that John couldn't have molested JonBenet because no one else has ever come forward and accused him. Whether or not he molested JB, we can only speculate, but the fact no one else has ever come forward means nothing.
I feel it is important to add: my own experiences with sexual abuse do not cloud my judgement in regards to this case. Until a few years ago, I was a firm believer that an intruder committed this crime (as embarrassing as that admission is). I simply didn't have all of the facts, even though I had been following the case closely - I had only come across the possibility of 3 scenarios (PDI, BDI and IDI). John Ramsey had never factored into any of these scenarios - except for the ones where he had reluctantly assisted Patsy after the fact - which is why I was always left with more questions than answers.
DeleteI am now a firm believer that JDI simply because, after gathering all the facts, it is the only logical conclusion one can draw, along with it being the only conclusion that makes sense of all of the "loose ends" the other theories inevitably presented.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI tried to find it CC but there are alot of Princeton Brookings webpages. If you have the link please post it. I found this article about children abusing other children. Doc was very wrong as far as his thinking that BR was too young to sexually abuse his sister. It happens at far younger ages than 9, and I am not just talking fingers but oral and sodomy. Crazy because I would have never thought it possible myself either. http://www.newsweek.com/when-kids-molest-kids-196410
ReplyDeleteThe explanation in this blog requires that John spends probably 3-4 hours staging and writing, then going out the next day in broad daylight to dispose of the body. This runs a huge risk of Patsy realizing John is gone or Burke coming down and finding out what's happening, running the risk of Patsy or Burke finding a not-so-well hidden body, running the risk of Patsy calling 911 (which in this theory is what happened).
ReplyDeleteIf I am John Ramsey and I have killed and staged JBRs death, and my plan is to dispose of the body, why wouldn't I just write a short ransom note and go out, in the dark, on Christmas night when few are out including cops, and dispose of the body? Seems like that would be far less risk.
Tony
It is proposed here that dumping the body that night is the riskier proposition.
DeleteVery good point, Tony!
DeleteEG
I never said anything about John planning on dumping the body in broad daylight. He would certainly have waited till after dark. And as I've repeated many times, dumping the body on the night of the crime would be extremely risky. Less risky, by the way, if Patsy were a part of the conspiracy.
DeleteI wonder what your theory is, Tony, because if John and Patsy were in it together, then the same logic would apply, no? If the best bet were to dump her that night, then why wouldn't they have done that, if their in cahoots?
Unless your position is IDI? In that case you'd need to explain why the body was left in the house and not actually kidnapped. Or why the intruder would have left a meaningless note along with a dead body.
I am not saying the JDI theory isn't impossible, its just less likely than BDI.
DeleteMy position is that Burke accidentally killed JBR. John and Patsy probably heard the fighting. Burke may have never realized he did it. One of them comes downstairs and finds JBR motionless. Both panic, but John quickly realizes there's going to be an autopsy. He's been abusing her and his DNA is in places it should not be. First and foremost he now needs to clean up the body. The problem is Patsy is right there, in shambles. This is where he comes up with the intruder idea under the guise of protecting Burke. The severity of the staging is to cover any previous markings. Patsy agrees because this is the second child John has lost and after all, if someone finds out, they can just admit it was Burke, it was an accident, and they didn't want to lose him. John instructs Patsy to write a LONG note. Take her time. Start over if its not right. Meanwhile John goes to work staging and cleaning.
Maybe John proposed getting rid of the body, but Patsy wouldn't allow it, so leaving the house was not an issue.
They realize later John may have killed her. At that point there's no way they can just admit Burke did it.
I like the JDI theory. I just think this one makes more sense.
Tony
No John "may have killed her" about it - the garrote did kill her. Why, if they were working in tandem, didn't John complete the staging of the window? And why weren't their subsequent stories about it in synch? Sorry, Tony; that dog won't hunt.
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, but do their parents stage phony kidnappings complete with three page ransom notes in order to cover for them?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehi all
ReplyDeleteI think we should look at Burke not so much as a sexual offender child as a Schizoid Personality Disorder child on the end of the autistic spectrum (autism - Asperger - schizoid).
Impulsive behavior is a typical symptom of this disorder.
However the cardinal symptom is "lack of empathy" of which Burke is a textbook example: from smiling at JBR's funeral to his attitude during the interviews with the LE to this interview with Dr Phil.
My belief is that he struck fatally his little sister in a fit of rage that Christmas night and JR convinced BR that they should cover up for him instead of calling the authorities. She should write the “ransom note” and he would take care of the rest.
The cover up was totally amateurish however and the only reason this case was not solved in the first 48h is because of BDP's incompetence and DA's reluctance to indict the "honorable" Ramseys.
Or maybe the DA understood very early the “tragic situation” and decided not to pursue further the parents.
And being Greek I use the word "tragic" in its original meaning.
It's original meaning. Ah, yes: "Goat Song"
DeleteShould we reward hioiam the goat? Or should he share his prize with Tony, above?
DeleteCC
Well Burke has definitely become the Goat. Succeeding his Mom, who held that position for many years.
DeleteMy questions to you, hioiam, are the same ones I directed to Tony, and the same ones I put to all BDIers: If John and Patsy were working in tandem, why didn't John complete the window staging? And why were their subsequent stories about it not in synch?
DeleteCC
We dont know that he wasnt finished. Possibly he changed he changed his mind for whatever reason, he possibly got the idea that the edges of broken glass were noy dirty but clean as we did. I only say this because surely he had more than adequate time to complete anything he needed to.
Deletebecause CC it's possible they were not working in tandem
DeleteExcuse me? Every BDIer posting here, including you, Inq, has insisted that Patsy was involved in the cover up. Now you're saying she and John weren't working together? What now, Patsy is solely responsible? Or was each staggering around the house, acting independently of one another?
DeleteAnd I'm sorry, KS, but that's just silly. He had no time at all after Patsy made the 911 call or there would have been glass on the floor, a smudged sill, and altogether better evidence of an intruder.
CC
PR and JR's stories were pretty much in sync about the window. If it really were not broken then JR had to gaslight PR into believing that window had been broken for about 6 months. That is some good gaslighting, if possible. It would seem more logical to me that they had spoken about what to say about the window yet had not gone over fine details, such as who and when it was cleaned up. Which left PR in a position to come up with an answer, spur of the moment while being interrogated. If JR had gaslit her then surely she would have no memory of her and Linda cleaning it up. PR saying her and Linda cleaning it seems to me to be a last second, on the hotseat answer.
DeleteThere was no need for a "last second, on the hot seat answer". They had four months in which to align their stories; the only reason they did not was because John acted alone.
DeleteCC
John did all of it? All night long? Without being detected by Patsy who would have rolled over at some point in the night and noticed her husband was not in bed with her. Oh yeah, I forgot. He possibly slipped her a mickey over at the White's or when they got home.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete'Cuse me, I meant to say the kidnap for ransom as stated in the note was Patsy's idea, Patsy authored the note and she couldn't be ruled out. John would have thought of a better scenario and a better note if he was let in on it. Don't you think so? CEO of Access Graphics, he would have come up with a better plan. I agree CC, if he had been in on the plan John would have thought of a better one. As is he had time after he was told and when he disappeared around 10 a.m. to make things look like an intruder. And yes, I agree Doc, he would not have called 911 until he could figure things out. That was completely her idea, and not a good plan but it was her plan.
DeleteDO NOT misquote me. I did not say ". . . if John had been in on the plan he would have thought of a better one" or anything resembling that.
DeleteCC
I did not mean the broken glass obviously but JR was down in the basement more than once by himself that morning. Surely he could have been down there doing some staging. What that was nobody knows.
DeleteNo, CC I was not quoting you or misquoting you. I was correcting myself, that I think if John was in on it he would have thought of a better plan. But as it turns out they kind of lucked into the plan working, as bumbling and stumbling as it was.
DeleteThen why the "I agree CC. . ."?
DeleteNever mind. Do not include me in your "bumbling and stumbling" and frequent self-corrections again.
CC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat "better plan" do you surmise he might have concocted in such a small amount of time? With dawn approaching and not being able to remove the body from the house, lest it wake Patsy, or the neighbors, John actually came up with a pretty decent plan, and one that included a written detail that accounted for everything when any questions were asked - which is just what I'd expect from a CEO of a billion dollar company:
DeleteHe came up with a pretty clever way of getting the body out of the house while still giving himself an alibi should he get caught in the location he planned to dump it (pure genius).
He made sure to mention the size of the attache case in the note, lest someone should see John carrying out a large suitcase to his car on the very day his daughter goes missing (very clever indeed).
He even gave himself some leeway, time wise, by including in his note that they were being monitored and therefore might arrange for an earlier delivery if he managed to pop into the bank a little earlier (Very accommodating kidnappers)!
And, of course, he made sure - after scrapping his initial plan - to address the note solely to himself, being sure to put himself as the one in control - while making Patsy take a back seat - which is exactly what I'd expect from a CEO.
So I'd say his plan was pretty solid, actually.....it was Patsy calling 911 that was the problem.
Amen!
