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.
According to Paula Woodward in her book “We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of Jonbenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 1790-1792):
JB’s medical records:
PR called or visited the doctor several times for JB’s chronic sinus, allergic rhinitis, and nose irritations. Accidental injuries were noted in the report for: golf club hit on cheek, fell on nose, fell and hit forehead on steps, and fell and bent her nail back. There are five instances in the medical report relating to JB’s vaginal area: a phoned-in concern of a bladder infection, how to treat chicken pox in that area, diarrhea (?), and two child-wellness checks that included exams in this area of which both checks noted nothing out of the ordinary. --- here’s a link I found to a Child-Well Exam https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/health-management/Documents/6-Year-Old_Previsit_Questionnaire.pdf
Nothing about those visits suggests Patsy was suffering from Munchhausen's by Proxy! These were all relatively common ailments that were not caused by Patsy. "Munchhausen's by proxy is a term often used when a caregiver or spouse fabricates, exaggerates, or induces mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care, with the primary motive of gaining attention or sympathy from others."
Nothing about those pediatrician visits suggests this was Patsy's motive.
you have to admit though there seems to be a preoccupation with JB's private parts - five instances relating to her vaginal area, bladder infection, chicken pox "in that area", vaginosis or itis
Which only supports my theory that John was molesting his daughter. That you somehow manage to find Patsy's behaviour - rather than John's - suspicious in regards to the frequent visits to her pediatrician boggles my mind. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
And although Patsy saw fit to take her to the pediatrician for every thing from sinus infections to golf club injuries to chicken pox to vaginitis she was just too dumb to realize that her husband was molesting his daughter, and her Pediatrician was in on the denial as well?
Let's not change the subject, we can get on to Patsy being "dumb" later.....you are suggesting Patsy may have had Munchhausen's by Proxy, and I'm wondering if you've suddenly decided to go with this new theory of yours merely in order to give Patsy much needed motive, just as you invented wacky, baseless motives to fit with your many IDI narratives.....
Inq - Im surprised Im saying this, but you NAILED it on the head. The Pediatrician who saw JBR 27 times must also be gaslighted by John to cover up the molestation that was taking place. Also, can we stop with Patsy being this meek, dumb wife already. Watch her interrogation...she is INTENSE and the aggressor in those. She doesn't look like the weak person we are led to believe by this blog.
J, no one ever suggested Patsy was meek, dumb or weak.....another straw man argument on your part.
The pediatrician wasn't "gaslighted" at all. We've already gone through why he had no reason to suspect abuse, and I, for one, don't believe the abuse had been going on for long, thus perhaps her pediatrician had only treated her for vaginitis once in that time, having no reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary. As the abuse progressed, Patsy probably requested a full pelvic exam which would have then revealed prior abuse, and John's goose would be cooked.....so, to protect his reputation and lifestyle, he ended her life. It probably wasn't a decision that came easily to him, and he no doubt struggled with it, but at that point, John probably merely viewed JB as collateral damage, and convinced himself that her sacrifice would be for the greater good - HIS greater good.
Ms D – If Patsy wasn’t involved at all like you and others have suggested, she would have to be meek, weak and dumb to go along with the lies that John told. Is that possible? Sure, anything is. All I’m getting at is that Patsy in her interrogation video or even in the TV interviews always seemed like the aggressor.
I didn’t intend to go down this route, but you gave me an opening. Your post suggests that you believe this was premeditated, correct? You are saying he killed her ON PURPOSE to cover up his crimes. I don’t on any level believe this was premeditated for a hundred reasons, so before I put any more words in your mouth, do you believe this was or was not premediated?
Patsy was believing at that time the police was after HER...she was just defending herself the best way she could... if you are being questioned for something you didnt do and you believe they are waiting for you to make a mistake or say something incriminatory, you will react to that. I also believe that back in her head she instinctively knew who killed her daughter but spent the rest of her life in denial. It was so much less painful to believe an intruder took JBR's life. Martha from California
"I didn’t intend to go down this route, but you gave me an opening. Your post suggests that you believe this was premeditated, correct?"
I believe he made a decision, yes. But, I don't believe it was premeditated very far in advance, as I don't think there would have been any errors in the RN, nor do I believe he would have used stationary/pens from the house had he have planned it for a week or more in advance, as CC and a couple of others here have speculated - though I did wonder if that was the case, but after a lot of thought, I don't think it's likely (though I'm not *entirely* convinced, and I may yet change my stance in the future). As far as using items that were handy in the basement that happened to belong to Patsy, I don't think that was ever part of the plan to begin with, as staging wasn't going to be necessary - that was only required later, once he realized he was never going to get to dispose of the body. So I'm not convinced his intention was to cast suspicion on Patsy. He used what he could locate in the basement, and Patsy's art supplies were nearby. The police were upstairs, his options were limited. Drawing attention to Patsy would ultimately point to an inside job, and thus point to his own possible involvement, so I can't see him choosing that path if other alternatives had have been available to him. I believe he was increasingly anxious that it was only a matter of time until he was exposed, therefore he made a decision Xmas morning, or even as late as that evening. But I don't think any part of it was an accident. Nothing about the crime suggests it was accidental, quite the contrary.
"You are saying he killed her ON PURPOSE to cover up his crimes. I don’t on any level believe this was premeditated for a hundred reasons....."
Yes I am. And that you don't believe it was premeditated means nothing. As does my belief it was. That is pure speculation on both of our parts.
Thanks J. Truth is we do not know who did this. And if it "can't be solved by looking at the evidence" as Doc said earlier then we might as well close down this blog, because we have NOTHING. Just speculation.
Was hoping that would trigger a memory to Monty Python - if you were a fan :)Also along the "nuts" posting themes, Dave Brubeck - inspiration for Schroeder in the Peanuts comic strip "Blue Rondo A La Turk", tsk. RIP Dave Brubeck.
Fact or Fiction? John's sweater (or shirt) fibers were found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. If this is a fact, why wasn't he arrested right away?
Yes, fibres (I'm Australian - I still spell "fibre" the way God intended, lol) from John's shirt were found in JB's crotch area. But, as he (conveniently) contaminated the crime scene by carrying her body from the wine cellar to the living room, and then proceeded to contaminate the scene further by laying a blanket over her, I doubt much could be made of the fibre evidence.
I don't get your connection there Ms D - if the fiber from his shirt was matched to a fiber in the crotch of her panties, Fleet saw him open the door and pick her up - how could he have contaminated what was found if he didn't take off her clothes? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Just how would he have contaminated what was found.
He wasn't wearing that shirt when he found her. It was the shirt he wore the previous day. The panties were fresh out of the package, and the fibers were found INSIDE them. Also the shirt was made in Israel and the fibers would have been very distinctive.
The problem, as I understand it, is that there is some question about those fibers that's never been made public. Lin Wood has insisted that this report was a lie made up by one of the interviewers and that the whole thing is a fiction. I'm not sure if the authorities ever denied Wood's allegation, but they sure didn't make a big deal about the apparent match. I wonder if anyone reading here has more up to date info on this.
Thanks for clarifying that, Doc.....yes, I just did a bit of research on the fibres allegedly found in her underwear, and I can't seem to find out anything definitive on the subject.
Paula Woodward ? Her version os different than Kolar's or Thomas' accounts of JBR's trips to Dr. Beuf, which were 3 trips out of 33 for vagina related issues and all the rest were things like sinus infections, chicken pox, a scar to her face. There was a list published which had exactly what each visit was for that I will have to find. If Paula Woodward published it then that makes it about as true and valid as a Dr Seuss book.
How do we know Burke hit JBR with the golf club and not her parents? Were there witnesses? Also those other visits, hit head on steps, etc, sound like child abuse. Probably Patsy.
"How do we know Burke hit JBR with the golf club and not her parents? Were there witnesses?" Yes, there were. And I really don't think Burke would have taken the rap for it had he have not been the one who inflicted it. "Also those other visits, hit head on steps, etc, sound like child abuse. Probably Patsy." Wow, that's a mighty big assumption....how does one or two accidents sound like child abuse to you? And what evidence do you have Patsy was involved? What's the deal with everyone thinking Patsy has a history of child abuse, when her own son said she never even spanked the two of them?
Well we do know JBR ended up badly for some strange reason. So that is why we view her hospital visits with more suspicion than of children who are still alive. And typical visits of abused children are, hitting their heads, falling down the steps, and all other kinds of "accidents". So you put two and two together, you get a picture here. And probably it was Patsy, since she had more access to the child, she was the one who took the child to the hospital. And because John was away so much.
Who were the witnesses for the Burke golf swing. And yes I do think Burke would take the rap for it, because if it was not him, he would be very scared to go against his parents. He was younger than nine. He wouldn't want the same to happen to him. And Burke seems to be very evasive about what happened that night, so he seems to be good at covering for his parents.
Wouldn't a parent who is physically abusing their child, try to hide the injuries they've caused, rather than run to the doctor and draw attention to them?
Ms D I think people are becoming suspicious of Patsy again because they were 20 years ago. The more we look into things and try to have them make sense at some point you have to just go with your gut, and maybe that is what some are doing here. I'm glad for you and Mike and CC that some others I don't know well enough yet, are so very settled. That's a nice feeling. That you feel you know. But many more of us are still grappling with the issues and trying to have 2 and 2 equal 4.
HKH: yes, if Patsy had been abusing JonBenet she would try to hide the injuries. But, as I see it, Patsy had not been abusing her and had no clue regarding what John might have been up to. And the pediatrician never performed an internal vaginal exam, deeming it inappropriate. So he would have had no opportunity to spot any signs of sexual abuse.
If you concentrate on the evidence you will never be able to make 2 plus 2 equal 4, because too much of the so-called evidence is grounded in assumptions rather than known facts.
You would be better off grappling with getting your facts straight, that might help. You post more wrong info than anybody on here and I'm sorry but you are all over the map all the time and you have zero credibility.
well please cite your facts - where have I said anything that I didn't back up - Two pages ago I quoted a 1997 interview for HKH where John Ramsey is questioned whether he actually saw Patsy change JB and get her ready for bed that night, he did not, and whether he knew when she went to sleep, he did not. HKH quoted from that same interview but did not quote the very things I maintained. Go back, look it up if you doubt me. And now to bring things current, now it appears (see above) we can no longer bandy about the black shirt fibers found in JB's new panties as "evidence" which point to some kind of logical inference. Because as Doc says, there is some controversy that it isn't true. Yet, I read it hear months and months ago. But go ahead, cite all of the examples of posting wrong information and I will cite where I got the info, and if it's been currently refuted - if I have time. And one other thing - it was said in here that Burke could not have made a complex knot, yet it was I who questioned a cub scout on my own, and a boy scout, who said knot tying is what they practice early on and win merit badges for. When I was drilled again regarding whether Burke was in the boy scouts I found it, page and verse, from the Ramsey book Death of Innocence, the exact page, and that he was in boy scouts for 3 years. So go ahead Anonymous, I'll be ready for you.
DocG caught you in what he called a fabrication about the Barnhills a couple of days ago, HKH is right that you said John did not know who went to bed first etc. You do it all the time since you got here and it has been pointed out to you many times.
SC, there were no "hospital visits". None. Patsy took her daughter to her pediatrician, as parents do. To suggest that JB was taken to the "hospital" several times implies she was suffering from injuries more serious than, in reality, they actually were. It makes a huge difference....a child being taken to her local GP by an over-protective mother vs a child being taken to the hospital.
@DocG, I totally agree. I was just trying to point out to @SC Shafer that an abusive parent wouldn't take their child to the doctor, only to have the child's injuries examined and documented.
@Ms. D., I agree with you as well. It seems to me that an abusive parent is more likely to only seek medical attention, if the injuries are severe. And not for the benefit of the child, but to avoid ending up with a dead child on their hands. A child who is seriously injured is taken to a hospital, not the pediatrician's office.
Anonymous you obviously didn't read the whole 1997 interview, which i quoted as well. John said 2 times he did not see Patsy attend to JB that night, he was not in the room, nor did he know when she went to sleep - although the question they asked him should have been "was she in bed when you went to bed" or "did you see her get in bed before you went to sleep." As for the Barnhills no body "caught me" in anything. They are on record on acandyrose saying they saw a male enter the house and THOUGHT it was JA. Why don't you do a little reading and a little less agreeing.
I don't know that an abusive parent would not take a child to the doctor/hospital.
Some would not. Some would. It would depend on their personality type. The ones who would, are types who feel bad afterwards. So they sooth their guilt by taking their kids to the doctor. It justifies in their mind, like that it was really just an accident, you know. These are types who are not really in control of themselves.
Probably the more unemotional sociopathic types would not take a kid to doctor.
@Inq, you obviously, did not click "load more" and read my second response to you. I'll copy and paste it for you...
***Inq, I did not challenge you on whether or not JR witnessed PR change JB into her long johns.
You said that JR had no idea when PR went to bed, and when asked if PR was in bed, he had no answer. That's false. JR clearly states that PR was already in bed when he went up to bed.
In the part of the interview that you posted, JR is being asked who fell asleep first. As in--literally asleep--eyes closed, consciousness suspended.***
So, again, I was not disputing your statement that JR did not see PR change JB's clothes. What I was disputing was your claim that JR didn't know if PR was in bed. He said she was already in bed when he went up to bed. You completely misinterpreted the part of the interview that you quoted, where JR was asked who fell asleep first.
Anonymous obviously did read what I posted and agrees with me because the interview corroborates my claims.
@Doc, I left a comment here for Inquisitive, but it's not showing up. Can you please see if it came through to your notifications? Thanks.
@Inq, if Doc can't retrieve my comment, I'll retype it. I think you should know that what you are saying (about PR not being in bed) is still incorrect.
For some reason I don't understand, your comment got into the spam bin. I just restored it so it should show up now. If not, let me know. I've been trying to regularly check the spam because legit posts are winding up there from time to time.
So, theory of the night, I think they are all hiding something. I don't think Patsy is innocent.
Too hard to tell who did the first injury and why. Clearly JBR was being sexually abused and physically abused, by one or both parents. And either way, both parents knew about it, even if only one was doing it.
It's possible one parent did the injury, and blamed it on Burke to the other parent. Or said it was an accident and they lied to the other parent. The other parent knew they were lying about the accident, but pretended to believe it. They both knew what was going on. They could not take her to the hospital because of her sex abuse injury. If she woke up, they were afraid she would tell. So they had to end her.
They were going to dispose of the body. Came up with a kidnapping idea. That way they could stage a new vaginal injury with the paintbrush. But in the morning they changed their mind and decided to leave the body there. One reason was because Patsy wanted to have a funeral.
If Patsy wanted a funeral and changed her mind, then she would have rewritten her note. Because the only way a ransom note could work for them would be if the body of the victim had been removed from the house ahead of time.
I watched both specials last night, and came away from it more confused than ever before.
#1 - The marks on her face and back - Stun gun or not? This is key, obviously because if it was either parent, they wouldn't need a stun gun and it wasn't an accident and points to an intruder.
#2 - Garrote used first, followed by head blow - Significant because would lean towards pedophile and not an accidental blow due to PR's rage over bed wetting, but COULD point to JR as a pedophile, turned murderer.
Problem here is these "experts" all have a different opinion, which I find hard to understand. Either there is evidence of prior molestation or there isn't. Either the garrote came first or it didn't. Either the marks were made by a stun gun or they weren't? Part of the problem was that JBR was buried so quickly, they couldn't do further testing to determine where those markings came from.
Did the DA's office receive orders from someone high up to leave the parents alone? Did an intruder get into the house earlier with intent to kidnap, then began to molest her leading to her death and a botched kidnapping? JBR wrapped in a blanket indicates the killer cared for her so not a stranger. The house was so vast and winding, only a person familiar with it would have known about that wine cellar room.
I hope the retesting of the DNA brings closure to this case. So much doesn't make sense.
Your confusion is due to the fact that none of the evidence is conclusive, practically everything can be interpreted any way one pleases. This is why I decided to concentrate only on undisputed facts and logic rather than the so-called "evidence." It's amazing how much the logic of the case can tell us, while trying to make sense of all the "evidence" leads nowhere.
You're right, Doc. None of it is conclusive mostly because the "experts" contradict one another. Also, there seemed to be a hesitancy on the part of the DA to bring charges which indicates perhaps an influential party telling them to back off. OR did AH feel there was not enough evidence to convict?
And yes, logically it would point to the adult male figure in the household, JR. Opportunity, possible motive (although not proven) and his behavior after the fact, which was "peculiar" to say the least. Problem is, can you bring logic into a courtroom without hard evidence?
What do you think the re testing of the DNA will tell us, if anything?
Thanks Zach for the link on Woodward. I just read it. There are things she doesn't answer of course, but a few things, if true, I didn't know before. 1. That right after the body was brought upstairs the Ramseys were not instructed to cooperate. This refutes others saying they lawyered up immediately and weren't cooperative. In fact the police weren't sure what to do with them, so they just went and stayed at a neighbor's house. John said he would have gone anywhere with them to talk but they didn't know what they were looking for so they just went to a friend's house. 2. thing I learned, new DNA testing can be done deep inside the knots around paint stick also from the RED BRICK FOUND IN THE WINE CELLAR. What's that? A red brick? Does this mean A as in a single red brick? First I heard of this. And of course there was a disagreement over WHERE the fruit (they are saying fruit cocktail now) was found. Small intestine or lower. If in lower then it's already working it's way down for elimination. Woodward said it was collected in a test tube. It could still contain fibrous material but they are saying specifically it was fruit cocktail cherries, grapes, etc. 4. One more point - at Grand Jury only the prosecution was allowed to present their case. The Ramsey's wanted to testify and were not allowed to. Lou Smit had to get an order to be allowed to present his material. He was going to be excluded. Woodward also said 5. there were fibers found in JB's bed from the "rope" she said. Is she confusing "rope" with "cord"? And fibers found from "a duvet cover and sham" found on her sweater - from where - John Andrew's bedroom or her own?
"The Ramsey's [sic] wanted to testify but were not allowed to."
I've not heard that before - in fact, iirc Alex Hunter traded the Ramseys their non-appearance before the GJ for another interview, this time with Mike Kane, Lou Smit, et al. in June of 1998.
According to state law, a Colorado State grand jury is convened by a prosecutor seeking to indict someone he or she believes committed a crime. It is run by the prosecutor.
If the Ramsey's thought there were going to be able to testify, they were getting very bad legal advice.
Woodward also said Smit and others believed the killer left something and took something - like a souvenir. Whatever that something is she doesn't know but it's part of the investigation. This would be consistent with the profile of a serial pedophile, or a serial killer.
