Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).
NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.
Notice to readers of my Kindle book:I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
Leftovers, anyone?
Thanksgiving got too stuffed. Here's room for more . . .
Here is a question for those that believe Patsy was innocent. This is ONE of the many things that go against Patsy.
When Patsy rang 911 she claimed that she had only scanned the RN quickly. She read that her daughter was kidnapped and then made the call. She also claimed that during the call John was reading the RN and at no point did John communicate with Patsy during this call.
Despite Patsy only scanning the note, not having the note on her and being extremely frazzled, she was still able to let the operator know that it said "SBTC Victory". She got the acronym perfect with all letters in the correct order. Despite her only scanning the note and being in the state of mind that she was.
How did she do that? Oh I know...because she wrote the RN!!!
Imagine this...I hand Doc, Ms D and CC a 4 page letter. At the end of the letter is an acronym composing of 4 random letters. Lets say YQKD.
You briefly scan the 4 page letter...and yes that may or may not include scanning the acronym at the end.
You then have to repeat it back a few minutes later. Extremely difficult. Especially in the state of mind Patsy was in.
In fact I'm on my phone write now and cant even remember the 4 letters I wrote. ill need to scroll up and look. I know it had a Y and maybe a Q. Then I cant remember. YQDC? Just scrolled up. Nope I was wrong and that was me writing that a few seconds ago.
Patsy knew what it was for one good reason. Patsy was involved. That makes the JDI theory even weaker than it already is.
Zed, c'mon. You don't know what really happened, second by second. Patsy did what I would do, look to see who signed it. I'm sorry, but I can remember S.B.T.C Victory! Whether she was looking over John's shoulder, or remembered the last thing she read, she remembered it. The phone was hung up abruptly, so perhaps John hit the receiver. You just don't know, and your suppositions about her memory abilities mean nothing.
Investigator: Did Patsy tell you she wrote the ransom note?
Zed: No, but I know she did.
Investigator: How?
Zed: Because she was frazzled while talking to the 911 operator yet still managed to remembered the acronym, SBTC Victory. She said she didn't have the ransom note in her hand because John was reading it. And when it was in her hands, she had only scanned it.
Investigator: Did she say whether or not John was helping her on what to say to the operator?
Zed: Yes. She said John was quiet the whole time he was reading the note.
Investigator: What parts did she say she scanned?
Zed: She didn't say....but she did say she called 911 as soon as she read that her daughter had been kidnapped.
Investigator: By whom?
Zed: By SBTC victory.
Investigator: So you're saying, that if Patsy had not written the note, it would have been impossible for her, in her state of mind, to remember what was perhaps the last thing she scanned before calling the police?
Zed: Exactly.
Investigator: But because she did remember who wrote it, she must have written it herself.
Patsy: Yes.
Investigator: But how does that rule John out as the writer of the note?
This is getting more and more tiresome. You know very well what the answer is because we've been over it many times. First of all, we have no reason to believe John was right there with her. According to her version of what happened, she told John she was calling the police and she ran downstairs to make the call while John went to check on Burke. Those are her very words, as recorded in the A&E doc. She most likely had the note with her when she called. And she could easily have glanced at the last page when asked who the note was from.
Even if John WAS with her, he could have handed her the note while she spoke with the 911 operator. This is the sort of thing we see time and again in this case -- perfectly innocent things that Patsy did or said that have been perceived as suspicious by those who already suspect her -- confirmation bias. How many times must I repeat it? Is this the best you can do?
There is a big list of items, most of which I have already mentioned in previous blogs. This is just one I randomly picked. I have to laugh how you constantly come up with an excuse time and time again for Patsy. Its surreal :)
I have to laugh at how you constantly distort innocuous incidents Patsy was involved in, time and time again in order to lend credence to your very tenuous reasoning as to why Patsy *must be* guilty. It's surreal.
Zed, totally agree with you on this. It felt very scripted and WHY wouldn't Patsy have the note in her hand if shes dialing 911 to reference things? Beyond suspicious
What's even more troubling to me is the call to the friends within 8 MINUTES of the 911 call. It would be understandable if the friends answered the phone to "JBR IS MISSING....SOMEBODY TOOK HER! Do you know what SBTC means?"
That didn't happen according to Fleet. If Patsy isn't involved and we are to believe her frantic state of mind on the 911 call, how does she pull herself together within 8 minutes to call their friends? THE ONLY explanation for the friends being there was to create confusion and chaos to the scene.
"THE ONLY explanation for the friends being there was to create confusion and chaos to the scene."
Wrong. There's another explanation. One that makes a lot more sense when one considers the reason why grieving people usually surround themselves with friends and family: Patsy was in need of emotional support. Especially as she knew she wouldn't receive any from her stoic, remote, husband. Why is this such a difficult concept for PDIs/BDIs to swallow?
There is not one, single, reason your explanation holds any more weight than the one I offered. Why muddy the waters by saying yours is "the ONLY explanation", when that is demonstrably false?
"Wrong. There's another explanation. One that makes a lot more sense when one considers the reason why grieving people usually surround themselves with friends and family"
Ms D - Do you know when people normally do what you just wrote? AT A FUNERAL or VISITATION! Is it because Patsy already knew she was dead?
Please cite your sources, J, because as far as I know, people don't only invite their friends over for emotional support when they're having a funeral. If my child was kidnapped, you can bet I'd need my friends and family around me. That you believe this somehow points towards Patsy's guilt is a perfect example of confirmation bias.
In the transcript of the 911 call on acandyrose Patsy says nothing about John reading the RN as she is speaking. I always assumed she had it in hand. CC
In the transcript of the 911 call on acandyrose Patsy says nothing about John reading the RN as she is speaking. I always assumed she had it in hand. CC
Nor, according to the,transcript, did she say she had just scanned the note. Looks like that makes your entire post about the 911 call and Patsy's involvement "even weaker", Zed. CC
I agree with Zed's assessment. It's one of the things that occurred to me as well, because even after reading the note several times I had trouble remembering the order of letters at the end, and yet PR seems to reel them off in her call. To my mind, she was either reading them or they had some meaning for her and so were easy to remember, or she had a photographic memory.
Kolar makes the same point in his book. Kolar says that JR was about 4 or 5 feet away from PR, hunched over the letter and facing south. So Kolar says that PR would have had to have read the note upside down through her husband while she was on the phone.
PR says that after the first paragraph she did not read the letter line by line and was just glancing at it.
PR in her 1997 interview:
PR: He, I remember him, while I was calling 911, he was hunched over the note and had it laid out there on the floor cause there was a light. It was still kind of darkish and there was a light, hallway light on . . . TT: Um hum. PR: . . .he was, you know, reading it there.
PR in her 1998 interview:
PATSY RAMSEY: I got down to the floor here and turned around and looked at it. TOM HANEY: Now -- TRIP DeMUTH: Tom, if that's not clear, because the camera can't see it, it's laid out pages 1, 2 and 3 left to right as you were looking from the floor towards the stairs, correct? PATSY RAMSEY: Correct. TOM HANEY: And you said that you just read that first paragraph? PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum. TOM HANEY: And that's when you stopped? PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum. TOM HANEY: Had you since or did you that day read the rest of the note? PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I read -- I came back down and John had it, you know, on the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it, and somewhere I thought in there, because I didn't read it line by line, I looked over to see who it was from, and I didn't know who that was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said if you call some -- don't call the police or -- wherever it said that. Oh, here, police, FBI, et cetera, your daughter being held. And I read that and I mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I couldn't -- TOM HANEY: That was some time later? PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was kind of all during, I mean after John came down and he had the note and I was "God, what are we going to do, what are we going to do?" And he said, "call the police, call 911" and I was looking around reading but it said don't do that. You know, what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them, I mean all this was like in minutes.
On another topic: J commented earlier about PR mentioning John being in his underwear and how that seemed odd. I think PR and JR had agreed that this would be part of their story. If you compare their accounts of that morning, it's all a bit of a shemozzle, but this is one part that seems to match up in both of their interviews...until you read closely. When questioned further by the investigators about what "underwear" consists of, PR says JR was dressed in briefs only, no shirt. JR said he had an underwear shirt on. The devil is in the detail.
The statements on what John was wearing, which I have never read about before, seem more believable due to the fact that they don't exactly match. It was a stressful event and folks never recall things exactly the same...that is, unless they collaborated on their story. Let's assume they did collaborate. Why would they even think "hey, let's agree on what each of us was wearing." Does anyone really think, in the midst of covering up something that involved such heinous acts on their child, that they were focused on being able to describe what each other was wearing?
This discussion is getting so ridiculous. Let's go back to reasoning. Why would Pasty call 911 if she knew there was staging that needed to be completed?
I *knew* I should have put a disclaimer on my underwear comment. ;-) Yes, I agree that it is possibly a minor detail that was easily forgotten. But I challenge anyone to read even just the first accounts of that morning (the Ramseys' interviews from 1997 and 1998) and try to make sense of what they say concerning the events before the police arrived. There are STACKS of problems.
And yes, I think there was a definite purpose to saying that JR was in his underwear. I agree with J's comment that they wanted to make it clear that they had just got up and found the note. I think they realised at some point that BOTH of them greeting the police all neatly dressed and groomed looked a little suspicious, especially when PR had been gasping into the phone only minutes before that "we just got up".
Kolar is amazing. Here are two people he strongly suspects of staging a phony kidnapping, and yet he's happy to accept their version of what happened as gospel truth. You folks are doing the same thing. Why buy ANY of it?
Doc, I don't think Kolar accepts their version. Sorry, re-reading my comment I realise that I didn't make that clear when I quoted him. In his book, it's obvious he thinks it's impossible that PR read the note upside down and through her husband from four to five feet away. He actually says, "I wasn't buying the explanation". I should have added that.
Patsy either has a photographic memory or was holding the note. I doubt very much she was holding the note based on the above post from AMD. If she was, well why lie about it? I'm sorry for those on this blog who can't face the truth, but that was one example of Patsy doing something which just doesn't make sense. Patsy wrote that letter or was with John when he wrote it.
My reasoning regarding what happened prior to the 911 call is laid out in some detail in one of my earliest posts: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html
This has been discussed and debated many times on this blog and I see no reason to get into it all over again. Feel free to either accept or reject my take on this. All views are acceptable here.
Thanks for the link, Doc. I shall go read it! I can understand you don't want to rehash your arguments over and over. I appreciate your thoughtful blog and the opportunity to discuss!
Feel free to reject it, Zed. But then I'd expect you to account for:
The contradiction between Patsy's version, as presented on the A&E doc, and their "official" version, as presented in their book and elsewhere.
Patsy deciding to undermine her own efforts by calling 911 if she were involved with the staging of a kidnapping.
And if you can't account for the above, then fine, feel free to repeat over and over your preferred conclusion. But don't expect me to be impressed.
This case must be understood in its entirety, through logical analysis in depth, not the making of superficial assumptions about this that or the other detail with no regard for the overall logic of the case as a whole. If you're not willing to look beneath the surface then you'll get no farther than all the others who've unsuccessfully tried to crack this case.
And I've asked these questions of you several times before Zed (or J, AMD, KS, any PDI or BDIer), but get no answers. If John and Patsy were in on it together, why:
. . . wasn't the RN simply block printed in the time-honored tradition of ransom notes everywhere?
. . .didn't John and Patsy take the four months between the murder and their first LE interview to rehearse and align their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911?
. . .didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple? CC
That last post of yours puzzles me, CC. I don't see the connection between block printing and the question of who wrote the note. My guess is that John didn't use block printing out of fear that examples of his previous use of block printing might be found by the authorities. But that could be applied to Patsy as well, so I don't get your point.
And Patsy and John DID rehearse and align their stories in those four months. If they were in it together, they wouldn't have needed four months, they could have "fully cooperated" with the police from day one. John needed those four months to persuade (or, if you prefer, gaslight) Patsy into aligning her story with his.
You, who have published countless threads on handwriting analysis, do not get the advantage of block printing? The one thing putative "experts" agree on is that it's difficult, if not impossible, to attribute to anyone. Unlike you, it's my position that John quite deliberately mimicked his wife's handwriting when he wrote the RN. Had they collaborated, block printing was the obvious choice.
What? They rehearsed and aligned their stories? Then why did Patsy say she'd cleaned up the glass with an assist from LHP? Had John coached her, he never would have permitted her to involve a third party in an obvious lie. Had John coached her, their stories about the decision to call 911 would have been in synch from day one, not ever-changing as Patsy's was.
I do not prefer gaslighting, finding it unnecessarily ornate. John's influence over his wife was well-documented and enhanced by anti-anxiety drugs and possibly chemo brain.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you don't understand. CC
Well, first of all, CC, it's not necessary that we agree on all aspects of this case. I'm pleased to see that we agree on the essentials and maybe that's enough.
However: I really don't see why John would have wanted to implicate Patsy when it seems so obvious that he was staging an intruder breakin. You're saying he wanted the authorities to suspect BOTH Patsy AND an intruder? Why would he want to do that?
Also, I've been at pains to demonstrate that the writing in the note is actually very different from Patsy's style. John himself has made the same point, noting that Patsy's writing is very neat, clean and consistent, while the writing on the note is messy and inconsistent. While it seems clear that the little "hats" on the letter a's were tacked on artificially, it seems to me this was done simply to point away from John rather than toward Patsy. He'd have needed to do a lot more to make it look like Patsy's hand, and in fact it looks nothing like her hand.
This is one of the great myths of this case, that the note looks like Patsy wrote it. Darnay's "experts" did everything they could to promote that myth, but as I believe I've demonstrated, their methods are highly questionable, to say the least.
As far as their aligning their stories is concerned, I fail to understand your reasoning. If their stories were not aligned then there would have been no reason for Patsy to support John's story about breaking the window earlier. And if gaslighting had not been a part of that "alignment" then it's impossible to understand why Patsy would have included Linda in her story. We've been over that before and I assumed you agreed with my take on this.
If Patsy had been coached by John to simply lie, then she would not have included Linda in her story. And if both were telling the truth, then how does that gibe with Linda's testimony denying any knowledge of any broken glass? Not to mention all the other obvious reasons to doubt John's story. While gaslighting might seem like a stretch, I can think of no other alternative that would explain why Patsy would have included Linda. While you can convince someone to lie, you cannot control the details of a false memory once it's implanted in someone's mind. To Patsy, it would have seemed only logical to include Linda in her cleanup story, and so, in her imagination, Linda appeared.
As I've said before, the only way to make sense of this case is to probe beneath the surface. If we insist on taking everything literally we get nowhere.
It will have to be enough, as I am, and will remain, convinced that John premeditated the crime and was happy to put "little hats on the letter a's" to suggest his wife, that he went to pains to point to AG employees in the RN just as he later tried to throw the Whites to the wolves - an intruder, a wife a friend, anybody but me, that's his rationale. I think that since the GJ findings were released he has been desperate to divert attention from himself, going as far as encouraging his son to appear on Dr Phil, despite knowing what a poor impression the boy would make.
I believe we only disagree seriously on the degree of John's guile, and I assure you I take little at face value when it comes to him. CC
Getting back to the suitcase, I think it means something because John either commented to Fleet or to police that morning that he thought it looked out of place. Was he not ever so gently suggesting the presence of an "intruder" knowing full well it would eventually be his only defense?
Also, on what other basis could the media have been floating rumors about John Andrews that led to Fleet being told by John's lawyers to "back off"?
I have been holding this back, but after seeing similar responses over and over I just need to say this.
It is getting "tiresome" as Doc would say to have posts met, not just by me, with responses specifically from Ms D and Doc of "we have gone over this already" or "this is getting tiresome" to go over this again. Let's make this VERY clear. Just because Doc started this site and his theory is that John did it, does NOT mean that anybody who opposes that theory needs to prove their case against JDI. It also doesn't mean John did do it (he didn't, Burke did :-) CC, Doc, Ms D you are completely entitled to you theory, just as Inq, CH, Zed, Zach, etc are as well.
Just because a question has been answered it before doesn't make it FACT. There is very little facts in this case and despite what some might think, Doc's theory is simply an opinion, just as mine is.
I know I am guilty of telling people off and that's not OK. Tempers get heated on here, but I just am begging that we cut it with the "this is getting old" type responses because its condescending BS. Nobody on here is an expert, nobody on here (we think) was a detective on this case. Nobody is a Ramsey (except maybe for Leigh :-) I think Patsy and John inviting friends over 8 minutes after calling 911 is pure lunacy. It for sure is added to my "Patsy was involved" pile and it's OK if you don't agree. Make your point without talking down.
. . wasn't the RN simply block printed in the time-honored tradition of ransom notes everywhere?