Delete@Inquisitive, I'm re-posting a comment I left for you on the previous blog post. I want to make sure that you see it. It's in response to the following, which you said to CC:
ReplyDelete"Okay, then what someone posted several days ago describing the law suit was perhaps superficial. I yield to you, you are the expert on things legal here. I do like information to be corrected, and complete, so thank you."
This was my response to that comment:
@Inquisitive, it was me who posted to you, regarding the complaint.
You said...
InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM
"I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"
I responded...
HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM
"@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."
Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.
Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.
Hi, CC. I have tried posting to you twice, but it will not show up. My comment is in reference to the one you made to me on the previous blog post. I just wanted to say, no apology necessary, but thank you. You are a class act.
ReplyDeleteThat's very kind, HKH. Thank you.
DeleteCC
Does anyone here have any information - published information - as to what time Patsy stated she went to bed that night, or Burke? (I'm guessing Burke got back out of bed anyway). I only find two places where John said he retired around 10 p.m., took his melatonin, read until approx. 10:30 and fell asleep shortly after - he says 10:30-10:45. However in that same "chronology" of events (and in the interview with BDP) there is a question mark after the time Patsy retired for the evening as well as Burke. I don't believe Patsy ever did go to bed that night. She would have had to have packed for two trips - Charlevoix and the "Big Red Boat" cruise. I believe after the event, Burke ran to tell his mother, who was already up, dressed, she may have even witnessed part of it, although that's a stretch as I'll never be able to substantiate that. When this all first happened in 1996 I at first believed it possible that John did not know what happened at all. That Patsy took the whole night to clean up the disaster and create the ransom note. That she took the white blanket from the drier and covered her daughter in it. In fact, she could not be ruled out from writing that note. Then that didn't completely jive because of the strangulation. But if look at it in the context of Burke having done all of it, then the other things could be explained by an "up all night" Patsy in her same clothing and make up, the coverup essentially, the note, the 911 call. Now did she at some point tell John? Oh I'm sure of it. He then did his "look around" early that morning, and then later in the morning, doing other things like disposing of evidence and breaking, then cleaning up the window glass. Moving the suitcase, etc. Anyway, all I wanted to ask here does anyone have anything I can look up where Patsy claims when she went to bed? And not just a statement from John that she was in bed. I also believe if you look at the pictures of their bedroom and bed wasn't there something about only one side of the bed looked slept in? That I'll have to look up again as that info I read 20 years ago. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteHere is what time she said she went to bed (BPD transcripts):
ReplyDeleteApril 30, 1997
TT: About what time did you head up to bed that night?
PR: Um, probably around 9:30, 10:00 something like that.
JUNE 23, 1998
10 TOM HANEY: Approximately what time
11 did you get to sleep on the 25th?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, I don't know
13 what time. I mean --
14 TOM HANEY: We understand that--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Just before, I mean
16 it was 10 o'clock-ish. Probably something like
17 that.
18 TOM HANEY: When you actually went
19 to sleep?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was pretty
21 soon after I hit the bed, yeah, I was pretty
22 tired.
23 TOM HANEY: So about--
24 PATSY RAMSEY: About 10:30-ish, I
25 think
Of course PR was involved in the cover up. She couldn't have pulled it off all by herself. JR ruled the roost and took charge of the situation, as he did in every other aspect of their lives.
ReplyDeleteIf the head blow came first, then I believe it was a tragic accident, covered up by two desperate parents.
If the strangulation came first, then it was something entirely different perpetrated by a sick individual. The two lines around her neck indicate that the first one was tightened but not enough to kill her, but probably tight enough to make her scream, which might have caused the blow to the head, followed by the second tightening of the rope, which killed her.
Either scenario, there was a cover up. Only reason to write a RN is to mislead, which is exactly what happened. Tony made a good point--the RN should've been short and sweet, but it was long and full of advice, lines from movies, sarcasm, etc.I believe PR wrote that note, with JR adding something here and there.
I don't think a man would care if anyone got some rest, or carried the correct type bag, or grew a brain, or used his good Southern common sense. That letter SCREAMS female.
EG
very good point EG. Of course we can speculate just when John was told, but I'm happy now to just feel that it all makes sense to me now. There were always those dangling things that didn't make sense to me, I couldn't make the pieces fit until now. IT does scream female. Thanks Anonymous for the script above. It sounds like she's trying to figure out how she should respond as to when she went to bed! John was very certain when he went to bed. 10p.m. he said, took his melatonin, read for a while, then estimated he must have fallen asleep around 10:30-10:45. Sounds like she has to go with his story that he said he thought she was already in bed so she has to make it 9:30, or wait a minute, maybe 10 or could it have been 10-ish? yep.
DeleteI meant to say she goes from 9:30 to "10:30 ish." Thanks so much for that Anony. IT's pretty priceless! Truth be told she didn't go to bed at all.
DeleteHas it occurred to you that there is a very good reason why John is clear on what time he went to bed, and Patsy is a little less sure?
DeleteJohn's story is a well rehearsed fabrication.
Patsy's is the truth, therefore she genuinely is a little unclear of the exact time she went to bed.
I don't have a clock by my bed, so if you asked me what time I went to sleep, I could only narrow it down to an approximate, one hour, time frame. If I was making the story up, however, I could tell you *exactly* the time I went to bed.....I could also tell you ever, other thing I did right before hopping into bed, as John did, because I had very carefully memorized it.
Hi Inq,
DeleteYes, PR was packing for two trips with TWO kids and she was in bed by 10, or so? JR took two melatonin pills so his head could be clear for the trip the next day. I guess they both slept through their daughter's scream that a neighbor across the street heard. It all stinks and none of it makes any sense.
Will be interesting to see how far Lin Wood gets. I am betting he gets nowhere.
EG
If Lin focuses on Burke, and tricks the CBS lawyers to focus on Burke, then he will certainly win his case -- because there is no real evidence of Burke's involvement. Fingerprints on a bowl won't cut it. Some garbled noises on the 911 tape that sound like crosstalk won't cut it. Signs of "deception" based on pseudoscience won't cut it.
DeleteOn the other hand, if the CBS lawyers are clever enough to downplay the Burke angle and concentrate on the intruder theory, then Lin may be forced to back off. If this goes to trial, we'll have a LOT to discuss for sure.
Doc:
DeleteWhy would Linn need to "trick" the CBS lawyers to focus on Burke? I had some comments/questions to you about this a couple a days ago, but never heard back from you. The only reply I received was from Inqisitive who dimissed everything I said, somewhat rudely in my opinion, with "this is a civil hearing, not a criminal one....it's all about the money." I thought you might at least come to my defense. If it was my question regarding your anonymity, I'd be glad to back off on that one. You obviously have your reasons for it you prefer not to share with me at this time, and that's fine with me.
But I stand firm by my suspisions (and please take note Inquistitive if you are reading this), that both sides are quite aware this isn't your run of the mill defemation suit- so, NO...it's not "all" about the money! Burke might think it is, but he's a pawn in a larger game with much greater stakes.
If CBS needs to be "tricked" into focusing on Burke, you must on some level agree with me that, should Lin suddenly drop the case, he may be seen, most importantly perhaps by CBS, that he is incriminating his other client John.
Mike G
EG: "Yes, PR was packing for two trips with TWO kids and she was in bed by 10, or so? JR took two melatonin pills so his head could be clear for the trip the next day. I guess they both slept through their daughter's scream that a neighbor across the street heard. It all stinks and none of it makes any sense."
DeleteFirstly, you only have John's word he took a sleeping aid, don't you? To say he took one would fit in well with his alibi. There is zero evidence he actually did take any melatonin - after all, didn't he switch his dose from one to two over the course of the investigation? If so, that would indicate he is probably being untruthful.
Secondly, if the scream came from the basement, there is every possibility it may not have been heard from the third floor - this scenario was tested, and verified. But, it was Lou Smit who proposed this idea, and I know he had an agenda, so I do take this with a grain of salt, admittedly. But, it is irrelevant really, as the "scream" heard could have been any number of noises, and may not mean much at all. It certainly doesn't point towards any, one, particular theory.
Mike G: As you may have noticed there has been an overwhelming number of comments lately. I simply don't have time to respond to every one, and in your case I have a feeling I somehow missed reading it. Sorry about that.
DeleteI don't think it's all about the money either. And if CBS offered an apology and retraction, that would probably be the end of it.
What interests me especially about this lawsuit is the complexity produced by its two different aspects. On the one hand, the question of whether Burke killed his sister, as alleged in the show, and on the other hand, the question of whether or not any intruder theory can be reasonably defended. I don't think the CBS investigators will be able to defend their BDI theory, as there is no evidence for it, only conjecture. But if they are as smart as they claim to be (doubtful), they may well be able to poke some huge holes into the intruder theory, especially the all-important DNA evidence that led to the "exoneration" of the Ramseys. This, I would imagine, would be an issue Lin would not want to address.
So if he manages to limit his lawsuit to their treatment of Burke, then as I see it he will have a slam dunk. But if things move in the direction of a critique of the intruder theory, and especially the DNA evidence, then he could be in serious trouble.