Of all of the books I have read on JB, Woodward's was probably the least believable, as it was readily apparent she wrote the book with John's assistance. The many citations from John's personal journal were obviously written specifically for the book reader. The only things I found useful, aside from JB's medical records and a couple other tidbits, were the actual copies of the police reports that she provides at the end of the book -- I just read through those recently (had to use the snipit tool to copy them so they were large enough for my eyes to read). I found it very interesting that PATSY told the first responding officer (French) that JB had on the red turtleneck and white long johns -- this would be an extremely important detail for the police to know in a kidnapping situation when they would be searching for a child. Why the Ramsey's changed their story later on, I'm trying to comprehend -- Patsy was obviously unaware that she had on the white shirt at the time she was interviewed by the first responding police officer -- did JB get up and change herself into the white shirt -- did John put it on her? Why did John change his story later on about reading to the the kids before they went to bed? Why did Patsy change her story about first going to wake up JB for the trip, found that she wasn't in her room, and then went down the steps and found the note -- this would have been fresh in her mind.
Danni
DocG...fyi there is a left hand writing sample of John's in the book
Yes, Danni, I saw that -- and posted on it in my review of her book. It's important, as it's one of the very few exemplars we have from John. But it looks nothing like the ransom note -- which shouldn't be surprising, as he was "ruled out," wasn't he?
Do you know anything about her KS? I have a vague recollection that she's a Denver journalist of some kind who is viewed with great skepticism - is that correct? CC
Correct CC. I really do not know too much about her outside of this case but she has always had her nose in it with great deal of skepticism and always had information that we have not heard about from BPD, LE or anywhere else. I, personally, find her to be the biggest journalistic joke, nothing more than the most obvious person whose sole purpose is to make money off this case. As of right now, she is trying to promote her book, which needs something new and different than all the other books. My prediction is that she will be the next person being libeled in this case.
Here is a little info and what some think of her and her lies. I will dig up some more info I have read about her over the years. Hal Haddon is her attorney and she is known to be a Ramsey supporter and friend of JR's. I personally do not believe a word out of her mouth, including souvenirs taken and fruit cocktail being in JBR's stomach. http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TODAMDH57BNSR8Q2T
This is what I think , If you had a few millions in the bank and two children with a selfish wife who thought only of herself in fantasy "la-la" land wouldn't you hire a "live in nanny" to take care of your children 6&9 years old? these two village Idiots were on Medication Prozac ,Paxil.... name it... Here is a little girl from what I have read had been going to visit her Dr almost daily , come-on something not right here, your planning an early trip wouldn't you see this child had a bath and hair brushed(autopsy ) pony tails , wouldn't you make sure she used bathroom, put out new or clean cloths for the trip ? this child was found wet{soaked with urine , that's because at the time of death urine will leave body ,her long johns were wet , I do not believe she had "EVER" been put to bed or down for the night, , bath or not , something else occurred in that house which we may never know ,a six year old is not like a teen , she is not able to tend for herself doing many things ,all I can say is I hope whoever committed this horrible crime will pay in this world or the next, the mother or father , I have no forgiveness for an evil person, maybe someone else will for give , sorry not me, Burke, if he knows something must come forward he will feel better , I did not like the interview with Dr Phil AND Dr Phil asked him "Did you kill*** your sister ? he said "absolutely not" do we believe him? I do. put the handcuffs on old JR interrogate him all over again he will confess , I wish I had been the investigator who questioned him they were tooo easy on him, he is beginning to mellow after seeing the last CNN interview .
What makes you say PR was selfish and in "la-la" land? A selfish woman who has millions would hire a nanny to raise her kids so she didn't have to be bothered. PR did not do that. I believe they did have a nanny while PR was undergoing chemo, which is perfectly reasonable, IMO.
I'm not sure how you can call two collage graduates, one of whom was a self-made millionaire, "village idiots." Also, plenty of people take antidepressants. I'm not sure what your point is. They were not drug addled, junkie parents. PR may have been pretty heavily medicated after JB's death, but I can't say I blame her.
JB was not seeing her doctor "almost daily." While the number of doctor visits may seem a bit excessive, there are plenty of possible reasons for so many visits. Maybe, as some have suggested, PR was starting to suspect that JB was being molested. Maybe PR was a bit paranoid, due to her own health issues. There are lots of possibilities. When my dd was little she had cold symptoms that persisted for a little longer than average. I took her to the doctor just as a precautionary measure. Turned out she had RSV, and our pediatrician said, had I waited out the weekend to bring her in, she very easily could have ended up hospitalized. For the next year, I was so paranoid, that I ran her in to see the doctor for every little sniffle. Point being, there are plenty of possible reasons for so many doctor visits, ranging from innocent to horrendous.
Also, as a parent, I can say that the last thing I would do at 9:00 pm, after a late Christmas Eve playing Santa, and long Christmas day, is give my child a bath. Especially, if we had to be up at the crack of dawn the next morning.
There is no way JR will ever confess to this crime. Why would he?
I think we can all agree that we would love to see the person who committed this crime, punished.
I'm pretty sure HKH covered it, but, me being me, I have to chime in:
"If you had a few millions in the bank and two children with a selfish wife who thought only of herself in fantasy "la-la" land wouldn't you hire a "live in nanny" to take care of your children 6&9 years old?"
Who says Patsy was selfish? Who says she "lived in la la land"? By all accounts she was committed to her children and doted on them. What point are you trying to make about the nanny - wouldn't a self absorbed mother be SURE to hand over her children to a nanny?! Your first paragraph is a contradiction, and it only progresses from there.....
"These two village Idiots were on Medication Prozac, Paxil.... name it..."
They were on ONE anti-depressant and ONE anti-anxiety drug.....Patsy had fought stage four cancer, and John had lost a daughter from a previous marriage. It is entirely understandable they were both battling anxiety and depression - it does NOT make either of them drug addicts. I take an anti depressant, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, I am not a drug addict nor a "village idiot". But it's refreshing to see someone as self righteous and together as yourself making judgments on others who don't quite have it all figured out as well as you do.
"Here is a little girl from what I have read had been going to visit her Dr almost daily"
Daily? 27 times in three years.....either you're being intentionally dishonest or math isn't your strong suit.
"Come-on something not right here, your planning an early trip wouldn't you see this child had a bath and hair brushed(autopsy ) pony tails , wouldn't you make sure she used bathroom, put out new or clean cloths for the trip ? this child was found wet{soaked with urine , that's because at the time of death urine will leave body ,her long johns were wet , I do not believe she had "EVER" been put to bed or down for the night, , bath or not , something else occurred in that house which we may never know ,a six year old is not like a teen , she is not able to tend for herself doing many things."
Wow. You'd hang the Ramseys on account they didn't give their daughter a bath and do her hair BEFORE putting her to bed (who puts their child's hair in fresh pony tails before bed)?! As far as her not having used the bathroom before bed - she was asleep. It is not child abuse to let your child sleep through the night after they've had a long, busy day.....
This post is something else....I have more to say, but I'd best bite my tongue, I don't want my comment to be deleted.
The JDI theory goes that Patsy couldn’t have been involved because she dialed 911 with the body still in the house. I’ll admit, calling 911 with the body in the house is and always will be a head scratcher. I have reasons as to why I believe all Ramsey’s were involved that helps explain it, but that’s not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is John allowing Patsy to call 911 with seemingly no issues, but then John also being able to prevent Patsy from being cooperative on any level with the police. If that’s confusing, let me try and explain it better.
In multiple post’s I previously wrote, I have always said that IF John was abusing JB and this whole thing was a murder to prevent him from being caught, then surely Patsy is never allowed to make that call. On the call it doesn’t sound like John is trying to wrestle the phone from her, nor do we hear him telling Patsy to hang up. At the moment 911 is called, if Johns master plan was to hide the body over the next few days and complete his staging, so then preventing Patsy from calling 911 would have been the easiest part of his plan. The RN provided him the reason to physically or verbally stop that 911 call from ever being made. Regardless, the call was made and then in the days, weeks and months that followed the murder, Patsy and John became uncooperative with the police. THIS is where I am having an issue
JDI Theory: When the 911 call is made, Patsy is this frantic, loving mother who in spite of the RN’s demands, calls 911 in a desperate attempt to find her child that she believes is missing. BUT, then somehow John takes that person and convinces her to not cooperate with police? SO does she or does she not want to find out who killed her daughter? When the call was made, she supposedly believes the note which is insane to then call police when the note says not to. If Patsy believed JB was truly murdered by some crazed intruder, why not cooperate with police? If she truly was innocent and had nothing to hide, I believe her being looked at wouldn’t have bothered her at all. Her world was just taken from her….do you think she would have cared about jail?
Within 24 hours Patsy knew she was BPD's primary suspect. Within 48 she was being lambasted by the press and public for allowing her daughter to parade around in pageants tarted up like a mini hooker. John offered protection and safety, and she quickly adopted a siege mentality, us-against-them. Defense attorneys never permit their clients to speak with LE, and John would have discouraged it in the guise of protecting her. Of course she was afraid of jail - it was clear early on that's where Steve Thomas wanted her and she still had a son to raise. CC
If she didn’t do it, she had nothing to hide. John was looked at, Burke was looked at and the police were looking at any/all outside suspects. She didn’t talk to the police right away and complicated it even more by inviting friends over immediately after being so frantic on the 911 call. This is assuming she is innocent (which she isn’t) but I’ll humor it.
Patsy Ramsey’s daughter was murdered in HER HOUSE. As she said “there is a killer on the loose” YET Patsy Ramsey was uncooperative with the authorities every step of the way. My point is I don’t believe John Ramsey could have manipulated a mother from finding out who killed her daughter at that point.
And mine is that John needed to do very little manipulating. The police, public and press started the job and Brian Morgan finished it - no way was she talking to anyone. CC
Thinking too much like a lawyer CC. To the public, avoiding talking to the police is viewed very much like the person is guilty. Not to mention, early on she didn't say anything. Just so Im clear, I don't believe Patsy murdered her, I just 100% believe she was involved in the cover up.
I get that, J, but the fact remains that regardless how it appears, there were a number of good reasons she didn't talk to LE, her attorney being just one of them. Most defense attorneys outright refuse to represent a client who talks to anyone but them. CC
For me CC, it's just the timing of her not being cooperative. She calls the police which people normally do for protection, peace of mine and help. That was her initial instinct when reading the note. But then once the body is found, she no longer wants their protection? This is going with the narrative that she had nothing to do with this crime. For me, she would have wanted to be even more cooperative after the body was found because now its a major threat to John, herself and most importantly Burke's safety. Being accused would have become secondary to the safety of her family. I just will never believe Patsy wasn't involved somehow, because it makes no sense.
J, in many ways I agree with you. The JDI is rife with so many fantastical stories connect to it - he wrote the note for Patsy to NOT call the police, he wanted to remove the body even though cadaver dogs can smell decomposition the moment a body dies, he was gaslighting Patsy, he worked all day except when he was home with his family which what, gave him amble opportunity to molest his daughter? oh yeah, must have been going on when Patsy was asleep, only did she notice all those times when he wasn't lying next to her (no explanation), he chooses the night before they are leaving to spend the after holidays with his two adult children and then go on a cruise, to kill his daughter, he's up all night staging the scene only Patsy doesn't notice not once that he's not asleep next to her, I mean it's all one big crime story, complete with a classic twist of a note 2 1/2 pages long that he cleverly disguised his own writing - but then there's an answer for that too - he composed it the day before inside his plane or the hangar plotting murder for later that night. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has nothing on this story! So yes, if no intruder i agree, Patsy was involved. We're on the same page with that.
"I just will never believe Patsy wasn't involved somehow, because it makes no sense."
Exactly. So, with all due respect, may I ask why you bother with the questions, when you're not actually interested in the answers, unless they line up with your preconceived notions? You know as well as we do - because you have told us several times - that there is absolutely nothing CC, Doc, myself or any other JDI can say that is going to make any difference, which makes your questions seem a little disingenuous, because our responses will never satisfy you. You've made up your mind and no amount of contrary evidence can change it. CC adequately responded to your questions about Patsy's lack of co-operation with LE and you completely disregarded it because, by your own admission, you'll never believe Patsy wasn't involved.
It's not so much Patsy trussed her up like a tart, it's more that she wanted to recreate herself. She wanted a mini-Patsy. I'm sure Nedra contributed, if not drove that fantasy as well. If you compare some of the costumes they had JB in they are identical to Patsy's in her pageant days - the "showgirl" with feathers, the polka dot dress, hat and gloves, it's eery. Scary. Disturbing. I believe the woman was disturbed, but that it was progressive, not sudden.
I also think JB to Patsy was an obsession in many ways. I know I'm risking going too far here. However what some may see as "doting" or "loving" I see a woman who was driven to control everything about that child - what she wore when NOT in the pageants, whether she could have sleepovers with friends, all of the posing for photographs capturing her every waking moment, bleaching her hair, applying make up to her, bright orange lipstick and eye liner, essentially making her a target for a pedophile, but not thinking about that at all. Wanting complete control of "that child" as she referred to her on television. I do not think it was a healthy relationship, all of her affection for JB, little for John, little for Burke.
Inquisitive, a couple of weeks ago you were sticking up for Patsy, saying she was just a poor, grieving mother.....now you'd have us believe she was abusive and suffering from a serious psychological condition, so forgive us if we don't find a word you say remotely credible. I find it somewhat disturbing how quickly you've gone from Patsy being a loving, doting mother to her being a controlling, conniving, stage mom who whored out her daughter simply because it's time for you to switch theories again.
As I've noted many times, from the moment her daughter's body was found until several weeks afterward, Patsy Ramsey was a basket case, heavily medicated and hardly capable of caring for herself. To accuse her of stonewalling the police is patently unfair. For this reason and many others the notion that "the Ramseys" should be treated as a unit in assessing this case can be understood as a major flaw in the investigation.
It was John who was talking with the lawyers, and it was John who was making the decisions as to what to do and when to do it. It was John who hired the PR firm and it was John who hired the handwriting "experts" who decided he could not have written the note. By the time Patsy came out of it, the official "Ramsey strategy" was firmly in place and she would not have been in a position to undermine it without producing a major conflict with John that would have made both of them look bad.
Isn't that what everyone is doing Ms D - speculating on what John wanted to do, what he intended to do, that he was a cold calculated convincing practiced liar, indifferent, and all of the rest. I've heard it all as being applied to someone none of you knew. But what we do see is a woman who was observed by others who needed to control her daughter and it was becoming increasingly more difficult as she got older. Haven't we just learned in the last two days that all of those trips to the Ped. were for multiple occurrences, not bedwetting as I thought 20 years ago. We learn something new in here everyday thanks to participants doing work and finding out information. As for the pageant thing keep in mind this is before the "Toddlers and Tiara's" TV show and to me I don't think Patsy intended to sexualize her daughter, but rather wanted another Patsy - by the choice in costumes which mimic her own ,look at the pictures - compare JB's outfits to Patsy's from her pageant glory days. She also wanted her to win those pageants - that's only natural but the increasing pressures of the holidays, her illness where she was in remission but knowing it could and possibly would return, making her children her world as Dad made his company his world. Yes, I didn't have a front row seat but I look at her behavior in videos and I read her interviews and I see how she and John interacted together and i notice as much as I can. I've learned much from being in here and doing my own "work" on this case. If I was wrong in suspecting an intruder I still had to work it out and I would hope that you are doing the same. If you have no doubts, that's great. Would that we could all be so sure. I didn't buy the Lou Smit version as I think that if someone came in they used a key, but I can't let it go that Patsy was most likely up all night. John did not know when she "went to sleep" as he says in his 1997 interview, nor did he see her get JB ready for bed (two statements "no he didn't see it and one uh-huh") but of course it's more than that. Her jacket fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape, her materials used from the paint tray. Of course I didn't see it, I have no idea how it all transpired. I think Hercule was pretty much on target, which was why I was captivated by his arguments. but so what. Are we required to pick a theory in here and stick with it? I'm open.
"Isn't that what everyone is doing Ms D - speculating on what John wanted to do, what he intended to do, that he was a cold calculated convincing practiced liar, indifferent, and all of the rest."
No, Inquisitive, no one else has gone out of their way to defend John, only to then, in a heartbeat, turn around and name him as the killer, which is what you did with Patsy. We've always maintained John is a narcissistic, conniving liar who murdered his daughter. I will stand by my statement that I find it alarming that up until only a week ago, you were vehemently defending Patsy's behaviour as that of a grieving mother, and now you're claiming she suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy, "tarted up" her daughter, was abusing her, and murdered her (weren't you saying only a day or two ago that you hadn't migrated over to the PDI camp? Yet another piece of erroneous information from you we're not to trust? Your statements are unreliable, we can't count on them as being true. I may disagree with J, KS, Zed etc., but at least they're consistent - I can trust that *they* believe what they're saying and will be saying the same thing tomorrow - and every other day, lol - but no one can make heads or tails of your ever changing theories, and many have pointed this out to you, so it surely must have some basis in truth?
"Are we required to pick a theory in here and stick with it? I'm open."
Of course not. But if you want to be seen as credible, staunchly defending the very person you're only going to throw under the bus next week (you did it with Burke also - defending him initially, only to then name him as his sister's killer), is probably not the way to do it. You claim it's standard to continuously vacillate between all theories, but I challenge you to name just one other poster here who has subscribed to every, single theory in the space of a couple of months. I'm sorry, it's not what "everyone else is doing". It's good to be "open", but you seem to be just highly suggestible (yet, ironically, you find it difficult to believe Patsy was gaslighted! You're living proof at just how easy it is to do!)
John never thought the ramson note would not stop her. He trusted the RN to stop her from searching the house, from calling the police. He took the time to ellaborate and write a 2 1/2 pages note that he trusted would do the job so he didnt have to try to convince her to follow the instructions.He didnt want to be perceived as involved in any way, he let the RN work and as we all know it didnt. They, surely, imo, had a fight over the issue of calling the police or not. Patsy was out of breath when calling 911, she sounded as she came to the telephone running, apparently saying " We need 'em". Once the connection was established it was smart for John to remain silent...but then there was a sudden hangup. We will never know what happened that morning but we can conclude that if Patsy was involved, calling the police in so early could have not been part of the plan. Martha from California
I've always wondered if JR hide the body somewhere that night. Some place other than the basement room the body was found in. So he wasn't too worried when Patsy made the 911 call. But overheard the police say something that made him realize the body would be found where he had hidden it incriminating him. I wonder if that basement has a secret still remaining all these years.
"Other than a quick visit by Officer French Linda Arnt was it for the day". Other anonymous is right there were other cops there. Officers Rick French, Barry Weiss, Karl Veitch and Fred Patterson also Special Agent Ron Walker. Arndt was only alone from 10:35 on. So "If only the police had been involved" is another one of your misleading statements.