---I have no clue what this means
. . .didn't John and Patsy take the four months between the murder and their first LE interview to rehearse and align their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911?
--Couldn't their rehearsing show guilt of Patsy?
. . .didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
-----The pineapple bowl was Burke's. I will never believe otherwise
Any other questons CC? First one made no sense to me
Why risk disguising one's own writing? Why not simply block print in all caps as we were taught to do in first grade?
You believe that not rehearsing shows "guilt of Patsy" anyway because you insist she lied and lied - surely if they were in it together their answers would have been discussed and been the same, or at least similar? You seem to now be suggesting that would also be proof to you that she lied and lied.
You maintain the parents together covered for Burke. Wouldn't part of an effective cover up have been that one of them gave her pineapple when they got home, removing any possible speculation about their son's involvement? CC
Your point regarding the block lettering is a good point, but if JDI alone, why wouldn't he do block lettering? This doesn't prove anything
People commit crimes ALL the time together and can't keep stories straight. Patsy has lied so many times it's hard to know the truth about anything.
Your point on the pineapple hits right at the heart of why I know BDI! Neither John nor Patsy would have known the pineapple had any importance whatsoever if they stumbled upon her dead after Burke hit her. If they knew she had eaten a piece before dying, then surely they would have removed the bowl or at least had a story ready for it. It's why Burke was awkward answering the question in the first place.....he KNEW that she ate a piece from HIS bowl shortly before dying. If John or Patsy did give her the pineapple than there would have been a better story for it.
"Why risk disguising one's own writing? Why not simply block print in all caps as we were taught to do in first grade?"
You make a valid point. But it could apply to anyone -- John -- or Patsy -- or even an intruder -- no? The only explanation you can come up with is that John wanted to make it look like Patsy wrote it. But I'm sorry -- as I've already pointed out: that makes little sense. John had no reason to frame Patsy and if you want to insist he did, then that implies a totally different theory of the case from what anyone has ever suggested.
So: why would John not have simply block printed the note? THAT is an excellent question.
The best response I can come up with is that block lettering CAN in fact be identified. It may be harder to do, but still possible. Maybe even easier, since there are fewer opportunities for disguising your hand when you block letter. And many opportunities when you write things out.
John didn't block print because I believe he wanted to suggest Patsy by mimicking her hand.
An autopsy report is available to family members as soon as it's filed with the state Department of Health, so the Ramseys knew within three or four days that pineapple had been found in her system, too late to remove the bowl but not too late to concoct a cover story. CC
I'm not saying he wanted to frame Patsy, merely suggest her, right along with an intruder and a cast of thousands, in order to add to the confusion by creating a larger suspect pool. CC
Hey, I have actually been having dreams about John Ramsey since joining this blog! He is a scary enough presence already (the boogeyman has nothing on this guy) without having to deal with such an image upon waking.....I'd prefer he didn't make an appearance during my nocturnal slumber at all, but if he must, fully clothed is preferable ;)
If so have you ever cut up pineapple? I defy you to get it in the perfect square chunks depicted in the pineapple bowl - that looks canned to me. But sure, I'll read the interview if you can find it.
I know the interview where Patsy says she would not serve canned pineapple but no where did I read that she said she had previously cut up pineapple and stored it.
None of it matters. If she cut it up and put it in a Ziploc bag, Burke could have served himself a bowl of pineapple. CC - the pineapple is a problem for your theory and you know it.
True, J. Or if John served it he must have served it using gloves. Not realistic. And what child would want to be lured out of sleep and the warmth of her bed to have a bowl of pineapple. J, we just disagree on how it got there. Burke said he didn't fix it for himself. But there was something interested he did say - either to Police (doubtful) or the social worker. I can't remember which. That he heard nothing that particular night but if he had heard anything on previous nights it would be the opening of a refrigerator. Maybe no connection.
More likely JB got up herself and served herself, using an oversized spoon rather than a smaller one. And if it was already cut up then the task of putting it into the bowl would have been easier than opening a can. A can by the way that wasn't found (at least they didn't tell us in here on this blog :)
Patsy said that JB could not open the refrigerator door, so that rules out the possibility she prepared the snack for herself. And, I think it's safe to say, Inq, that no intruder spent time going through the items in the refrigerator looking for freshly cut pineapple, nor did they search the pantry for a tin of pineapple, then use a noisy can opener to open the tin.....they are about to commit murder, they don't want to risk detection by spending time hunting for/preparing snacks, which would involve turning on lights, opening drawers and removing noisy crockery/cutlery. I think that's fairly obvious, and something we can all agree on.
they were in the house prior to the hour in question, but I get it. It's a wonder no one heard anything (the family) that night. That's what baffles me. And although the neighbor retracted her report of hearing a scream at 2 a.m., I think she really did hear it, much like the neighbors in the Oscar Pistorious case heard arguing that night.
There was pineapple in her system, pineapple on a table. I've never speculated on how it got to either location, nor is it pivotal to my theory or of much interest to me.
You, on the other hand, have a problem, as Patsy told Tom Haney in her 6/98 interview that Burke did not particularly care for that or any other fruit, would never make up a bowl of pineapple as a snack from the plastic bag of fresh pineapple she purchased from Safeway. CC
In that same interview she says JBR would not have been capable of serving herself a bowl of pineapple. Patsy didn't initially realize it was pineapple when Haney showed her a photo - her guess was grits or apples - no wonder Burke was stumped. CC
No, I agree with you there. That Burke preferred strawberries or other berries to pineapple. I have a much better picture of the pineapple in bowl if you wish. It looks to me like it also has milk in it, which was a favorite of Burke's as I recall. However if JB did not get up out of bed and fix the snack for herself, then that brings me back to the intruder.
CC if you are going to believe what Patsy Ramsey says then we don't need to go further. Burke in his own words said he liked eating pineapple as a late night snack.
Considering JBR ate pineapple close to when she was killed it kind of should be pivotal to any theory.
Why? I've heard it ascribed to JR, PR, BR and Santa Bill in support of various theories. Given Patsy's shoddy housekeeping, it could have been left on the table all Christmas day and JBR helped herself on her way to the basement. Leads nowhere, proves nothing. CC
They had a pancake breakfast on Xmas morning. My guess is the fruit had been sitting there since then. Linda Hoffman was off for the day, and Patsy didn't care for housework.
I don't think it was a glass of tea. What I see in the photo is a glass with a used teabag dangling into it. The glass was probably just a receptacle for the used teabag. No one makes a single glass of ice tea, at least no one in Colorado - maybe some other state of the union.
I think this was once a cup of hot tea and the bag was discarded into the glass. No way of telling when that happened or who actually prepared and drank the tea.
I am aware we have gone over the pineapple bowl, but for me it is so CRUCIAL to this case. Burke tells Dr. Phil he went downstairs after being put to bed. There is a bowl of pineapple at the table that Burke said he would eat as a snack at night. JB's pillow is found on the kitchen counter and we know she ate pineapple shortly before she is killed. Using logic, the bowl of pineapple was Burke's. The pineapple that JB ate most likely would have come from that bowl of pineapple. Forget everything else that happened after, this is BY FAR the most logical explanation. There is no reason to make this more complicated than it has to be. If John or Patsy gave her that pineapple then it would have been explained away that before she went to bed they gave her a piece. IMO, they didn't have a ready excuse because they just weren't aware of the bowl of pineapple that Burke took out. They definitely wouldn't have been aware JB ate a piece, nor could they have known of its importance
J, I know you have to tie that bowl of pineapple to Burke as the theory put forward by Kolar and CBS is that she reached for a piece of pineapple from Burke's bowl and he ran after her with the flashlight and hit her for it. But Burke says he did not fix himself a bowl of pineapple that night before he went to bed, so I have to believe they were all telling the truth, otherwise I would be guilty of believing some things they said and not all to tailor it to my own theories. What the police could have done was ask all three "do you remember at any time prior to December 25 when you would have fixed a bowl of pineapple and perhaps left it on the table?"
Inq - I don't need to tie Burke to it. I'm not forcing a theory just to force a theory. It's Burke's bowl of pineapple. I won't repeat what I wrote above, but it's just logical. Burke now says he didn't make himself a bowl of pineapple, but his fingerprints suggest otherwise. I was a JDI for a long time, but I'm not unwilling to change my mind, which is when I settled on BDI.
I know and I applaud you for sticking to your guns. But can you agree that that bowl may have been sitting out for a while, and that he , Burke, did not fix it for himself that night (since he said he didn't) and so then it had nothing to do with her stealing a piece from "his" bowl just before being brained?
I think what bothers me most about the BDI theory is that along with that is the PDI and JDI coverup. Unless you can wrap your mind around Burke doing all of it.
As I understand it, the pineapple residue was found in her small intestine, not her stomach, which means she died at least a couple of hours after she ate it. It's possible she was struck over the head shortly after she ate that pineapple. But then it would be necessary for a couple of hours at least to elapse before the strangulation that killed her. Keep that in mind when you build your BDI case, folks. What could have happened, do you think, during that interval?
"There is no reason to make this more complicated than it has to be."
Says the person who, rather than accept the most logical explanation - that a father was sexually abusing his daughter, and rather than be exposed, decided to silence her, has gone for the single, most, convoluted theory available: two, ordinarily, loving parents, who have the option of saving their six year old child's life, decide instead to tie a cord around a paintbrush handle, twist it around her neck until she stops breathing, digitally penetrate her, write a ransom note that doesn't quite match up to the crime scene (is it a sex crime or a kidnapping gone wrong?), all the while managing to convince LE and child psychologists that their homicidal son had absolutely nothing to do with it, because clearly, these people are less adept than the BDIs here.
Yes. The JDIs are definitely making it more complicated than it has to be.....BDI doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all!
You finished? I've only heard this rant 20 times :-)
My point about it not having to be any more complicated than it is, is simply in regards to the pineapple bowl. Forget everything else for a second. The most logical explanation for whose pineapple bowl it was is Burke freaking Ramsey. Forget who murdered her, Im not even talking about that. The Pineapple bowl was Burke's and you can deflect all day like Trump about the staging and everything else. If you had to put money on whose bowl of pineapple that was, Burke would be the even money favorite.
Besides, you said Patsy had chemo brain. That would make anything she said suspect would it not? By the way Patsy finished her chemo treatments two years before the murder and I am no psychological physiologist and do not know how long the after effects of chemo stay in the brain, do you?
Everybody knows that the intruder brought his or her own pineapple and copy of Mindhunter. Silly intruder forgot to bring a ransom note, and accessories used in the crime though. It's understandable though. Luckily the Ramsey household had everything they needed.
Yes. It's funny how Leigh Too believed the intruder forgot to bring a ransom note, along with their own tools to commit murder, yet remembered to bring a copy of Mind Hunter with them to place on John's bedside table in order to "frame him". This is one confident intruder.....he/she has no problem hanging around long enough to prepare JonBenet a snack, sneaking up to the Ramseys bedroom to place a copy of Mind Hunter right next to a sleeping John's head, and twiddling his thumbs in the basement for 45 minutes after whacking JB on the head.....
well, please don't lump me in with forgetting to bring the ransom note (if you were). I have stated my theory. That the ransom pad was taken Dec. 23, practiced, and brought back to the house on the night in question. I also don't know where the copy of Mindhunter fits into all of it and prefer not to connect every single particle that could be a red herring.
What about it? There are many little particles to this case that really mean nothing. There was even some brochure on stun guns in the trash I believe, which John later said was in all Spanish so he didn't order it or read it - and yet the police thought it relevant enough to question him about it. Theories abounded that the amount in the ransom note came either from John's bonus amount or the Bible turned to Patsy's daily reading of Psalms 118. We've all gotten bogged down in the mire - even the Mindhunter book as one has suggested John boned up on crime scenes.
If you look at the ransom note as not having any meaning at all other than to mislead and play with the surviving victims, as I have come to, then we can focus on the why of the actual crime and not all of the insignificant particles to it.
"There are many little particles to this case that really mean nothing."
Says you. I believe those "little particles" LE overlooked mean everything.
"If you look at the ransom note as not having any meaning at all other than to mislead and play with the surviving victims, as I have come to, then we can focus on the why of the actual crime and not all of the insignificant particles to it."
You have to believe that for your IDI theory to work. This entire blog was started on the basis of how important the ransom note is. It is a blueprint. Once you stop looking at the RN as meaningless subterfuge and see who would benefit from it's instructions - you have your killer. Unfortunately, LE - like you - saw it as no more than an elaborate ruse riddled with distractions simply to mislead police. And that's why, twenty years later, the author of the note walks free.
When you realize the note is a blueprint, there is no other suspect other than John. No one else - an intruder, Burke, Patsy etc - would have benefited from the very intricate, specific instructions in that note. This is why it was the note that took me from IDI to JDI in a single day.
Here is a letter Bill and Janet McReynolds wrote to the Daily Camera in 1998. See if you see any similarities in style to the ransom note.
"We wish to commend the Boulder City Council for giving a hearing to Fleet White Jr., who is requesting a special prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey murder. We believe that the questions raised about the conduct of the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, in this case demand the most serious consideration.
Our family has been under scrutiny almost from the beginning of this case. Every member of our family has been interrogated and our two sons were required to give fingerprints, handwriting samples and DNA, even though neither of them was aware of the existence of little JonBenet before she was killed" (continued next post)
"In the course of the interrogations we became acquainted with Det. Steve Thomas, recently resigned, and his partner, Ron Gossage. We have the highest respect for them.
In July, we returned to Boulder after a year's absence and were interviewed by prosecutors in the District Attorney's office. We were not encouraged by the discoveries we made. The latest 'scuttlebutt' that we are receiving is that, indeed, there will be a Grand Jury investigation orchestrated by the District Attorney and that there will be no indictment. We do not see that progress as being beneficial to the hundreds of innocent people who, like ourselves, have been caught in the web of evil surrounding this case. Good people, wake up. This little girl, JonBenet, did not commit suicide. Bill McReynolds, Janet McReynolds."
You're really clutching at straws now. I didn't see any similarities, other than it read like a formal letter, much like the RN. You really do see what you want to see, and as your theories change, the evidence as you see it conveniently changes with it! Cherry picking indeed.
I'm confused, Inquisitive......for the past couple of weeks, you've really been pushing the notion that the McReynolds are involved, but you were utterly convinced it was the Hoffman-Pughs until a week or two ago and tried to convince fellow bloggers here also.....surely you haven't had ANOTHER change of heart so soon?! ;)
While I can't discount the amount of "stuff" (don't call it evidence if you don't want to) pulled from the Pugh household - black duct tape, white cord, white cord wrapped around a stick, 3 pads of white lined paper - one of them Patsy's - and 3 black sharpie pens plus no alibi, I also concede that the note showed above average intelligence. And if Linda did not write the note then there probably was no kidnapping for ransom money intended. Which moves me back to creepy Santa McReynolds - his degree in literature and journalism, also no alibi, his incident and connection to a 22 year old crime when his own daughter was kidnapped and made to watch her friend be raped, his connection to another little boy who went missing in Boulder and calls "his special little friend," his familiarity with the house, plus possibly the "Santa" who told JonBenet she would be getting a special visit from Santa after Christmas. I can't discount any of this.
I believe they ruled out Bill McReynolds due to recently having open heart surgery, however he and his wife were well enough to promptly leave Boulder right after the murder for Spain was it? and was not questioned until they returned. Well enough for the rigors of travel to a foreign country.
"clutching at straws" would imply I'm giving up Ms D. And I never give up, out or in. :) So much simpler to go with the intruder, who planned it, was sexually motivated murder intended, and the note designed to play with the surviving victims. Body was not intended to be moved - hidden - not moved.
Inq, I ask you again: do you discount the signs of prior sexual abuse, and if so, why? I'm interested to know how you see that fitting in to the IDI theory.
Anonymous - why not give yourself a hat, might be easier, but I don't so much discount the findings of the coroner as I do think their meaning is subject to interpretation.
I used to give myself a hat, but some folks on this blog were getting out of hand with insults and such.
Thanks for answering me. I know that CC has cited the 6 top physicians/experts in the US on child sexual abuse who have studied this case. I think their opinions lend a lot of credibility to the case. Have you located any credible rebuttals to these experts? I ask because for me, the prior sexual abuse is the single most telling aspect of this crime. Someone who had access to JBR and also had the ability to keep her quiet about it for a period of time, was abusing her. That along with the rest of Doc's brilliant analysis, including the RN analysis, has me 100% convinced that JDI. I would really need something new/pivotal to come along to start going down another path.