And yes, if he backs off that would look very bad for both John and Burke.
Some interesting information regarding DNA...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/13/dna-wetterling-abduction
http://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/13/dna-match
Minnesota Linda
The idea that Patsy wrote the ransom letter WITH the body in the house and then calling the police is absurd. People would rather blame her or Burke because the idea of John as a molester is mind boggling to them. Smdh! John has spent the last 20 years lying and manipulating the public and the police.
ReplyDeleteIn response to EG:
ReplyDelete"If the head blow came first, then I believe it was a tragic accident, covered up by two desperate parents."
So the blow to the head was an unfortunate accident, thus they decided they may as well brutally finish her off by tying a garrote around her neck? That is still cold blooded murder, no matter which way you spin it.
"If the strangulation came first, then it was something entirely different perpetrated by a sick individual."
I would suggest, that even if the strangulation came second, it was still perpetrated by "a very sick individual". You do realize there were many other ways to cover for the blow to the head without resorting to using a garrote and vigorous, vaginal penetration, right? It just doesn't follow that this is the natural course of action to take after an accident occurs!
"The two lines around her neck indicate that the first one was
tightened but not enough to kill her, but probably tight enough to make her scream, which might have caused the blow to the head, followed by the second tightening of the rope, which killed her."
Wrong.
A. You can't scream whilst being choked, your lungs require air in order to scream.
B. The blow to the head came a good 40 minutes, or longer, before the strangulation occurred, making your theory completely impossible, along with showing you haven't done your homework.
"Only reason to write a RN is to mislead, which is exactly what happened. Tony made a good point--the RN should've been short and sweet, but it was long and full of advice, lines from movies, sarcasm, etc.I believe PR wrote that note, with JR adding something here and there."
It was "long and full of advice" for a very, specific, purpose, and that is what everyone here keeps missing. Once you realize the true purpose of the note, there is no one else but John who could have written it. John needed to get Patsy and Burke out of the house so he could remove the body - to buy this time, he (under the guise of the intruder), had to outline his plan very carefully. The very fact the note is NOT "short and sweet", but full of very specific details actually points to it being more than just a red herring to throw off the cops, in which case it most certainly would have been "short and sweet".
"I don't think a man would care if anyone got some rest, or carried the correct type bag, or grew a brain, or used his good Southern common sense. That letter SCREAMS female."
And you think after reluctantly finishing off her daughter, Patsy would really care if John was well rested or not, lol? Or what size bag he took to the bank?! Again, there is a very specific reason the note asks John to bring an "adequate size attache", and to "be well rested", and one that has been covered here many times, and when one accepts why this is (and it's pretty, damn, obvious - let's face it) then it is rather clear that the author of the note is the very same person the note is addressed to.
I don't think PR would cover for JR AT ALL in any way, shape or form.
DeleteI am saying BDI, and his parents covered for him.
That kid had problems, and you don't know and I don't know the how's the why's or the what's.
We are ALL posting what we think MIGHT have happened.
I just don't think JR was molesting his daughter. There was NO EVIDENCE found anywhere. I do think BR might have been, though.
And yes, I am entitled to my opinion. And no, I don't agree with yours, BUT you're entitled to have it, nontheless.
EG
Yep EG and it's even possible to consider that in Burke's mind it wouldn't be "molesting" or doing something for sexual gratification. More like tormenting and rough inappropriate play. Because I do agree that there was previous damage and as the coroner said, most probably digital, how frequent? don't know. But prior. And Burke.
DeleteThere's "no evidence" that John molested JB. Where's this "evidence" that Burke was molesting her?
DeleteEG: "I don't think PR would cover for JR AT ALL in any way, shape or form."
DeleteI wholeheartedly concur.
"I am saying BDI, and his parents covered for him.
That kid had problems, and you don't know and I don't know the how's the why's or the what's.
We are ALL posting what we think MIGHT have happened."
Burke may have had some problems......though, I do believe you're all obviously suffering from a bad case of confirmation bias, as you start with the premise that BDI, thus, you have no choice but to employ some rather mind contorting, mental gymnastics in order to make sure everything lines up with with your conclusion. You can say all you like that the JDI camp are merely stating "what they THINK happened", and of course, you are correct. But that assumption is based on everything we have learned from this case, not just some random, shot in the dark conclusion.
"I just don't think JR was molesting his daughter. There was NO EVIDENCE found anywhere. I do think BR might have been, though."
So you have evidence that Burke was molesting his sister? Please present it here then. Or you just "think" he was because you don't like the idea that John was?
"And yes, I am entitled to my opinion. And no, I don't agree with yours, BUT you're entitled to have it, nontheless."
You most certainly are entitled to your opinion, and no one here has ever stated otherwise. Just ask yourself what your opinion is based on. Doc's theory makes sense of all those nagging questions the BDI/IDI/RDI theories can't answer. With every other theory, there are still too many unanswered questions, which is why I came here, two years ago, to begin with. I was firmly an IDI, but I had a couple of nagging questions that I desperately wanted answers for, so I read Doc's blog - as I had so many other blogs - and it all became patently obvious who, alone, was responsible for this crime once I looked at the ransom note with the knowledge it wasn't simply a rambling piece of nonsense to confuse the cops, and that it actually had a very specific purpose.
The ransom note is not a distraction, it is KEY to solving the crime. Once people realize this, there is nowhere else to look, but John.
Every, single thing in that note is exactly what John needed to happen (hence it being addressed to John, and only John) in order to remove the body from the house, while still having an alibi for the suit case, the drive to an obscure location and, most importantly, buy him a lot of TIME.
This from HK (I think), who wasn't able to post it here for some reason:
ReplyDelete@Inquisitive, I'm re-posting a comment I left for you on the previous blog post. I want to make sure that you see it. It's in response to the following, which you said to CC:
"Okay, then what someone posted several days ago describing the law suit was perhaps superficial. I yield to you, you are the expert on things legal here. I do like information to be corrected, and complete, so thank you."
This was my response to that comment:
@Inquisitive, it was me who posted to you, regarding the complaint.
You said...
InquisitiveOctober 9, 2016 at 3:53 PM
"I looked up something else earlier. Defamation law suits. I don't know if this statement will play a part in whether Burke has a case or not against Dr. Spitz but here's a quote: "people who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influencial or famous-like movie stairs-also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases." Is Burke Ramsey considered a public figure?"
I responded...
HKHOctober 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM
"@Inquisitive, the complaint filed by Wood basically claims that Burke is not considered a public figure because he has remained silent on the case up until this September when he gave the interview with Dr. Phil. The complaint says Burke's reason for agreeing to the interview was that he was made aware of the upcoming CBS special where he would be named the prime suspect. The complaint also states that Spitz's statements were made with actual malice because Spitz ignored evidence, and basically had it out for the Ramseys. Obviously, I'm paraphrasing what is stated in the complaint, but that's the gist of it concerning the points you bring up."
Then, in a subsequent post, I provided you with the link to the actual complaint, so that you could read it for yourself.
Please don't post your misinterpretation of information, and then try to pass the buck, when called out.
It was not a "misinterpretation of information." I read about defamation law suits, wanted to know if Burke was considered a public figure, got my answer but the superficial answer (not meaning intentionally misleading, but the meaning of the word as "incomplete" was not given by HKH). And by the way, still waiting for that quote from Brookings Institute.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you mean by "but the meaning of the word as "incomplete" was not given by HKH." Nor do I know what quote you're waiting for. Was that last sentence directed at me?
DeleteNo HKH, what DocG sent to me was confusing, totally confusing. Looked like HKH was in the reference. No, not at you. It's very confusing!
DeleteDocG, I'd like to ask you a question. I believe you started this blog around 2012, correct? You wrote a book for kindle and you tried to interest LE in Boulder to consider John as the author of the note and explained why. You asked several questions as to why he was ruled out and said the case would have gone in a different direction if he had been ruled in. You got no response, am I understanding this? In fact no one was very interested in your theory even as well written and thought out as it was. So you started a blog site and by all accounts a successful one as it has been up and running for some time now, although I went back to 2012 and saw there weren't near the amount of participants that there are here now. This is probably due to the 20 year anniversary and the spate of television shows currently. But I'm interested, why did you start this blog site? What are your goals where it is concerned? have you met your goals for a successful exchange of ideas, or do you just want agreement? Do you encourage dissenting opinions, even when they can be verified, or is the purpose to have others on here who just agree with you? I mean there is a difference between educating someone, correcting misinformation and just plain ridiculing someone and calling them preposterous or ignorant as I have read in here. I sure as heck don't need a parental school teacher figure wrapping me on the knuckles every now and again. I'm beginning to think honest discourse is not the goal here at all. Or questioning. You said we were rehashing the same stuff and asked if anyone had anything new, yet when someone does have something new if it doesn't fit then here come the verbal critiques and reprimands. So I'm satisfied that I have made the pieces of this case fit for me now after being in mystery for 20 years and it's certainly not what I would have done say in the example of your straw poll, but it is what the Ramsey's did. But you have gotten your theory out there and now what? More agreement and disagreement? Is there any action being forwarded? What action would you like to see forwarded? Or is this just a bitch fest? What is your purpose for this blog site now, four years after you started it. I'm glad I worked it out for myself, the rest of it is very toxic and J or Zed if you ever want to email me let's work that out.