CC- JR was BPD's first suspect, not PR. BPD's and the media's initial resonse was the same as mine, JR was diddling his daughter and killed her and this avenue was investigated extensively. PR being the main suspect did not come until a little later on.
I'll take your word, KS, though Steve Thomas seemed to imply he suspected her from the jump. I'll just stick with the fact that she had a lawyer within 24 hours who wouldn't let her talk. CC
CC: I think Keiser is right CC; the police suspected John right off the bat, particulary Linda Arndt. And while it's true she had a lawer within 24 hours, John did too, and both were hired by John. Doc might want to weigh in on this, but I think, in this case, maybe more than any murder case in my lifetime, accurate sequencing of all phenomena, be it events, suspicions, behaviors, or testimonies, is vital to reaching the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John is guilty. I don't mean to come off as lecturing you; I don't mean it that way. I guess I'm just a little surprised you would think Patsy was the first one the police suspected. Wasn't John was the first one they asked to provide handwriting samples?
I'll take your word too, Mike. I have no facts, just an impression from Thomas's book, read some time ago, that he decided on Patsy early and never waivered. CC
Steve Thomas may have suspected PR right from the get go CC. I do not know of that is true or he is being honest but could be. I am going with BPD and media and JR was the main suspect from the getgo for over a year, well after his handwriting was not a match. I think Thomas is the reason PR became the main suspect.
I had it from Darnay Hoffman, who claimed he'd been in touch with an assistant prosecutor, that John was indeed the first suspect, and that the initial BPD theory was in fact very close to mine. According to Hoffman, it was the handwriting evidence (i.e., the decision to rule John out) that transferred the focus from him to Patsy.
PR was sedated pretty much from the get go, leaving JR in control.... I don't think her behaviour is indicative of anything other than a person who had trauma, was drugged to give some relief, and relied on her husband to look after her interests.
Regarding an earlier post on the black fibers found in JB's panties that supposedly came from John's shirt. This is from Patsy's 2000 interview with police (Lin Wood present):
8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your 9 position. 10 In addition to those questions, 11 there are some others that I would like you 12 to think about whether or not we can have 13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I 14 understand you are advising her not to today, 15 and those are there are black fibers that, 16 according to our testing that was conducted, 17 that match one of the two shirts that was 18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt. 19 Those are located in the 20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in 21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two 22 other areas that we have intended to ask 23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in 24 explaining their presence in those locations. 25 MR. WOOD: And again, you state 0203 1 that on this record as fact, and I really 2 think that is unfair. I think if you would 3 produce the full truth of the fibers that 4 you have collected that it would probably be 5 at best similar to, which is not uncommon. 6 And I think you would also probably have to 7 admit that there are any number of other 8 fibers found in these areas that you have no 9 explanation for, and I don't want this record 10 to be distorted down the road as being a 11 situation where somehow there is greater 12 weight given to these similar fibers you 13 represent in terms of their location and 14 their alleged origin than really is fair 15 under the truth of fiber evidence and the 16 total fiber evidence in this case. 17 So I mean, I understand your 18 position, and we may very well be able to 19 get over it. You all are willing verbally 20 to tell us the result. I think you clearly, 21 in fairness, should be perfectly willing to 22 show us the result. And when you do that, 23 that would give us an opportunity to perhaps 24 reconsider and answer the question. 25 Would you all be willing to do 0204 1 that, Bruce? 2 MR. LEVIN: I think that is 3 something we'd have -- I would have to 4 discuss with Chief Beckner. And I think you 5 can appreciate why, when we are talking about 6 physical evidence in an ongoing investigation, 7 which is not a filed case, that we are 8 reluctant to release reports.
They argue, for what seems an eternity, about the fiber evidence and anything else Lin Wood doesn't want Patsy to answer. The police say they have forensic tested evidence/reports and Lin Wood argues he wants to see the reports before he will let Patsy answer the questions. There is more arguing (ad nauseam) between the prosecuting attorney and Lin Wood than there are questions asked of Patsy in the entire interview.
Something similar came up in John's interview, as I recall, and Wood stonewalled in a very similar manner. He simply did not want that evidence discussed.
JBR was not going to visit her Dr. daily, she had 31 visits in over 2 years. Most of which are for things like a sinus infection. As someone mentioned above, after seeing what each and every visit was for, it does sound alot like Munchhausen's by proxy. As far as PR being a selfish person, I would think that is fairly obvious. Here is a little 6 yr old girl dressed up like a Vegas showgirl who is not allowed to eat McDonalds because "it would make her fat". Plenty of clues and evidence as to the type of person each Ramsey was despite all JDI who will try and claim that PR seemed like a normal loving mother. She seemed like an obsessed pageant mother who was obviously living vicariously through her daughter. Does that mean she committed the murder or was a part of the cover-up, of course it doesnt but ignoring or trying to pretend there is not a serious problem or this does not exist is ridiculous.
A believe a careful examination of all Patsy's various behaviors, in all the various circumstances we are privy to in this case, fortifies Doc's theory that she was successfully gaslighted by John---that whatever part she took in the "cover-up" was not criminal in nature. If I led a team prosecuting this case, I'd assign one person to devote his or her entire time to putting together a presentation on this one topic. Doc wrote the "book" ruling John in as the writer of the ransom note; one more "book", ruling Patsy out as John's co-conspirator, is all this case needs to go to trial, in my humble opinion.
I did not speak of PR's behavior post murder, I spoke only of her personality pre-murder. I, however, am not a believer that a mother whose daughter was murdered can be gaslit into not wanting to find out who murdered her daughter. We only need to check other cases where both parents are together and there child has been murdered to see the large variance in behavior. If we follow gaslighting than JR would have to be the James Bond of not gaslighting but brainwashing.
She wasn't gaslit into "not WANTING to find"....her daughter's murderer, she was gaslit into believing it couldn't possibly have been John. Two very different things, Keiser.
People want to believe that someone as educated and intelligent as Patsy was, is incapable of being manuvered in the manner defined by the term. Not only is this wrong, but Patsy's emotional characteristics, having nothing to do with her intelligence, made her vulnerable to manipulation. I think if I had the time and resources, I could convince a jury of this.
If JDI then he sure picked a very odd way and weapon to commit murder with. Apparently he did not care about leaving blood, dna or evidence right in the house, which would be even stranger considering his plan was to dump the body.
Why would it be any more odd than a kidnapper killing and leaving behind his hostage? Or a wife composing a ransom note telling her husband calling the police will kill his daughter, then foiling her own plan by calling the police herself? Or a husband and wife covering for a son too young to go to prison by staging a kidnapping that fooled no one? Every possible scenario in this case has aspects about it that are crazy hard to believe, but only one scenario can be inferred logically from the facts. And what is a "circumstantial" case if not that? Prosecutors should be jumping at the bit to arrest John if for no other reason than that convicting him would put them in the history books forever.
Mike, if you are planning a kidnapping and dumping of a body, the most important thing that you can not have in your home is dna or blood from the victim in your house, because that would ruin your whole plan wouldnt it ? So it would make absolutely no sense that JR would use a weapon that could splatter blood/and or brain matter all over his house when all he had do was to strangle. To strangle a little 6 yr old girl would be very easy for a grown man such as JR. If JR is the calculating, manipulating genius you claim that he is, then surely he had to factor into his plan.
If the head blow had produced blood, so what? Once the body is out of the house, then the logical conclusion is that she's been kidnapped. Could the "kidnapper" have assaulted her while she was still in the house? Of course, why not? There might well have been a struggle, no? He might well have struck her over the head or even killed her before removing from the house, no?
So no, I don't see the possibility of drawing blood as a deterrent to John from striking her over the head. Blood or no blood, the plan would have been to remove her body from the house.
Oh Doc doc doc.....you don't see a problem if blood had been drawn? ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how about it creating a huge mess that he would have had to clean up. How about not wanting to leave any evidence of blood drops anywhere that could tie the murder inside the house? The 2 different acts (head blow and garrote) are more reasons why not only this wasn't premeditated, but I also don't believe it was committed by 1 person. Choking her, giving her a sleeping pill would have been much cleaner and easier. Bashing in her skull makes little sense if it was intentional.
Why would he have needed to clean up any mess? With the body out of the house, the blood could have easily been explained away as the result of a struggle between the "kidnapper" and his "victim." Bashing in her skull makes sense if he wanted to spare her any pain or fear.
I didn't mean to be insensitive on that last comment, but come on! If the end goal was to always get the body out the house then the Head Blow wasnt necessary at any point! If the point was to kill her and remove the body, then all he would have needed was the garrote, nothing else.
Sure, that definitely is possible. I just think IF it was the Maglite with the direction of the hit straight down, he took a real big risk of there being blood splatter.
"So it would make absolutely no sense that JR would use a weapon that could splatter blood/and or brain matter all over his house when all he had do was to strangle."
Hey Doc, I've got a new term: "disqualification bias". More insidious than it's cousin, it goes like this:
"If I can't make evidence fit my theory, then I'll use it to make alternative theories sound absurd."
Look at that woman in the video where she is being questioned by two detectives. Does she even remotely resemble a woman who could be gaslit? And it's more than being a Stage Momager. She survived stage 4 cancer but knew the chances were good that it would come back. Can you imagine what that might do to you? She was one determined woman, but frightened at the same time. No control of her physical body but very much in control of her children, how she ran her home, her position in the community. John's baby was his company. He was about to take it global. Burke said what he liked about his dad was airplanes. He said his mom worked at being a mom. Both of them were drawn in his picture as small, rather insignificant. He got the short end of the shrift in that family affection-wise.
Inquisitive, you are being speculative and rather judgemental about people you don't even know. You have no idea if Burke received less affection than JBR. You may think the pageant involvement was weird, and its not something I would do, but it does not make Patsy a control freak. I really don't understand where you're going with most of the stuff you write. You are not going to solve this case with a personality analysis of these people. But, if you must do that, then please analyze JR too. And ask yourself why he is not looking for the real killer since you're convinced that an intruder did it. I've been on this blog for years now, but your mind and musings dumps are taking over this blog and are not going anywhere. Its driving me nuts -- I'm having a hard time following anyone here anymore because many of you are back in the morass again. It is possible Patsy was gaslit. Anybody can be gaslit if the circumstances present that possibility. So let's just concede that it is possible. As for me, I still ponder over how Patsy could not have eventually figured out that John did something to JBR that night. If Burke was involved, maybe she did figure it out and chose to be silent. I do not see her as being much different than me as a mother. I would do anything to protect my only child after I had lost one of mine. But I'm just going to stick to the facts because no one can be in the minds of those people (unless you are God, or some kind of mind reader). The fact is, Patsy was intelligent enough to not call police if she knew her dead daughter was in the basement. She called them. John proceeded to behave very suspiciously. Linda Arndt was there -- I have to listen to what she saw because SHE WAS THERE. Ever since, John has done nothing to find the real killer.
I am no expert on the subject but in that video she looks like a very confident, stubborn, headstrong woman whose mind cant be changed, so if she could possibly be gaslit or not remains to be seen, it is however NOT apparent in that video whatsoever. I would really like to hear how it appears she could ?
Why are you wasting your time and comment space repititively telling people it has been answered. If whoever thinks it has been answered sufficiently then they would not be commenting. Also just because you say its so, surely does not make is so. FYI
THANK YOU KS! Ms D thinks she is the voice of reason, but all she really does is critique everybody for asking or saying anything. I got critiqued for asking rhetorical questions when in reality, most people on here aren't changing their opinions. Also, Ms D....why do you say "We've told you" ??? Whose We? KS to your post, I completely agree. Watching all the interviews and interrogation tapes, Patsy looks like she is the one wearing the pants in the relationship. Doesn't look like somebody who would easily be "gaslighted" into lying and covering up her husbands abuse.
Keiser asked the same question in regards to Patsy not being the kind of person who could be gaslighted at least twice on this thread alone, and it was answered adequately each one of those times...so what's the problem with stating such? The two of you do keep asking the same questions, as though the more times you ask it, you'll somehow beat us into submission and we'll concede you must be right after all. It's juvenile. I won't apologize for calling you out on it. You call me out often, J, and I try to take on board what you've said so I can debate better next time. You've been told how Patsy could have been gaslighted, K, so what point does it serve to ask it again? You've been told - ad nauseam - how Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple could have gotten there much earlier in the day, J - yet you continue to ask us how his fingerprints don't put him at the scene of the crime. I don't think I'm "the voice of reason" at all - I have a LOT to learn - but I do think it's more than reasonable to make a demonstrably, truthful statement: that your question has been answered, so why don't we move on to something we *don't* know and try to figure out what it means?
You brought it up, so I just want to clarify. Regarding the Pineapple Bowl specifically. Certain people on here hide behind saying "I stick to the facts and logic of the case" when in reality that just isn't true. The Pineapple bowl has 2 sets of fingerprints on it...Burke's and Patsy's...YET JDI theory puts neither of them near the scene of the crime. Magically Burke and Patsy touched that bowl earlier that year taking it out of the dishwasher and then were sound asleep when John bluedgeoned JB. Not a whole lot of logic there
if Patsy was involved, why would she have kept her distance from John during the time there was a lot of people in her house?
Her not speaking to the police is more so a result of John taking charge of the situation and her being medicated. But, no, according to PDI, she killed JB and forced John not to speak to the police, right?
It's obvious that Patsy didn't take that RN seriously at all because she didn't follow a single direction the supposed "kidnappers" gave them. The RN threatened to behead their daughter if they so much as talked to a dog--so what did she do? She not only called the police, she also called friends, doctor, priest, neighbors to ALl come on over and lets create a chaotic scene in a house that was being watched by that small foreign faction.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Also, your daughter is missing, taken for ransom---so what do you do? You let your neighbor take your remaining child to their house. NOW, you don't know who did this, therefore you wouldn't let that other child out of your sight. OR if you did, I'd expect him to be escorted by police and/or watched CLOSELY by law enforcement.
Gosh, how many times do we have to rehash this? Its very possible that Patsy had a very visceral reaction after reading just the first few lines. I know how emotional I would be as a mother, and I do think its possible she didn't even get to the part about beheading before screaming and running for John. I know it would have been hard for me to be rational and for it all to sink in. For all we know, John told her to call the friends over so she did. Also, I have many trusted friends and family and I would definitely let my child go with them if it meant not exposing them to what was happening. The note was directed to John. Right out of the shoot, it seemed like a revenge thing. If the "intruder" wanted to take Burke too, he would have done so that night. Yes, I would let my friends take my child away to the safety of their house.
Besides, all your points apply to John as well. Why did HE allow friends over and let Fleet take Burke to the White's house?
Same applies to JR, but we were talking PR in the posts above and whether or not she was gaslighted. And I guess we have to rehash it as many times as it takes to possibly get to the truth. Just thinking of things from different angles. None of us know what we'd do in any given situation. There is no doubt that JR ruled the roost in that house and I find it odd that he wouldn't have been able to stop her from doing what she did that morning. He may have wanted to create the chaos, and therefore stood by and allowed her to make the calls, etc. We don't know, just speculating here and giving my opinion.
EG, I feel certain John did not want Patsy call, and did not expect her to. She may have gotten up earlier than he expected. He said he was in the shower, and its also possible he ran out of time to complete his cover up during the night. We cannot assume he had a perfect plan and was executing it perfectly. I think he assumed she would follow his lead more than she did. Like you said, we don't know how anyone would react, and its possible that her fear caused her to go into react mode, ignoring John. He couldn't say "hey, it says here not to call police" if she ran to grab the phone before he even read the entire note. That would looking suspicious - he knows what is in the note before completely reading it? I think he tried to stop her at some point but once you have 911 on the line, they will likely send someone out even if you hang up before speaking to them. Bottom line, we can't prove what happened so no amount of opining about why Patsy called is going to change the fact that SHE DID CALL. If she was hiding a body, she would have said, "John, look what it says here! What should we do? Please, get the money together and get my baby back!!"
IF JDI then the 911 call was EVERYTHING. At that moment when Patsy wakes up, her not calling 911 would have been Johns freedom, reputation and marriage on the line. You honestly think he would take the chance of showering and keeping his fingers crossed that she believed his novel Ransom note? No.....If JDI, then John Ramsey is taking control and finding the note so he can CONTROL the situation.
John's biggest mistake was not putting "don't call 911" in the first 1 or 2 lines of the note. Patsy panicked after reading the first 1-2 lines and then probably dropped the papers screaming and running to check on her daughter who she found not there. This is probably what 99.999% of other rational humans would do after reading the first 2 lines of that note. Big mistake John!! Shoulda put don't call 911 first! I'd bet my life nearly that Patsy never ever read the part about not calling 911, especially because it seems likely that she would have mentioned to the 911 operator that the note states not to call police but she felt she had to anyways.
Yep, J. But it's taken me a while not to react to everything that's written in here, and I'm still learning. Pick your battles. If Patsy wrote then it doesn't matter who's idea it was to call 911, she was going to call - it was part of the act. Do you know how many crimes committed by the person in the home are followed by a frantic dramatic call to 911? After they have finished their staging of course. Gotten rid of incriminating evidence, wiped down the murder weapon or disposed of it outside the house (usually though if they are the only other one in the house)and then rehearsed in their minds how appropriately "frantic" and "concerned" they are going to act on the phone. Did any of the detectives ever ask who's idea it was to call over the neighbors? I'll bet it was Patsy's idea, and she didn't ask permission, she just did it.
Inq – It gets glossed over by JDI’s, but a crazy and frantic Patsy Ramsey who barely hears what the 911 operator is asking her is calm enough to call friends over. If it were her parents, I could see them calling, not friends. But, at that moment, we are supposed to believe her daughter was just kidnapped and within 8 minutes, the friends are called. For me this is part of the plan. Call 911 and then immediately call friends over to help create confusion and chaos. John may have wanted to find the body earlier but wasn’t given his chance until LA told him to search house. That’s when John needs to have FW with him to witness John finding the body.
Not quite sure what you were saying above J, but either way if Patsy covered for Burke or Patsy covered for herself the 911 call was very necessary and very appropriately panic-sounding. Whichever neighbor she called first - Priscilla? - said she sounded very frantic, needed her over there right away - something terrible had happened, etc. The friends weren't necessarily there to add chaos, but more as a buffer - a wall - between Patsy and John and Patsy and police (if police were there, she didn't know police wouldn't be there) and certainly from herself and Arndt.