Yes, I agree - the experts who analyzed the wounds to the vaginal area came up with "previous" signs of sexual abuse. There were four of them cited but there were also four cited the JonBenet encyclopedia website who differed. All 8 went by photographs but if I'm wrong on that CC will correct me. I'm sure :). The interpretation of prior abuse is the single most clue if not the only clue, that allows for the JDI. And you would have to believe that as without it there is no motive.
Some say in here that the abuse was chronic, another thinks it was situational, maybe once prior to the 25th/26th. I just don't see how John would have had the opportunity to do so. He was at work all day, he traveled for business several times, and when he was at home it was family time all the way. I agree that sexual abuse occurs between fathers and daughters but the statistics are actually higher between siblings. Plus in this case you had a doting mother who if anything, micromanaged her daughter's every move, where she was, who she was with no doubt, what she wore, including taking her to her pediatrician numerous times (although 27 times in 3 years is not that frequent). I think the bed wetting was of more concern to Patsy than anything else - but Dr. Beuf isn't talking.
Gosh, I don't think any of us know a lot about the day to day goings-on in that home, but remember Patsy was gone a lot for cancer treatments for a few years. The maid talked about John putting JBR to bed and dressing her during this time, so he definitely had time alone with her. My mother was a doting mom too, but somehow my grandfather managed to molest my sister. Incest occurs for this very reason: the perps are smart, sneaky, and manipulative. I am certainly not going to conclude that John couldn't have done it based on your reasoning. I also don't know how anyone can say "it only happened once." No one can say that.
Very very sorry for your sister, Anon. That's first hand knowledge of incest in the family and I can't even begin to know how heartbreaking that could be. And for all survivors of incest or molestation, it makes me want to go punch the perpetrator. When I was doing graduate work in psych there were quite a few students in one of my classes who were victims of rape and incest. The theory is that they chose to study psychology more on a subconscious level to work out what had happened to them, and then be able to help others. But no, we cannot conclude that John if he did it at all, didn't do it more than once.
So yes, JBR's body might have been made to fit into that suitcase. But I still think that's a stretch. The ONLY reason we know about the suitcase was the fact that it was found under the broken window in the basement. If the plan was to remove her from the house stashed in that suitcase I see no reason why it would have been placed in that position. And if it HAD been contorted to fit into the suitcase, the contortion would have been evident when the body was examined by the ME.
Nevertheless, now that we know it's possible, we can't rule out that possibility. But, much as I hate to say it, this would have worked much better for an intruder than for either John or Patsy, who would have had no problem getting the body into their car without being seen.
But Doc, as I said in the previous thread, whilst getting JB into the trunk of the car would not have been an issue, removing her bundled body at the location he was planning to dispose of her might have been. If he was spotted removing a suitcase from the trunk his car, he could have simply said it was the ransom money. Not so easy if he's seen carrying a three and a half foot bundle.....
No need to carry or bury, certainly no need for a suitcase - the mountains are ten minutes from 15th Street and provide plenty of switchbacks with road visibility in both directions and no protective railings - plenty easy to drop a body 1,000 feet off a convenient cliff at night. Google "mountains around Boulder" or "Boulder scenic drives" or "Flagstaff Mountain" or somesuch. There are great hiking trails, but the roads wind by many many precipices inaccessible even to rock climbers. The Rockies are a great body dump. CC
It just dawned on me that John may have broken the window AFTER Patsy made the 911 call! A "kidnapper" close enough to John to know that $118,000 was the amount of his bonus, would be a "kidnapper" capable of getting a hold of a family key, reproducing it, and returning it safely to the owner without them ever being aware it was gone. This makes sense doesn't it? If Patsy had not made the call, no "staging" of an intruder "break-in" would EVER have been required. Indeed, if Patsy refused to leave the house, leaving John alone, "staging" a break-in may have been difficult and WOULD have been risky. An "intruder/kidnapper" with a key eliminates that risk and gives John more time to work on other elements of his plan.
So why did he break the window? John knew police would discover JonBenet after Patsy made the call. But he also knew she would be discovered as, not a victim of a kidnapping gone wrong, but as a victim of a pedophile posing as a kidnapper. The absurdity of such a notion, which he was stuck with, required him to cast a net of suspicion on as large a pool of suspects as possible, not just suspects that had keys to the house! But he still needed time...he didn't want the police to discover the body right away. So he runs downstairs, grabs a towel, breaks out the window, closes it, picks up the pieces, plants the suitcase in front of it, and perhaps runs upstairs and opens the butler's doors. He knows he's going to be suspected anyway, so why not let that suspicion work to his advantage for as long as possible, or for at least as long as it was necessary.
The police come and he pretends to play along, wondering how an intruder could have entered, but planting just enough evidence to make "non-key-holding" intruders part of the game!
The bottom line is, if John wanted JonBenet in that suitcase, he could have made her fit one way or another. That he chose not to dismember her the night of the murder is not surprising; blood is a messy deal and takes time to clean up. Rigor Mortis doesn't set in until sometimes two to four hours after death, so he couldn't wait around for that either. In the end, I suppose, it really doesn't make much difference. The contents in the suitcase might have some meaning, but whether the murderer intended to use it to transport JB to her burial site could never been proven.
Two other reasons, however, John may have contemplated using it are:
1) If Patsy and Burke refused to leave the house while waiting waiting for the kidnappers call on the 27th, transporting JBR from the basement to the car in a concealed container would be less risky.
2) If John's meanderings in his car while searching about potentially unfamiliar territory for a spot to dump the body made him look suspicious enough to be pulled over by a cop.
Sorry just catching up on replies. And yes I agree with J that the pineapple is important.
CC wrote: Wouldn't part of an effective cover up have been that one of them gave her pineapple when they got home, removing any possible speculation about their son's involvement?
My reply: I'm surprised you even asked that question. The parents knew nothing about the pineapple. They didnt know JBR ate some and didnt know it would be found in her stomach. John and Patsy would have had 1000 things running through their head and a bowl of barely eaten pineapple (why didnt burke eat it when he prepared it himself...i wonder) just didnt seem important. Next question please because that one was too easy.
"based on undisclosed facts" hmmm, really, a ha! Said by Lin Wood. Of course he goes on to say the facts are basically twisted. Thanks for this article mention GS, you're a peach! I doubt that Wood can prove that Burke has ever been denied housing, or employment or a loan due to any connection to his sister's murder. He and his clients have been making millions in lawsuits for 20 years. When is the desire for more ever satiated?
Wood was quoting Spitz's Answer, which said Spitz relied on "undisclosed facts" in making his statements to CBS Radio, and it's those we're all anxious to see. There are other grounds for defamation beyond the three you list, not all material.
I'm curious to read the Answer in its entirety, rather than just a few quotes in People. The First Amendment stuff is boilerplate response - I hope Spitz has more, or he's toast.
According to people. Com, they have obtained copies of court documents and spitz has asked for case to be dismissed on the grounds that his comments were speculative.
Spitz said "It's the boy who did it, whether he was mentally unfit or something I don't know the why, I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
Doesn't sound the least bit speculative to me, how 'bout you? CC
The written word is libel, the spoken slander, both are defamation - no difference in the way I think you mean. There are, though, two classes of defamation, whether written or spoken, defamation per se and defamation per quod. Defamation per se is worse, as it accuses someone of a criminal act.
Cc, I just caught up on all your legal posts on the last blog. Thank you for all the valuable information. I will respond to your question way above in a minute. I have a legal question for you regarding your post just a few comments above that really has not much to do with this case but the way you worded it made me curious of legalities. You said that Werner Spitz said this .... "It's the boy who did it, whether he was mentally unfit or something I don't know the why, I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
Doesn't sound the least bit speculative to me, how 'bout you? CC. My curiousity is this, if you worded this exact word for word then couldnt Mr. Spitz just claim it is speculation that he is talking about BR since he used the word boy? I personally have found one it to be very eye opening and completely ridiculous that the Ramseys have been able to successfully libel for millions of dollars just because they were named suspects in a murder case, of which they really were suspects in. It is unfathomable to me that they can sue an ex police officer and even threatened sue governor Romer. It just seems to me to be a loophole being exploited that a good legal team could use the exact same way back to get Spitz off the hook.
No, his use of the word "boy" will be no help to Spitz. Truth is a defense to defamation, so if he could prove his claims, he'd be golden. He can't. Had he qualified his remarks in some way, or stopped short of an outright accusation as the CBS show did he might be OK, but he didn't do that either. CC
"I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
The fact is: Spitz knows NOTHING about Burke that even places him at the crime scene, much less exposes him as the killer. All he has is a set of assumptions based on nothing more than speculation.
His best bet would be to dwell on the weakness of the intruder theory and argue that the evidence points to someone living inside the house. If he insists that he can prove Burke did it, he will lose -- because he can't.
He can prove it wasn't an intruder and that Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder. He can't say Burke definitely did it, but he can say it was someone in the house and due to Burke being the only known person in the house with the victim and the fact that both parents seemed to be involved...it makes Burke a good bet. But I agree, he can't say it was definitely Burke. Just like no one can say it was definitely someone else.
My thinking was Spitz could argue that he was talking about someone else and that it is only "speculation" that he was talking about BR, since he did not use his name. Thanks for the insight again guys.
"He can prove it wasn't an intruder and that Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder."
He can't prove Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder. A bowl of pineapple containing Burke's fingerprints is not proof the two of them were together at the time of JB's murder, Zed.
So tell me, Zed, how is he going to *prove* Burke was up with JonBenet the night she was killed?
Yes, Ms D. He can't prove Burke and JonBenet were together that night simply on the basis of some fingerprints -- and he knows it. Which is why his response is directed toward the claim that he was "only" speculating. If he had real proof his defense would be based on the premise that Burke killed his sister -- as was expressed very clearly and in no uncertain terms on the CBS travesty. Letting himself be sued would be the perfect opportunity for him to air his case against Burke. But clearly that is NOT his plan.
There is no basis for a circumstantial case against Burke, nor is there even a basis for probable cause. On the other hand, there is considerable basis for probable cause regarding John. And imo (pace CC), a strong circumstantial case as well.
Doc, I don't see considerable basis for a probable cause regarding John as you just said above. Because even if Dr. Wecht would testify that he thinks the wounds show previous sexual abuse, no one and I mean no one can attribute them to John. Just what witnesses would be called to testify that John was abusing JonBenet? A case against John would fall apart before it even made it to trial.
Don't worry Zed, they cannot prove that John Ramsey molested his daughter either. Or that he was with JB when she ate the pineapple, or that he hit her over the head. What CAN be substantiated is that he was ruled out as having written the note.
If the clear signs of prior abuse could be positively attributed to John, we wouldn't be here today and John would be in jail. I'm talking about probable cause and circumstantial evidence, not proof based on hard evidence (which one rarely sees in any court trial).
The case for probable cause has been made all over this blog, in post after post and discussion after discussion, so I don't see a need to go over it again. Just review what you've already seen and you'll find it. As for a circumstantial case, CC is a lawyer and I am not, and she doesn't see a case, so maybe it would be wise of me to defer to her judgement. On the other hand, if we have any hope of coming to a resolution on this case, I think a circumstantial case against John is our best and probably only hope. The evidence is there (again, review what's been presented all over this blog), but putting John on trial would certainly involve some risk -- because jurors are as likely to disagree on this case as much as those commenting all over the Internet, including here.
Thinking about Federal court as a possibly better venue. The Feds have deeper pockets, stronger stomachs and longer memories - though overcoming their initial resistance is tough. CC
No question about it, Spitz is controversial. He has had a very long career testifying and consulting on high profile cases, Mary Jo Kopechne, the Warren Commission/JFK, committees on death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Casey Anthony. In the latter he believed and testified that the tape was placed on the body after her death and not as a murder weapon. His reasons for stating so was to hold the jaw bone in place for purposes of moving it. He also criticized the medical examiner for conducting a "shoddy autopsy" by failing to cut the skull open to look inside. Had she done so he said, she could have analyzed the sediment inside the skull and determined what position the child died versus how the body was found. I don't see the the ME in that case suing Spitz for calling her a "shoddy" ME. But no question about it, if you want an opinion outside the box, call Dr. Spitz. I'm beginning to think, however, that the way John Ramsey earns his living now is by suing.
Nope, no evidence against Burke at all, Doc. Based on Hunter's statement in 1998 that he wasn't a suspect and the GJ'S findings that someone committed murder in the first, which patently excludes him, I'd say there's exculpatory evidence out there that the public has not seen, but may if this case gets to trial.
I'm getting closer to a prosecuteable case Doc - provided we can use my embellishments as to motive and premeditation, and possibly John's attempts to cast his wife, son and everyone else on the planet in a bad light as well. You should actually embrace this latter, as it resolves the Patsy handwriting conundrum, a subject you hold near and dear. CC
I think what might be happening in here is there is a delay in having a blog posted. It's not so much that a blog doesn't appear, it's that it shows up a day late. And I also think there are some people in here who are in a completely different time zone so what shows up on my end of things as 2 a.m. I don't even see until much later. So if someone says you haven't answered my question, it's more likely the case I haven't seen the question.
So tell me, Zed, how is he going to *prove* Burke was up with JonBenet the night she was killed?
My reply:
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence for this NOT to be true.
1. Burke admitted to sneaking downstairs 2. Neither parent made the pineapple. This is a fact from their own mouth. 3. It was an oversized spoon which indicates a child 4. It was with milk the way Burke liked it 5. It had Burkes fingerprints on it 6. Burkes reaction to pineapple photo 7. Pineapple was hardly eaten which indicates a child 8. And JBRs pillow was next to the pineapple 8. And JBR had pineapple in her system.
I mean, come on, no one on this blog can honestly say that Burke wasnt up that night eating pineapple. If you can, your
Zed: the only crime scene photos I've seen of the pineapple on the table do not show a pillow, but do show a pillow at the foot of her unmade bed. Where can I find the pic to which you're referring? CC
Zed - it's getting harder and harder to debate logic on here. Forgetting EVERYTHING else about the case, you are 100% right that sooooo much circumstantial evidence points to Burke eating from that bowl of pineapple. Ms D deflects all day long from answering your list of circumstantial evidence, but ultimately who cares of people want to deny the obvious. At times it feels like we are debating not just against John Ramsey, but against John Ramsey this mythical being who is a mastermind in all aspects of life and criminal activity.
The crime scene photos contradict that, but "the CBS special said [so]", and that's good enough for you? The child's pillow is on the end of her bed in those selfsame photos.
CC - it is what it is. Maybe you think like a lawyer and that's ok. My points regarding the pineapple bowl have been gone over, but it is a total failure of logic to say that isn't Burke's bowl of pineapple. I don't think the pineapple bowl single handedly makes Burke the killer, but it is truly one of the few things I am confident about this case
I was looking over the crime evidence photos on a candyrose and Patsy did identify the pillow at the foot of JonBenet's bed. It's large Zed, with a cartoon figure on the pillowcase. Photo #2. But it's strange it was at the foot of her bed. When Patsy changed her into her white pajama bottoms she would have noticed if the pillow was under her head or at the foot of the bed. That suggests to me that she did indeed get up, possibly carried her pillow somewhere and/or came back to bed with it and put it at the foot of her bed. For all we know she carried it into Burke's room, saw he wasn't in bed, then returned it to her own bed and went on downstairs. Also when questioned by Haney and shown more photographs Patsy remarks that in photo #19 (photo not published) it looked like someone "went potty" and didn't flush - in JB's bathroom. I suspected that she got up and used the bathroom that night and put on the oversized panties herself. Before heading downstairs of course. So back to the pillow - if she saw Burke wasn't in his room then she indeed was downstairs when he was.
I've seen the photos with the pillow on the breakfast table. I think topix and ffj and websleuths even have threads on the kitchen pillow. Also, Patsy was asked about the basement toilet, as that was left unflushed. Irrc she tried to blame that on one of Burke's friends. I find it interesting that the children's pediatrician said he would burn their medical records before ever allowing them to be released to LE. What would be so disturbing that he felt had no bearing on it possibly helping solve the crime? Just a what if - both children had a sexually transmitted disease or infection? As far as I know John only retained counsel for his adult children and his ex-wife. I've never read anything that he got attorneys for anyone in Patsy's family.
hi diamondlil. I have seen discussions about the pillow being in the kitchen but no pictures of it. The pillow is at the foot of her bed, however. Look on crime photos a candyrose. And Patsy identifies it as being at the foot of her bed. The toilet she is being questioned about is JB's. That's on the same page, interview regarding pictures Haney-Patsy. But either way, it is out of place being at the foot of the bed. Patsy wouldn't have put her to bed head-on-mattress instead of head on pillow. I think JB had vaginal infections due to not only the bedwetting but soiling herself frequently. Fleet even cleaned her up and sent her home with a pair of Daphne's panties on.