ReplyDeleteGood morning, Inq.
DeleteI await Doc's response to your post, along with you. I hope it doesn't end up on the cutting room floor as my post did a few days back. As I stated, I thought this was about brainstorming, sharing ideas, maybe coming to some conclusions, etc. Instead it's a platform for insulting and ridiculing people. Such a shame, really.
I'd like very much to keep in touch with you as well. I loved your posts and learned a lot about the case from them and thanks for that.
Hope this post stays here, so you actually see it.
EG
Inquisitive and EG:
DeleteI started this blog because I had ideas about the case that no one else seemed to share and I honestly felt I'd solved it. I wasn't ready to write a book at the time so I decided to start a blog, basically to get my ideas out there, in the hope that they might contribute to a solution to this case, and hopefully an indictment of the person I felt to be the guilty party.
As word got out, I received more and more comments, many in the form of questions, which I felt obliged to answer. The basic logic of the case is spelled out in the first three posts, but there were many other issues that needed to be addressed, which led to many additional posts.
I've always encouraged comments, first because I enjoy discussing the case and considering all the different possibilities, second because I was curious to see if anyone had found any holes in my theory that I was unable to account for. So far, as I see it, there have been none, but there were some issues that required further exploration and a certain amount of speculative thinking to work out. One good example is the question of whether the murder had been premeditated or not, which for me is still an open question, though originally I had discounted it.
I did contact some people from LE, sending them a link to the blog, in the hope that they might be willing, at the very least, to look into some of the issues I raised -- but I never got any response from any of them. Understandable because they no doubt are bombarded constantly by people with theories.
As far as my "insults" are concerned, if you go to any of the other websites where this case, or just about any case, is discussed, you will find a great many insults being hurled left and right and a great many posts and posters being censored or even banned. My policy has been to avoid insulting or demeaning anyone and to avoid banning anyone regardless of whether or not they agree with me -- though in a very few cases I've banned obvious spammers and/or trolls with nothing to contribute but insults and personal attacks. For the most part my responses to comments have been respectful. But as you've noted: not always.
I've never had anything disparaging to say about anyone simply because they disagree with my take on this case, nor have I ever attempted to censor any of their posts, so long as they don't descend to personal attacks.
However: when someone argues that two otherwise sane people would simultaneously morph into characters from grand guignol, driving a paintbrush handle into the vagina of their daughter and strangling her with some diabolical garrote-like device, producing a furrow in her neck so deep that the cord was no longer visible; following that up with a hand lettered 2 1/2 page ransom note as part of an effort to stage BOTH a pedophile attack AND a kidnapping, all for the purpose of protecting a son who had just bashed his sister's head in with a heavy flashlight, in a fit of anger: then I'm sorry but to me such a "theory" is preposterous, yes -- and I have no problem saying so.
(continued on my next comment . . . )
I've never called anyone a fool or an idiot, outright, but when I see foolish or idiotic ideas being insisted on, as though they represent the ONLY theory of the case that makes sense, then sorry but yes, sometimes I lose it and get insulting.
DeleteI've always welcomed criticism of my theories and usually try to respond in a meaningful way. And I'd say that in the great majority of cases my responses have been respectful. But when people refuse to let go of ideas that I see as ridiculous, or insist on nitpicking endlessly over what I regard as trivial side issues, I do get impatient from time to time, yes -- especially when they won't let go and keep repeating the same objections over and over.
What you might see as an effort to "defend my theory at all costs," I see as a perfectly legitimate attempt to respond to criticisms I regard as misplaced. Everyone with a theory of any kind has a right to respond to criticism, so why shouldn't I? The impression I get from you and some others posting here is that I should immediately cave when presented with objections that seem reasonable to you, but not to me. Sorry, but I refuse to do that.
People! Go back and read. Doc has a) explained why he started this blog. b) Explained why he prefers to remain anonymous. c) Stated who he has contacted, d) offered thoughts as to why he hasn't gotten much of a reaction.
DeleteThis blog, in my opinion, is not to open a wide forum for speculation - at least that is not why I'm here. It started as a theory based on the facts, just the facts, with inferences and speculation only where needed to fill in what we don't know. All speculation derived from Doc's theory is very clearly stated as just that, with concession that we "really don't know." Declarative statements are only made about things the facts point to: such as "no one would call 911 if the staging-in-progress was not completed" or something to that effect.
You guys are convinced that Burke had issues, probably has Asperbers, blah blah blah. Yet his school teachers said he was fine. All kids do things they shouldn't -- that's why we adults are training them in the way they should go! They have sibling rivalry, hit each other, fight, etc. Yes, these 2 kids had it somewhat rough while Patsy was sick, but at least there were loving grandparents there to help. What they lacked was discipline; everyone was too easy on them out of sympathy for the possibility of losing their mother. So naturally, there were going to be toileting issues if mom was too sick to focus on that. We don't know if Burke smeared poop more than once -- he could have done it once, been scolded, and never did it again. Yeah, he's sort of a quiet guy now, but honestly he's not that much different than my 26 year old son who is an engineer.
No one on this site has been particularly rude until recently. We had Hercules, who was rather stubborn and often condescending. But some of the new people here seem to think Doc "owes" them answers, owes it to them to keep this blog running as a free for all, and are misconstruing our impatience at rehashing the same old stuff as being ridiculing. So I suggest you try more to listen and understand, and stop being so unwilling to look at everything in its totality!
Well done, you.
DeleteCC
EG, if your post wound up on the "cutting room floor" it's because it contained a personal attack. You are finding it hard to refrain from such attacks lately and as a result other posts from you may also be deleted. The purpose of this blog is to discuss the Ramsey case, NOT to indulge in a personal vendetta, OK?
DeleteWhat CC just said. Thanks for the sensible comments. :-)
DeleteThanks Doc! That was me, LE. I forgot to sign off as I had to dash to an appointment.
DeleteI guess you can tell that I'm one who wants to find legit ways to either refine your theory, improve upon it with any new information, or catch any mistakes in the reasoning. I'm not much interested in the rehash of PDI or IDI because they have already been debunked. And this whole BDI conversation is going nowhere.
To EG: We can safely say that Burke didn't write that note. It follows that Patsy and/or John wrote it. I believe that the analysis Doc did totally supports that John wrote it- the Johnism's alone were compelling. I doubt Patsy had a computer that she could have traced the note from. Now, if she provided input to that note, in collusion with John, she would have followed his lead and not called 911. Even assuming he mutilated JBR without her knowing, I think she would have eventually divorced him over what he did to her as part of a cover up. EVEN IF she thought the staging was what they had to do to cover up a head blow by Burke, the mutilation is not something an otherwise loving mother could ignore. Net, if she felt she had to help cover up what Burke did, she would have either gone along with John's plan or refused to be a part of it. She was smarter than you think, and I honestly don't think she would go along with such a stupid, desperate plan. No, this plan was born out of desperation. Someone had a lot more to lose than family honor over a disturbed kid. Someone was going to jail, was about to lose his livelihood, and would be shamed for life, unable to support his family.
Finally, I don't need proof that John did prior molestation. His victims are dead. He may have never touched Melinda -- so what? My grandfather molested only 2 of his several granddaughters, because of opportunity. They did not tell on him until after he died and they were young adults. He never touched his own daughter, making us wonder if this deviant behavior started after he had a stroke. My family still discusses how it could be that no one, not even my grandmother, ever caught him. She never noticed that he slipped out of bed around midnight when they were visiting. Incestuous men are smart and crafty!
If Patsy did it, she would have been arrested. They simply could not make a case against her. It was only the MONSTROUS mistake of ruling John out that derailed the justice for Jonbenet.
-LE
Doc,
DeleteI had no idea I was coming off the way you've described in your post. If I've spoken out of turn or said anything that was insulting or led people to believe I was attacking them, then I apologize. I am a native New Yorker,and will blame some of my "in your face" attitude on that. *S*
I am also fairly new here, and can certainly understand that to you and others here, this is old stuff and we are rehashing it. I admit, I am not as well read on this case as yourself and others here, but have always had an interest in it and was enjoying the exchange of ideas and theories.
Inq - my email address is elisewaits@hotmail.com--I'd be more than happy to continue exchanging ideas with you regarding this case, if you are so inclined.
Thanks to all of you who listened, commented and shared your thoughts and theories. I've thoroughly enjoyed you.
And finally, thank you Doc, for this blog and allowing me to post here these past few weeks. Once again, my sincere apology for any wrongdoing on my part.
EG
CC and LE, thank you again for being the voice of reason!
DeleteDoc's is the voice of reason. By the simple-seeming device of re-including John, he - in my opinion - broke the case. The rest of us have tried to chime in, in a minor key, by building a case for things like motive and premeditation. At the risk of sounding like our recent BDI/CBS visitors participating in a chat room: You're no slouch in the logic and reason department yourself.