Sorry, let me try and say it better. I believe the 911 call was Patsy acting. But, for the JDI theory, Patsy wasn’t involved and the 911 call was genuine. Well, if its genuine, then you believe Patsy truly was frantic and was so frantic she couldn’t even focus on the questions being asked by the 911 operator. Then she hangs up and within 8 minutes that frantic person is able to pull herself together and her first action is to call friends over to the house. MAKES NO SENSE Yes, of course the friends were there only to be a buffer and add confusion to the scene. No other way around it
Well Keiser, first, that question was for J. Not you. I assume Doc will come along an delete your insult. I'm not a homemaker, nor a cook. I'm a business executive. No one has any business trying to solve a case by presuming to know why Patsy called her pastor and friends over. I'm just speculating on my theory: John could have verbally abused her after she made the call. The shock of having your daughter kidnapped and your husband berating you for your knee-jerk reaction would be cause enough to want people there to comfort you. If you are male, I'm going to take a guess here, you don't get it. Perhaps you are missing a sensitivity chip?
We've already discussed that Patsy may have not read the entire note thoroughly. For all we know, John snatched it from her when he realized she was hysterical (or as Burke said, "going all psycho."
Right,J I thought that's what you meant when I re read it. So I wonder when John figured it out. By having the friends there she did not have to talk to him. Or anyone. Peaking through her fingers, wondering what would be found, and when.
That whole 911 call. It just reminds me of an episode from Lassie where Ruth calls the operator to get a hold of Doc or something because Lassie has fallen down the old mine shaft and Timmy ran after her. He's blonde.
It's so totally staged. The call. She tells the operator she doesn't know what's happened but she/they just woke up and there's a note there but she's already managed to read to paragraph two enough to tell the operator "we have a kidnapping" and that it's a ransom note. She also knows who signed it, SBTC. Victory she says. Between breaths. When did she run upstairs to check JB's room and go into Burke's room and tell John all before just finding a note? Just waking up?
"That whole 911 call. It just reminds me of an episode from Lassie where Ruth calls the operator to get a hold of Doc or something because Lassie has fallen down the old mine shaft and Timmy ran after her. He's blonde.
It's so totally staged. The call. She tells the operator she doesn't know what's happened but she/they just woke up and there's a note there but she's already managed to read to paragraph two enough to tell the operator "we have a kidnapping" and that it's a ransom note. She also knows who signed it, SBTC. Victory she says. Between breaths. When did she run upstairs to check JB's room and go into Burke's room and tell John all before just finding a note? Just waking up?"
Inquisitive, only last week you were still firmly IDI, and found Patsy's call completely consistent with a mother who had just discovered her daughter had been kidnapped. You argued this point several times, in fact. Now, I understand that you change your mind according to new information you come across, but you've *always* known how Patsy sounded in the 911 call - this is not new to you at all, so I think it's fair to ask.....why do you now believe Patsy was faking it when it was so obvious to you up until days ago that she was genuine? I think that's a fair question.....
So, would Patsy want John to the find note first if she wrote it, and would John want Patsy to find the note first if he wrote it? It's sounds like (from interview transcripts) they both regularly used the back stairwell. If John’s plan was to find the note that HE wrote before Patsy did, he would have got up first, put his robe on and went down those steps right away. And if he wanted Patsy to find the note (he wrote) first, then he would have waited in his dressing room/bathroom until he heard her go down. Alternately, if Patsy wanted John to find the note that SHE wrote, she would have waited in her bathroom/dressing area until she knew he went down the stairs. And if Patsy wanted to find the note (that she wrote) first, she would have got up first and put her robe on and went down those steps before John could. So, the fact is (according to JR/PR) John was up first and still in his bathroom when Patsy went down and found the note, which means HE wrote it. This is of course assuming an intruder didn’t write the note and one of them did. And if they were both in on the cover-up, it’s a moot point.
Didn't anyone watch the People Magazine's one hour special on the case last night? It was the first one I've seen that doesn't "rule out" John by over-focusing on Patsy, intruders, Burke, and the "parents". And there was some new stuff, such as where SBTC came from.
Yes Mike G--I watched it last night and I think that the FBI agent Ron is spot on with much of what he says. As an experienced agent, he made some good observations and points, and I agree with him. PR and JR's behavior - suspicious and not what you'd normally see with two parents of a kidnapped child. PR peeking out at him and when he introduced himself, he said most parents WANT to speak to the FBI and are glad when they arrive. Not PR and JR--she was peeking out at him from between splayed fingers.
Above Mike G posted "If I can't make evidence fit my theory, then I'll use it to make alternative theories sound absurd."
If this is a reference to me, I don't think you are reading my posts Mike. I just want to make sure after reading yours, Ms D, Doc, CC, etc that I have compiled the JDI theory. This is what I have:.
* He may or may not have planned to kill her. If he did, it could have been planned for months or also just a short period of time. * He also could have planned to kill her that night with no premeditation because she didn't cooperate with his sex game that night * His motive may have been to shut her up, but it could have been something else as well * The head blow doesn’t matter in regards to making a bloody crime scene was irrelevant, because he was burying the body and any blood in the house could be explained away by a struggle * John also may have killed her in a fit of rage over any million reasons. * John also may or may not have been abusing JB for a long period of time or just recently * John planned to have 2 days of what would compile into the greatest staging in the history of crimes. He would call Patsy from a pay phone, hide the body somewhere, take the money out. Then come home and stage the house so perfectly to fool Sherlock Holmes. * Patsy and the Pediatrician were completely oblivious to any and all possible abuse to JB. * Neither Patsy or Burke saw or heard anything. Oh wait, IF Burke was downstairs, he might be covering her John which explains his awkward interview with therapist and Dr. Phil * Due to chemo brain, Patsy was easily gaslighted into believing anything John told her to. Kind of like Reggie Jackson in Naked Gun * Pineapple Bowl may or may not be pineapple. Even though its clearly pineapple, it could be cereal which is why Burke couldn’t tell what it was *JB could have ingested Fruit Cocktail and not just pineapple *The Pineapple bowl with fingerprints of ONLY BR and PR means nothing because they emptied the dishwasher. (even though we have no clue if Burke helped empty it, but that’s not important) * Every expert who believes Patsy wrote the note is irrelevant because its junk science and because they aren’t qualified. Anybody who believes John wrote it make an interesting case * Patsy NEVER would have suspected John because of the handwriting experts. *John is still pulling strings by his control of Burke and making Burke keep his mouth shut IF he saw something.
This is currently what we have. Again, ONLY stick to the FACTS and LOGIC of the case. I will be adding more to this list after the rebuttals come in which I very much look forward to
Above - who intended who to find the note, yes, mind boggling. If Patsy wrote it she wasn't going to be the first one up, she was already up - all night. It wasn't about finding the note, it was about using it to play act the frantic 911 call. Either way, whether she was already up or the first one up, she was going to see it first (actually second if she wrote it). Why write it at all I think we should be asking ourselves. Why not just leave the body hidden in the wine cellar room and pretend to get her up in the a.m., not be able to find her, call the police and it looks like a murder was committed under your own noses in your own house by person or persons unknown. Perhaps the author thought that was a ludicrous assumption to make. Perhaps the author didn't think anyone would buy that (except a dumb idiot like me :)- that in the dead of night someone came in and selected their daughter for a head blow. That's where it started. The head blow. Perhaps the person who delivered the blow was absolutely shocked and stunned that they had done such a thing and sought to cover it up by whatever means possible by staging it to look like someone else had done it. Kapish?
J I see our busy little minds were working at the same time so my post was for Anony (how many Anony's do we have here now?) in regard to who intended who to find the note. Anony. 12:50 p.m.
I do think it rather appalling that LE wanted to re-question Burke - all of that chatter about it on the net was what had me stumble onto this blog. And instead we got ripped off with the sham television show of Dr. Phil doing the questioning. To get to some unanswered questions it is as Kolar suggests - that a new GJ be convened specifically for the purpose of putting some questions to Burke. I was going to say what 3 questions would you like to ask him but it would be meaningless unless he was hooked up to a lie detector machine or under oath.
They're not sure if the head blow came first and if it was JR and he had been sexual molesting her, then its likely the garrote was used first, followed by the head blow.
One of the forensic pathologists in last night's show said this wasn't the first time that game was played. He thought the abuse was ongoing, but this time, she didn't cooperate.
Yes EG, but there are conflicting reports from numerous experts as to which came first. ME took a neutral position. And if it were a sexual game then that does not make it conclusive JR did it, we can go back to the intruder theory if you would like.
There's also that triangular strawberry-like burn-abrasion on her neck, rather large, which Steve Thomas opined may have been caused by someone grabbing her by the sweater neck and twisting as she tried to run away.
"Asked if he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” News.com.au asked him to reveal who he thought was responsible for the death, but he declined to say. The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute."
Fake news? I wonder. Hard to believe any reporter would be able to pin him down like that, but who knows?
IF we take him literally, and IF we can assume the guy is actually being logical (BIG if) rather than just gassing off the top of his head, then the perp he has in mind could only be: John Ramsey.
NOT Burke. Too young at the time to stand trial.
NOT Patsy. You can't put someone who's deceased on trial.
NOT an intruder. There's never been even a trace of evidence pointing to any one person outside the Ramsey household.
Is John the one he has in mind? Well, the logic says "yes" -- but my experience with the thinking of just about everyone who's ever investigated this case says no. It's possible he's focused on one particular intruder suspect, though it's very hard to see whom that could be. Or very likely he too has managed to convince himself Patsy did it. But putting her on trial won't be easy.
You've got to let go of the pineapple. It's literally impossible to tell when Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were placed on a bowl that existed in the house they lived in. You know this. You're theory could even be correct, but the fingerprints are inconclusive and you know it.
Paula Woodward claims the autopsy evidence she reviewed states it was pineapples, grapes and cherries that were found in JB's system (the link was posted somewhere above, though we've heard this information before), and that Steve Thomas may have omitted this information in order to bolster his PDI theory for the purpose of his book.....if this is true, the BDI's "best" piece of evidence (the only piece of evidence, I would argue) means nothing.
Here's the rest of the link to the DA Stan Garnett article -- it sounds encouraging! http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/ill-tell-the-whole-world-boulder-prosecutors-bombshell-claim/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a
If Patsy was up all night, as a smart intelligent woman, wouldn't she have changed her clothes? But, no, John was the one who showered that morning. But, again, Patsy is the one with the microscope on her.
If PR was too drugged to care about who had killed her daughter as some of you propose, when the drugs wore off then her #1 mission in life would have been to find her daughter's killer. Look no further than any other similar case where a mother loses her daughter. Rather than sending LE on wild goose after wild goose chase over pageant bears, shoes etc. This point is clear as day.
"If PR was too drugged to care about who had killed her daughter as some of you propose..."
Who said this?! Please, cite your sources....I don't recall anyone ever saying Patsy didn't care......she was a basket case, for God's sake. Every JDI here has stated the contrary, so whom are you referring to? If Patsy's guilt is so obvious, KS, why not let the evidence speak for itself, rather than resorting to straw man arguments?
Yes I think the ransom note does not mean they were trying to hide the body.
They are smart people. They used some reverse psychology. They thought, who would suspect us, if we wrote a kidnap note? No one would think we would write a kidnap note, and keep the body here, they thought. Also as another commenter said, it provided motive. Some enemy of John's. A money motive. It allowed them to use their imagination and come up with all kinds of weird scenarios to point away from them. You can't write a note for money, after, the daughter is killed.
I think they both did it. I don't know who actually killed JBR. But she was being sexually and physically abused, both parents knew it. If only one parent did it, then the other parent was also guilty of past abuse, and that is why they helped cover up.
The only evidence that is "let speak for itself" is any that can be twisted into evidence against JR OR trying to twist evidence away from anyone elses involvement. My comment refers to Ms D and the few others who claim that PR was manipulated and gaslit into all of her behaviors, which that then has to include not wanting to find the killer of her daughter for 10 years. As I said before, one only has to look at any off the many other similar cases to see what a mother who has her daughter murdered and defiled will do and what her behaviors and main goal in life become. Sorry Ms D but the couple of months you speak of a "grieving" PR is not what I am speaking of.
It's obvious that Patsy didn't take that RN seriously at all because she didn't follow a single direction the supposed "kidnappers" gave them. The RN threatened to behead their daughter if they so much as talked to a dog--so what did she do? She not only called the police, she also called friends, doctor, priest, neighbors to ALl come on over and lets create a chaotic scene in a house that was being watched by that small foreign faction.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Also, your daughter is missing, taken for ransom---so what do you do? You let your neighbor take your remaining child to their house. NOW, you don't know who did this, therefore you wouldn't let that other child out of your sight. OR if you did, I'd expect him to be escorted by police and/or watched CLOSELY by law enforcement. Well stated EG ! Now that^^^ is called logic ! JDI need to read this so they can learn what logic is, of course they will excuse the oh so obvious here with some ludicrous, off the wall, agenda like garbage by making one of these completely ILLOGICAL comments - she needed support from her friends of course or you have "confirmation bias" or she didnt read the whole note because I mean who would actually do that ? This os one of my personal favorites ...We need to stick to only the "facts" of the case and it is neither fact nor evidence so therefor we can not draw any common sense from it. The real truth though is that it does not point to JDI so therefore it must be discluded in typical JDI fashion.
Havent posted in a while and just spend 30min reading a few posts. Ms D wrote:
if this is true, the BDI's "best" piece of evidence (the only piece of evidence, I would argue) means nothing.
My reply:
LOL. Firstly, the pineapple is not the best evidence for BDI. Patsy was involved in this coverup without a shadow of a doubt. That means Burke is the most likely suspect because John and Patsy wouldn't cover for each other.
Second best bit of evidence is he is the only one who has lashed out at JB in the past (with a golf club). Witnesess state this was not an accident. No one in the house has even smacked JB before.
And he admitted to sneaking downstairs the night of the murder.
And you know what..so even without the pineapple Burke is by far and away and the most likely culprit.
I dont believe the fruit cocktail for a second. It was pineapple and JB ate it that night. Which means the pineapple was made that night. And it was most likely made by Burke or Patsy...probably Burke. And do you really think Patsy would leave a bowl of pineapple sitting on the bench for more than a day? Please.
It amazes me at the length you go to try and disprove the pineapple when this is obviously a key bit of evidence. But even without it, Burke is obviously the guilty party.
I probably wont post for at least another month so enjoy the rest of 2016.
Re: Keiser Sozay Post Dec. 17 2:58 P.M
ReplyDeleteAccording to Paula Woodward in her book “We Have Your Daughter: The Unsolved Murder of Jonbenet Ramsey Twenty Years Later (Kindle Locations 1790-1792):
JB’s medical records:
PR called or visited the doctor several times for JB’s chronic sinus, allergic rhinitis, and nose irritations. Accidental injuries were noted in the report for: golf club hit on cheek, fell on nose, fell and hit forehead on steps, and fell and bent her nail back. There are five instances in the medical report relating to JB’s vaginal area: a phoned-in concern of a bladder infection, how to treat chicken pox in that area, diarrhea (?), and two child-wellness checks that included exams in this area of which both checks noted nothing out of the ordinary. --- here’s a link I found to a Child-Well Exam https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/health-management/Documents/6-Year-Old_Previsit_Questionnaire.pdf
As GS said, Munchhausen's by proxy.
DeleteNothing about those visits suggests Patsy was suffering from Munchhausen's by Proxy! These were all relatively common ailments that were not caused by Patsy.
Delete"Munchhausen's by proxy is a term often used when a caregiver or spouse fabricates, exaggerates, or induces mental or physical health problems in those who are in their care, with the primary motive of gaining attention or sympathy from others."
Nothing about those pediatrician visits suggests this was Patsy's motive.
you have to admit though there seems to be a preoccupation with JB's private parts - five instances relating to her vaginal area, bladder infection, chicken pox "in that area", vaginosis or itis
DeleteWhich only supports my theory that John was molesting his daughter.
DeleteThat you somehow manage to find Patsy's behaviour - rather than John's - suspicious in regards to the frequent visits to her pediatrician boggles my mind. Confirmation bias at it's finest.
And although Patsy saw fit to take her to the pediatrician for every thing from sinus infections to golf club injuries to chicken pox to vaginitis she was just too dumb to realize that her husband was molesting his daughter, and her Pediatrician was in on the denial as well?
DeleteLet's not change the subject, we can get on to Patsy being "dumb" later.....you are suggesting Patsy may have had Munchhausen's by Proxy, and I'm wondering if you've suddenly decided to go with this new theory of yours merely in order to give Patsy much needed motive, just as you invented wacky, baseless motives to fit with your many IDI narratives.....
DeleteInq - Im surprised Im saying this, but you NAILED it on the head. The Pediatrician who saw JBR 27 times must also be gaslighted by John to cover up the molestation that was taking place.
DeleteAlso, can we stop with Patsy being this meek, dumb wife already. Watch her interrogation...she is INTENSE and the aggressor in those. She doesn't look like the weak person we are led to believe by this blog.
-J
J, no one ever suggested Patsy was meek, dumb or weak.....another straw man argument on your part.
DeleteThe pediatrician wasn't "gaslighted" at all. We've already gone through why he had no reason to suspect abuse, and I, for one, don't believe the abuse had been going on for long, thus perhaps her pediatrician had only treated her for vaginitis once in that time, having no reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary. As the abuse progressed, Patsy probably requested a full pelvic exam which would have then revealed prior abuse, and John's goose would be cooked.....so, to protect his reputation and lifestyle, he ended her life. It probably wasn't a decision that came easily to him, and he no doubt struggled with it, but at that point, John probably merely viewed JB as collateral damage, and convinced himself that her sacrifice would be for the greater good - HIS greater good.
Ms D – If Patsy wasn’t involved at all like you and others have suggested, she would have to be meek, weak and dumb to go along with the lies that John told. Is that possible? Sure, anything is. All I’m getting at is that Patsy in her interrogation video or even in the TV interviews always seemed like the aggressor.
DeleteI didn’t intend to go down this route, but you gave me an opening. Your post suggests that you believe this was premeditated, correct? You are saying he killed her ON PURPOSE to cover up his crimes. I don’t on any level believe this was premeditated for a hundred reasons, so before I put any more words in your mouth, do you believe this was or was not premediated?
-J
Patsy was believing at that time the police was after HER...she was just defending herself the best way she could...
Deleteif you are being questioned for something you didnt do and you believe they are waiting for you to make a mistake or say something incriminatory, you will react to that.
I also believe that back in her head she instinctively knew who killed her daughter but spent the rest of her life in denial.
It was so much less painful to believe an intruder took JBR's life.
Martha from California
"I didn’t intend to go down this route, but you gave me an opening. Your post suggests that you believe this was premeditated, correct?"