CC, is it possible or legal for John Ramsey to sue any of us, who are only bloggers ? It would seem that in the legal sense we are doing the pretty much the same thing as a tabloid ?
Theoretically, yes he can, but it's doubtful he'd have much success. Cyber law is still evolving, but so far the courts have elected to preserve the rights of individuals under the First Amendment to post their opinions anonymously online. CC
CC's question from way upstream: Why didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
I can only guess that the Ramseys or their lawyers didn't realise the significance of the pineapple at first. Maybe they read the autopsy report and just assumed it was something JBR had at the Whites. The investigators did not mention the pineapple in the Ramseys' 1997 interviews, and I think it is conceivable that it just did not raise a red flag for the Rs until it was too late.
The Rs locked themselves into a story where JBR fell asleep in the car and she was carried straight to bed. The story must have been too important or too difficult to retract.
So with a little creative thinking, the "Secret Santa" intruder uses the traditional paedophile MO with a modern twist and is now serving up healthy fruit snacks. Luring her with lollies would be sooo 1980s.
You make a good point, Zach. You're easy to find, and he might be able to subpoena Doc to get internet addresses and track the rest of us - it's been done; but he'd look like a damned fool suing a bunch of Everymen who make no claim to be experts in anything and have no influence over anyone. CC
For one thing, I am not in possession of anyone's internet address or real identity. That's not how Blogpost operates. For another, there are many thousands of people posting all sorts of theories and accusations on the Internet, and for the most part such postings are protected by freedom of speech.
I think the only exception is when someone repeatedly harasses and/or threatens someone else, which has never been the case here.
Linda Arndt did send a fax of questions to one of the lawyers prior to the funeral which included, "What had JBR eaten prior to bed?" This was after the autopsy and was reported (in PMPT) as tipping off the Ramsay's about food / stomach contents.
If JR and PR were colluding / covering for Burke, then you would expect that the feeding of pineapple would have been mentioned. But whichever parent (my money is on John) fed her a piece of pineapple or knew she had eaten pineapple told this to the other, then they tip their hat to the other.
So the importance of the pineapple was established very early.
Thanks Sisu. It is certainly interesting that the Ramseys had the heads-up about the pineapple and STILL didn't weave it into their story.
"But whichever parent (my money is on John) fed her a piece of pineapple or knew she had eaten pineapple told this to the other, then they tip their hat to the other."
If the pineapple was being fed to JBR by JR, isn't the bowl a glaring piece of evidence that he would think to get rid of some time during the night? Answering my own question, I suppose it is possible that he had so many things to think of that he simply forgot.
"If JR and PR were colluding / covering for Burke, then you would expect that the feeding of pineapple would have been mentioned."
Well, I think that is assuming that they also knew early on that the pineapple had some connection to Burke. Even though you can see in their 1998 interviews that the Rs had been prepped for the pineapple question, they seemed unprepared for its connection to BR.
I could be wrong, but from their responses it seems like they didn't seem to know about the fingerprints. PR seems to unwittingly walk right into trouble by asking questions about fingerprint analysis of the bowl, and then she has to furiously backpedal.
In the 1998 interrogation of JR by Smit and Kane regarding the pineapple he gives his thoughts on how she would have consumed the pineapple that night and who he thought would have given it to her. He also said there was canned pineapple in the pantry. You can read that interview on acandyrose. Both parents in separate interviews go on and on about the serving spoon being too big, wouldn't have used it, wouldn't have served the pineapple to one of the kids with it, but to me they both seem genuinely baffled about how it came to be there in the kitchen. John does say that Patsy liked sweet tea and that Burke liked it as well but he said it isn't made with a single teabag in one glass. You make it in quantity. Well, for those that are interested you can read it if you haven't before.
Maybe this is a silly question, but if we are going to go with the six experts who testified that there was evidence of possible prior sexual abuse, why is Burke exempt from being a possible abuser? If anything, to me it seems more likely that a young boy nearing puberty would want to experiment or be curious - esp with digital penetration- which seems to me as a more juvenile way to abuse someone. Also Burke and JBR sometimes slept in the same room and clearly JR was gone a lot on business.
Could it not be possible that Burke was sexually molesting her and that night she protested to his touching and he hit her over the head? Perhaps the lag in time btwn the head blow and the strangulation was Bc after he knocked her out, he was able to continue having his jollies without protest? Maybe he took advantage of the fact that she was out cold to experiment with things he hadn't been able to before, like a paint brush. Perhaps after when he realized she wasn't waking and he had prodded her w the train tracks, that's when he went upstairs to get dads help? Dad started to cover up w the ransom protect his son. Maybe he didn't even know what Burke had done to her or maybe the situation became more dire once Burke confessed.
Anon at 9:20 pm. Imo he should not be excluded from that. Too many grown folks then and now either cannot conceive or are in denial that young children can explore, experiment or molest. Both children were around many people, at other people's homes, from church to school to playmates over, to various babysitters, both hired as well as grandparents. But some only focus on the father and exclude all others. I've said it before, JonBenet could have have different offenders of varying ages at different times of her life. Same with her brother, if there was anything revealed by him to others over the years.
If you're so willing to believe JB's brother was capable of sexually abusing and subsequently killing her - why do you fight so hard against John being capable of doing the same? Especially when more often than not, the adult male of the house is the guilty party in crimes such as these. Why is it easier for you to accept that Burke committed the murder (or the first part of it, at least) with his parents writing the ransom note, when the simpler explanation is the one who committed the crime is the one who composed the note, as he was looking to protect HIMSELF? Why is this scenario so far out of the realms of possibility for some here?
We know Burke didn't write the ransom note. We know it's highly unlikely Burke would even know what a garrote was, let alone how to make and use one. We know John and Patsy had no issue with allowing Burke to go to the White's that morning, which suggests they weren't worried about him "spilling the beans". We know Burke was never seriously considered as a suspect, though John was suspect number one at the start of the investigation. We know that Patsy adored JonBenet and would probably do anything in her power to save her, so it makes no sense that she would choose to spare Burke instead by "finishing off" the job he started, particularly in such a brutal manner, and considering the fact that, at nine years old, he couldn't have been charged with murder anyway.
All of these questions are adequately answered if you look at John - and John alone - as being the one who committed the crime. It's clear cut, there are no longer any loose ends. This is definitely where the oft overused term on this blog, "Occam's Razor" *does* apply.
For one thing, you are choosing to believe that both Burke and Patsy saw nothing, heard nothing and then went on to lie for John in the coming years. IF molestation was a possible finding on the numerous pediatrician visits, then Patsy turned a blind eye to John's behavior. Clearly she would have suspected this after 27 visits. Now if Burke was the one experimenting, then it kind of makes it easier to believe that Patsy would understand it more. You act like John did it, John covered it up, and NOBODY close to him suspected it. Patsy lied to police and I know its easier to claim she was gaslighted because that goes with your theory. But, just maybe the more LOGICAL answer is that she went along with the lies because she was also involved. It gets tiring hearing "the more simpler explanation is that John did it" because it is absolutely NOT simpler.
But it is J, not least because of the reasons I mentioned above.
LE concede that the person who wrote the note is the killer: we know Burke didn't write the note.
The person who called 911 to report a kidnapping clearly didn't know there was a dead body in the house - a killer removes the body *prior* to inviting the police over.
These two facts alone exclude all but John as far as I'm concerned. If Patsy didn't make the call, I might concede there was a chance Patsy had a hand in the cover up. As it stands, I just cannot accept the person who wrote that note planned on calling the police to the house to discover the body all along - the words in the RN tell me that was the last thing they wanted.
"The person who called 911 to report a kidnapping clearly didn't know there was a dead body in the house - a killer removes the body *prior* to inviting the police over."
This is pure opinion and speculation. I have and will always argue that IF John was the sole killer than the 911 call never happens. 911 call to the police means a for sure arrest of John Ramsey, therefore the call just isn't allowed to be made. Even forcible action on Patsy could have been justified under the disguise of following the note's instructions. The RN essentially did what it was supposed to which is draw the attention AWAY from the Ramsey house. Efforts were focused much more on this being a kidnapping more than an inside job. The whole thing seems way more like a horrible accident than some premeditated plan by John on a night where time would have always been limited due to the flight the next morning. Chaos and confusion were created by the Ramsey's the second the the friends were called. The crime scene was tampered with from the outset and that just may have been their plan. We will probably always go in circles Ms D, because I will NEVER ever believe that John was the sole killer. For me it makes zero sense and belief needs to be suspended to think neither Patsy or Burke saw, heard or said anything!
"But, just maybe the more LOGICAL answer is that she went along with the lies because she was also involved."
If she'd been involved, and was lying, there's no way she'd have included Linda in her lie. And if she were telling the truth, then there'd be no reason for Linda to lie. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to conclude that her story must have been based on an implanted memory that she then elaborated.
Sure why not include Linda? Surely Linda would be asked, so why not include Linda if she thought she could manipulate her?
Doc - John was such a brilliant manipulator that he just randomly started pointing fingers at friends as did Patsy I believe. He really wasn't even that good of a manipulator considering the moron tried to book a flight 45 minutes after the body being found. I won't take the leap with you that JR could have manipulated everybody he would have had to in order to pull this off.
The more likely scenario is the Ramsey's were all on the same page and the same team.
CC - I cant find the link to the crime scene video with JB's pillow on the counter (just a foot from the maglite). But it was definitely there and has been confirmed.
This guy on topix saved it as his profile picture so you can view it here:
Thanks for going to so much trouble, Zed. I see a white pillow on what looks like a white kitchen table or counter. Don't see the bowl of pineapple which, iirc, was photographed on a more formal, dark wooden table. Where, and by whom, was it claimed to be JBR'S? CC
"Then we showed him photos of the crime scene. “Wait,” Lee said. “The pillow in the kitchen in this picture doesn’t show up in that one. Why?” His eyebrows rose in wonder when he learned how things had been moved and how many people had trampled through the place before the photographers took their pictures. What he was viewing was not necessarily how things looked on the day of the murder."
Thomas, Steve; Davis, Donald A.. JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (p. 146). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.
Being an IDI, Inquisitive, why do you feel John Ramsey has never shown any interest in his daughter's killer being brought to justice? That doesn't raise any flags for you? If the killer was anyone you suspect (The Hoffman-Pughs, Bill McReynolds), what possible reason could he have for wanting to protect them?
Paula Woodword, author of "We Have Your Daughter" is having a AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit on Dec 17th at 4pm. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/5gjd93/im_pleased_to_announce_an_ama_with_paula_woodward/
That video I posted above is the original crime scene video. The pillow was there. Its easy to get confused with books and quotes saying it wasnt there later on...but the pillow was there. This is a fact.
It is also JBs...again this is a fact. Ill try and find some info on this for you.
CC - her pillow and also the Maglite were on the kitchen COUNTER. The pineapple was on the kitchen TABLE. That is why you cant see both in the photo. They are only a very short distance from each other. The counter is the most logical place a girl would place her pillow before joining Burke at the table for some pineapple.
And to Inquisitive, I have also thought about that maglite on the countertop next to the pillow. If it is the object used for the head blow, which I believe it was...I agree it makes no sense for John or Patsy to leave it there. But if Burke used it on JB, it would be possible the parents didn't know that it was used (remember we didnt even know there was a head blow until the autopsy). But John definitely used it that night (another fact) and so a quick wipedown off the maglite was sufficient (in the parents mind).
Also, does anyone know if the batteries in the maglite were tested to see how "fresh/new" they were? I believe the batteries were also wiped down, which to me indicates that fresh batteries may have been put in that night.
I agree, INQ. Without Johns power, influence and money.. Patsy probably would have been tried.. After all, the cops did convince the Grand Jury to vote for prosecution.. despite the fact that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that a Ramsey did anything, to anyone, ever. None,
CC You say that as if no innocent person is in prison.. and we know better than that. I posted the link about the woman who was blamed, for 25 years, for the murder of her own son.. Imagine what that did to her life. Then, after so many years.. Ooops! They were wrong; a pack of dogs mauled him to death..
Here is a question for those that believe Patsy was innocent. This is ONE of the many things that go against Patsy.
ReplyDeleteWhen Patsy rang 911 she claimed that she had only scanned the RN quickly. She read that her daughter was kidnapped and then made the call. She also claimed that during the call John was reading the RN and at no point did John communicate with Patsy during this call.
Despite Patsy only scanning the note, not having the note on her and being extremely frazzled, she was still able to let the operator know that it said "SBTC Victory". She got the acronym perfect with all letters in the correct order. Despite her only scanning the note and being in the state of mind that she was.
How did she do that? Oh I know...because she wrote the RN!!!
Imagine this...I hand Doc, Ms D and CC a 4 page letter. At the end of the letter is an acronym composing of 4 random letters. Lets say YQKD.
DeleteYou briefly scan the 4 page letter...and yes that may or may not include scanning the acronym at the end.
You then have to repeat it back a few minutes later. Extremely difficult. Especially in the state of mind Patsy was in.
In fact I'm on my phone write now and cant even remember the 4 letters I wrote. ill need to scroll up and look. I know it had a Y and maybe a Q. Then I cant remember. YQDC? Just scrolled up. Nope I was wrong and that was me writing that a few seconds ago.
Patsy knew what it was for one good reason. Patsy was involved. That makes the JDI theory even weaker than it already is.
Zed, c'mon. You don't know what really happened, second by second. Patsy did what I would do, look to see who signed it. I'm sorry, but I can remember S.B.T.C Victory! Whether she was looking over John's shoulder, or remembered the last thing she read, she remembered it. The phone was hung up abruptly, so perhaps John hit the receiver. You just don't know, and your suppositions about her memory abilities mean nothing.
DeleteInvestigator:
DeleteDid Patsy tell you she wrote the ransom note?
Zed:
No, but I know she did.
Investigator:
How?
Zed:
Because she was frazzled while talking to the 911 operator yet still managed to remembered the acronym, SBTC Victory. She said she didn't have the ransom note in her hand because John was reading it. And when it was in her hands, she had only scanned it.
Investigator:
Did she say whether or not John was helping her on what to say to the operator?
Zed:
Yes. She said John was quiet the whole time he was reading the note.
Investigator:
What parts did she say she scanned?
Zed:
She didn't say....but she did say she called 911 as soon as she read that her daughter had been kidnapped.
Investigator:
By whom?
Zed:
By SBTC victory.
Investigator:
So you're saying, that if Patsy had not written the note, it would have been impossible for her, in her state of mind, to remember what was perhaps the last thing she scanned before calling the police?
Zed:
Exactly.
Investigator:
But because she did remember who wrote it, she must have written it herself.
Patsy:
Yes.
Investigator:
But how does that rule John out as the writer of the note?
Zed:
errrrr.........
This is getting more and more tiresome. You know very well what the answer is because we've been over it many times. First of all, we have no reason to believe John was right there with her. According to her version of what happened, she told John she was calling the police and she ran downstairs to make the call while John went to check on Burke. Those are her very words, as recorded in the A&E doc. She most likely had the note with her when she called. And she could easily have glanced at the last page when asked who the note was from.
DeleteEven if John WAS with her, he could have handed her the note while she spoke with the 911 operator. This is the sort of thing we see time and again in this case -- perfectly innocent things that Patsy did or said that have been perceived as suspicious by those who already suspect her -- confirmation bias. How many times must I repeat it? Is this the best you can do?
There is a big list of items, most of which I have already mentioned in previous blogs. This is just one I randomly picked. I have to laugh how you constantly come up with an excuse time and time again for Patsy. Its surreal :)
DeleteI have to laugh at how you constantly distort innocuous incidents Patsy was involved in, time and time again in order to lend credence to your very tenuous reasoning as to why Patsy *must be* guilty. It's surreal.
DeleteZed, totally agree with you on this. It felt very scripted and WHY wouldn't Patsy have the note in her hand if shes dialing 911 to reference things? Beyond suspicious
ReplyDeleteWhat's even more troubling to me is the call to the friends within 8 MINUTES of the 911 call. It would be understandable if the friends answered the phone to "JBR IS MISSING....SOMEBODY TOOK HER! Do you know what SBTC means?"
That didn't happen according to Fleet. If Patsy isn't involved and we are to believe her frantic state of mind on the 911 call, how does she pull herself together within 8 minutes to call their friends? THE ONLY explanation for the friends being there was to create confusion and chaos to the scene.
-J
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"THE ONLY explanation for the friends being there was to create confusion and chaos to the scene."