DeleteCC
Thanks, CC! I'm just a big believer in Occam's Razor :)
DeleteI feel that too many here are over complicating matters, when the simplest, most logical explanation is staring us right in the face. Once one begins with the all important instructions in the RN, the rest just follows....too many people dismiss the ransom note as merely a distraction, which is the biggest mistake LE made.
Gumshoe posted an analysis of the RN last December, iirc, in whatever thread was ongoing at that time, which was just excellent and worth a look, if you can find it.
DeleteCC
JR's call to his pilot and trying to take off to Atlanta after JBR's body was found was in imo, him going to meet with his lawyers. Not sure if anyone has ever brought that up but I think that is where he was headed.
ReplyDeleteWere his lawyers located in Atlanta? That makes complete sense, of course. This was right after JB's body was found, and Linda Arnt knew John was responsible.....I imagine he thought the jig was up at that point.
DeleteI bet he still can't believe his luck, huh?
I'm sure he had attorneys in Atlanta, Ms D, but they would have been hard-pressed to advise him on Colorado law. John retained Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, a very fine Denver criminal defense firm, on the 27th.
DeleteHe was likely going to Atlanta just to get away from Colorado and it's law enforcement representatives, buy himself some time.
CC
IMO, LE told him that they could not stay in the house because it was a crime scene.
DeleteThey had friends they could stay with in Boulder. No need to flee to Atlanta.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHe met with lawyers while in Atlanta for JBR's funeral service. Linn Woods office possibly ? I would really like to see the Ramsey's phone records from back then. I wonder if there is any record of those still kept somewhere ?
ReplyDeleteAfter playing alot of devil's advocate on this site, alot of which I do for knowledge, I have to admit that the ransom note sure does sound like an exact blueprint for JR to dispose of JBR's body. I just can not get PR's behaviors or words to say John did it alone. Possibly, JR and PR's indifference the morning of the 26th was about what to do with the body. JR wanted to dump it and PR did not. Possibly there has been a mistake on the timeline of JBRs death. Possibly the strangulation occured much closer to 6am rather than earlier in the morning. I do believe that the sexual staging of JBR all occured AFTER the police were called. Once the police were called and the kidnapping was voided then there had to be a different motive as to why JBR was murdered and her body was in the house, thus the sexual staging, all done after the police were in the house.
ReplyDeleteGood morning, Ms D,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response and I admit, there have been times when I've given the IDI theory a lot of thought. I still go back and forth with that, because of the heinous way JBR was murdered. My psyche', at times, won't allow me to accept the fact that a parent or a sibling could do such a thing to their own child or sister. And then I read what others have posted, proof that these things, though terribly unfortunate, sick and twisted, DO indeed go on.
As far as the JDI's you're basing your theory on conjecture and speculation. In short, you are doing the very same thing you're accusing the BDI's of doing. The difference is, the BDI folks have some proof to back that up.
For example:
1. JR molested JBR - There is no proof
2. JR was a deviant in Denmark - There is no proof
3. JR's other daughter said he was a loving father - fact
4. JBR told the gardener she missed her dad when he was away - fact
5. BR hit JBR with a golf club - fact
6. BR wet the bed WAY past an acceptable age - fact
7. BR smeared feces all over a bathroom in the house - fact
8. BR appeared on Dr Phil and looked and behaved like a psychopath - no eye contact made, no conscience when speaking about his dead sister, perpetual smile on his face - facts
I will give the JDI people one fact. He indeed WAS the only adult male in the house. That is a fact.
Now, having said all of that, I STILL don't know who did it. But I sure as hell welcome everyone's opinions, because TOGETHER, we just might come to a conclusion that fits and solve this case.
EG
PLEASE listen to Real Crime Profile podcast on JBR. They have had 4 episodes so far and have gone into much more detail than what you saw on the show. If you have called them idiots or question them being experts, first I feel for you and second, that won't be your feeling after listening.
ReplyDeleteIn the most recent episode that launched yesterday, they talk a lot more about the White's. In no way was the show hiding them for any other reason than the White's didn't want to be on camera. They do talk about what they have discussed with them and some very troubling details emerged.
* They took BR straight from the house when he woke up and at no point was there any questioning or mentions of JBR regarding where she was. According to BR himself, JR told Burke that JBR was missing. Yet all BR cared about what his Nintendo
*The more troubling details for me was that neither PR or JR mentioned that there even was a RN to the White's on the phone or when they were sitting at the house for a few hours.
The more I listen to the show and look at details of the case, you would have to be knowingly ignorant to not believe PR was aware and in on the staging. I know BDI and won't be convinced otherwise because it's fabricated nonsense. Believe what you want, but let's please stop acting like PR wasn't aware and involved in what was going on.
-J
If you are going to argue against the podcast but haven't listened to it, then save yourself. If you care about this case and truly want to know who did it, then listen to all 4 episodes with an open mind.
ReplyDelete-J
Thanks J. I've been listening and it's very convincing. As I have said, I appreciate your steadfastness. Both parents covered for their son, and I do not believe JR molested (previously) hit his daughter on the head with a flashlight, and then 45 minutes to 2 hours later strangled her and assaulted her sexually, then wiped her down, changed her panties, etc. I think Burke did all of it, including the tying up and rough violent assault, told his mother who was still up, and she was distraught as any mother would be. As to when she brought John in on it I'm undecided. After she composed that note or after she called 911. Witnesses said they were not speaking to each other. That John seemed rather cold to her. I think had he been told about it sooner he would have done things differently. For one he would have not written such a rambling ridiculous note, he may have even tried to get the body out of the house. She went off "half cocked" so to speak. Then he had no choice but to go looking around the house and tie up any loose ends to have the house look as if an intruder came in. But think about it. John wasn't given much to work with! The note had been written (by Patsy) and the call had been made. Any prior abuse that showed up on autopsy to me points to Burke. I believe Patsy either knew given 27 pediatrician visits in 2 years (that comes out to one a month - a bit much actually - but not the extent of what her troubled son had been doing. Unless JB told her and she was under 6 so we don't know how much a child of that age would say. The Grand Jury felt that both parents put their daughter in danger didn't they? In danger of a disturbed son.
DeleteAnd thank you DocG for your reply. I came to this site because I thought your comments at the header of every site were logical, thought out. I read as much of the kindle book as I could without paying for it (!) I don't have the ability to get kindle on my PC, at least without difficulty. I also think you are an articulate writer. But there were always those pieces of the puzzle that didn't add up to me. I know fathers can sexually abuse their daughters. There are multiple studies on this. Including the former Miss America who lived with it for years before coming out about it. But not in this case. But I thank you for this blog because I was able to look deeper and find out things for myself that I may not been motivated to do otherwise.
Delete-J
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information. I will definitely listen to it. I lean towards BDI also. There is just too much we can't ignore where he is concerned.
EG
I'm truly baffled by the how people have gone from blaming Patsy to blaming Burke. John is truly reprehensible for allowing his wife and son to suffer for his actions.
ReplyDeleteListen, hundreds of experts have looked at this case and nobody but a guy who started a blog has said JDI. Everyone is completely entitled to their own opinions, but tremendous leaps have to be made for the JDI theory to make any sense. I don’t need to rehash the same arguments that have been made by so many on here, but the reality is that if you feel JDI, you are suspending reality.
ReplyDeleteThe only other issue I care to bring up is I am beyond sick and tired of people saying that THEY would have called 911 if they stumbled upon a lifeless JBR on the ground. That type of thinking serves no purpose on any level, because unless one of you is John or Patsy Ramsey in 1996, it means absolutely nothing. 911 WAS called and obvious staging attempts WERE made to disguise the true killer of Jonbenet Ramsey. Doc can bring up Poll question after poll question, but they are all beyond useless and are just desperate attempts to get them to think the way he does. Not 1 person on here lived in the Ramsey house during JBR’s life and nobody in here (that we know of) is close to the family. The people that were (The White’s) describe the Ramsey behavior as odd and they never believed the RN either.
Inquisitive…thanks. I am steadfast in my belief, because without a shadow of a doubt, I know that’s what happened. Sure, we can adjust details of what caused Burke to hit her over the head, but what matters is that he DID hit her over the head and a cover up ensued.
-J
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat if you were planning a staged kidnapping to dump a body but then you end up with police in your house ? You realize that a kidnapping note with a body in the house is going to get you or someone in your house arrested. You then switch your modus operandi with police there into a sadistic pedo child killer because getting rid of of the body is not going to happen now. So you sneak into your basement to stage THAT with 1 officer still in the house. You then use only items in the basement and stage a sadistic pedo child killer scene complete with garotting. Now you have what looks like a staged kidnapping gone wrong with a sadistic pedo child killer. No one will ever figure out what happened in that house.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe theory about Burke doing it makes no sense! Especially considering he was sent to the Whites that morning. If his parents were covering for him, they would not have left him out of their sight. I do believe that John manipulated him to keep quiet about what he saw or heard that evening.
DeleteNobody- except for JR - will ever know everything about what happened that night. Burke's gonna spend the rest of his life in therapy - that's one messed up adult.