DeleteI believe he made a decision, yes. But, I don't believe it was premeditated very far in advance, as I don't think there would have been any errors in the RN, nor do I believe he would have used stationary/pens from the house had he have planned it for a week or more in advance, as CC and a couple of others here have speculated - though I did wonder if that was the case, but after a lot of thought, I don't think it's likely (though I'm not *entirely* convinced, and I may yet change my stance in the future). As far as using items that were handy in the basement that happened to belong to Patsy, I don't think that was ever part of the plan to begin with, as staging wasn't going to be necessary - that was only required later, once he realized he was never going to get to dispose of the body. So I'm not convinced his intention was to cast suspicion on Patsy. He used what he could locate in the basement, and Patsy's art supplies were nearby. The police were upstairs, his options were limited. Drawing attention to Patsy would ultimately point to an inside job, and thus point to his own possible involvement, so I can't see him choosing that path if other alternatives had have been available to him. I believe he was increasingly anxious that it was only a matter of time until he was exposed, therefore he made a decision Xmas morning, or even as late as that evening. But I don't think any part of it was an accident. Nothing about the crime suggests it was accidental, quite the contrary.
"You are saying he killed her ON PURPOSE to cover up his crimes. I don’t on any level believe this was premeditated for a hundred reasons....."
Yes I am. And that you don't believe it was premeditated means nothing. As does my belief it was. That is pure speculation on both of our parts.
Thanks J. Truth is we do not know who did this. And if it "can't be solved by looking at the evidence" as Doc said earlier then we might as well close down this blog, because we have NOTHING. Just speculation.
DeleteGotta love Satchmo!
ReplyDeleteDoc, are those castanets, or coconuts :)
ReplyDeleteLol! Castanets. Coconuts weren't invented yet. :-)
DeleteWas hoping that would trigger a memory to Monty Python - if you were a fan :)Also along the "nuts" posting themes, Dave Brubeck - inspiration for Schroeder in the Peanuts comic strip "Blue Rondo A La Turk", tsk. RIP Dave Brubeck.
DeleteAnother heads up for tonight:
ReplyDeleteLMN Channel 9PM EST - Who Killed JonBenet
LMN Channel 10PM EST - JonBenet's mother: Victim or Killer?
Lets see if anything's new with these.
EG
Wish i could see these shows EG, but without cable TV I'm SOL. So I will rely on you to report back.
DeleteReruns...already watched....nothing new.
DeleteFact or Fiction? John's sweater (or shirt) fibers were found in the crotch area of JonBenet's underwear. If this is a fact, why wasn't he arrested right away?
ReplyDeleteYes, fibres (I'm Australian - I still spell "fibre" the way God intended, lol) from John's shirt were found in JB's crotch area. But, as he (conveniently) contaminated the crime scene by carrying her body from the wine cellar to the living room, and then proceeded to contaminate the scene further by laying a blanket over her, I doubt much could be made of the fibre evidence.
DeleteI don't get your connection there Ms D - if the fiber from his shirt was matched to a fiber in the crotch of her panties, Fleet saw him open the door and pick her up - how could he have contaminated what was found if he didn't take off her clothes? Do you understand what I'm getting at? Just how would he have contaminated what was found.
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't wearing that shirt when he found her. It was the shirt he wore the previous day. The panties were fresh out of the package, and the fibers were found INSIDE them. Also the shirt was made in Israel and the fibers would have been very distinctive.
DeleteThe problem, as I understand it, is that there is some question about those fibers that's never been made public. Lin Wood has insisted that this report was a lie made up by one of the interviewers and that the whole thing is a fiction. I'm not sure if the authorities ever denied Wood's allegation, but they sure didn't make a big deal about the apparent match. I wonder if anyone reading here has more up to date info on this.
Thanks for clarifying that, Doc.....yes, I just did a bit of research on the fibres allegedly found in her underwear, and I can't seem to find out anything definitive on the subject.
DeletePaula Woodward ? Her version os different than Kolar's or Thomas' accounts of JBR's trips to Dr. Beuf, which were 3 trips out of 33 for vagina related issues and all the rest were things like sinus infections, chicken pox, a scar to her face. There was a list published which had exactly what each visit was for that I will have to find. If Paula Woodward published it then that makes it about as true and valid as a Dr Seuss book.
ReplyDeleteI do respect Kolar. For one he didn't offer up a scenario, which was smart. And I believe he did solid investigatory work
DeleteHow do we know Burke hit JBR with the golf club and not her parents? Were there witnesses? Also those other visits, hit head on steps, etc, sound like child abuse. Probably Patsy.
ReplyDeleteAnd who gets chicken pox nowadays? I just looked it up, it is rare in the US, thanks to vaccines.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't until 1995 when the vaccine became available in the U.S.
DeleteOh okay. Still it is pretty rare here. None in our family had it as kids, and we are a lot older
Delete"How do we know Burke hit JBR with the golf club and not her parents? Were there witnesses?"
DeleteYes, there were. And I really don't think Burke would have taken the rap for it had he have not been the one who inflicted it.
"Also those other visits, hit head on steps, etc, sound like child abuse. Probably Patsy."
Wow, that's a mighty big assumption....how does one or two accidents sound like child abuse to you? And what evidence do you have Patsy was involved?
What's the deal with everyone thinking Patsy has a history of child abuse, when her own son said she never even spanked the two of them?
Well we do know JBR ended up badly for some strange reason. So that is why we view her hospital visits with more suspicion than of children who are still alive. And typical visits of abused children are, hitting their heads, falling down the steps, and all other kinds of "accidents". So you put two and two together, you get a picture here. And probably it was Patsy, since she had more access to the child, she was the one who took the child to the hospital. And because John was away so much.
DeleteWho were the witnesses for the Burke golf swing. And yes I do think Burke would take the rap for it, because if it was not him, he would be very scared to go against his parents. He was younger than nine. He wouldn't want the same to happen to him. And Burke seems to be very evasive about what happened that night, so he seems to be good at covering for his parents.
DeleteWouldn't a parent who is physically abusing their child, try to hide the injuries they've caused, rather than run to the doctor and draw attention to them?
DeleteMs D I think people are becoming suspicious of Patsy again because they were 20 years ago. The more we look into things and try to have them make sense at some point you have to just go with your gut, and maybe that is what some are doing here. I'm glad for you and Mike and CC that some others I don't know well enough yet, are so very settled. That's a nice feeling. That you feel you know. But many more of us are still grappling with the issues and trying to have 2 and 2 equal 4.
DeleteHKH: yes, if Patsy had been abusing JonBenet she would try to hide the injuries. But, as I see it, Patsy had not been abusing her and had no clue regarding what John might have been up to. And the pediatrician never performed an internal vaginal exam, deeming it inappropriate. So he would have had no opportunity to spot any signs of sexual abuse.
DeleteIf you concentrate on the evidence you will never be able to make 2 plus 2 equal 4, because too much of the so-called evidence is grounded in assumptions rather than known facts.
You would be better off grappling with getting your facts straight, that might help. You post more wrong info than anybody on here and I'm sorry but you are all over the map all the time and you have zero credibility.
DeleteThat was for Inquisitive.
Deletewell please cite your facts - where have I said anything that I didn't back up - Two pages ago I quoted a 1997 interview for HKH where John Ramsey is questioned whether he actually saw Patsy change JB and get her ready for bed that night, he did not, and whether he knew when she went to sleep, he did not. HKH quoted from that same interview but did not quote the very things I maintained. Go back, look it up if you doubt me. And now to bring things current, now it appears (see above) we can no longer bandy about the black shirt fibers found in JB's new panties as "evidence" which point to some kind of logical inference. Because as Doc says, there is some controversy that it isn't true. Yet, I read it hear months and months ago. But go ahead, cite all of the examples of posting wrong information and I will cite where I got the info, and if it's been currently refuted - if I have time. And one other thing - it was said in here that Burke could not have made a complex knot, yet it was I who questioned a cub scout on my own, and a boy scout, who said knot tying is what they practice early on and win merit badges for. When I was drilled again regarding whether Burke was in the boy scouts I found it, page and verse, from the Ramsey book Death of Innocence, the exact page, and that he was in boy scouts for 3 years. So go ahead Anonymous, I'll be ready for you.
DeleteDocG caught you in what he called a fabrication about the Barnhills a couple of days ago, HKH is right that you said John did not know who went to bed first etc. You do it all the time since you got here and it has been pointed out to you many times.
DeleteSC, there were no "hospital visits". None. Patsy took her daughter to her pediatrician, as parents do. To suggest that JB was taken to the "hospital" several times implies she was suffering from injuries more serious than, in reality, they actually were. It makes a huge difference....a child being taken to her local GP by an over-protective mother vs a child being taken to the hospital.
Delete"And who gets chicken pox nowadays?"
DeleteI'm not sure what you're implying with that statement. A mother abusing her child doesn't "fake" chicken pox to cover up for a beating.
@DocG, I totally agree. I was just trying to point out to @SC Shafer that an abusive parent wouldn't take their child to the doctor, only to have the child's injuries examined and documented.
Delete@Ms. D., I agree with you as well. It seems to me that an abusive parent is more likely to only seek medical attention, if the injuries are severe. And not for the benefit of the child, but to avoid ending up with a dead child on their hands. A child who is seriously injured is taken to a hospital, not the pediatrician's office.
My kids had chickenpox the same year that JBR had them. The vaccine was not out then.
DeleteAnonymous you obviously didn't read the whole 1997 interview, which i quoted as well. John said 2 times he did not see Patsy attend to JB that night, he was not in the room, nor did he know when she went to sleep - although the question they asked him should have been "was she in bed when you went to bed" or "did you see her get in bed before you went to sleep." As for the Barnhills no body "caught me" in anything. They are on record on acandyrose saying they saw a male enter the house and THOUGHT it was JA. Why don't you do a little reading and a little less agreeing.
DeleteBy "she went to sleep" I meant Patsy. But I'm not going to do your work for you Anonymous. Whoever you are.
DeleteI don't know that an abusive parent would not take a child to the doctor/hospital.
DeleteSome would not. Some would. It would depend on their personality type. The ones who would, are types who feel bad afterwards. So they sooth their guilt by taking their kids to the doctor. It justifies in their mind, like that it was really just an accident, you know. These are types who are not really in control of themselves.
Probably the more unemotional sociopathic types would not take a kid to doctor.
@Inq, you obviously, did not click "load more" and read my second response to you. I'll copy and paste it for you...
Delete***Inq, I did not challenge you on whether or not JR witnessed PR change JB into her long johns.
You said that JR had no idea when PR went to bed, and when asked if PR was in bed, he had no answer. That's false. JR clearly states that PR was already in bed when he went up to bed.
In the part of the interview that you posted, JR is being asked who fell asleep first. As in--literally asleep--eyes closed, consciousness suspended.***
So, again, I was not disputing your statement that JR did not see PR change JB's clothes. What I was disputing was your claim that JR didn't know if PR was in bed. He said she was already in bed when he went up to bed. You completely misinterpreted the part of the interview that you quoted, where JR was asked who fell asleep first.
Anonymous obviously did read what I posted and agrees with me because the interview corroborates my claims.
@Doc, I left a comment here for Inquisitive, but it's not showing up. Can you please see if it came through to your notifications? Thanks.
Delete@Inq, if Doc can't retrieve my comment, I'll retype it. I think you should know that what you are saying (about PR not being in bed) is still incorrect.
For some reason I don't understand, your comment got into the spam bin. I just restored it so it should show up now. If not, let me know. I've been trying to regularly check the spam because legit posts are winding up there from time to time.
DeleteI see it now. Thanks, Doc!
DeleteSo, theory of the night, I think they are all hiding something. I don't think Patsy is innocent.
ReplyDeleteToo hard to tell who did the first injury and why. Clearly JBR was being sexually abused and physically abused, by one or both parents. And either way, both parents knew about it, even if only one was doing it.
It's possible one parent did the injury, and blamed it on Burke to the other parent. Or said it was an accident and they lied to the other parent. The other parent knew they were lying about the accident, but pretended to believe it. They both knew what was going on. They could not take her to the hospital because of her sex abuse injury. If she woke up, they were afraid she would tell. So they had to end her.
They were going to dispose of the body. Came up with a kidnapping idea. That way they could stage a new vaginal injury with the paintbrush. But in the morning they changed their mind and decided to leave the body there. One reason was because Patsy wanted to have a funeral.
If Patsy wanted a funeral and changed her mind, then she would have rewritten her note. Because the only way a ransom note could work for them would be if the body of the victim had been removed from the house ahead of time.
DeleteBut maybe John did not want her to. So she did it on her own.
DeleteDid you folks check out Paula Woodward's AMA?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/5iwiot/we_have_your_daughter_jon_benet_ramsey/
I watched both specials last night, and came away from it more confused than ever before.
ReplyDelete#1 - The marks on her face and back - Stun gun or not? This is key, obviously because if it was either parent, they wouldn't need a stun gun and it wasn't an accident and points to an intruder.
#2 - Garrote used first, followed by head blow - Significant because would lean towards pedophile and not an accidental blow due to PR's rage over bed wetting, but COULD point to JR as a pedophile, turned murderer.
Problem here is these "experts" all have a different opinion, which I find hard to understand. Either there is evidence of prior molestation or there isn't. Either the garrote came first or it didn't. Either the marks were made by a stun gun or they weren't? Part of the problem was that JBR was buried so quickly, they couldn't do further testing to determine where those markings came from.
Did the DA's office receive orders from someone high up to leave the parents alone?
Did an intruder get into the house earlier with intent to kidnap, then began to molest her leading to her death and a botched kidnapping?
JBR wrapped in a blanket indicates the killer cared for her so not a stranger.
The house was so vast and winding, only a person familiar with it would have known about that wine cellar room.
I hope the retesting of the DNA brings closure to this case. So much doesn't make sense.
EG
Your confusion is due to the fact that none of the evidence is conclusive, practically everything can be interpreted any way one pleases. This is why I decided to concentrate only on undisputed facts and logic rather than the so-called "evidence." It's amazing how much the logic of the case can tell us, while trying to make sense of all the "evidence" leads nowhere.
DeleteYou're right, Doc. None of it is conclusive mostly because the "experts" contradict one another. Also, there seemed to be a hesitancy on the part of the DA to bring charges which indicates perhaps an influential party telling them to back off. OR did AH feel there was not enough evidence to convict?
DeleteAnd yes, logically it would point to the adult male figure in the household, JR. Opportunity, possible motive (although not proven) and his behavior after the fact, which was "peculiar" to say the least. Problem is, can you bring logic into a courtroom without hard evidence?
What do you think the re testing of the DNA will tell us, if anything?
EG
Thanks Zach for the link on Woodward. I just read it. There are things she doesn't answer of course, but a few things, if true, I didn't know before. 1. That right after the body was brought upstairs the Ramseys were not instructed to cooperate. This refutes others saying they lawyered up immediately and weren't cooperative. In fact the police weren't sure what to do with them, so they just went and stayed at a neighbor's house. John said he would have gone anywhere with them to talk but they didn't know what they were looking for so they just went to a friend's house. 2. thing I learned, new DNA testing can be done deep inside the knots around paint stick also from the RED BRICK FOUND IN THE WINE CELLAR. What's that? A red brick? Does this mean A as in a single red brick? First I heard of this. And of course there was a disagreement over WHERE the fruit (they are saying fruit cocktail now) was found. Small intestine or lower. If in lower then it's already working it's way down for elimination. Woodward said it was collected in a test tube. It could still contain fibrous material but they are saying specifically it was fruit cocktail cherries, grapes, etc. 4. One more point - at Grand Jury only the prosecution was allowed to present their case. The Ramsey's wanted to testify and were not allowed to. Lou Smit had to get an order to be allowed to present his material. He was going to be excluded. Woodward also said 5. there were fibers found in JB's bed from the "rope" she said. Is she confusing "rope" with "cord"? And fibers found from "a duvet cover and sham" found on her sweater - from where - John Andrew's bedroom or her own?
ReplyDeleteSo here's the thing, in a nutshell, WTF.
"The Ramsey's [sic] wanted to testify but were not allowed to."
DeleteI've not heard that before - in fact, iirc Alex Hunter traded the Ramseys their non-appearance before the GJ for another interview, this time with Mike Kane, Lou Smit, et al. in June of 1998.
Please name your source.
CC
Also they demanded their prior interviews with BPD before appearing before GJ, CC, Hunter would not do it, so made the trade instead.
DeleteThe source was Woodward, no place else, who said she got it from Haddon, but she is known to be in Ramsey pocket and not to be trustef.
DeleteI'm just reiterating what I read from the Woodward interview Keiser sent a link to this morning. If it's wrong blame Woodward.
DeleteI meant Zach, not Keiser. And by the way thanks again for that. She's the one person I haven't read anything about.
DeleteAccording to state law, a Colorado State grand jury is convened by a prosecutor seeking to indict someone he or she believes committed a crime. It is run by the prosecutor.
DeleteIf the Ramsey's thought there were going to be able to testify, they were getting very bad legal advice.
Woodward also said Smit and others believed the killer left something and took something - like a souvenir. Whatever that something is she doesn't know but it's part of the investigation. This would be consistent with the profile of a serial pedophile, or a serial killer.
ReplyDeleteOf all of the books I have read on JB, Woodward's was probably the least believable, as it was readily apparent she wrote the book with John's assistance. The many citations from John's personal journal were obviously written specifically for the book reader. The only things I found useful, aside from JB's medical records and a couple other tidbits, were the actual copies of the police reports that she provides at the end of the book -- I just read through those recently (had to use the snipit tool to copy them so they were large enough for my eyes to read). I found it very interesting that PATSY told the first responding officer (French) that JB had on the red turtleneck and white long johns -- this would be an extremely important detail for the police to know in a kidnapping situation when they would be searching for a child. Why the Ramsey's changed their story later on, I'm trying to comprehend -- Patsy was obviously unaware that she had on the white shirt at the time she was interviewed by the first responding police officer -- did JB get up and change herself into the white shirt -- did John put it on her? Why did John change his story later on about reading to the the kids before they went to bed? Why did Patsy change her story about first going to wake up JB for the trip, found that she wasn't in her room, and then went down the steps and found the note -- this would have been fresh in her mind.
DeleteDanni
DocG...fyi there is a left hand writing sample of John's in the book
Yes, Danni, I saw that -- and posted on it in my review of her book. It's important, as it's one of the very few exemplars we have from John. But it looks nothing like the ransom note -- which shouldn't be surprising, as he was "ruled out," wasn't he?
DeletePaula Woodward has all kinds of information that has never been heard of. She must have a real inportant role in this case. 😂😂😂
ReplyDeleteDo you know anything about her KS? I have a vague recollection that she's a Denver journalist of some kind who is viewed with great skepticism - is that correct?