DeleteWrong. There's another explanation. One that makes a lot more sense when one considers the reason why grieving people usually surround themselves with friends and family: Patsy was in need of emotional support. Especially as she knew she wouldn't receive any from her stoic, remote, husband.
Why is this such a difficult concept for PDIs/BDIs to swallow?
There is not one, single, reason your explanation holds any more weight than the one I offered. Why muddy the waters by saying yours is "the ONLY explanation", when that is demonstrably false?
"Wrong. There's another explanation. One that makes a lot more sense when one considers the reason why grieving people usually surround themselves with friends and family"
DeleteMs D - Do you know when people normally do what you just wrote? AT A FUNERAL or VISITATION! Is it because Patsy already knew she was dead?
-J
Please cite your sources, J, because as far as I know, people don't only invite their friends over for emotional support when they're having a funeral.
DeleteIf my child was kidnapped, you can bet I'd need my friends and family around me. That you believe this somehow points towards Patsy's guilt is a perfect example of confirmation bias.
In the transcript of the 911 call on acandyrose Patsy says nothing about John reading the RN as she is speaking.
ReplyDeleteI always assumed she had it in hand.
CC
In the transcript of the 911 call on acandyrose Patsy says nothing about John reading the RN as she is speaking.
ReplyDeleteI always assumed she had it in hand.
CC
Nor, according to the,transcript, did she say she had just scanned the note. Looks like that makes your entire post about the 911 call and Patsy's involvement "even weaker", Zed.
ReplyDeleteCC
I agree with Zed's assessment. It's one of the things that occurred to me as well, because even after reading the note several times I had trouble remembering the order of letters at the end, and yet PR seems to reel them off in her call. To my mind, she was either reading them or they had some meaning for her and so were easy to remember, or she had a photographic memory.
ReplyDeleteKolar makes the same point in his book. Kolar says that JR was about 4 or 5 feet away from PR, hunched over the letter and facing south. So Kolar says that PR would have had to have read the note upside down through her husband while she was on the phone.
PR says that after the first paragraph she did not read the letter line by line and was just glancing at it.
PR in her 1997 interview:
PR: He, I remember him, while I was calling 911, he was hunched over the note and had it laid out there on the floor cause there was a light. It was still kind of darkish and there was a light, hallway light on . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .he was, you know, reading it there.
PR in her 1998 interview:
PATSY RAMSEY: I got down to the floor here and turned around and looked at it.
TOM HANEY: Now --
TRIP DeMUTH: Tom, if that's not clear, because the camera can't see it, it's laid out pages 1, 2 and 3 left to right as you were looking from the floor towards the stairs, correct?
PATSY RAMSEY: Correct.
TOM HANEY: And you said that you just read that first paragraph?
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
TOM HANEY: And that's when you stopped?
PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
TOM HANEY: Had you since or did you that day read the rest of the note?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I read -- I came back down and John had it, you know, on the floor, and what not, and I was glancing at it, and somewhere I thought in there, because I didn't read it line by line, I looked over to see who it was from, and I didn't know who that was. And somewhere I caught in there where it said if you call some -- don't call the police or -- wherever it said that. Oh, here, police, FBI, et cetera, your daughter being held. And I read that and I mean, my blood just went cold. You know, I couldn't --
TOM HANEY: That was some time later?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, it was kind of all during, I mean after John came down and he had the note and I was "God, what are we going to do, what are we going to do?" And he said, "call the police, call 911" and I was looking around reading but it said don't do that. You know, what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them, I mean all this was like in minutes.
On another topic: J commented earlier about PR mentioning John being in his underwear and how that seemed odd. I think PR and JR had agreed that this would be part of their story. If you compare their accounts of that morning, it's all a bit of a shemozzle, but this is one part that seems to match up in both of their interviews...until you read closely. When questioned further by the investigators about what "underwear" consists of, PR says JR was dressed in briefs only, no shirt. JR said he had an underwear shirt on. The devil is in the detail.
AMD
The statements on what John was wearing, which I have never read about before, seem more believable due to the fact that they don't exactly match. It was a stressful event and folks never recall things exactly the same...that is, unless they collaborated on their story. Let's assume they did collaborate. Why would they even think "hey, let's agree on what each of us was wearing." Does anyone really think, in the midst of covering up something that involved such heinous acts on their child, that they were focused on being able to describe what each other was wearing?
DeleteThis discussion is getting so ridiculous. Let's go back to reasoning. Why would Pasty call 911 if she knew there was staging that needed to be completed?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI *knew* I should have put a disclaimer on my underwear comment. ;-) Yes, I agree that it is possibly a minor detail that was easily forgotten. But I challenge anyone to read even just the first accounts of that morning (the Ramseys' interviews from 1997 and 1998) and try to make sense of what they say concerning the events before the police arrived. There are STACKS of problems.
DeleteAnd yes, I think there was a definite purpose to saying that JR was in his underwear. I agree with J's comment that they wanted to make it clear that they had just got up and found the note. I think they realised at some point that BOTH of them greeting the police all neatly dressed and groomed looked a little suspicious, especially when PR had been gasping into the phone only minutes before that "we just got up".
AMD
Exaclty AMD. It always points to BOTH of them. Time and time again.
DeleteKolar is amazing. Here are two people he strongly suspects of staging a phony kidnapping, and yet he's happy to accept their version of what happened as gospel truth. You folks are doing the same thing. Why buy ANY of it?
DeleteDoc, I don't think Kolar accepts their version. Sorry, re-reading my comment I realise that I didn't make that clear when I quoted him. In his book, it's obvious he thinks it's impossible that PR read the note upside down and through her husband from four to five feet away. He actually says, "I wasn't buying the explanation". I should have added that.
DeleteI don't buy any of it either.
AMD
Yes, I know he's skeptical about certain things they reported. But on the other hand he is happy to accept other things when they suit his purpose.
Delete"You know, what if they heard, it said we got to call, call them, I mean all this was like in minutes." Patsy
ReplyDeleteInvestigator (thinking to himself):
But Patsy...the note said to wait for their call, not for you to call them.
This looks like a transcription error because taken literally it makes no sense. She probably said "it said not to call them."
DeletePatsy either has a photographic memory or was holding the note. I doubt very much she was holding the note based on the above post from AMD. If she was, well why lie about it? I'm sorry for those on this blog who can't face the truth, but that was one example of Patsy doing something which just doesn't make sense. Patsy wrote that letter or was with John when he wrote it.
ReplyDelete"How did she do that? Oh I know...because she wrote the RN!!!" ---Zed
Delete"Patsy wrote that letter or was with John when he wrote it."
---Zed (six hours later)
My reasoning regarding what happened prior to the 911 call is laid out in some detail in one of my earliest posts: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html
DeleteThis has been discussed and debated many times on this blog and I see no reason to get into it all over again. Feel free to either accept or reject my take on this. All views are acceptable here.
Anonymous...i strongly feel Patsy wrote it. Or it was possible she was with John when he wrote it. I never changed my mind 6 hours later.
DeleteThanks Doc. I will reject this one :)
DeleteThanks for the link, Doc. I shall go read it! I can understand you don't want to rehash your arguments over and over. I appreciate your thoughtful blog and the opportunity to discuss!
DeleteAMD
"Anonymous...i strongly feel Patsy wrote it. Or it was possible she was with John when he wrote it. I never changed my mind 6 hours later."
DeleteThat's a lie.
Feel free to reject it, Zed. But then I'd expect you to account for:
DeleteThe contradiction between Patsy's version, as presented on the A&E doc, and their "official" version, as presented in their book and elsewhere.
Patsy deciding to undermine her own efforts by calling 911 if she were involved with the staging of a kidnapping.
And if you can't account for the above, then fine, feel free to repeat over and over your preferred conclusion. But don't expect me to be impressed.
This case must be understood in its entirety, through logical analysis in depth, not the making of superficial assumptions about this that or the other detail with no regard for the overall logic of the case as a whole. If you're not willing to look beneath the surface then you'll get no farther than all the others who've unsuccessfully tried to crack this case.
I am not going to get into this:
DeletePatsy deciding to undermine her own efforts by calling 911 if she were involved with the staging of a kidnapping.
It has been discussed 1000 times before. Many people think the 911 call was always going to happen...I intend to agree. It didn't undermine anything.
And I've asked these questions of you several times before Zed (or J, AMD, KS, any PDI or BDIer), but get no answers. If John and Patsy were in on it together, why:
Delete. . . wasn't the RN simply block printed in the time-honored tradition of ransom notes everywhere?
. . .didn't John and Patsy take the four months between the murder and their first LE interview to rehearse and align their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911?
. . .didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
CC
That last post of yours puzzles me, CC. I don't see the connection between block printing and the question of who wrote the note. My guess is that John didn't use block printing out of fear that examples of his previous use of block printing might be found by the authorities. But that could be applied to Patsy as well, so I don't get your point.
DeleteAnd Patsy and John DID rehearse and align their stories in those four months. If they were in it together, they wouldn't have needed four months, they could have "fully cooperated" with the police from day one. John needed those four months to persuade (or, if you prefer, gaslight) Patsy into aligning her story with his.
You, who have published countless threads on handwriting analysis, do not get the advantage of block printing? The one thing putative "experts" agree on is that it's difficult, if not impossible, to attribute to anyone. Unlike you, it's my position that John quite deliberately mimicked his wife's handwriting when he wrote the RN. Had they collaborated, block printing was the obvious choice.
DeleteWhat? They rehearsed and aligned their stories? Then why did Patsy say she'd cleaned up the glass with an assist from LHP? Had John coached her, he never would have permitted her to involve a third party in an obvious lie. Had John coached her, their stories about the decision to call 911 would have been in synch from day one, not ever-changing as Patsy's was.
I do not prefer gaslighting, finding it unnecessarily ornate. John's influence over his wife was well-documented and enhanced by anti-anxiety drugs and possibly chemo brain.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you don't understand.
CC
Well, first of all, CC, it's not necessary that we agree on all aspects of this case. I'm pleased to see that we agree on the essentials and maybe that's enough.
DeleteHowever: I really don't see why John would have wanted to implicate Patsy when it seems so obvious that he was staging an intruder breakin. You're saying he wanted the authorities to suspect BOTH Patsy AND an intruder? Why would he want to do that?
Also, I've been at pains to demonstrate that the writing in the note is actually very different from Patsy's style. John himself has made the same point, noting that Patsy's writing is very neat, clean and consistent, while the writing on the note is messy and inconsistent. While it seems clear that the little "hats" on the letter a's were tacked on artificially, it seems to me this was done simply to point away from John rather than toward Patsy. He'd have needed to do a lot more to make it look like Patsy's hand, and in fact it looks nothing like her hand.
This is one of the great myths of this case, that the note looks like Patsy wrote it. Darnay's "experts" did everything they could to promote that myth, but as I believe I've demonstrated, their methods are highly questionable, to say the least.
As far as their aligning their stories is concerned, I fail to understand your reasoning. If their stories were not aligned then there would have been no reason for Patsy to support John's story about breaking the window earlier. And if gaslighting had not been a part of that "alignment" then it's impossible to understand why Patsy would have included Linda in her story. We've been over that before and I assumed you agreed with my take on this.
If Patsy had been coached by John to simply lie, then she would not have included Linda in her story. And if both were telling the truth, then how does that gibe with Linda's testimony denying any knowledge of any broken glass? Not to mention all the other obvious reasons to doubt John's story. While gaslighting might seem like a stretch, I can think of no other alternative that would explain why Patsy would have included Linda. While you can convince someone to lie, you cannot control the details of a false memory once it's implanted in someone's mind. To Patsy, it would have seemed only logical to include Linda in her cleanup story, and so, in her imagination, Linda appeared.
As I've said before, the only way to make sense of this case is to probe beneath the surface. If we insist on taking everything literally we get nowhere.
It will have to be enough, as I am, and will remain, convinced that John premeditated the crime and was happy to put "little hats on the letter a's" to suggest his wife, that he went to pains to point to AG employees in the RN just as he later tried to throw the Whites to the wolves - an intruder, a wife a friend, anybody but me, that's his rationale. I think that since the GJ findings were released he has been desperate to divert attention from himself, going as far as encouraging his son to appear on Dr Phil, despite knowing what a poor impression the boy would make.
DeleteI believe we only disagree seriously on the degree of John's guile, and I assure you I take little at face value when it comes to him.
CC
Doc:
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the suitcase, I think it means something because John either commented to Fleet or to police that morning that he thought it looked out of place. Was he not ever so gently suggesting the presence of an "intruder" knowing full well it would eventually be his only defense?
Also, on what other basis could the media have been floating rumors about John Andrews that led to Fleet being told by John's lawyers to "back off"?
Mike G.
Mike G.
I have been holding this back, but after seeing similar responses over and over I just need to say this.
ReplyDeleteIt is getting "tiresome" as Doc would say to have posts met, not just by me, with responses specifically from Ms D and Doc of "we have gone over this already" or "this is getting tiresome" to go over this again. Let's make this VERY clear. Just because Doc started this site and his theory is that John did it, does NOT mean that anybody who opposes that theory needs to prove their case against JDI. It also doesn't mean John did do it (he didn't, Burke did :-) CC, Doc, Ms D you are completely entitled to you theory, just as Inq, CH, Zed, Zach, etc are as well.
Just because a question has been answered it before doesn't make it FACT. There is very little facts in this case and despite what some might think, Doc's theory is simply an opinion, just as mine is.
I know I am guilty of telling people off and that's not OK. Tempers get heated on here, but I just am begging that we cut it with the "this is getting old" type responses because its condescending BS. Nobody on here is an expert, nobody on here (we think) was a detective on this case. Nobody is a Ramsey (except maybe for Leigh :-)
I think Patsy and John inviting friends over 8 minutes after calling 911 is pure lunacy. It for sure is added to my "Patsy was involved" pile and it's OK if you don't agree. Make your point without talking down.
Group hug?
-J
No thanks. But you and your fellow travelers who believe BDI can answer the questions I put to Zed above, please.
DeleteCC
. . wasn't the RN simply block printed in the time-honored tradition of ransom notes everywhere?
ReplyDelete---I have no clue what this means
. . .didn't John and Patsy take the four months between the murder and their first LE interview to rehearse and align their stories about the broken window and whose idea it was to call 911?
--Couldn't their rehearsing show guilt of Patsy?
. . .didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
-----The pineapple bowl was Burke's. I will never believe otherwise
Any other questons CC? First one made no sense to me
-J
Yes.
DeleteWhy risk disguising one's own writing? Why not simply block print in all caps as we were taught to do in first grade?
You believe that not rehearsing shows "guilt of Patsy" anyway because you insist she lied and lied - surely if they were in it together their answers would have been discussed and been the same, or at least similar? You seem to now be suggesting that would also be proof to you that she lied and lied.
You maintain the parents together covered for Burke. Wouldn't part of an effective cover up have been that one of them gave her pineapple when they got home, removing any possible speculation about their son's involvement?
CC
Your point regarding the block lettering is a good point, but if JDI alone, why wouldn't he do block lettering? This doesn't prove anything
DeletePeople commit crimes ALL the time together and can't keep stories straight. Patsy has lied so many times it's hard to know the truth about anything.
Your point on the pineapple hits right at the heart of why I know BDI! Neither John nor Patsy would have known the pineapple had any importance whatsoever if they stumbled upon her dead after Burke hit her. If they knew she had eaten a piece before dying, then surely they would have removed the bowl or at least had a story ready for it. It's why Burke was awkward answering the question in the first place.....he KNEW that she ate a piece from HIS bowl shortly before dying. If John or Patsy did give her the pineapple than there would have been a better story for it.
-J
"Why risk disguising one's own writing? Why not simply block print in all caps as we were taught to do in first grade?"
DeleteYou make a valid point. But it could apply to anyone -- John -- or Patsy -- or even an intruder -- no? The only explanation you can come up with is that John wanted to make it look like Patsy wrote it. But I'm sorry -- as I've already pointed out: that makes little sense. John had no reason to frame Patsy and if you want to insist he did, then that implies a totally different theory of the case from what anyone has ever suggested.
So: why would John not have simply block printed the note? THAT is an excellent question.
The best response I can come up with is that block lettering CAN in fact be identified. It may be harder to do, but still possible. Maybe even easier, since there are fewer opportunities for disguising your hand when you block letter. And many opportunities when you write things out.
John didn't block print because I believe he wanted to suggest Patsy by mimicking her hand.
DeleteAn autopsy report is available to family members as soon as it's filed with the state Department of Health, so the Ramseys knew within three or four days that pineapple had been found in her system, too late to remove the bowl but not too late to concoct a cover story.