ReplyDeleteIt is enough for me that this cockamamie "intruder" theory has been utterly and completely debunked. There's isn't a shred of evidence to support it. Don't give me the Note - no intruder hangs out in the kitchen with a dead body downstairs and a sleeping family upstairs to draft 3 versions of a 3 page "ramsom" note. Especially with nothing to ransom. GMAFB.
And once you eliminate the intruder, you are left with the family. God only knows what happened. Maybe Doc nailed it. Maybe its something else. Who knows. What we DO know is that there was no intruder. I'll take that.
But John Ramsey has allowed his close friends to have their lives ruined because he's - at best - a gutless coward. At worst, he's a pedophile.
I disagree that Burke is one messed up adult. He earned a very difficult degree from Purdue. He has a job, a 401K, and he supports himself very well for his age. He apparently has, or has had, a girlfriend. He is socially awkward, as are many of the the software developers I work with in my job. He doesn't live with his dad, doesn't appear to mooch off of him, and he seems to have love for and fond memories of his mother. He's seen his picture on the front of the National Enquirer, and he's lived with his parents possibly having to go to jail while he was still in grade school. He may have a lot to deal with, but you can be sure there are way more messed up young adults. ESPECIALLY given how cold and self-centered his father seems to be.
DeleteWe don't know if Burke is in therapy right now. If he is, it is probably for coaching on how to handle being in the public eye. I truly feel sorry for the young man, and I agee that JR is gutless, coward, a narcissist, and most likely a sexual deviant.
Let's talk about evidence pointing to John's guilt. John's own admission, about finding chair in front of the train room door when he first went down to check, clearly points toward his guilt. Even Lou Smit seemed skeptical about the chair. (You can find the part of the interview about the train room door here; http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-chair-basement.htm and other locations.) John claims a chair (and at different times both a table and Easter baskets) blocked his way into the train room and he had to move the items to enter. This door opens inward, thus it would be difficult for an intruder to pull the door closed behind him and drag the items in front of it at the same time. Difficult but not impossible. Fleet White apparently went down to the basement by himself at 6:06 am (before John claims he went down there for the first time) and never reported seeing a chair in front of the door, nor did Officer French. Besides if (as contended by Smit and the Ramseys) the "intruder" left thru the window--why not use that chair instead of the suitcase? This whole scenario makes no sense and clearly implicates Ramsey by his own admission, placing himself in the basement way earlier than he later claims. He's going to check an old refrigerator for his daughter but not check the wine room after visiting the basement two or three times? Clearly he's lying, about so many things. Sorry if this has already been addressed. I did a search and didn't find any posts about it here. If it was brought up, it might be worth discussing John's statements and timeline again.
ReplyDelete~Cee
Thanks Cee. John wanted to control the narrative, but he kept messing up. Had he been a regular Joe, he would have remained a prime suspect. Thanks for reminding us that Fleet went downstairs early. I think Fleet knows that John lied about a number of things, I just wish he would come out and state what he believes. No wonder Patsy was confused; she could not keep up with his versions of events either.
DeleteI've never called 911 in my life, nor have I ever had a daughter, and, I'm not John or Patsy in 1986. I'm just a guy who reads a blog posted by "just a guy who started a blog that says JDI".
ReplyDeleteI'm not even close to being qualified to comment on anything that comes close to reality in this case.
So, by thinking JDI, I'm suspending all reality. The fact that I would call 911 if I found my daughter dead means absolutely nothing. I wasn't even there.
I feel completely useless and desparate trying to think like DocG does. I'm sure others are beyond sick of it as well.
btw, even though I've read this entire blog from the beginning, I just paid $6 for the Kindle book. Maybe that will help me feel less desparate.
Bravo, Jon! You just put precisely the right sardonic spin on that monologue. Thanks for the laugh.
DeleteCC
Jon, the James Kolar book "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet" is a very good book and would round out your education. It was written by a real investigator into the murder, called in later.
DeleteYa know Jon, I get it! Only because I'm older, married, and have raised 2 kids that I can relate at all to what might have been going on in that home. I've worked for a corporation for over 30 years and have met men like John - successful at what they do for a living but not so great in the area of personal relationships. Mainly though, I have 2 cousins who were molested by a relative. I've heard their stories and find it completely plausible that, along with the evidence of prior penetration, John could have molested JBR. But you don't have to think like Doc, or like me. The note alone -with all those motives, the Johnism's, the writing style, the content. Lies+Note+Behavior+Manipulation+Lawyering Up+Flight out of Dodge+evidence of molestation+he's not looking for the real killer = guilt.
Delete-LE
CC, Inquisitive, LE- Thanks for noticing. If I made just one person laugh, it was worth it. I laughed the whole time it took me to write it. At an airport bar, btw. I'll check out the Kolar book after DocG's read.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuestion and answer session on reddit with james kolar:
ReplyDeletewww.reddit.com/user/jameskolar. He does say "In Colorado a person must be 10 years of age and older to be held criminally culpable." But I doubt the parents were thinking of that on Dec. 25, 1996
Yes. How convenient for the Ramseys. When I read Kolar's final breakdown, pointing out that Burke could not have been prosecuted because of his age, and that the statute of limitations had run out on aiding and abetting, leaving John Ramsey in the clear, I almost puked.
DeleteI almost puked also when hearing the final verdict of the CBS "experts," insinuating that "the Ramseys" were nothing more than dutiful parents, just doing their best to protect a wayward son. Right. And destroying the lives of countless innocent people in the process -- not to mention the astronomical cost of the investigation.
Why would John's involvement only be considered aiding and abetting? Aren't there other crimes that have no statute of limitations, with which John could be charged?
DeleteHypothetically, if it could be proven that John did the staging, since JBR's COD was asphyxiation by strangulation, couldn't he be charged with murder or manslaughter? (Although, I suppose manslaughter carries a statute of limitations?) From what I read, Colorado has no statute of limitations for murder (obviously), sex offenses against a child, and even forgery (if John wrote the note.) Why couldn't he be charged with any of these crimes?
I think Doc means the statute has run on accessory to murder, HKH, which I believe is three years in Colorado. Voluntary manslaughter is either three or five years in most states. You're right about murder and sex offenses against a child. I don't believe the RN could be considered forgery, but I take your point, and it's an interesting one.
DeleteCC
Kolar never reveals his full "theory of prosecution" in his book, though he hints at it in several places. While it's clear that he believes Burke was responsible for the head blow, and possibly also for the sexual assault, he has nothing to say, as I recall, about the "garrote" strangulation. Similarly the CBS "experts" downplay that aspect of the crime, concentrating for the most part on the head blow and the events supposedly leading up to it. If the strangulation is in fact what killed her, then, according to this theory, she was killed by the coverup, not the initial attack.
DeleteBut as CC reminds us, the statute of limitations on manslaughter has probably also run out.
As far as I'm concerned, none of this matters, because, if Burke had struck JonBenet in the manner surmised by the CBS team (of which Kolar was a part), his parents would certainly have called 911 at once. The notion that they would have decided to perpetuate such an extreme, bizarre and disgusting coverup is simply beyond belief and I seriously doubt that any jury would buy it.
Manslaughter is off the table in any case, as it's defined as a "heat of passion" crime. Murder Two won't fly, either, as John had plenty of time between the head blow and the strangulation to form intent.
DeleteCC
Couldn't John claim he didn't realize she was still alive and was "only" trying to stage?
DeleteI just started typing a lot of mumbo jumbo about proximate cause and other boring legal cant no one is interested in. The short answer is no.
DeleteCC
Thank you, CC and Doc, for your replies.
DeleteCC--does forgery only involve the falsifying, or altering, of a legal document? Is this why the ransom note wouldn't qualify as forgery?
Doc--Just for the record, I too find the idea of a parent doing what was done to JBR in an attempt to save their other child, unfathomable. I can buy BDI up until this point, and then it falls apart for me. I have two kids, similar in age to BR and JBR at the time of her death. I would do anything to protect them, with the exception of betraying one to save the other. That being said, I will concede that just because I couldn't do something, doesn't mean that others couldn't or wouldn't. Therefore, although I find it highly unlikely that a parent would do these things for the sake of their other child, without indisputable, solid evidence I have a hard time ruling it out 100%.
I only asked because I curious, if BDI and JR staged, why JR wouldn't be charged with a more serious crime, since he would have been the one who technically ended her life. Thank you both for answering.
I'm sure you can google the legal definition of forgery, H, but you've got the idea.
DeleteAnd he would, without question, be charged with Murder One, with aggravating circumstances.
Forgive me if I seem short; I'm no law professor, and I hate to come off as lecturing.
CC
Not to change the subject, but I just read a book, Devil in the Darkness. It is a book written about Israel Keyes, a serial killer/rapist. The things that made me think of the Ramsey case is that he a)randomly chose victims that he did not know at all prior to the attack b) he traveled extensively and killed far from where he lived for the most part. c) he left ransom notes even though his victims were already dead. d) he liked to strangle his rape victims with various materials. e) in at least one instance he broke a window to open the latch and enter the home of his sleeping victims. f) he enjoyed the suffering of his victims and their families.(ransom notes)
ReplyDeleteSo, it isn't that outlandish to think that a mysoped (I read that term used somewhere in blogs about the Ramsey case) might have targeted the Ramsey family.