DeleteCC
Correct CC. I really do not know too much about her outside of this case but she has always had her nose in it with great deal of skepticism and always had information that we have not heard about from BPD, LE or anywhere else. I, personally, find her to be the biggest journalistic joke, nothing more than the most obvious person whose sole purpose is to make money off this case. As of right now, she is trying to promote her book, which needs something new and different than all the other books. My prediction is that she will be the next person being libeled in this case.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is a little info and what some think of her and her lies. I will dig up some more info I have read about her over the years. Hal Haddon is her attorney and she is known to be a Ramsey supporter and friend of JR's. I personally do not believe a word out of her mouth, including souvenirs taken and fruit cocktail being in JBR's stomach. http://m.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/TODAMDH57BNSR8Q2T
ReplyDeleteThanks KS. Interesting that one Topix poster thinks her book was published as JR'S response to the GJ true bills. Sounds right.
DeleteCC
This is what I think ,
ReplyDeleteIf you had a few millions in the bank and two children with a selfish wife who thought only of herself in fantasy "la-la" land wouldn't you hire a "live in nanny" to take care of your children 6&9 years old? these two village Idiots were on Medication Prozac ,Paxil.... name it...
Here is a little girl from what I have read had been going to visit her Dr almost daily , come-on something not right here, your planning an early trip wouldn't you see this child had a bath and hair brushed(autopsy ) pony tails , wouldn't you make sure she used bathroom, put out new or clean cloths for the trip ? this child was found wet{soaked with urine , that's because at the time of death urine will leave body ,her long johns were wet , I do not believe she had "EVER" been put to bed or down for the night, , bath or not , something else occurred in that house which we may never know ,a six year old is not like a teen , she is not able to tend for herself doing many things ,all I can say is I hope whoever committed this horrible crime will pay in this world or the next, the mother or father , I have no forgiveness for an evil person, maybe someone else will for give , sorry not me,
Burke, if he knows something must come forward he will feel better , I did not like the interview with Dr Phil AND Dr Phil asked him "Did you kill*** your sister ? he said "absolutely not" do we believe him? I do. put the handcuffs on old JR interrogate him all over again he will confess , I wish I had been the investigator who questioned him they were tooo easy on him, he is beginning to mellow after seeing the last CNN interview .
What makes you say PR was selfish and in "la-la" land? A selfish woman who has millions would hire a nanny to raise her kids so she didn't have to be bothered. PR did not do that. I believe they did have a nanny while PR was undergoing chemo, which is perfectly reasonable, IMO.
DeleteI'm not sure how you can call two collage graduates, one of whom was a self-made millionaire, "village idiots." Also, plenty of people take antidepressants. I'm not sure what your point is. They were not drug addled, junkie parents. PR may have been pretty heavily medicated after JB's death, but I can't say I blame her.
JB was not seeing her doctor "almost daily." While the number of doctor visits may seem a bit excessive, there are plenty of possible reasons for so many visits. Maybe, as some have suggested, PR was starting to suspect that JB was being molested. Maybe PR was a bit paranoid, due to her own health issues. There are lots of possibilities. When my dd was little she had cold symptoms that persisted for a little longer than average. I took her to the doctor just as a precautionary measure. Turned out she had RSV, and our pediatrician said, had I waited out the weekend to bring her in, she very easily could have ended up hospitalized. For the next year, I was so paranoid, that I ran her in to see the doctor for every little sniffle. Point being, there are plenty of possible reasons for so many doctor visits, ranging from innocent to horrendous.
Also, as a parent, I can say that the last thing I would do at 9:00 pm, after a late Christmas Eve playing Santa, and long Christmas day, is give my child a bath. Especially, if we had to be up at the crack of dawn the next morning.
There is no way JR will ever confess to this crime. Why would he?
I think we can all agree that we would love to see the person who committed this crime, punished.
I'm pretty sure HKH covered it, but, me being me, I have to chime in:
Delete"If you had a few millions in the bank and two children with a selfish wife who thought only of herself in fantasy "la-la" land wouldn't you hire a "live in nanny" to take care of your children 6&9 years old?"
Who says Patsy was selfish? Who says she "lived in la la land"? By all accounts she was committed to her children and doted on them.
What point are you trying to make about the nanny - wouldn't a self absorbed mother be SURE to hand over her children to a nanny?! Your first paragraph is a contradiction, and it only progresses from there.....
"These two village Idiots were on Medication Prozac, Paxil.... name it..."
They were on ONE anti-depressant and ONE anti-anxiety drug.....Patsy had fought stage four cancer, and John had lost a daughter from a previous marriage. It is entirely understandable they were both battling anxiety and depression - it does NOT make either of them drug addicts. I take an anti depressant, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, I am not a drug addict nor a "village idiot".
But it's refreshing to see someone as self righteous and together as yourself making judgments on others who don't quite have it all figured out as well as you do.
"Here is a little girl from what I have read had been going to visit her Dr almost daily"
Daily? 27 times in three years.....either you're being intentionally dishonest or math isn't your strong suit.
"Come-on something not right here, your planning an early trip wouldn't you see this child had a bath and hair brushed(autopsy ) pony tails , wouldn't you make sure she used bathroom, put out new or clean cloths for the trip ? this child was found wet{soaked with urine , that's because at the time of death urine will leave body ,her long johns were wet , I do not believe she had "EVER" been put to bed or down for the night, , bath or not , something else occurred in that house which we may never know ,a six year old is not like a teen , she is not able to tend for herself doing many things."
Wow. You'd hang the Ramseys on account they didn't give their daughter a bath and do her hair BEFORE putting her to bed (who puts their child's hair in fresh pony tails before bed)?! As far as her not having used the bathroom before bed - she was asleep. It is not child abuse to let your child sleep through the night after they've had a long, busy day.....
This post is something else....I have more to say, but I'd best bite my tongue, I don't want my comment to be deleted.
The JDI theory goes that Patsy couldn’t have been involved because she dialed 911 with the body still in the house. I’ll admit, calling 911 with the body in the house is and always will be a head scratcher. I have reasons as to why I believe all Ramsey’s were involved that helps explain it, but that’s not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is John allowing Patsy to call 911 with seemingly no issues, but then John also being able to prevent Patsy from being cooperative on any level with the police. If that’s confusing, let me try and explain it better.
ReplyDeleteIn multiple post’s I previously wrote, I have always said that IF John was abusing JB and this whole thing was a murder to prevent him from being caught, then surely Patsy is never allowed to make that call. On the call it doesn’t sound like John is trying to wrestle the phone from her, nor do we hear him telling Patsy to hang up. At the moment 911 is called, if Johns master plan was to hide the body over the next few days and complete his staging, so then preventing Patsy from calling 911 would have been the easiest part of his plan. The RN provided him the reason to physically or verbally stop that 911 call from ever being made. Regardless, the call was made and then in the days, weeks and months that followed the murder, Patsy and John became uncooperative with the police. THIS is where I am having an issue
JDI Theory: When the 911 call is made, Patsy is this frantic, loving mother who in spite of the RN’s demands, calls 911 in a desperate attempt to find her child that she believes is missing. BUT, then somehow John takes that person and convinces her to not cooperate with police? SO does she or does she not want to find out who killed her daughter? When the call was made, she supposedly believes the note which is insane to then call police when the note says not to. If Patsy believed JB was truly murdered by some crazed intruder, why not cooperate with police? If she truly was innocent and had nothing to hide, I believe her being looked at wouldn’t have bothered her at all. Her world was just taken from her….do you think she would have cared about jail?
-J
Within 24 hours Patsy knew she was BPD's primary suspect. Within 48 she was being lambasted by the press and public for allowing her daughter to parade around in pageants tarted up like a mini hooker. John offered protection and safety, and she quickly adopted a siege mentality, us-against-them. Defense attorneys never permit their clients to speak with LE, and John would have discouraged it in the guise of protecting her. Of course she was afraid of jail - it was clear early on that's where Steve Thomas wanted her and she still had a son to raise.
DeleteCC
CC- Thanks for the response.
DeleteIf she didn’t do it, she had nothing to hide. John was looked at, Burke was looked at and the police were looking at any/all outside suspects. She didn’t talk to the police right away and complicated it even more by inviting friends over immediately after being so frantic on the 911 call. This is assuming she is innocent (which she isn’t) but I’ll humor it.
Patsy Ramsey’s daughter was murdered in HER HOUSE. As she said “there is a killer on the loose” YET Patsy Ramsey was uncooperative with the authorities every step of the way. My point is I don’t believe John Ramsey could have manipulated a mother from finding out who killed her daughter at that point.
-J
And mine is that John needed to do very little manipulating. The police, public and press started the job and Brian Morgan finished it - no way was she talking to anyone.
DeleteCC
Thinking too much like a lawyer CC. To the public, avoiding talking to the police is viewed very much like the person is guilty. Not to mention, early on she didn't say anything. Just so Im clear, I don't believe Patsy murdered her, I just 100% believe she was involved in the cover up.
Delete-J
I get that, J, but the fact remains that regardless how it appears, there were a number of good reasons she didn't talk to LE, her attorney being just one of them. Most defense attorneys outright refuse to represent a client who talks to anyone but them.
DeleteCC
For me CC, it's just the timing of her not being cooperative. She calls the police which people normally do for protection, peace of mine and help. That was her initial instinct when reading the note. But then once the body is found, she no longer wants their protection? This is going with the narrative that she had nothing to do with this crime. For me, she would have wanted to be even more cooperative after the body was found because now its a major threat to John, herself and most importantly Burke's safety. Being accused would have become secondary to the safety of her family.
DeleteI just will never believe Patsy wasn't involved somehow, because it makes no sense.
-J
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJ, in many ways I agree with you. The JDI is rife with so many fantastical stories connect to it - he wrote the note for Patsy to NOT call the police, he wanted to remove the body even though cadaver dogs can smell decomposition the moment a body dies, he was gaslighting Patsy, he worked all day except when he was home with his family which what, gave him amble opportunity to molest his daughter? oh yeah, must have been going on when Patsy was asleep, only did she notice all those times when he wasn't lying next to her (no explanation), he chooses the night before they are leaving to spend the after holidays with his two adult children and then go on a cruise, to kill his daughter, he's up all night staging the scene only Patsy doesn't notice not once that he's not asleep next to her, I mean it's all one big crime story, complete with a classic twist of a note 2 1/2 pages long that he cleverly disguised his own writing - but then there's an answer for that too - he composed it the day before inside his plane or the hangar plotting murder for later that night. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has nothing on this story! So yes, if no intruder i agree, Patsy was involved. We're on the same page with that.
Delete"I just will never believe Patsy wasn't involved somehow, because it makes no sense."
DeleteExactly. So, with all due respect, may I ask why you bother with the questions, when you're not actually interested in the answers, unless they line up with your preconceived notions? You know as well as we do - because you have told us several times - that there is absolutely nothing CC, Doc, myself or any other JDI can say that is going to make any difference, which makes your questions seem a little disingenuous, because our responses will never satisfy you. You've made up your mind and no amount of contrary evidence can change it. CC adequately responded to your questions about Patsy's lack of co-operation with LE and you completely disregarded it because, by your own admission, you'll never believe Patsy wasn't involved.
It's not so much Patsy trussed her up like a tart, it's more that she wanted to recreate herself. She wanted a mini-Patsy. I'm sure Nedra contributed, if not drove that fantasy as well. If you compare some of the costumes they had JB in they are identical to Patsy's in her pageant days - the "showgirl" with feathers, the polka dot dress, hat and gloves, it's eery. Scary. Disturbing. I believe the woman was disturbed, but that it was progressive, not sudden.
DeleteI also think JB to Patsy was an obsession in many ways. I know I'm risking going too far here. However what some may see as "doting" or "loving" I see a woman who was driven to control everything about that child - what she wore when NOT in the pageants, whether she could have sleepovers with friends, all of the posing for photographs capturing her every waking moment, bleaching her hair, applying make up to her, bright orange lipstick and eye liner, essentially making her a target for a pedophile, but not thinking about that at all. Wanting complete control of "that child" as she referred to her on television. I do not think it was a healthy relationship, all of her affection for JB, little for John, little for Burke.
DeleteInquisitive, a couple of weeks ago you were sticking up for Patsy, saying she was just a poor, grieving mother.....now you'd have us believe she was abusive and suffering from a serious psychological condition, so forgive us if we don't find a word you say remotely credible. I find it somewhat disturbing how quickly you've gone from Patsy being a loving, doting mother to her being a controlling, conniving, stage mom who whored out her daughter simply because it's time for you to switch theories again.
DeleteLike I said, Inquisitive is all over the map all the time....no credibility or facts.
DeleteAs I've noted many times, from the moment her daughter's body was found until several weeks afterward, Patsy Ramsey was a basket case, heavily medicated and hardly capable of caring for herself. To accuse her of stonewalling the police is patently unfair. For this reason and many others the notion that "the Ramseys" should be treated as a unit in assessing this case can be understood as a major flaw in the investigation.
DeleteIt was John who was talking with the lawyers, and it was John who was making the decisions as to what to do and when to do it. It was John who hired the PR firm and it was John who hired the handwriting "experts" who decided he could not have written the note. By the time Patsy came out of it, the official "Ramsey strategy" was firmly in place and she would not have been in a position to undermine it without producing a major conflict with John that would have made both of them look bad.
Isn't that what everyone is doing Ms D - speculating on what John wanted to do, what he intended to do, that he was a cold calculated convincing practiced liar, indifferent, and all of the rest. I've heard it all as being applied to someone none of you knew. But what we do see is a woman who was observed by others who needed to control her daughter and it was becoming increasingly more difficult as she got older. Haven't we just learned in the last two days that all of those trips to the Ped. were for multiple occurrences, not bedwetting as I thought 20 years ago. We learn something new in here everyday thanks to participants doing work and finding out information. As for the pageant thing keep in mind this is before the "Toddlers and Tiara's" TV show and to me I don't think Patsy intended to sexualize her daughter, but rather wanted another Patsy - by the choice in costumes which mimic her own ,look at the pictures - compare JB's outfits to Patsy's from her pageant glory days. She also wanted her to win those pageants - that's only natural but the increasing pressures of the holidays, her illness where she was in remission but knowing it could and possibly would return, making her children her world as Dad made his company his world. Yes, I didn't have a front row seat but I look at her behavior in videos and I read her interviews and I see how she and John interacted together and i notice as much as I can. I've learned much from being in here and doing my own "work" on this case. If I was wrong in suspecting an intruder I still had to work it out and I would hope that you are doing the same. If you have no doubts, that's great. Would that we could all be so sure. I didn't buy the Lou Smit version as I think that if someone came in they used a key, but I can't let it go that Patsy was most likely up all night. John did not know when she "went to sleep" as he says in his 1997 interview, nor did he see her get JB ready for bed (two statements "no he didn't see it and one uh-huh") but of course it's more than that. Her jacket fibers on the sticky side of the duct tape, her materials used from the paint tray. Of course I didn't see it, I have no idea how it all transpired. I think Hercule was pretty much on target, which was why I was captivated by his arguments. but so what. Are we required to pick a theory in here and stick with it? I'm open.
Delete"Isn't that what everyone is doing Ms D - speculating on what John wanted to do, what he intended to do, that he was a cold calculated convincing practiced liar, indifferent, and all of the rest."
DeleteNo, Inquisitive, no one else has gone out of their way to defend John, only to then, in a heartbeat, turn around and name him as the killer, which is what you did with Patsy. We've always maintained John is a narcissistic, conniving liar who murdered his daughter. I will stand by my statement that I find it alarming that up until only a week ago, you were vehemently defending Patsy's behaviour as that of a grieving mother, and now you're claiming she suffered from Munchhausen's by Proxy, "tarted up" her daughter, was abusing her, and murdered her (weren't you saying only a day or two ago that you hadn't migrated over to the PDI camp? Yet another piece of erroneous information from you we're not to trust? Your statements are unreliable, we can't count on them as being true. I may disagree with J, KS, Zed etc., but at least they're consistent - I can trust that *they* believe what they're saying and will be saying the same thing tomorrow - and every other day, lol - but no one can make heads or tails of your ever changing theories, and many have pointed this out to you, so it surely must have some basis in truth?
"Are we required to pick a theory in here and stick with it? I'm open."
Of course not. But if you want to be seen as credible, staunchly defending the very person you're only going to throw under the bus next week (you did it with Burke also - defending him initially, only to then name him as his sister's killer), is probably not the way to do it. You claim it's standard to continuously vacillate between all theories, but I challenge you to name just one other poster here who has subscribed to every, single theory in the space of a couple of months. I'm sorry, it's not what "everyone else is doing". It's good to be "open", but you seem to be just highly suggestible (yet, ironically, you find it difficult to believe Patsy was gaslighted! You're living proof at just how easy it is to do!)
John never thought the ramson note would not stop her. He trusted the RN to stop her from searching the house, from calling the police. He took the time to ellaborate and write a 2 1/2 pages note that he trusted would do the job so he didnt have to try to convince her to follow the instructions.He didnt want to be perceived as involved in any way, he let the RN work and as we all know it didnt. They, surely, imo, had a fight over the issue of calling the police or not. Patsy was out of breath when calling 911, she sounded as she came to the telephone running, apparently saying " We need 'em". Once the connection was established it was smart for John to remain silent...but then there was a sudden hangup. We will never know what happened that morning but we can conclude that if Patsy was involved, calling the police in so early could have not been part of the plan.
ReplyDeleteMartha from California
I've always wondered if JR hide the body somewhere that night. Some place other than the basement room the body was found in. So he wasn't too worried when Patsy made the 911 call.
DeleteBut overheard the police say something that made him realize the body would be found where he had hidden it incriminating him. I wonder if that basement has a secret still remaining all these years.
If only the police had been involved. Other than a quick visit by Officer French, Linda Arnt was it for the day.
DeleteNOT TRUE. AGAIN. ALWAYS WITH YOU.
DeleteWho was in the house for 6 1/2 hours from the police department other than Arndt? Hmm?
Delete"Other than a quick visit by Officer French Linda Arnt was it for the day". Other anonymous is right there were other cops there. Officers Rick French, Barry Weiss, Karl Veitch and Fred Patterson also Special Agent Ron Walker. Arndt was only alone from 10:35 on. So "If only the police had been involved" is another one of your misleading statements.
DeleteCC- JR was BPD's first suspect, not PR. BPD's and the media's initial resonse was the same as mine, JR was diddling his daughter and killed her and this avenue was investigated extensively. PR being the main suspect did not come until a little later on.
ReplyDeleteI'll take your word, KS, though Steve Thomas seemed to imply he suspected her from the jump. I'll just stick with the fact that she had a lawyer within 24 hours who wouldn't let her talk.