CC
I'm not saying he wanted to frame Patsy, merely suggest her, right along with an intruder and a cast of thousands, in order to add to the confusion by creating a larger suspect pool.
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteDeal
-J
Ditto! :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I knew you would appreciate that Ms D, tsk"
DeleteHey, I have actually been having dreams about John Ramsey since joining this blog! He is a scary enough presence already (the boogeyman has nothing on this guy) without having to deal with such an image upon waking.....I'd prefer he didn't make an appearance during my nocturnal slumber at all, but if he must, fully clothed is preferable ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgain? Really? Patsy told LE in one of her interviews she'd cut up a whole pineapple and stored it in a plastic bag in the refrigerator.
DeleteCC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhere is that interview CC, and did she state when she had cut it up and stored it?
ReplyDeleteAll three LE interviews are available on acandyrose.
DeleteCC
If so have you ever cut up pineapple? I defy you to get it in the perfect square chunks depicted in the pineapple bowl - that looks canned to me. But sure, I'll read the interview if you can find it.
ReplyDeleteI know the interview where Patsy says she would not serve canned pineapple but no where did I read that she said she had previously cut up pineapple and stored it.
ReplyDeleteNone of it matters. If she cut it up and put it in a Ziploc bag, Burke could have served himself a bowl of pineapple. CC - the pineapple is a problem for your theory and you know it.
ReplyDelete-J
True, J. Or if John served it he must have served it using gloves. Not realistic. And what child would want to be lured out of sleep and the warmth of her bed to have a bowl of pineapple. J, we just disagree on how it got there. Burke said he didn't fix it for himself. But there was something interested he did say - either to Police (doubtful) or the social worker. I can't remember which. That he heard nothing that particular night but if he had heard anything on previous nights it would be the opening of a refrigerator. Maybe no connection.
ReplyDeleteMore likely JB got up herself and served herself, using an oversized spoon rather than a smaller one. And if it was already cut up then the task of putting it into the bowl would have been easier than opening a can. A can by the way that wasn't found (at least they didn't tell us in here on this blog :)
ReplyDeletePatsy said that JB could not open the refrigerator door, so that rules out the possibility she prepared the snack for herself.
DeleteAnd, I think it's safe to say, Inq, that no intruder spent time going through the items in the refrigerator looking for freshly cut pineapple, nor did they search the pantry for a tin of pineapple, then use a noisy can opener to open the tin.....they are about to commit murder, they don't want to risk detection by spending time hunting for/preparing snacks, which would involve turning on lights, opening drawers and removing noisy crockery/cutlery. I think that's fairly obvious, and something we can all agree on.
they were in the house prior to the hour in question, but I get it. It's a wonder no one heard anything (the family) that night. That's what baffles me. And although the neighbor retracted her report of hearing a scream at 2 a.m., I think she really did hear it, much like the neighbors in the Oscar Pistorious case heard arguing that night.
DeleteThere was pineapple in her system, pineapple on a table. I've never speculated on how it got to either location, nor is it pivotal to my theory or of much interest to me.
ReplyDeleteYou, on the other hand, have a problem, as Patsy told Tom Haney in her 6/98 interview that Burke did not particularly care for that or any other fruit, would never make up a bowl of pineapple as a snack from the plastic bag of fresh pineapple she purchased from Safeway.
CC
In that same interview she says JBR would not have been capable of serving herself a bowl of pineapple. Patsy didn't initially realize it was pineapple when Haney showed her a photo - her guess was grits or apples - no wonder Burke was stumped.
DeleteCC
No, I agree with you there. That Burke preferred strawberries or other berries to pineapple. I have a much better picture of the pineapple in bowl if you wish. It looks to me like it also has milk in it, which was a favorite of Burke's as I recall. However if JB did not get up out of bed and fix the snack for herself, then that brings me back to the intruder.
DeleteCC if you are going to believe what Patsy Ramsey says then we don't need to go further. Burke in his own words said he liked eating pineapple as a late night snack.
ReplyDeleteConsidering JBR ate pineapple close to when she was killed it kind of should be pivotal to any theory.
-J
Why? I've heard it ascribed to JR, PR, BR and Santa Bill in support of various theories. Given Patsy's shoddy housekeeping, it could have been left on the table all Christmas day and JBR helped herself on her way to the basement. Leads nowhere, proves nothing.
DeleteCC
They had a pancake breakfast on Xmas morning. My guess is the fruit had been sitting there since then. Linda Hoffman was off for the day, and Patsy didn't care for housework.
DeleteSo, they cleaned up all the dishes from this breakfast but just left a glass of tea and bowl of pineapple? Wow, they sure don't know how to clean up.
Delete-J
Patsy said she wiped down the table so yes, point well taken J.
DeleteI don't think it was a glass of tea. What I see in the photo is a glass with a used teabag dangling into it. The glass was probably just a receptacle for the used teabag. No one makes a single glass of ice tea, at least no one in Colorado - maybe some other state of the union.
DeleteI think this was once a cup of hot tea and the bag was discarded into the glass. No way of telling when that happened or who actually prepared and drank the tea.
I am aware we have gone over the pineapple bowl, but for me it is so CRUCIAL to this case. Burke tells Dr. Phil he went downstairs after being put to bed. There is a bowl of pineapple at the table that Burke said he would eat as a snack at night. JB's pillow is found on the kitchen counter and we know she ate pineapple shortly before she is killed. Using logic, the bowl of pineapple was Burke's. The pineapple that JB ate most likely would have come from that bowl of pineapple. Forget everything else that happened after, this is BY FAR the most logical explanation. There is no reason to make this more complicated than it has to be. If John or Patsy gave her that pineapple then it would have been explained away that before she went to bed they gave her a piece. IMO, they didn't have a ready excuse because they just weren't aware of the bowl of pineapple that Burke took out. They definitely wouldn't have been aware JB ate a piece, nor could they have known of its importance
Delete-J
-J
J, I know you have to tie that bowl of pineapple to Burke as the theory put forward by Kolar and CBS is that she reached for a piece of pineapple from Burke's bowl and he ran after her with the flashlight and hit her for it. But Burke says he did not fix himself a bowl of pineapple that night before he went to bed, so I have to believe they were all telling the truth, otherwise I would be guilty of believing some things they said and not all to tailor it to my own theories. What the police could have done was ask all three "do you remember at any time prior to December 25 when you would have fixed a bowl of pineapple and perhaps left it on the table?"
DeleteAgree on the tea bag in glass. 100%
DeleteInq - I don't need to tie Burke to it. I'm not forcing a theory just to force a theory. It's Burke's bowl of pineapple. I won't repeat what I wrote above, but it's just logical. Burke now says he didn't make himself a bowl of pineapple, but his fingerprints suggest otherwise. I was a JDI for a long time, but I'm not unwilling to change my mind, which is when I settled on BDI.
Delete-J
I know and I applaud you for sticking to your guns. But can you agree that that bowl may have been sitting out for a while, and that he , Burke, did not fix it for himself that night (since he said he didn't) and so then it had nothing to do with her stealing a piece from "his" bowl just before being brained?
DeleteI think what bothers me most about the BDI theory is that along with that is the PDI and JDI coverup. Unless you can wrap your mind around Burke doing all of it.
DeleteAs I understand it, the pineapple residue was found in her small intestine, not her stomach, which means she died at least a couple of hours after she ate it. It's possible she was struck over the head shortly after she ate that pineapple. But then it would be necessary for a couple of hours at least to elapse before the strangulation that killed her. Keep that in mind when you build your BDI case, folks. What could have happened, do you think, during that interval?
Delete"There is no reason to make this more complicated than it has to be."
DeleteSays the person who, rather than accept the most logical explanation - that a father was sexually abusing his daughter, and rather than be exposed, decided to silence her, has gone for the single, most, convoluted theory available: two, ordinarily, loving parents, who have the option of saving their six year old child's life, decide instead to tie a cord around a paintbrush handle, twist it around her neck until she stops breathing, digitally penetrate her, write a ransom note that doesn't quite match up to the crime scene (is it a sex crime or a kidnapping gone wrong?), all the while managing to convince LE and child psychologists that their homicidal son had absolutely nothing to do with it, because clearly, these people are less adept than the BDIs here.
Yes. The JDIs are definitely making it more complicated than it has to be.....BDI doesn't require any mental gymnastics at all!
You finished? I've only heard this rant 20 times :-)
DeleteMy point about it not having to be any more complicated than it is, is simply in regards to the pineapple bowl. Forget everything else for a second. The most logical explanation for whose pineapple bowl it was is Burke freaking Ramsey. Forget who murdered her, Im not even talking about that. The Pineapple bowl was Burke's and you can deflect all day like Trump about the staging and everything else. If you had to put money on whose bowl of pineapple that was, Burke would be the even money favorite.
-J
"You finished? I've only heard this rant 20 times"
DeleteWelcome to our world.
Tiresome, isn't it?
Besides, you said Patsy had chemo brain. That would make anything she said suspect would it not? By the way Patsy finished her chemo treatments two years before the murder and I am no psychological physiologist and do not know how long the after effects of chemo stay in the brain, do you?
ReplyDeleteWhy, yes, thanks to k1234 a few days ago, I do. Some recent experiments have indicated as long as ten years.
DeleteCC
Everybody knows that the intruder brought his or her own pineapple and copy of Mindhunter. Silly intruder forgot to bring a ransom note, and accessories used in the crime though. It's understandable though. Luckily the Ramsey household had everything they needed.
ReplyDeletedon't forget the Bible turned to Psalms 118!
DeleteWhat about it? As if a Ramsey couldn't turn it to that page.
DeleteYes. It's funny how Leigh Too believed the intruder forgot to bring a ransom note, along with their own tools to commit murder, yet remembered to bring a copy of Mind Hunter with them to place on John's bedside table in order to "frame him". This is one confident intruder.....he/she has no problem hanging around long enough to prepare JonBenet a snack, sneaking up to the Ramseys bedroom to place a copy of Mind Hunter right next to a sleeping John's head, and twiddling his thumbs in the basement for 45 minutes after whacking JB on the head.....
Deletewell, please don't lump me in with forgetting to bring the ransom note (if you were). I have stated my theory. That the ransom pad was taken Dec. 23, practiced, and brought back to the house on the night in question. I also don't know where the copy of Mindhunter fits into all of it and prefer not to connect every single particle that could be a red herring.
DeleteInquisitive, I am not "lumping" you in with Leigh Too, that is why I mentioned her name specifically :)
Deleteokay
DeleteWhat about it? There are many little particles to this case that really mean nothing. There was even some brochure on stun guns in the trash I believe, which John later said was in all Spanish so he didn't order it or read it - and yet the police thought it relevant enough to question him about it. Theories abounded that the amount in the ransom note came either from John's bonus amount or the Bible turned to Patsy's daily reading of Psalms 118. We've all gotten bogged down in the mire - even the Mindhunter book as one has suggested John boned up on crime scenes.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the ransom note as not having any meaning at all other than to mislead and play with the surviving victims, as I have come to, then we can focus on the why of the actual crime and not all of the insignificant particles to it.
ReplyDeleteSo, just so I understand: do you think the signs of prior sexual abuse to be insignificant? If so, what leads you to dismiss this?
Delete"There are many little particles to this case that really mean nothing."
DeleteSays you. I believe those "little particles" LE overlooked mean everything.
"If you look at the ransom note as not having any meaning at all other than to mislead and play with the surviving victims, as I have come to, then we can focus on the why of the actual crime and not all of the insignificant particles to it."
You have to believe that for your IDI theory to work.
This entire blog was started on the basis of how important the ransom note is. It is a blueprint. Once you stop looking at the RN as meaningless subterfuge and see who would benefit from it's instructions - you have your killer. Unfortunately, LE - like you - saw it as no more than an elaborate ruse riddled with distractions simply to mislead police. And that's why, twenty years later, the author of the note walks free.
When you realize the note is a blueprint, there is no other suspect other than John. No one else - an intruder, Burke, Patsy etc - would have benefited from the very intricate, specific instructions in that note. This is why it was the note that took me from IDI to JDI in a single day.
Here is a letter Bill and Janet McReynolds wrote to the Daily Camera in 1998. See if you see any similarities in style to the ransom note.
ReplyDelete"We wish to commend the Boulder City Council for giving a hearing to Fleet White Jr., who is requesting a special prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey murder. We believe that the questions raised about the conduct of the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, in this case demand the most serious consideration.
Our family has been under scrutiny almost from the beginning of this case. Every member of our family has been interrogated and our two sons were required to give fingerprints, handwriting samples and DNA, even though neither of them was aware of the existence of little JonBenet before she was killed" (continued next post)
"In the course of the interrogations we became acquainted with Det. Steve Thomas, recently resigned, and his partner, Ron Gossage. We have the highest respect for them.
ReplyDeleteIn July, we returned to Boulder after a year's absence and were interviewed by prosecutors in the District Attorney's office. We were not encouraged by the discoveries we made. The latest 'scuttlebutt' that we are receiving is that, indeed, there will be a Grand Jury investigation orchestrated by the District Attorney and that there will be no indictment. We do not see that progress as being beneficial to the hundreds of innocent people who, like ourselves, have been caught in the web of evil surrounding this case. Good people, wake up. This little girl, JonBenet, did not commit suicide. Bill McReynolds, Janet McReynolds."
Lots of "we are" "we wish" "under scrutiny", "highest respect", "indeed", "wake up" (Listen carefully)
Facinating. But I think you are cherry picking a bit. I will say, however, that something always leads me back to that strange couple.
Deleteemma
You're really clutching at straws now. I didn't see any similarities, other than it read like a formal letter, much like the RN. You really do see what you want to see, and as your theories change, the evidence as you see it conveniently changes with it! Cherry picking indeed.
DeleteI'm confused, Inquisitive......for the past couple of weeks, you've really been pushing the notion that the McReynolds are involved, but you were utterly convinced it was the Hoffman-Pughs until a week or two ago and tried to convince fellow bloggers here also.....surely you haven't had ANOTHER change of heart so soon?! ;)
"We wish," "indeed," and "wake up" are not used in the RN.
DeleteWhile I can't discount the amount of "stuff" (don't call it evidence if you don't want to) pulled from the Pugh household - black duct tape, white cord, white cord wrapped around a stick, 3 pads of white lined paper - one of them Patsy's - and 3 black sharpie pens plus no alibi, I also concede that the note showed above average intelligence. And if Linda did not write the note then there probably was no kidnapping for ransom money intended. Which moves me back to creepy Santa McReynolds - his degree in literature and journalism, also no alibi, his incident and connection to a 22 year old crime when his own daughter was kidnapped and made to watch her friend be raped, his connection to another little boy who went missing in Boulder and calls "his special little friend," his familiarity with the house, plus possibly the "Santa" who told JonBenet she would be getting a special visit from Santa after Christmas. I can't discount any of this.
DeleteI believe they ruled out Bill McReynolds due to recently having open heart surgery, however he and his wife were well enough to promptly leave Boulder right after the murder for Spain was it? and was not questioned until they returned. Well enough for the rigors of travel to a foreign country.
Delete"clutching at straws" would imply I'm giving up Ms D. And I never give up, out or in. :) So much simpler to go with the intruder, who planned it, was sexually motivated murder intended, and the note designed to play with the surviving victims. Body was not intended to be moved - hidden - not moved.
DeleteInq, I ask you again: do you discount the signs of prior sexual abuse, and if so, why? I'm interested to know how you see that fitting in to the IDI theory.
DeleteAnonymous - why not give yourself a hat, might be easier, but I don't so much discount the findings of the coroner as I do think their meaning is subject to interpretation.
DeleteI used to give myself a hat, but some folks on this blog were getting out of hand with insults and such.
DeleteThanks for answering me. I know that CC has cited the 6 top physicians/experts in the US on child sexual abuse who have studied this case. I think their opinions lend a lot of credibility to the case. Have you located any credible rebuttals to these experts? I ask because for me, the prior sexual abuse is the single most telling aspect of this crime. Someone who had access to JBR and also had the ability to keep her quiet about it for a period of time, was abusing her. That along with the rest of Doc's brilliant analysis, including the RN analysis, has me 100% convinced that JDI. I would really need something new/pivotal to come along to start going down another path.
Yes, I agree - the experts who analyzed the wounds to the vaginal area came up with "previous" signs of sexual abuse. There were four of them cited but there were also four cited the JonBenet encyclopedia website who differed. All 8 went by photographs but if I'm wrong on that CC will correct me. I'm sure :). The interpretation of prior abuse is the single most clue if not the only clue, that allows for the JDI. And you would have to believe that as without it there is no motive.