So, read that book and see what you think. It really made me rethink everything I believed about serial killers and rapists.
A typical serial killer/pedophile would have had no reason to write a ransom note. And someone with an odd MO like the person you've described would have brought his note with him, not waited to write it while in the house of his victim. Also, I suspect that when this person left a ransom note he also actually took his victims from the house before killing them. I know of no case where a ransom note has been left but no one was actually kidnapped.
Delete@Rose. I have not read the book, but I did search Israel Keyes after reading your comment. The only mention I could find of a ransom note, was in connection to his final victim. It's true that she was already dead when he wrote the note. However, he made it appear as though she was still alive by stitching her eyes open, and then taking a picture of her next to a 4 day old newspaper. He wrote the ransom note on the back of the photo, demanding $30,000 be deposited into the victim's account (he had her debit card.) The money, or at least some of it, was deposited. He then used her debit card to withdraw money in several different states.
DeleteMy point being that clearly his purposed for writing the ransom note was to get money, which he did. He also led the police and the victim's family to believe she was still alive. The circumstances of the Keyes ransom note, are very different than those of the Ramsey ransom note.
Are there any other cases in which he also wrote a ransom note and the victim was already dead? I couldn't find any. Thanks.
Was anyone else put off by the editing in Dr. Phil's three part interview of BR? It seemed liked the last question Dr. Phil asked Burke before each commercial break was:
ReplyDeletea) the best and most challenging question since the last commercial break
b) wasn't answered by Burke until after the break was over and
c) showed Burke's face doning caught off guard expression.
Even though Dr. Phil concluded Burke did not committ the murder, I wonder how many in the television audience may have been duped by this irresponsible editing-for-dramatic-effect to suspect or believe otherwise?
Mike G.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteQuestion for person(s) who think that JR wrote ransom note and murdered JBR, how do you account for JR statements regarding JonBenet's grave date etc. during interview with Larry King Live (2006)...
ReplyDeleteExcerpt: [""CALLER: Hi.
This is kind of a petty question but it bothers me nonetheless. Why is it that on the gravestone for JonBenet it lists 12-25, Christmas Day, when according to the accounts that I've read, it was the early morning hours of the 26th when she actually passed away?
J. RAMSEY: Well, that's a good question. We don't know exactly when she passed away. I made that decision because the ransom note said, "I will contact you tomorrow."
And so my presumption was that that ransom note and her death occurred the night before. It was just -- there's been no clear definition of exactly what hour she died."]
Regardless of who the perp was, I think the ransom note clearly meant rushed time frame of 12/26 to complete crime(s) and staged/abandoned for various reason(s).
Correction: I meant question for person(s) who think that JR wrote ransom note and murdered JBR, and planned to dump JBR's body 12/27/follow-through with ransom staging: how do you account for JR statements regarding JonBenet's grave date etc. during interview with Larry King Live (2006)...
Delete"Regardless of who the perp was, I think the ransom note clearly meant rushed time frame of 12/26 to complete crime(s) and staged/abandoned for various reason(s)."
DeleteI don't understand the above sentence. But I think I do understand your question.
I find John's response to be very revealing. If one believes, as I do, that John wrote the note, then he would have known very well that "tomorrow" meant the 27th and not the 26th. We know this because John could not possibly have raised the ransom from the bank before 8AM on the 26th, since no bank opens that early. Nor could he have been "rested." So clearly the writer of the note meant "tomorrow" to be the following day, and not the morning after the murder.
By giving this reason for dating JonBenet's death to Dec. 25th, John, as I see it, is playing dumb -- pretending he doesn't know that the real intent of the writer/killer was to buy 24 hours in which to complete his staging, dump the body of his victim and clean up the crime scene.
Hypo, just meant if JR sole perp it seems more likely that he would want to transport JonBenet's body sooner than later (less risk with having body/evidence around longer with PR/BR in house, friends involved etc.); PR would have been in shock morning 12/26; he could have made up any number of excuses to PR (he had enough in the safe, he had to drive out to distant bank/ Kidnappers followed/trailed him etc). If ransom note staged, it's about how events/things appear to others and how perp can explain it away to others/LE. suitcase-money-body, travel to drop off ransom-body etc. The longer the evidence/JBR stayed at house, the worse it would have been for JR to explain away to PR/BR/LE. But jmo
DeleteIf Patsy hadn't called 911, there would have been nothing to explain away. The body would have been dumped the following night.
DeleteRemember: an intruder would have had no reason to wait until inside the house to write his note. No reason to fail to kidnap the victim. No reason to leave a possibly incriminating hand printed note if for some reason he'd changed his mind.
And if Patsy and John were in it together, then, according to your theory, it would still have been best for them to get rid of the body on the night of the murder rather than wait a day.
There are very good reasons why it would have been extremely risky to try to dump the body on the night of the crime. If John's car had been spotted either going or coming, that would have been it for him. On the other hand, if he'd waited until the following night, he could have claimed he was delivering the ransom.
You are right it would have been suspicious to dump JonBenet prior to morning of 12/26, but the ransom note presents, if not an intruder, opportunity for perp to explain why he had to get attache (or even luggage for trip aka body dumped in woods, garbage site, etc.) out of the house that morning. Not only to explain movements to LE, but as a reason(s) to PR that morning on why she couldn't call LE and needed to allow JR to obtain money. Hypo, if PR hadn't called LE by 550a then the sole perp would have used the time between 6a-10a to (dump JBR, go to bank to obtain money+return with it in paper bag). Once PR/JR didn't receive kidnapper phone call by 10a, then it would have been safe to perp for any calls to LE and it would fit neatly into movements to obtain money, and why didn't call LE right away (threatening letter/fear etc). It also would have looked less suspicious to LE if call to LE came shortly after missed 10a 12/26 instead of waiting entire day. Regardless of who is perp+their additional plans, thankfully PR called LE first thing that morning, and that alone indicates to me she was terrified mom in shock and likely not involved in crime(s) intruder or otherwise.
DeleteSorry, but I find it impossible to understand half of what you are trying to say. In any case, the note very clearly says the call is to come tomorrow, i.e., the morning of the 27th, NOT the morning after the supposed kidnapping. John would not have been so foolish as to dump the body in broad daylight and would have waited till the following night.
DeleteYou've missed the point of the ransom note. John wanted Patsy and Burke out of the house. There was no plan to call LE (until after the bad guys failed to return JB - then we would call them). Foremost in John's mind would be to have time to erase every shred of evidence in the house and completely stage the scene.
DeleteI've been asked to post the following comment:
ReplyDelete-Hi, newbie here, a few things to say:
-If Burke had anything to do with it, they would have kept him very close to them, not left him alone in his room and certainly not SENT HIM OVER TO THE WHITES!!!!
-why are JB's medical records sealed? Is it how it works in the states? Makes no sense to me
-why havent the cops questionned JR about his calls to that hardware store, trying to get his receipts?
About Doc: he was nothing but patient and welcoming when I first emailed him. (then I said some stoopid things about him maybe being JR (I know, I know!) and now he's shunned me, but I get it and i dont care because his work here is amazing and has helped me put all the pieces together.
Finally: JOHN RAMSEY DID IT. No doubt in my mind about that. (alledgedly, of course....)
SK
Hello again, SK. Actually I didn't shun you, I just don't always have time to respond to every question.
DeleteI don't think any of us are sure why any of the medical records were sealed. Legally I suppose it's up to the parents and that's what they decided.
The calls to the hardware store were in fact investigated and it turns out that they were not from John but (as I recall) a reporter claiming to be John.
Thank you for thinking that I'm amazing. Maybe I should wear an appropriate costume?
SuperDoc! I love it. -LE
DeleteWith tights? (Sorry; couldn't resist).
DeleteCC
Or longjohns and oversized underpants...
Delete-Sisu
Doc, lets just say you are correct. Then we should assume that all of the sexual staging, possibly even the garotting was done after the police showed up and that it was only going to be a staged kidnapping before PR called 911 ? JR could not have her body in the house with a staged kidnapping as he probably knew his jig would be up. That would surely explain what he was doing when he disappeared and why the police were and have been stumped by the pedo sexual kidnapping killer MO for all this time.
DeleteSisu, that is so wrong. Lol.
DeleteI'm not sure what you are getting at, Keiser. As I see it, the vaginal penetration and most likely the "garroting" as well were probably part of the original assault, and not staging. But who can say for sure?
DeleteAll I know is that John is the only one who could have profited from that note and that he would not have wanted the police called until he could get the body of his victim out of the house. The rest is speculation.
The only thing I was getting at is that if your theory was correct then as I see it, it was just a staged kidnapping plot with a plan to dump the body. Due to PR's 911 call, I feel that he then changed his staging with police in the house to the sexual predator staging via last resort as he could not have her body in the house and only a kidnapping note. Not sure if you concur but I am also then thinking it is a good possibility that the timeline of JBR's death might have been much later. He might have even garotted her during 1 of his disappearances in the morning with the police in the house.