DeleteCC
CC:
DeleteI think Keiser is right CC; the police suspected John right off the bat, particulary Linda Arndt. And while it's true she had a lawer within 24 hours, John did too, and both were hired by John. Doc might want to weigh in on this, but I think, in this case, maybe more than any murder case in my lifetime, accurate sequencing of all phenomena, be it events, suspicions, behaviors, or testimonies, is vital to reaching the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that John is guilty. I don't mean to come off as lecturing you; I don't mean it that way. I guess I'm just a little surprised you would think Patsy was the first one the police suspected. Wasn't John was the first one they asked to provide handwriting samples?
Mike G
I'll take your word too, Mike. I have no facts, just an impression from Thomas's book, read some time ago, that he decided on Patsy early and never waivered.
DeleteCC
Steve Thomas may have suspected PR right from the get go CC. I do not know of that is true or he is being honest but could be. I am going with BPD and media and JR was the main suspect from the getgo for over a year, well after his handwriting was not a match. I think Thomas is the reason PR became the main suspect.
DeleteI had it from Darnay Hoffman, who claimed he'd been in touch with an assistant prosecutor, that John was indeed the first suspect, and that the initial BPD theory was in fact very close to mine. According to Hoffman, it was the handwriting evidence (i.e., the decision to rule John out) that transferred the focus from him to Patsy.
DeletePR was sedated pretty much from the get go, leaving JR in control.... I don't think her behaviour is indicative of anything other than a person who had trauma, was drugged to give some relief, and relied on her husband to look after her interests.
ReplyDelete-Sisu
He had to take control - otherwise she would have been locked up.
DeleteRegarding an earlier post on the black fibers found in JB's panties that supposedly came from John's shirt. This is from Patsy's 2000 interview with police (Lin Wood present):
ReplyDelete8 MR. LEVIN: I understand your
9 position.
10 In addition to those questions,
11 there are some others that I would like you
12 to think about whether or not we can have
13 Mrs. Ramsey perhaps in the future answer. I
14 understand you are advising her not to today,
15 and those are there are black fibers that,
16 according to our testing that was conducted,
17 that match one of the two shirts that was
18 provided to us by the Ramseys, black shirt.
19 Those are located in the
20 underpants of JonBenet Ramsey, were found in
21 her crotch area, and I believe those are two
22 other areas that we have intended to ask
23 Mrs. Ramsey about if she could help us in
24 explaining their presence in those locations.
25 MR. WOOD: And again, you state
0203
1 that on this record as fact, and I really
2 think that is unfair. I think if you would
3 produce the full truth of the fibers that
4 you have collected that it would probably be
5 at best similar to, which is not uncommon.
6 And I think you would also probably have to
7 admit that there are any number of other
8 fibers found in these areas that you have no
9 explanation for, and I don't want this record
10 to be distorted down the road as being a
11 situation where somehow there is greater
12 weight given to these similar fibers you
13 represent in terms of their location and
14 their alleged origin than really is fair
15 under the truth of fiber evidence and the
16 total fiber evidence in this case.
17 So I mean, I understand your
18 position, and we may very well be able to
19 get over it. You all are willing verbally
20 to tell us the result. I think you clearly,
21 in fairness, should be perfectly willing to
22 show us the result. And when you do that,
23 that would give us an opportunity to perhaps
24 reconsider and answer the question.
25 Would you all be willing to do
0204
1 that, Bruce?
2 MR. LEVIN: I think that is
3 something we'd have -- I would have to
4 discuss with Chief Beckner. And I think you
5 can appreciate why, when we are talking about
6 physical evidence in an ongoing investigation,
7 which is not a filed case, that we are
8 reluctant to release reports.
http://www.acandyrose.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
Well done, Anonymous, thanks. Is this the extent of Wood's statements about the fibers that Doc referred to earlier, or is there more?
DeleteCC
They argue, for what seems an eternity, about the fiber evidence and anything else Lin Wood doesn't want Patsy to answer. The police say they have forensic tested evidence/reports and Lin Wood argues he wants to see the reports before he will let Patsy answer the questions. There is more arguing (ad nauseam) between the prosecuting attorney and Lin Wood than there are questions asked of Patsy in the entire interview.
DeleteSomething similar came up in John's interview, as I recall, and Wood stonewalled in a very similar manner. He simply did not want that evidence discussed.
DeleteJBR was not going to visit her Dr. daily, she had 31 visits in over 2 years. Most of which are for things like a sinus infection. As someone mentioned above, after seeing what each and every visit was for, it does sound alot like Munchhausen's by proxy. As far as PR being a selfish person, I would think that is fairly obvious. Here is a little 6 yr old girl dressed up like a Vegas showgirl who is not allowed to eat McDonalds because "it would make her fat". Plenty of clues and evidence as to the type of person each Ramsey was despite all JDI who will try and claim that PR seemed like a normal loving mother. She seemed like an obsessed pageant mother who was obviously living vicariously through her daughter. Does that mean she committed the murder or was a part of the cover-up, of course it doesnt but ignoring or trying to pretend there is not a serious problem or this does not exist is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteA believe a careful examination of all Patsy's various behaviors, in all the various circumstances we are privy to in this case, fortifies Doc's theory that she was successfully gaslighted by John---that whatever part she took in the "cover-up" was not criminal in nature. If I led a team prosecuting this case, I'd assign one person to devote his or her entire time to putting together a presentation on this one topic. Doc wrote the "book" ruling John in as the writer of the ransom note; one more "book", ruling Patsy out as John's co-conspirator, is all this case needs to go to trial, in my humble opinion.
ReplyDeleteMike G
Mike G
It's possible she was gaslighted into believing John accidentally hurt JBR. But I think deep down she knew he had something to do with it.
DeleteI did not speak of PR's behavior post murder, I spoke only of her personality pre-murder. I, however, am not a believer that a mother whose daughter was murdered can be gaslit into not wanting to find out who murdered her daughter. We only need to check other cases where both parents are together and there child has been murdered to see the large variance in behavior. If we follow gaslighting than JR would have to be the James Bond of not gaslighting but brainwashing.
ReplyDeleteShe wasn't gaslit into "not WANTING to find"....her daughter's murderer, she was gaslit into believing it couldn't possibly have been John. Two very different things, Keiser.
DeletePeople want to believe that someone as educated and intelligent as Patsy was, is incapable of being manuvered in the manner defined by the term. Not only is this wrong, but Patsy's emotional characteristics, having nothing to do with her intelligence, made her vulnerable to manipulation. I think if I had the time and resources, I could convince a jury of this.
Mike G
Mike G.
If JDI then he sure picked a very odd way and weapon to commit murder with. Apparently he did not care about leaving blood, dna or evidence right in the house, which would be even stranger considering his plan was to dump the body.
ReplyDeleteWhere was blood found in the house?
DeleteThere was no blood but that can not be known when cracking someone over the head that hard with intent to kill.
DeleteWhy would it be any more odd than a kidnapper killing and leaving behind his hostage? Or a wife composing a ransom note telling her husband calling the police will kill his daughter, then foiling her own plan by calling the police herself? Or a husband and wife covering for a son too young to go to prison by staging a kidnapping that fooled no one?
DeleteEvery possible scenario in this case has aspects about it that are crazy hard to believe, but only one scenario can be inferred logically from the facts. And what is a "circumstantial" case if not that? Prosecutors should be jumping at the bit to arrest John if for no other reason than that convicting him would put them in the history books forever.
Mike G
Mike G
By the way Keiser, how can you "apparently not care" about something that "can not be known" to begin with?
DeleteMike G
Mike, if you are planning a kidnapping and dumping of a body, the most important thing that you can not have in your home is dna or blood from the victim in your house, because that would ruin your whole plan wouldnt it ? So it would make absolutely no sense that JR would use a weapon that could splatter blood/and or brain matter all over his house when all he had do was to strangle. To strangle a little 6 yr old girl would be very easy for a grown man such as JR. If JR is the calculating, manipulating genius you claim that he is, then surely he had to factor into his plan.
DeleteIf the head blow had produced blood, so what? Once the body is out of the house, then the logical conclusion is that she's been kidnapped. Could the "kidnapper" have assaulted her while she was still in the house? Of course, why not? There might well have been a struggle, no? He might well have struck her over the head or even killed her before removing from the house, no?
DeleteSo no, I don't see the possibility of drawing blood as a deterrent to John from striking her over the head. Blood or no blood, the plan would have been to remove her body from the house.
Oh Doc doc doc.....you don't see a problem if blood had been drawn? ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how about it creating a huge mess that he would have had to clean up. How about not wanting to leave any evidence of blood drops anywhere that could tie the murder inside the house? The 2 different acts (head blow and garrote) are more reasons why not only this wasn't premeditated, but I also don't believe it was committed by 1 person. Choking her, giving her a sleeping pill would have been much cleaner and easier. Bashing in her skull makes little sense if it was intentional.
Delete-J
Why would he have needed to clean up any mess? With the body out of the house, the blood could have easily been explained away as the result of a struggle between the "kidnapper" and his "victim." Bashing in her skull makes sense if he wanted to spare her any pain or fear.
DeleteUFC 100 - Jonbenet vs. Small Foreign Faction
DeleteStruggle Doc? She was 6!
-J
I didn't mean to be insensitive on that last comment, but come on! If the end goal was to always get the body out the house then the Head Blow wasnt necessary at any point! If the point was to kill her and remove the body, then all he would have needed was the garrote, nothing else.
Delete-J
Yes, but he delivered the head blow so she would be unconscious during strangulation - that is the point of the head blow, not to cause death.
DeleteSure, that definitely is possible. I just think IF it was the Maglite with the direction of the hit straight down, he took a real big risk of there being blood splatter.
Delete-J
"So it would make absolutely no sense that JR would use a weapon that could splatter blood/and or brain matter all over his house when all he had do was to strangle."
DeleteHey Doc, I've got a new term: "disqualification bias". More insidious than it's cousin, it goes like this:
"If I can't make evidence fit my theory, then I'll use it to make alternative theories sound absurd."
Mike G
Look at that woman in the video where she is being questioned by two detectives. Does she even remotely resemble a woman who could be gaslit? And it's more than being a Stage Momager. She survived stage 4 cancer but knew the chances were good that it would come back. Can you imagine what that might do to you? She was one determined woman, but frightened at the same time. No control of her physical body but very much in control of her children, how she ran her home, her position in the community. John's baby was his company. He was about to take it global. Burke said what he liked about his dad was airplanes. He said his mom worked at being a mom. Both of them were drawn in his picture as small, rather insignificant. He got the short end of the shrift in that family affection-wise.
ReplyDelete"Look at that woman in the video where she is being questioned by two detectives. Does she even remotely resemble a woman who could be gaslit?"
DeleteYes.
Mike G
Inquisitive, you are being speculative and rather judgemental about people you don't even know. You have no idea if Burke received less affection than JBR. You may think the pageant involvement was weird, and its not something I would do, but it does not make Patsy a control freak. I really don't understand where you're going with most of the stuff you write. You are not going to solve this case with a personality analysis of these people. But, if you must do that, then please analyze JR too. And ask yourself why he is not looking for the real killer since you're convinced that an intruder did it. I've been on this blog for years now, but your mind and musings dumps are taking over this blog and are not going anywhere. Its driving me nuts -- I'm having a hard time following anyone here anymore because many of you are back in the morass again. It is possible Patsy was gaslit. Anybody can be gaslit if the circumstances present that possibility. So let's just concede that it is possible. As for me, I still ponder over how Patsy could not have eventually figured out that John did something to JBR that night. If Burke was involved, maybe she did figure it out and chose to be silent. I do not see her as being much different than me as a mother. I would do anything to protect my only child after I had lost one of mine. But I'm just going to stick to the facts because no one can be in the minds of those people (unless you are God, or some kind of mind reader). The fact is, Patsy was intelligent enough to not call police if she knew her dead daughter was in the basement. She called them. John proceeded to behave very suspiciously. Linda Arndt was there -- I have to listen to what she saw because SHE WAS THERE. Ever since, John has done nothing to find the real killer.
DeleteWhy would he if he already knows
DeleteI am no expert on the subject but in that video she looks like a very confident, stubborn, headstrong woman whose mind cant be changed, so if she could possibly be gaslit or not remains to be seen, it is however NOT apparent in that video whatsoever. I would really like to hear how it appears she could ?
ReplyDeleteWe've told you how. Many, many times. If you don't see it, that's your prerogative, but it's been answered.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhy are you wasting your time and comment space repititively telling people it has been answered. If whoever thinks it has been answered sufficiently then they would not be commenting. Also just because you say its so, surely does not make is so. FYI
DeleteTHANK YOU KS! Ms D thinks she is the voice of reason, but all she really does is critique everybody for asking or saying anything. I got critiqued for asking rhetorical questions when in reality, most people on here aren't changing their opinions.
DeleteAlso, Ms D....why do you say "We've told you" ??? Whose We?
KS to your post, I completely agree. Watching all the interviews and interrogation tapes, Patsy looks like she is the one wearing the pants in the relationship. Doesn't look like somebody who would easily be "gaslighted" into lying and covering up her husbands abuse.
-J
Did anyone ask Patsy if she had ever learned to tie knots? Did she sail with John? Did she ever do macramé or crafts or tie paint canvases to make frames? Did Burke show her how to tie knots? I mean if Steve Thomas wanted to make a case for Patsy why didn't he include some of those types of inquiries.
DeleteKeiser asked the same question in regards to Patsy not being the kind of person who could be gaslighted at least twice on this thread alone, and it was answered adequately each one of those times...so what's the problem with stating such? The two of you do keep asking the same questions, as though the more times you ask it, you'll somehow beat us into submission and we'll concede you must be right after all. It's juvenile. I won't apologize for calling you out on it. You call me out often, J, and I try to take on board what you've said so I can debate better next time.
DeleteYou've been told how Patsy could have been gaslighted, K, so what point does it serve to ask it again?
You've been told - ad nauseam - how Burke's fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple could have gotten there much earlier in the day, J - yet you continue to ask us how his fingerprints don't put him at the scene of the crime.
I don't think I'm "the voice of reason" at all - I have a LOT to learn - but I do think it's more than reasonable to make a demonstrably, truthful statement: that your question has been answered, so why don't we move on to something we *don't* know and try to figure out what it means?
You brought it up, so I just want to clarify. Regarding the Pineapple Bowl specifically. Certain people on here hide behind saying "I stick to the facts and logic of the case" when in reality that just isn't true. The Pineapple bowl has 2 sets of fingerprints on it...Burke's and Patsy's...YET JDI theory puts neither of them near the scene of the crime. Magically Burke and Patsy touched that bowl earlier that year taking it out of the dishwasher and then were sound asleep when John bluedgeoned JB. Not a whole lot of logic there
Delete-J
Whatever you say, J.....there is just no mature debate to be had with you.
DeleteHow can anyone adequately respond to a straw man argument?
if Patsy was involved, why would she have kept her distance from John during the time there was a lot of people in her house?
ReplyDeleteHer not speaking to the police is more so a result of John taking charge of the situation and her being medicated. But, no, according to PDI, she killed JB and forced John not to speak to the police, right?
It's obvious that Patsy didn't take that RN seriously at all because she didn't follow a single direction the supposed "kidnappers" gave them.
ReplyDeleteThe RN threatened to behead their daughter if they so much as talked to a dog--so what did she do? She not only called the police, she also called friends, doctor, priest, neighbors to ALl come on over and lets create a chaotic scene in a house that was being watched by that small foreign faction.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Also, your daughter is missing, taken for ransom---so what do you do? You let your neighbor take your remaining child to their house. NOW, you don't know who did this, therefore you wouldn't let that other child out of your sight. OR if you did, I'd expect him to be escorted by police and/or watched CLOSELY by law enforcement.
EG
Gosh, how many times do we have to rehash this? Its very possible that Patsy had a very visceral reaction after reading just the first few lines. I know how emotional I would be as a mother, and I do think its possible she didn't even get to the part about beheading before screaming and running for John. I know it would have been hard for me to be rational and for it all to sink in. For all we know, John told her to call the friends over so she did. Also, I have many trusted friends and family and I would definitely let my child go with them if it meant not exposing them to what was happening. The note was directed to John. Right out of the shoot, it seemed like a revenge thing. If the "intruder" wanted to take Burke too, he would have done so that night. Yes, I would let my friends take my child away to the safety of their house.
DeleteBesides, all your points apply to John as well. Why did HE allow friends over and let Fleet take Burke to the White's house?
Same applies to JR, but we were talking PR in the posts above and whether or not she was gaslighted.
DeleteAnd I guess we have to rehash it as many times as it takes to possibly get to the truth.
Just thinking of things from different angles. None of us know what we'd do in any given situation. There is no doubt that JR ruled the roost in that house and I find it odd that he wouldn't have been able to stop her from doing what she did that morning. He may have wanted to create the chaos, and therefore stood by and allowed her to make the calls, etc.
We don't know, just speculating here and giving my opinion.
EG
EG, I feel certain John did not want Patsy call, and did not expect her to. She may have gotten up earlier than he expected. He said he was in the shower, and its also possible he ran out of time to complete his cover up during the night. We cannot assume he had a perfect plan and was executing it perfectly. I think he assumed she would follow his lead more than she did. Like you said, we don't know how anyone would react, and its possible that her fear caused her to go into react mode, ignoring John. He couldn't say "hey, it says here not to call police" if she ran to grab the phone before he even read the entire note. That would looking suspicious - he knows what is in the note before completely reading it? I think he tried to stop her at some point but once you have 911 on the line, they will likely send someone out even if you hang up before speaking to them. Bottom line, we can't prove what happened so no amount of opining about why Patsy called is going to change the fact that SHE DID CALL. If she was hiding a body, she would have said, "John, look what it says here! What should we do? Please, get the money together and get my baby back!!"
DeleteIF JDI then the 911 call was EVERYTHING. At that moment when Patsy wakes up, her not calling 911 would have been Johns freedom, reputation and marriage on the line. You honestly think he would take the chance of showering and keeping his fingers crossed that she believed his novel Ransom note? No.....If JDI, then John Ramsey is taking control and finding the note so he can CONTROL the situation.
Delete-J
John's biggest mistake was not putting "don't call 911" in the first 1 or 2 lines of the note. Patsy panicked after reading the first 1-2 lines and then probably dropped the papers screaming and running to check on her daughter who she found not there. This is probably what 99.999% of other rational humans would do after reading the first 2 lines of that note. Big mistake John!! Shoulda put don't call 911 first! I'd bet my life nearly that Patsy never ever read the part about not calling 911, especially because it seems likely that she would have mentioned to the 911 operator that the note states not to call police but she felt she had to anyways.
DeleteYep, J. But it's taken me a while not to react to everything that's written in here, and I'm still learning. Pick your battles. If Patsy wrote then it doesn't matter who's idea it was to call 911, she was going to call - it was part of the act. Do you know how many crimes committed by the person in the home are followed by a frantic dramatic call to 911? After they have finished their staging of course. Gotten rid of incriminating evidence, wiped down the murder weapon or disposed of it outside the house (usually though if they are the only other one in the house)and then rehearsed in their minds how appropriately "frantic" and "concerned" they are going to act on the phone. Did any of the detectives ever ask who's idea it was to call over the neighbors? I'll bet it was Patsy's idea, and she didn't ask permission, she just did it.
ReplyDeleteInq – It gets glossed over by JDI’s, but a crazy and frantic Patsy Ramsey who barely hears what the 911 operator is asking her is calm enough to call friends over. If it were her parents, I could see them calling, not friends. But, at that moment, we are supposed to believe her daughter was just kidnapped and within 8 minutes, the friends are called. For me this is part of the plan. Call 911 and then immediately call friends over to help create confusion and chaos. John may have wanted to find the body earlier but wasn’t given his chance until LA told him to search house. That’s when John needs to have FW with him to witness John finding the body.
Delete-J
The Ms D police should be coming soon to tell us this has been gone over already.......
DeleteNot quite sure what you were saying above J, but either way if Patsy covered for Burke or Patsy covered for herself the 911 call was very necessary and very appropriately panic-sounding. Whichever neighbor she called first - Priscilla? - said she sounded very frantic, needed her over there right away - something terrible had happened, etc. The friends weren't necessarily there to add chaos, but more as a buffer - a wall - between Patsy and John and Patsy and police (if police were there, she didn't know police wouldn't be there) and certainly from herself and Arndt.
DeleteSorry, let me try and say it better. I believe the 911 call was Patsy acting. But, for the JDI theory, Patsy wasn’t involved and the 911 call was genuine. Well, if its genuine, then you believe Patsy truly was frantic and was so frantic she couldn’t even focus on the questions being asked by the 911 operator. Then she hangs up and within 8 minutes that frantic person is able to pull herself together and her first action is to call friends over to the house. MAKES NO SENSE
DeleteYes, of course the friends were there only to be a buffer and add confusion to the scene. No other way around it
-J
Why do you assume a frantic person can't or won't call friends when in the throes of an emergency? I have close friends whom I would definitely call.
DeleteWell Keiser, first, that question was for J. Not you. I assume Doc will come along an delete your insult. I'm not a homemaker, nor a cook. I'm a business executive. No one has any business trying to solve a case by presuming to know why Patsy called her pastor and friends over. I'm just speculating on my theory: John could have verbally abused her after she made the call. The shock of having your daughter kidnapped and your husband berating you for your knee-jerk reaction would be cause enough to want people there to comfort you. If you are male, I'm going to take a guess here, you don't get it. Perhaps you are missing a sensitivity chip?
DeleteWe've already discussed that Patsy may have not read the entire note thoroughly. For all we know, John snatched it from her when he realized she was hysterical (or as Burke said, "going all psycho."
Right,J I thought that's what you meant when I re read it. So I wonder when John figured it out. By having the friends there she did not have to talk to him. Or anyone. Peaking through her fingers, wondering what would be found, and when.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention they completely ignored the instructions in the war and peace of ransom notes.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, it just doesn't make sense.
EG
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThat whole 911 call. It just reminds me of an episode from Lassie where Ruth calls the operator to get a hold of Doc or something because Lassie has fallen down the old mine shaft and Timmy ran after her. He's blonde.
ReplyDeleteIt's so totally staged. The call. She tells the operator she doesn't know what's happened but she/they just woke up and there's a note there but she's already managed to read to paragraph two enough to tell the operator "we have a kidnapping" and that it's a ransom note. She also knows who signed it, SBTC. Victory she says. Between breaths. When did she run upstairs to check JB's room and go into Burke's room and tell John all before just finding a note? Just waking up?
"That whole 911 call. It just reminds me of an episode from Lassie where Ruth calls the operator to get a hold of Doc or something because Lassie has fallen down the old mine shaft and Timmy ran after her. He's blonde.
DeleteIt's so totally staged. The call. She tells the operator she doesn't know what's happened but she/they just woke up and there's a note there but she's already managed to read to paragraph two enough to tell the operator "we have a kidnapping" and that it's a ransom note. She also knows who signed it, SBTC. Victory she says. Between breaths. When did she run upstairs to check JB's room and go into Burke's room and tell John all before just finding a note? Just waking up?"
Inquisitive, only last week you were still firmly IDI, and found Patsy's call completely consistent with a mother who had just discovered her daughter had been kidnapped. You argued this point several times, in fact. Now, I understand that you change your mind according to new information you come across, but you've *always* known how Patsy sounded in the 911 call - this is not new to you at all, so I think it's fair to ask.....why do you now believe Patsy was faking it when it was so obvious to you up until days ago that she was genuine? I think that's a fair question.....
An earlier post today got me thinking …..
ReplyDeleteSo, would Patsy want John to the find note first if she wrote it, and would John want Patsy to find the note first if he wrote it? It's sounds like (from interview transcripts) they both regularly used the back stairwell. If John’s plan was to find the note that HE wrote before Patsy did, he would have got up first, put his robe on and went down those steps right away. And if he wanted Patsy to find the note (he wrote) first, then he would have waited in his dressing room/bathroom until he heard her go down. Alternately, if Patsy wanted John to find the note that SHE wrote, she would have waited in her bathroom/dressing area until she knew he went down the stairs. And if Patsy wanted to find the note (that she wrote) first, she would have got up first and put her robe on and went down those steps before John could. So, the fact is (according to JR/PR) John was up first and still in his bathroom when Patsy went down and found the note, which means HE wrote it. This is of course assuming an intruder didn’t write the note and one of them did. And if they were both in on the cover-up, it’s a moot point.
Didn't anyone watch the People Magazine's one hour special on the case last night? It was the first one I've seen that doesn't "rule out" John by over-focusing on Patsy, intruders, Burke, and the "parents". And there was some new stuff, such as where SBTC came from.
ReplyDeleteMike G...above comment on People documentary
DeleteYes Mike G--I watched it last night and I think that the FBI agent Ron is spot on with much of what he says. As an experienced agent, he made some good observations and points, and I agree with him.
DeletePR and JR's behavior - suspicious and not what you'd normally see with two parents of a kidnapped child.
PR peeking out at him and when he introduced himself, he said most parents WANT to speak to the FBI and are glad when they arrive. Not PR and JR--she was peeking out at him from between splayed fingers.
EG
Above Mike G posted "If I can't make evidence fit my theory, then I'll use it to make alternative theories sound absurd."
ReplyDeleteIf this is a reference to me, I don't think you are reading my posts Mike. I just want to make sure after reading yours, Ms D, Doc, CC, etc that I have compiled the JDI theory. This is what I have:.
* He may or may not have planned to kill her. If he did, it could have been planned for months or also just a short period of time.
* He also could have planned to kill her that night with no premeditation because she didn't cooperate with his sex game that night
* His motive may have been to shut her up, but it could have been something else as well
* The head blow doesn’t matter in regards to making a bloody crime scene was irrelevant, because he was burying the body and any blood in the house could be explained away by a struggle
* John also may have killed her in a fit of rage over any million reasons.
* John also may or may not have been abusing JB for a long period of time or just recently
* John planned to have 2 days of what would compile into the greatest staging in the history of crimes. He would call Patsy from a pay phone, hide the body somewhere, take the money out. Then come home and stage the house so perfectly to fool Sherlock Holmes.
* Patsy and the Pediatrician were completely oblivious to any and all possible abuse to JB.
* Neither Patsy or Burke saw or heard anything. Oh wait, IF Burke was downstairs, he might be covering her John which explains his awkward interview with therapist and Dr. Phil
* Due to chemo brain, Patsy was easily gaslighted into believing anything John told her to. Kind of like Reggie Jackson in Naked Gun
* Pineapple Bowl may or may not be pineapple. Even though its clearly pineapple, it could be cereal which is why Burke couldn’t tell what it was
*JB could have ingested Fruit Cocktail and not just pineapple
*The Pineapple bowl with fingerprints of ONLY BR and PR means nothing because they emptied the dishwasher. (even though we have no clue if Burke helped empty it, but that’s not important)
* Every expert who believes Patsy wrote the note is irrelevant because its junk science and because they aren’t qualified. Anybody who believes John wrote it make an interesting case
* Patsy NEVER would have suspected John because of the handwriting experts.
*John is still pulling strings by his control of Burke and making Burke keep his mouth shut IF he saw something.
This is currently what we have. Again, ONLY stick to the FACTS and LOGIC of the case. I will be adding more to this list after the rebuttals come in which I very much look forward to
-J
Above - who intended who to find the note, yes, mind boggling. If Patsy wrote it she wasn't going to be the first one up, she was already up - all night. It wasn't about finding the note, it was about using it to play act the frantic 911 call. Either way, whether she was already up or the first one up, she was going to see it first (actually second if she wrote it). Why write it at all I think we should be asking ourselves. Why not just leave the body hidden in the wine cellar room and pretend to get her up in the a.m., not be able to find her, call the police and it looks like a murder was committed under your own noses in your own house by person or persons unknown. Perhaps the author thought that was a ludicrous assumption to make. Perhaps the author didn't think anyone would buy that (except a dumb idiot like me :)- that in the dead of night someone came in and selected their daughter for a head blow. That's where it started. The head blow. Perhaps the person who delivered the blow was absolutely shocked and stunned that they had done such a thing and sought to cover it up by whatever means possible by staging it to look like someone else had done it. Kapish?
ReplyDeleteJ I see our busy little minds were working at the same time so my post was for Anony (how many Anony's do we have here now?) in regard to who intended who to find the note. Anony. 12:50 p.m.
ReplyDeleteI do think it rather appalling that LE wanted to re-question Burke - all of that chatter about it on the net was what had me stumble onto this blog. And instead we got ripped off with the sham television show of Dr. Phil doing the questioning. To get to some unanswered questions it is as Kolar suggests - that a new GJ be convened specifically for the purpose of putting some questions to Burke. I was going to say what 3 questions would you like to ask him but it would be meaningless unless he was hooked up to a lie detector machine or under oath.
ReplyDeleteThey're not sure if the head blow came first and if it was JR and he had been sexual molesting her, then its likely the garrote was used first, followed by the head blow.
ReplyDeleteOne of the forensic pathologists in last night's show said this wasn't the first time that game was played. He thought the abuse was ongoing, but this time, she didn't cooperate.
EG
Yes EG, but there are conflicting reports from numerous experts as to which came first. ME took a neutral position. And if it were a sexual game then that does not make it conclusive JR did it, we can go back to the intruder theory if you would like.
ReplyDeleteInq,
DeleteIf it was ongoing then it couldn't have been an intruder. It was someone who had access to JBR on a regular basis.
EG
There's also that triangular strawberry-like burn-abrasion on her neck, rather large, which Steve Thomas opined may have been caused by someone grabbing her by the sweater neck and twisting as she tried to run away.
ReplyDeleteInquisitive, it is refreshing to see you fairly assess each scenario, and to watch the understanding of this case unfold for you.
ReplyDeleteGS
Much more of us would rather be spared Inq's stream of consciousness rambling and untruths...and I am on the fence and not JDI.
ReplyDeleteWhat an awesome thing to say GS. Thank you. Same could be said for countless others in here, who at least are trying instead of sniping.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/tr... DA Stan garrett hopes to go to trial, says he knows who killed jonbenet
ReplyDeleteWow! Very interesting:
Delete"Asked if he knew who killed JonBenet, Mr Garnett replied, “I do.” He added: “If we can ever file a case in open court, I’ll tell the world.” News.com.au asked him to reveal who he thought was responsible for the death, but he declined to say.
The DA last week announced he was retesting DNA evidence from the 20-year-old crime scene using the latest techniques, but warned he would need “several different pieces of evidence to come together” to prosecute."
Fake news? I wonder. Hard to believe any reporter would be able to pin him down like that, but who knows?
IF we take him literally, and IF we can assume the guy is actually being logical (BIG if) rather than just gassing off the top of his head, then the perp he has in mind could only be: John Ramsey.
NOT Burke. Too young at the time to stand trial.
NOT Patsy. You can't put someone who's deceased on trial.
NOT an intruder. There's never been even a trace of evidence pointing to any one person outside the Ramsey household.
Is John the one he has in mind? Well, the logic says "yes" -- but my experience with the thinking of just about everyone who's ever investigated this case says no. It's possible he's focused on one particular intruder suspect, though it's very hard to see whom that could be. Or very likely he too has managed to convince himself Patsy did it. But putting her on trial won't be easy.
Fake news? Very possibly. Let's wait and see.
We're gettin' there Doc!
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M47OHh7Kr0
Mike G
evej, the link doesn't work for me, can someone perhaps repost it? Thanks, :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJ,
ReplyDeleteYou've got to let go of the pineapple. It's literally impossible to tell when Patsy's and Burke's fingerprints were placed on a bowl that existed in the house they lived in. You know this. You're theory could even be correct, but the fingerprints are inconclusive and you know it.
It's more like who's prints were NOT on the bowl. JonBenet's, John's, any of the support group people, friends, Priscilla, etc., etc.
DeletePaula Woodward claims the autopsy evidence she reviewed states it was pineapples, grapes and cherries that were found in JB's system (the link was posted somewhere above, though we've heard this information before), and that Steve Thomas may have omitted this information in order to bolster his PDI theory for the purpose of his book.....if this is true, the BDI's "best" piece of evidence (the only piece of evidence, I would argue) means nothing.
DeleteBurke said on Dr. Phil that he went down that night for some pineapple. I thought I saw that anyway somewhere.
DeleteNo. He denied knowledge of the pineapple. Therein lies the problem.....who prepared the pineapple, and when, is a mystery.
DeleteHere's the rest of the link to the DA Stan Garnett article -- it sounds encouraging!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/ill-tell-the-whole-world-boulder-prosecutors-bombshell-claim/news-story/fb6c45c21eb9b7dff72b4bdae030ea6a
If Patsy was up all night, as a smart intelligent woman, wouldn't she have changed her clothes? But, no, John was the one who showered that morning. But, again, Patsy is the one with the microscope on her.
ReplyDeleteIf PR was too drugged to care about who had killed her daughter as some of you propose, when the drugs wore off then her #1 mission in life would have been to find her daughter's killer. Look no further than any other similar case where a mother loses her daughter. Rather than sending LE on wild goose after wild goose chase over pageant bears, shoes etc. This point is clear as day.
ReplyDeleteWho said "too drugged to care"?
ReplyDelete"If PR was too drugged to care about who had killed her daughter as some of you propose..."
ReplyDeleteWho said this?! Please, cite your sources....I don't recall anyone ever saying Patsy didn't care......she was a basket case, for God's sake. Every JDI here has stated the contrary, so whom are you referring to? If Patsy's guilt is so obvious, KS, why not let the evidence speak for itself, rather than resorting to straw man arguments?
Yes I think the ransom note does not mean they were trying to hide the body.
ReplyDeleteThey are smart people. They used some reverse psychology. They thought, who would suspect us, if we wrote a kidnap note? No one would think we would write a kidnap note, and keep the body here, they thought. Also as another commenter said, it provided motive. Some enemy of John's. A money motive. It allowed them to use their imagination and come up with all kinds of weird scenarios to point away from them. You can't write a note for money, after, the daughter is killed.
I think they both did it. I don't know who actually killed JBR. But she was being sexually and physically abused, both parents knew it. If only one parent did it, then the other parent was also guilty of past abuse, and that is why they helped cover up.
The only evidence that is "let speak for itself" is any that can be twisted into evidence against JR OR trying to twist evidence away from anyone elses involvement. My comment refers to Ms D and the few others who claim that PR was manipulated and gaslit into all of her behaviors, which that then has to include not wanting to find the killer of her daughter for 10 years. As I said before, one only has to look at any off the many other similar cases to see what a mother who has her daughter murdered and defiled will do and what her behaviors and main goal in life become. Sorry Ms D but the couple of months you speak of a "grieving" PR is not what I am speaking of.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that Patsy didn't take that RN seriously at all because she didn't follow a single direction the supposed "kidnappers" gave them.
ReplyDeleteThe RN threatened to behead their daughter if they so much as talked to a dog--so what did she do? She not only called the police, she also called friends, doctor, priest, neighbors to ALl come on over and lets create a chaotic scene in a house that was being watched by that small foreign faction.
Makes absolutely no sense.
Also, your daughter is missing, taken for ransom---so what do you do? You let your neighbor take your remaining child to their house. NOW, you don't know who did this, therefore you wouldn't let that other child out of your sight. OR if you did, I'd expect him to be escorted by police and/or watched CLOSELY by law enforcement. Well stated EG ! Now that^^^ is called logic ! JDI need to read this so they can learn what logic is, of course they will excuse the oh so obvious here with some ludicrous, off the wall, agenda like garbage by making one of these completely ILLOGICAL comments - she needed support from her friends of course or you have "confirmation bias" or she didnt read the whole note because I mean who would actually do that ? This os one of my personal favorites ...We need to stick to only the "facts" of the case and it is neither fact nor evidence so therefor we can not draw any common sense from it. The real truth though is that it does not point to JDI so therefore it must be discluded in typical JDI fashion.
Havent posted in a while and just spend 30min reading a few posts. Ms D wrote:
ReplyDeleteif this is true, the BDI's "best" piece of evidence (the only piece of evidence, I would argue) means nothing.
My reply:
LOL. Firstly, the pineapple is not the best evidence for BDI. Patsy was involved in this coverup without a shadow of a doubt. That means Burke is the most likely suspect because John and Patsy wouldn't cover for each other.
Second best bit of evidence is he is the only one who has lashed out at JB in the past (with a golf club). Witnesess state this was not an accident. No one in the house has even smacked JB before.
And he admitted to sneaking downstairs the night of the murder.
And you know what..so even without the pineapple Burke is by far and away and the most likely culprit.
I dont believe the fruit cocktail for a second. It was pineapple and JB ate it that night. Which means the pineapple was made that night. And it was most likely made by Burke or Patsy...probably Burke. And do you really think Patsy would leave a bowl of pineapple sitting on the bench for more than a day? Please.
It amazes me at the length you go to try and disprove the pineapple when this is obviously a key bit of evidence. But even without it, Burke is obviously the guilty party.
I probably wont post for at least another month so enjoy the rest of 2016.