DeleteSome say in here that the abuse was chronic, another thinks it was situational, maybe once prior to the 25th/26th. I just don't see how John would have had the opportunity to do so. He was at work all day, he traveled for business several times, and when he was at home it was family time all the way. I agree that sexual abuse occurs between fathers and daughters but the statistics are actually higher between siblings. Plus in this case you had a doting mother who if anything, micromanaged her daughter's every move, where she was, who she was with no doubt, what she wore, including taking her to her pediatrician numerous times (although 27 times in 3 years is not that frequent). I think the bed wetting was of more concern to Patsy than anything else - but Dr. Beuf isn't talking.
DeleteGosh, I don't think any of us know a lot about the day to day goings-on in that home, but remember Patsy was gone a lot for cancer treatments for a few years. The maid talked about John putting JBR to bed and dressing her during this time, so he definitely had time alone with her. My mother was a doting mom too, but somehow my grandfather managed to molest my sister. Incest occurs for this very reason: the perps are smart, sneaky, and manipulative. I am certainly not going to conclude that John couldn't have done it based on your reasoning. I also don't know how anyone can say "it only happened once." No one can say that.
DeleteVery very sorry for your sister, Anon. That's first hand knowledge of incest in the family and I can't even begin to know how heartbreaking that could be. And for all survivors of incest or molestation, it makes me want to go punch the perpetrator. When I was doing graduate work in psych there were quite a few students in one of my classes who were victims of rape and incest. The theory is that they chose to study psychology more on a subconscious level to work out what had happened to them, and then be able to help others. But no, we cannot conclude that John if he did it at all, didn't do it more than once.
DeleteDoc:
ReplyDeleteA couple of my posts disappeared...do you still have them on your end?
Mike G
Try checking at the bottom of the page for the "Load more" link.
DeleteIt would help if you signed in as something other than Anonymous. That way I'd know where to look.
As gruesome as it sounds, the arms, legs, and even torso of a body in rigor mortis can be "snapped" to fit into rather small places.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.news.com.au/world/indonesian-police-tell-how-sheila-von-wiese-macks-body-was-folded-to-fit-in-suitcase/news-story/114f6934bcdede98fd30b675f610a79b
Mike G
Wow! VERY interesting. Good catch, Mike.
DeleteSo yes, JBR's body might have been made to fit into that suitcase. But I still think that's a stretch. The ONLY reason we know about the suitcase was the fact that it was found under the broken window in the basement. If the plan was to remove her from the house stashed in that suitcase I see no reason why it would have been placed in that position. And if it HAD been contorted to fit into the suitcase, the contortion would have been evident when the body was examined by the ME.
Nevertheless, now that we know it's possible, we can't rule out that possibility. But, much as I hate to say it, this would have worked much better for an intruder than for either John or Patsy, who would have had no problem getting the body into their car without being seen.
But Doc, as I said in the previous thread, whilst getting JB into the trunk of the car would not have been an issue, removing her bundled body at the location he was planning to dispose of her might have been. If he was spotted removing a suitcase from the trunk his car, he could have simply said it was the ransom money. Not so easy if he's seen carrying a three and a half foot bundle.....
DeleteNo need to carry or bury, certainly no need for a suitcase - the mountains are ten minutes from 15th Street and provide plenty of switchbacks with road visibility in both directions and no protective railings - plenty easy to drop a body 1,000 feet off a convenient cliff at night. Google "mountains around Boulder" or "Boulder scenic drives" or "Flagstaff Mountain" or somesuch. There are great hiking trails, but the roads wind by many many precipices inaccessible even to rock climbers. The Rockies are a great body dump.
DeleteCC
Doc:
DeleteIt just dawned on me that John may have broken the window AFTER Patsy made the 911 call! A "kidnapper" close enough to John to know that $118,000 was the amount of his bonus, would be a "kidnapper" capable of getting a hold of a family key, reproducing it, and returning it safely to the owner without them ever being aware it was gone. This makes sense doesn't it? If Patsy had not made the call, no "staging" of an intruder "break-in" would EVER have been required. Indeed, if Patsy refused to leave the house, leaving John alone, "staging" a break-in may have been difficult and WOULD have been risky. An "intruder/kidnapper" with a key eliminates that risk and gives John more time to work on other elements of his plan.
So why did he break the window? John knew police would discover JonBenet after Patsy made the call. But he also knew she would be discovered as, not a victim of a kidnapping gone wrong, but as a victim of a pedophile posing as a kidnapper. The absurdity of such a notion, which he was stuck with, required him to cast a net of suspicion on as large a pool of suspects as possible, not just suspects that had keys to the house! But he still needed time...he didn't want the police to discover the body right away. So he runs downstairs, grabs a towel, breaks out the window, closes it, picks up the pieces, plants the suitcase in front of it, and perhaps runs upstairs and opens the butler's doors. He knows he's going to be suspected anyway, so why not let that suspicion work to his advantage for as long as possible, or for at least as long as it was necessary.
The police come and he pretends to play along, wondering how an intruder could have entered, but planting just enough evidence to make "non-key-holding" intruders part of the game!
Mike G
Consistent with my theory would be the idea that John may have had suspects in mind who he could have "framed" by planting a key on them.
DeleteMike G
The bottom line is, if John wanted JonBenet in that suitcase, he could have made her fit one way or another. That he chose not to dismember her the night of the murder is not surprising; blood is a messy deal and takes time to clean up. Rigor Mortis doesn't set in until sometimes two to four hours after death, so he couldn't wait around for that either. In the end, I suppose, it really doesn't make much difference. The contents in the suitcase might have some meaning, but whether the murderer intended to use it to transport JB to her burial site could never been proven.
DeleteTwo other reasons, however, John may have contemplated using it are:
1) If Patsy and Burke refused to leave the house while waiting waiting for the kidnappers call on the 27th, transporting JBR from the basement to the car in a concealed container would be less risky.
2) If John's meanderings in his car while searching about potentially unfamiliar territory for a spot to dump the body made him look suspicious enough to be pulled over by a cop.
Mike G
Sorry just catching up on replies. And yes I agree with J that the pineapple is important.
ReplyDeleteCC wrote:
Wouldn't part of an effective cover up have been that one of them gave her pineapple when they got home, removing any possible speculation about their son's involvement?
My reply:
I'm surprised you even asked that question. The parents knew nothing about the pineapple. They didnt know JBR ate some and didnt know it would be found in her stomach. John and Patsy would have had 1000 things running through their head and a bowl of barely eaten pineapple (why didnt burke eat it when he prepared it himself...i wonder) just didnt seem important. Next question please because that one was too easy.
You're not sufficiently caught up. Swim upstream and read further - I'm not asking why they didn't remove the bowl.
DeleteCC
Breaking news. Dr. Werner Spitz responds to Burke Ramsey's lawsuit:
ReplyDeletehttp://people.com/crime/werner-spitz-files-response-to-burke-ramsey-lawsuit/
GS
"based on undisclosed facts" hmmm, really, a ha! Said by Lin Wood. Of course he goes on to say the facts are basically twisted. Thanks for this article mention GS, you're a peach!
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Wood can prove that Burke has ever been denied housing, or employment or a loan due to any connection to his sister's murder. He and his clients have been making millions in lawsuits for 20 years. When is the desire for more ever satiated?
Wood was quoting Spitz's Answer, which said Spitz relied on "undisclosed facts" in making his statements to CBS Radio, and it's those we're all anxious to see. There are other grounds for defamation beyond the three you list, not all material.
DeleteI'm curious to read the Answer in its entirety, rather than just a few quotes in People. The First Amendment stuff is boilerplate response - I hope Spitz has more, or he's toast.
Thanks for the heads up, GS.
CC
According to people. Com, they have obtained copies of court documents and spitz has asked for case to be dismissed on the grounds that his comments were speculative.
ReplyDeleteFiling a motion to dismiss early on in a lawsuit and again at the end of the prosecution's case is a pro forma response. They're seldom granted.
DeleteCC
Spitz said "It's the boy who did it, whether he was mentally unfit or something I don't know the why, I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
DeleteDoesn't sound the least bit speculative to me, how 'bout you?
CC
Ooh no it doesn't, sounds like spitz is in deep doodah
ReplyDeleteFrom a legal standpoint, what's the difference between writing a book claiming who did it and making a documentary that appears on Television?
ReplyDeleteThe written word is libel, the spoken slander, both are defamation - no difference in the way I think you mean. There are, though, two classes of defamation, whether written or spoken, defamation per se and defamation per quod. Defamation per se is worse, as it accuses someone of a criminal act.
ReplyDeleteDid that help or make it worse?
CC
Cc, I just caught up on all your legal posts on the last blog. Thank you for all the valuable information. I will respond to your question way above in a minute. I have a legal question for you regarding your post just a few comments above that really has not much to do with this case but the way you worded it made me curious of legalities. You said that Werner Spitz said this .... "It's the boy who did it, whether he was mentally unfit or something I don't know the why, I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't sound the least bit speculative to me, how 'bout you?
CC. My curiousity is this, if you worded this exact word for word then couldnt Mr. Spitz just claim it is speculation that he is talking about BR since he used the word boy? I personally have found one it to be very eye opening and completely ridiculous that the Ramseys have been able to successfully libel for millions of dollars just because they were named suspects in a murder case, of which they really were suspects in. It is unfathomable to me that they can sue an ex police officer and even threatened sue governor Romer. It just seems to me to be a loophole being exploited that a good legal team could use the exact same way back to get Spitz off the hook.
No, his use of the word "boy" will be no help to Spitz. Truth is a defense to defamation, so if he could prove his claims, he'd be golden. He can't. Had he qualified his remarks in some way, or stopped short of an outright accusation as the CBS show did he might be OK, but he didn't do that either.
DeleteCC
"I'm not a psychiatrist, but what I am sure about is what I know about him, that is what happened here."
DeleteThe fact is: Spitz knows NOTHING about Burke that even places him at the crime scene, much less exposes him as the killer. All he has is a set of assumptions based on nothing more than speculation.
His best bet would be to dwell on the weakness of the intruder theory and argue that the evidence points to someone living inside the house. If he insists that he can prove Burke did it, he will lose -- because he can't.
He can prove it wasn't an intruder and that Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder. He can't say Burke definitely did it, but he can say it was someone in the house and due to Burke being the only known person in the house with the victim and the fact that both parents seemed to be involved...it makes Burke a good bet. But I agree, he can't say it was definitely Burke. Just like no one can say it was definitely someone else.
ReplyDeleteMy thinking was Spitz could argue that he was talking about someone else and that it is only "speculation" that he was talking about BR, since he did not use his name. Thanks for the insight again guys.
ReplyDelete"He can prove it wasn't an intruder and that Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder."
ReplyDeleteHe can't prove Burke was up with JBR the night of the murder. A bowl of pineapple containing Burke's fingerprints is not proof the two of them were together at the time of JB's murder, Zed.
So tell me, Zed, how is he going to *prove* Burke was up with JonBenet the night she was killed?
Yes, Ms D. He can't prove Burke and JonBenet were together that night simply on the basis of some fingerprints -- and he knows it. Which is why his response is directed toward the claim that he was "only" speculating. If he had real proof his defense would be based on the premise that Burke killed his sister -- as was expressed very clearly and in no uncertain terms on the CBS travesty. Letting himself be sued would be the perfect opportunity for him to air his case against Burke. But clearly that is NOT his plan.
DeleteThere is no basis for a circumstantial case against Burke, nor is there even a basis for probable cause. On the other hand, there is considerable basis for probable cause regarding John. And imo (pace CC), a strong circumstantial case as well.
Doc, I don't see considerable basis for a probable cause regarding John as you just said above. Because even if Dr. Wecht would testify that he thinks the wounds show previous sexual abuse, no one and I mean no one can attribute them to John. Just what witnesses would be called to testify that John was abusing JonBenet? A case against John would fall apart before it even made it to trial.
DeleteDon't worry Zed, they cannot prove that John Ramsey molested his daughter either. Or that he was with JB when she ate the pineapple, or that he hit her over the head. What CAN be substantiated is that he was ruled out as having written the note.
DeleteIf the clear signs of prior abuse could be positively attributed to John, we wouldn't be here today and John would be in jail. I'm talking about probable cause and circumstantial evidence, not proof based on hard evidence (which one rarely sees in any court trial).
DeleteThe case for probable cause has been made all over this blog, in post after post and discussion after discussion, so I don't see a need to go over it again. Just review what you've already seen and you'll find it. As for a circumstantial case, CC is a lawyer and I am not, and she doesn't see a case, so maybe it would be wise of me to defer to her judgement. On the other hand, if we have any hope of coming to a resolution on this case, I think a circumstantial case against John is our best and probably only hope. The evidence is there (again, review what's been presented all over this blog), but putting John on trial would certainly involve some risk -- because jurors are as likely to disagree on this case as much as those commenting all over the Internet, including here.
I'm comin' around. . . slowly. See below.
DeleteCC
Thinking about Federal court as a possibly better venue. The Feds have deeper pockets, stronger stomachs and longer memories - though overcoming their initial resistance is tough.
DeleteCC
No question about it, Spitz is controversial. He has had a very long career testifying and consulting on high profile cases, Mary Jo Kopechne, the Warren Commission/JFK, committees on death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Casey Anthony. In the latter he believed and testified that the tape was placed on the body after her death and not as a murder weapon. His reasons for stating so was to hold the jaw bone in place for purposes of moving it. He also criticized the medical examiner for conducting a "shoddy autopsy" by failing to cut the skull open to look inside. Had she done so he said, she could have analyzed the sediment inside the skull and determined what position the child died versus how the body was found. I don't see the the ME in that case suing Spitz for calling her a "shoddy" ME. But no question about it, if you want an opinion outside the box, call Dr. Spitz. I'm beginning to think, however, that the way John Ramsey earns his living now is by suing.
ReplyDeleteNope, no evidence against Burke at all, Doc. Based on Hunter's statement in 1998 that he wasn't a suspect and the GJ'S findings that someone committed murder in the first, which patently excludes him, I'd say there's exculpatory evidence out there that the public has not seen, but may if this case gets to trial.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting closer to a prosecuteable case Doc - provided we can use my embellishments as to motive and premeditation, and possibly John's attempts to cast his wife, son and everyone else on the planet in a bad light as well. You should actually embrace this latter, as it resolves the Patsy handwriting conundrum, a subject you hold near and dear.
CC
I think what might be happening in here is there is a delay in having a blog posted. It's not so much that a blog doesn't appear, it's that it shows up a day late. And I also think there are some people in here who are in a completely different time zone so what shows up on my end of things as 2 a.m. I don't even see until much later. So if someone says you haven't answered my question, it's more likely the case I haven't seen the question.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing - Hercule, I'd like to see you back here. The Patsy did it theory has not been represented since you left. Please come back.
ReplyDeleteWhat does John Ramsey even do for fun?
ReplyDeleteHe dresses up in pageant costumes
ReplyDeleteMs D asked:
ReplyDeleteSo tell me, Zed, how is he going to *prove* Burke was up with JonBenet the night she was killed?
My reply:
There is simply too much circumstantial evidence for this NOT to be true.
1. Burke admitted to sneaking downstairs
2. Neither parent made the pineapple. This is a fact from their own mouth.
3. It was an oversized spoon which indicates a child
4. It was with milk the way Burke liked it
5. It had Burkes fingerprints on it
6. Burkes reaction to pineapple photo
7. Pineapple was hardly eaten which indicates a child
8. And JBRs pillow was next to the pineapple
8. And JBR had pineapple in her system.
I mean, come on, no one on this blog can honestly say that Burke wasnt up that night eating pineapple. If you can, your
*continued
DeleteYour kidding yourself.
Does it prove Burke killed JBR. No it does not.
But it proves Burke was with JBR that night with no parents (otherwise pineapple would have been cleaned up).
Zed: the only crime scene photos I've seen of the pineapple on the table do not show a pillow, but do show a pillow at the foot of her unmade bed. Where can I find the pic to which you're referring?
DeleteCC
The CBS special said her pillow was on the kitchen counter
Delete-J
Zed - it's getting harder and harder to debate logic on here. Forgetting EVERYTHING else about the case, you are 100% right that sooooo much circumstantial evidence points to Burke eating from that bowl of pineapple. Ms D deflects all day long from answering your list of circumstantial evidence, but ultimately who cares of people want to deny the obvious. At times it feels like we are debating not just against John Ramsey, but against John Ramsey this mythical being who is a mastermind in all aspects of life and criminal activity.
Delete-J
The crime scene photos contradict that, but "the CBS special said [so]", and that's good enough for you? The child's pillow is on the end of her bed in those selfsame photos.
DeleteDon't talk to me about a failure of logic, J.
CC
CC - there is a pillow. I saw it in the crime scene video. It's been confirmed it was JBR's. Yes, kids have more than one pillow in bed!!
DeleteI'll try and find it for you when I get a chance.
CC - it is what it is. Maybe you think like a lawyer and that's ok. My points regarding the pineapple bowl have been gone over, but it is a total failure of logic to say that isn't Burke's bowl of pineapple. I don't think the pineapple bowl single handedly makes Burke the killer, but it is truly one of the few things I am confident about this case
Delete-J
I was looking over the crime evidence photos on a candyrose and Patsy did identify the pillow at the foot of JonBenet's bed. It's large Zed, with a cartoon figure on the pillowcase. Photo #2. But it's strange it was at the foot of her bed. When Patsy changed her into her white pajama bottoms she would have noticed if the pillow was under her head or at the foot of the bed. That suggests to me that she did indeed get up, possibly carried her pillow somewhere and/or came back to bed with it and put it at the foot of her bed. For all we know she carried it into Burke's room, saw he wasn't in bed, then returned it to her own bed and went on downstairs. Also when questioned by Haney and shown more photographs Patsy remarks that in photo #19 (photo not published) it looked like someone "went potty" and didn't flush - in JB's bathroom. I suspected that she got up and used the bathroom that night and put on the oversized panties herself. Before heading downstairs of course. So back to the pillow - if she saw Burke wasn't in his room then she indeed was downstairs when he was.
ReplyDeletePatsy also told Haney is was not uncommon for JB to get herself out of bed and use the bathroom, then not flush.
ReplyDeleteI've seen the photos with the pillow on the breakfast table. I think topix and ffj and websleuths even have threads on the kitchen pillow.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Patsy was asked about the basement toilet, as that was left unflushed. Irrc she tried to blame that on one of Burke's friends.
I find it interesting that the children's pediatrician said he would burn their medical records before ever allowing them to be released to LE. What would be so disturbing that he felt had no bearing on it possibly helping solve the crime? Just a what if - both children had a sexually transmitted disease or infection? As far as I know John only retained counsel for his adult children and his ex-wife. I've never read anything that he got attorneys for anyone in Patsy's family.
hi diamondlil. I have seen discussions about the pillow being in the kitchen but no pictures of it. The pillow is at the foot of her bed, however. Look on crime photos a candyrose. And Patsy identifies it as being at the foot of her bed. The toilet she is being questioned about is JB's. That's on the same page, interview regarding pictures Haney-Patsy. But either way, it is out of place being at the foot of the bed. Patsy wouldn't have put her to bed head-on-mattress instead of head on pillow. I think JB had vaginal infections due to not only the bedwetting but soiling herself frequently. Fleet even cleaned her up and sent her home with a pair of Daphne's panties on.
ReplyDeleteCC, is it possible or legal for John Ramsey to sue any of us, who are only bloggers ? It would seem that in the legal sense we are doing the pretty much the same thing as a tabloid ?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, yes he can, but it's doubtful he'd have much success. Cyber law is still evolving, but so far the courts have elected to preserve the rights of individuals under the First Amendment to post their opinions anonymously online.
ReplyDeleteCC
CC's question from way upstream: Why didn't they simply tell LE that one or another of them had fed JBR the pineapple?
ReplyDeleteI can only guess that the Ramseys or their lawyers didn't realise the significance of the pineapple at first. Maybe they read the autopsy report and just assumed it was something JBR had at the Whites. The investigators did not mention the pineapple in the Ramseys' 1997 interviews, and I think it is conceivable that it just did not raise a red flag for the Rs until it was too late.
The Rs locked themselves into a story where JBR fell asleep in the car and she was carried straight to bed. The story must have been too important or too difficult to retract.
So with a little creative thinking, the "Secret Santa" intruder uses the traditional paedophile MO with a modern twist and is now serving up healthy fruit snacks. Luring her with lollies would be sooo 1980s.
AMD
You Aussies are great to have around - made me smile AMD, thanks.
DeleteCC
Thanks CC :-)
DeleteAMD
My full legal name is my handle on this blog. Come at me John Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point, Zach. You're easy to find, and he might be able to subpoena Doc to get internet addresses and track the rest of us - it's been done; but he'd look like a damned fool suing a bunch of Everymen who make no claim to be experts in anything and have no influence over anyone.
DeleteCC
For one thing, I am not in possession of anyone's internet address or real identity. That's not how Blogpost operates. For another, there are many thousands of people posting all sorts of theories and accusations on the Internet, and for the most part such postings are protected by freedom of speech.
DeleteI think the only exception is when someone repeatedly harasses and/or threatens someone else, which has never been the case here.
Linda Arndt did send a fax of questions to one of the lawyers prior to the funeral which included, "What had JBR eaten prior to bed?" This was after the autopsy and was reported (in PMPT) as tipping off the Ramsay's about food / stomach contents.
ReplyDeleteIf JR and PR were colluding / covering for Burke, then you would expect that the feeding of pineapple would have been mentioned. But whichever parent (my money is on John) fed her a piece of pineapple or knew she had eaten pineapple told this to the other, then they tip their hat to the other.
So the importance of the pineapple was established very early.
-Sisu
Thanks Sisu. It is certainly interesting that the Ramseys had the heads-up about the pineapple and STILL didn't weave it into their story.
Delete"But whichever parent (my money is on John) fed her a piece of pineapple or knew she had eaten pineapple told this to the other, then they tip their hat to the other."
If the pineapple was being fed to JBR by JR, isn't the bowl a glaring piece of evidence that he would think to get rid of some time during the night? Answering my own question, I suppose it is possible that he had so many things to think of that he simply forgot.
"If JR and PR were colluding / covering for Burke, then you would expect that the feeding of pineapple would have been mentioned."
Well, I think that is assuming that they also knew early on that the pineapple had some connection to Burke. Even though you can see in their 1998 interviews that the Rs had been prepped for the pineapple question, they seemed unprepared for its connection to BR.
I could be wrong, but from their responses it seems like they didn't seem to know about the fingerprints. PR seems to unwittingly walk right into trouble by asking questions about fingerprint analysis of the bowl, and then she has to furiously backpedal.
AMD
In the 1998 interrogation of JR by Smit and Kane regarding the pineapple he gives his thoughts on how she would have consumed the pineapple that night and who he thought would have given it to her. He also said there was canned pineapple in the pantry. You can read that interview on acandyrose. Both parents in separate interviews go on and on about the serving spoon being too big, wouldn't have used it, wouldn't have served the pineapple to one of the kids with it, but to me they both seem genuinely baffled about how it came to be there in the kitchen. John does say that Patsy liked sweet tea and that Burke liked it as well but he said it isn't made with a single teabag in one glass. You make it in quantity. Well, for those that are interested you can read it if you haven't before.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is a silly question, but if we are going to go with the six experts who testified that there was evidence of possible prior sexual abuse, why is Burke exempt from being a possible abuser? If anything, to me it seems more likely that a young boy nearing puberty would want to experiment or be curious - esp with digital penetration- which seems to me as a more juvenile way to abuse someone. Also Burke and JBR sometimes slept in the same room and clearly JR was gone a lot on business.
ReplyDeleteCould it not be possible that Burke was sexually molesting her and that night she protested to his touching and he hit her over the head? Perhaps the lag in time btwn the head blow and the strangulation was Bc after he knocked her out, he was able to continue having his jollies without protest? Maybe he took advantage of the fact that she was out cold to experiment with things he hadn't been able to before, like a paint brush.
Perhaps after when he realized she wasn't waking and he had prodded her w the train tracks, that's when he went upstairs to get dads help? Dad started to cover up w the ransom protect his son. Maybe he didn't even know what Burke had done to her or maybe the situation became more dire once Burke confessed.
Anon at 9:20 pm. Imo he should not be excluded from that. Too many grown folks then and now either cannot conceive or are in denial that young children can explore, experiment or molest. Both children were around many people, at other people's homes, from church to school to playmates over, to various babysitters, both hired as well as grandparents. But some only focus on the father and exclude all others. I've said it before, JonBenet could have have different offenders of varying ages at different times of her life. Same with her brother, if there was anything revealed by him to others over the years.
DeleteIf you're so willing to believe JB's brother was capable of sexually abusing and subsequently killing her - why do you fight so hard against John being capable of doing the same? Especially when more often than not, the adult male of the house is the guilty party in crimes such as these. Why is it easier for you to accept that Burke committed the murder (or the first part of it, at least) with his parents writing the ransom note, when the simpler explanation is the one who committed the crime is the one who composed the note, as he was looking to protect HIMSELF? Why is this scenario so far out of the realms of possibility for some here?
DeleteWe know Burke didn't write the ransom note.
We know it's highly unlikely Burke would even know what a garrote was, let alone how to make and use one.
We know John and Patsy had no issue with allowing Burke to go to the White's that morning, which suggests they weren't worried about him "spilling the beans".
We know Burke was never seriously considered as a suspect, though John was suspect number one at the start of the investigation.
We know that Patsy adored JonBenet and would probably do anything in her power to save her, so it makes no sense that she would choose to spare Burke instead by "finishing off" the job he started, particularly in such a brutal manner, and considering the fact that, at nine years old, he couldn't have been charged with murder anyway.
All of these questions are adequately answered if you look at John - and John alone - as being the one who committed the crime. It's clear cut, there are no longer any loose ends. This is definitely where the oft overused term on this blog, "Occam's Razor" *does* apply.
For one thing, you are choosing to believe that both Burke and Patsy saw nothing, heard nothing and then went on to lie for John in the coming years. IF molestation was a possible finding on the numerous pediatrician visits, then Patsy turned a blind eye to John's behavior. Clearly she would have suspected this after 27 visits. Now if Burke was the one experimenting, then it kind of makes it easier to believe that Patsy would understand it more.
DeleteYou act like John did it, John covered it up, and NOBODY close to him suspected it. Patsy lied to police and I know its easier to claim she was gaslighted because that goes with your theory. But, just maybe the more LOGICAL answer is that she went along with the lies because she was also involved.
It gets tiring hearing "the more simpler explanation is that John did it" because it is absolutely NOT simpler.
-J
But it is J, not least because of the reasons I mentioned above.
DeleteLE concede that the person who wrote the note is the killer: we know Burke didn't write the note.
The person who called 911 to report a kidnapping clearly didn't know there was a dead body in the house - a killer removes the body *prior* to inviting the police over.
These two facts alone exclude all but John as far as I'm concerned. If Patsy didn't make the call, I might concede there was a chance Patsy had a hand in the cover up. As it stands, I just cannot accept the person who wrote that note planned on calling the police to the house to discover the body all along - the words in the RN tell me that was the last thing they wanted.
"The person who called 911 to report a kidnapping clearly didn't know there was a dead body in the house - a killer removes the body *prior* to inviting the police over."
DeleteThis is pure opinion and speculation. I have and will always argue that IF John was the sole killer than the 911 call never happens. 911 call to the police means a for sure arrest of John Ramsey, therefore the call just isn't allowed to be made. Even forcible action on Patsy could have been justified under the disguise of following the note's instructions.
The RN essentially did what it was supposed to which is draw the attention AWAY from the Ramsey house. Efforts were focused much more on this being a kidnapping more than an inside job.
The whole thing seems way more like a horrible accident than some premeditated plan by John on a night where time would have always been limited due to the flight the next morning.
Chaos and confusion were created by the Ramsey's the second the the friends were called. The crime scene was tampered with from the outset and that just may have been their plan. We will probably always go in circles Ms D, because I will NEVER ever believe that John was the sole killer. For me it makes zero sense and belief needs to be suspended to think neither Patsy or Burke saw, heard or said anything!
-J
"But, just maybe the more LOGICAL answer is that she went along with the lies because she was also involved."
DeleteIf she'd been involved, and was lying, there's no way she'd have included Linda in her lie. And if she were telling the truth, then there'd be no reason for Linda to lie. The only way to resolve this contradiction is to conclude that her story must have been based on an implanted memory that she then elaborated.
Sure why not include Linda? Surely Linda would be asked, so why not include Linda if she thought she could manipulate her?
DeleteDoc - John was such a brilliant manipulator that he just randomly started pointing fingers at friends as did Patsy I believe. He really wasn't even that good of a manipulator considering the moron tried to book a flight 45 minutes after the body being found. I won't take the leap with you that JR could have manipulated everybody he would have had to in order to pull this off.
The more likely scenario is the Ramsey's were all on the same page and the same team.
-J
CC - I cant find the link to the crime scene video with JB's pillow on the counter (just a foot from the maglite). But it was definitely there and has been confirmed.
ReplyDeleteThis guy on topix saved it as his profile picture so you can view it here:
http://m.topix.com/member/profile/spraguestephens
And another one...not as good. At the bottom near the red cup:
ReplyDeletehttps://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/108637_0111b.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=780
Last one. Pause at exactly 55min. Can see pillow and maglite.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/VAwNjIfCx-U
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks for going to so much trouble, Zed. I see a white pillow on what looks like a white kitchen table or counter. Don't see the bowl of pineapple which, iirc, was photographed on a more formal, dark wooden table. Where, and by whom, was it claimed to be JBR'S?
ReplyDeleteCC
From Steve Thomas's book:
Delete"Then we showed him photos of the crime scene. “Wait,” Lee said. “The pillow in the kitchen in this picture doesn’t show up in that one. Why?” His eyebrows rose in wonder when he learned how things had been moved and how many people had trampled through the place before the photographers took their pictures. What he was viewing was not necessarily how things looked on the day of the murder."
Thomas, Steve; Davis, Donald A.. JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation (p. 146). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing an IDI, Inquisitive, why do you feel John Ramsey has never shown any interest in his daughter's killer being brought to justice? That doesn't raise any flags for you? If the killer was anyone you suspect (The Hoffman-Pughs, Bill McReynolds), what possible reason could he have for wanting to protect them?
DeleteHe doesn't want Burke brought to justice...pretty simple for me :-)
Delete-J
Paula Woodword, author of "We Have Your Daughter" is having a AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit on Dec 17th at 4pm. https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/5gjd93/im_pleased_to_announce_an_ama_with_paula_woodward/
ReplyDeleteI will definitely be asking some questions.
Good news. Maybe now we can get to the bottom of the "fruit cocktail" thing. I'd love to see a reference to that in some official document.
DeleteOn the same day, a new two hour JBR murder documentary from Lawrence Schiller's perspective is airing at 9 PM EST on the Reelz TV network.
Deletehttp://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2016/12/01/overkill-the-unsolved-murder-of-jonbenet-documentary-special-from-lawrence-schiller-two-hour-special-premieres-saturday-december-17-at-9pm-et-6pm-pt-298105/20161201reelz01/
Mike G
That video I posted above is the original crime scene video. The pillow was there. Its easy to get confused with books and quotes saying it wasnt there later on...but the pillow was there. This is a fact.
DeleteIt is also JBs...again this is a fact. Ill try and find some info on this for you.
CC - her pillow and also the Maglite were on the kitchen COUNTER. The pineapple was on the kitchen TABLE. That is why you cant see both in the photo. They are only a very short distance from each other. The counter is the most logical place a girl would place her pillow before joining Burke at the table for some pineapple.
And to Inquisitive, I have also thought about that maglite on the countertop next to the pillow. If it is the object used for the head blow, which I believe it was...I agree it makes no sense for John or Patsy to leave it there. But if Burke used it on JB, it would be possible the parents didn't know that it was used (remember we didnt even know there was a head blow until the autopsy). But John definitely used it that night (another fact) and so a quick wipedown off the maglite was sufficient (in the parents mind).
Also, does anyone know if the batteries in the maglite were tested to see how "fresh/new" they were? I believe the batteries were also wiped down, which to me indicates that fresh batteries may have been put in that night.
Encountered Jameson on a Facebook JBR group. I called her by her real name, and she promptly blocked me, and deleted her posts. Good times.
ReplyDeleteStill at it i see.. Round and round you all go, fabricating evidence to fit your theories.. smh.
ReplyDeleteI agree, INQ. Without Johns power, influence and money.. Patsy probably would have been tried.. After all, the cops did convince the Grand Jury to vote for prosecution.. despite the fact that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that a Ramsey did anything, to anyone, ever. None,
ReplyDeleteCC You say that as if no innocent person is in prison.. and we know better than that. I posted the link about the woman who was blamed, for 25 years, for the murder of her own son.. Imagine what that did to her life. Then, after so many years.. Ooops! They were wrong; a pack of dogs mauled him to death..
ReplyDelete