DeleteNot likely; the body was in full rigor at 1:00 PM when John brought it upstairs.
DeleteCC
I know, I looked that up to see if it was possible and it set rigor mortis usually sets in from 2 to 6 hours unless it is in water or an abnormal enviroment. It just seems to make sense to me that if his kidnapping plan got blown up that he might have changed it and at that point police would have been in the house. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
DeleteI'm no medical professional, and it's been a while since I had to know this, but my recollection is that it starts at 2-6 hours with the face, moves to the extremities, and the whole process takes about 12 hours, no?
DeleteCC
You are correct about the face coming first and then then the extremities. It depends on age, sex, muscle developement and enviroment. It does not exactly say but from what I am understanding by wiki it seems like it occurs faster in small children because they have alot less muscle.
DeletePity the ME wasn't called in promptly to get a liver temp at 1:00. Another BPD screw-up that has forever dodged this case.
DeleteCC
Yes, I thought there had to always be an ME available promptly, not 7 to 8 hrs later. So many mistakes, it is hard to find anything they did right in the beginning of this case.
DeleteI've considered that possibility as well, Keiser. The fact that torn out strands of her hair were intertwined with the knotting of the device suggests that it was constructed very quickly right on top of her as she lay unconscious. That would be consistent with a last minute attempt at staging, yes. And yes, it's possible she died after the 911 call was made.
DeleteProblem is that other explanations are possible, so we may never know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo why the long note, and explain the content of the note?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that without that RN the Ramseys are detained on the night of the 26th. Doc will argue that it cast more suspicion but I will say the exact opposite on this topic. LE never even gives a thought to an intruder that day because there would be no "possible" evidence of 1. LE spent countless hours, endless amounts of money, manpower and time running around getting, comparing and analyzing handwriting from a phantom thus deterring where ALL of the time and suspicion should have been, on the Ramseys. I disagree with you on who wrote the note. I think Doc was correct, JR wrote it. If you spend some time doing a little research, you will find that the writer of the RN note and JR BOTH have a spelling glich of not knowing when to use a single S or double SS. The RN misspellings were not done on purpose as experts mistakenly thought imo. Also you will find some pretty good matches in the handwriting, especially Mr Ramsey, which is exact. Another thing I found is that the RN switches off using 2 different type of Ys, 1 of which is very unique. A 30 word sample of JR's handwriting is all we have and guess what, JR switches off with the exact same unique Ys. What sealed it for me though, was the practice note. It was only addressed to Mr and Mrs R, the R was not even completed and then that practice RN was scrapped. Now why would someone scrap that before they had even finished addressing it ? That makes no sense at all ! Well yes, it actually does, someone changed it to only Mr Ramsey instead of Mr and Mrs Ramsey thus eliminating PR and putting only JR in charge of the kidnapping demands and all aspects of it. Only 1 person would want to do that and it surely is not PR.
DeleteWhy employ all of the mental gymnastics, Inquisitive, in order to make Patsy the author of the note, when John being the author is so much more logical? When you were of the opinion that JDI, you had no issues with him being the author, so why now? The instructions in the note point to John, and John alone, as having written that note. Even if Patsy decided to write a note for the reasons you cited, there would be no reason for her to have included such specific instructions that all point to John needing time or an excuse to remove the body.
DeleteYou're making this way more complicated than it needs to be in order for it to fit your theory, when the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
"I agree that without that RN the Ramseys are detained on the night of the 26th."
DeleteWell, first of all, imo they should have been detained for questioning on the very first day, note or no note. Legally, however, they were not required to do so unless an arrest had been made. And the authorities were in no position to arrest anyone that day or in the ensuing weeks. To do that you have to find evidence and develop a case, or the judge will toss the whole thing out. Until they knew who did what, no case was ever possible.
As for the rest, it's important to understand that, if there had been no note, but the Ramseys had simply reported an intruder assault, the planning would have been very different from the start. For one thing, John would certainly have completed his window staging before 911 was called. For another, the body would not have been hidden in the basement, but displayed openly, probably in her own bedroom.
Home invasions by intruders are not at all uncommon, so no, it would not have been obvious that this was an inside job, though that possibility is always considered. What makes the whole story suspicious is the presence of that note, combined with the fact that the body was found in the house, meaning there was no kidnapping. And then, after the match with the notepad is made, I'm sorry but that looks a LOT like an attempt at staging that went wrong -- which is why they zeroed in on the Ramseys very early on. Without the note it could easily have been seen as a home invasion with the Rs as victims.
I agree with you they should have been detained note or no note. The note is the main reason LE was thrown off about what occured in that house. You are wrong about them legally not having to do so. LE has the right to detain anyone for 48 hrs if they have probable cause that a felony has been committed. The Ramseys could have and should have been forced if they were not willing to give formal interviews, that is standard procedure when there is a murder. People can not, just not not feel like giving statements when a murder has been committed because there are not warrants out for them. That is false. I also agree that after the notepad was matched to the RN suspicion on the Ramseys surely increased but that was not until days later. I am discussing that minute on the 26th and how the R's not being hauled down, seperated and interviewed that day was another huge mistake by LE and gave the Ramseys the time to lawyer up and stonewall. BPD said they were showing the Ramsey's compassion because they had just lost their child. Lost their child means LE had thought that an intruder committed this crime at that point in time. The fact that changed within days is irrelevant, the mistake was already made
DeleteYou are probably also correct that if JR had staged differently there would been no note. That is neither here nor there. Had he staged a home invasion with a broken window and sexual assault and the whole family claimed to have not heard a thing while that occurred they would have been asked to the station. Had they denied they would have been detained and it would have looked even worse. I am not sure exactly what you think happens when a murder occurs and you have a dead body in your house but you cant just tell LE that you do not feel like giving them a statement and you have to go over to your friends. That IS NOT how it works.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou are probably also correct that if JR had staged differently there would been no note. That is neither here nor there. Had he staged a home invasion with a broken window and sexual assault and the whole family claimed to have not heard a thing while that occurred they would have been asked to the station. Had they denied they would have been detained and it would have looked even worse. I am not sure exactly what you think happens when a murder occurs and you have a dead body in your house but you cant just tell LE that you do not feel like giving them a statement and you have to go over to your friends. That IS NOT how it works.
DeleteNot quite correct. The cops can detain for a brief period provided they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been perpetrated by the detainee. It's an arrest that requires probable cause.
DeleteCC
If that were the case then John Wayne Gacy could have just denied questioning after 28 bodies were found in his house and said he did not know anything about it and did not feel like answering questions right now, and left until there was a warrant issued for his arrest. I dont think so .....
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHe could have indeed. It's called due process, and even the Gacys of the world are entitled to it.
DeleteCC
Why couldnt he just unlock a door ? Also it is not that he would need a note for police to believe someone broke in. I get what you are saying as I thought the same for a long time but it is the CONTENT of the note that after studying from Doc's point of view that sure seems to be a plan or blueprint to put him in charge, stop police from being called, clear BR and PR out of the house and dump the body or take it out in an attache. It took some time for me but too many coincidences in the note.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else watch the documentary "Southwest of Salem" this evening? Interesting section on sexual abuse found in this Rolling Stone article about the case. http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/southwest-of-salem-san-antonio-four-junk-forensic-science-w444481
ReplyDeleteMinnesota Linda
Oh darn I missed it. I hope it is on again soon. Maybe tonite because ID plays everything over a few times the same night in 3 hour blocks. That looked really good. My first thought on it sure made it sound like those girls got railroaded. What were your thoughts Linda ?
ReplyDeleteThere's no question in my mind that the women are innocent. In fact, it scares me to think that it wasn't that many years ago that this "witch hunt" took place. And still, the judge didn't declare them innocent. Instead, he granted them new trials, which will extend their nightmare even longer. I'm sure you will be able to catch the documentary either online or when it's broadcast again. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts, Keiser Sozay, on the "junk science," as it relates to the Ramsey case. Minnesota Linda
DeleteI didn't see the program, MinnLin, but it's very, very unusual for a judge to reverse a ruling from the bench - a retrial is the usual remedy, and no small achievement.
DeleteCC
Someone upthread mentioned that Kolar or other LE thought JonBenet was killed outside the storage area as her bladder emptied out, and then dragged or placed in the wine closet. This makes me wonder how well any evidence was collected on that. Since Thomas (and others) thought that JonBenet wet the bed, then her bladder would likely have not been able to produce much urine if she slept for any length of time. Unless she was awake for a few hours drinking something after every one in that house said they were asleep. Except for the 2016 admission of Burke saying he got up after everyone was asleep.
ReplyDeleteAlso the mention of Israel Keyes. That is a guy we have on the message board I post on, (Cheri's Corner for the Missing), we've wondered if he could be tied to several of the case threads we have for missing people. He claimed to have never killed children, as he had a daughter. He had murder kits buried all around the U.S. and likely dozens of victims still buried out there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete