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.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Zellner loses it!

Finally we're getting some real action on the Steven Avery front. After submitting her 1,272-page monster of a motion, consisting mostly of stale arguments left over from the original court case and therefore not likely to mean much to a court of appeals, she has chosen to up the ante by offering a $10,000 cash award to anyone able to prove Avery's guilt by answering a 100-question test: "The Steven Avery Proof of Guilt Challenge." This travesty actually got the attention of Rolling Stone magazine, as reported in an article by one Joyce Chen, who seems to be taking it seriously. 

As if Zellner's many Tweets on this case were not unprofessional enough, she's managed to jump the shark big time with what can only be described as an act of utter desperation. Clearly, the defense of her client has taken second place to the defense of her by now extremely tarnished reputation. Her "Proof of Guilt Challenge" will do nothing for Steven Avery as it can have no bearing on his appeal, but, in her mind, it just might distract from the embarrassment she is now enduring after Tweeting for months as to how all those many "scientific" tests were going to prove Avery's innocence. Of course, as we now know, they have done nothing of the kind -- on the contrary they have considerably weakened his (already hopeless) case.

Predictably, a group of Reddit-based Avery "guilters" have risen to the occasion, in a series of especially nasty posts, (see also here) culminating in a remarkable attempt by someone calling himself "NewYorkJohn" to respond to each and every one of the 100 questions in devastating detail. Here's the second half of his long and very thorough response. This guy is my hero.

Of course, the whole thing is a joke. Such a challenge might have some meaning if the responses were to be judged by some neutral party -- but no, Zellner has reserved that right for herself, and as anyone following the case with any degree of attention will realize, there is no way she'd be willing to give an inch on even one single point. And as we well know from the Ramsey case, there is no end to the possibilities for contention when considering even the most minor bits of evidence.

I'm especially outraged at the presumption on her part that Avery cannot be judged guilty unless every single one of her 100 points is accounted for, and in fact proven beyond reasonable doubt. No lawyer in his or her right mind would attempt such an absurdly outlandish defense in a court of law. But, as Zellner well knows, there is no limit to what one can expect from the court of public opinion.

Here's all anyone needs as evidence of Avery's guilt: 1. He initially claimed he'd lit no bonfire on the night of the murder, a claim that he was later forced to retract; 2. Brendan Dassey's confession to his cousin, implicating Avery in the rape, murder and burning of the corpse, came before the police got involved and was in no way coerced; 3. Avery's blood, found in Halbach's vehicle, was not taken from a vial collected years earlier as originally alleged. In this instance, Zellner's "scientific" tests backfired -- big time. She has since fallen back on a truly absurd and convoluted theory that "the real killer" -- Halbach's ex boyfriend -- must have somehow gotten into Avery's trailer, found some of his blood in the bathroom sink, and then figured out a way to plant it in Halbach's Toyota. This criminal genius must also have figured out a way to plant Avery's DNA on the hood latch as well. 4. If anyone wanted to frame Avery for this horrendous crime, nothing would have been easier than planting the victim's blood in Avery's trailer. No need to burn the body. No need to somehow smuggle charred remains onto Avery's property, no need to plant a car key in Avery's bedroom.

How anyone could buy the notion that these 100 questions have to be answered in a manner that removes all doubt before Avery's guilt can be proven is beyond me. But clearly Zellner will never give an inch -- and she has managed to convince a huge segment of the public that Avery must have been framed. What a strange world we live in is all I can say. I can't wait for the next installment of this farce to appear on Netflix. The truth be damned, but this will be great entertainment for sure.

74 comments:

  1. Reputable attorneys do not try their cases in the media. Ever. Reputable attorneys, like Leaders of the Free World, do not boast and brag on Twitter. It comes back to bite 'em in the ass, proving once again that the mills of god do indeed grind "exceedingly slow, and exceedingly small".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps it was the diabolical Mark Furhman, hired again to plant evidence that points in the direction of an innocent man (tongue in cheek).

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. She's lost any credibility she once had.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does anyone know if John, Patsy and Burke were right- or left-handed? It occurred to me a few days ago when writing about coup-contrecoup injuries that whoever struck JBR likely did it from behind, and was right-handed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i heard patsy was ambidextrous and that john is rightie

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot of people will latch onto something suspicious and then confirmation bias will carry them the rest of the way.

    The police had a history of targeting Avery and a strong motive to frame him and engaged in some somewhat suspicious behavior involving themselves in the investigation. It created a narrative where in this case, the police are the bad guys and he is the good guy, and people will warp facts and interpretation to fit the narrative.

    I see this in cases the other way around. In the Amanda Knox case it became obvious what happened once the results from the rapekit came back and showed that all the primary evidence was left by a known knife carrying burglar that had nothing to do with Knox. But people continued to insist there was a solid case against her, and would believe bizarre things like "the break-in was staged" despite the break-in exactly resembling the burglar's previous break-in just blocks away right down to his unusual idiosyncrasies.

    Avery is clearly guilty, or so perfectly framed as to make no difference. Either way there's nothing to do from a legal standpoint. He's in prison where he legally belongs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CC:

    From the footprint of the crack in JonBenet's skull, I believe it was inflicted by the perp, standing to her side and from behind, and using the flashlight in his right hand. A left-handed person inflicting that blow could be seen in JonBenet's right eye using her peripheral vision.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  9. IIRC, the members of Family Ramsey have never been identified online or in print as right- or left-handed, but I'm sure it didn't escape any worthwhile investigator's notice that JBR was struck by a rightie, and from behind and above, to my way of thinking probably while she was eating pineapple served by her father from a bag in the Sub Zero with an inappropriate sterling silver serving spoon from the drawer of good stuff rather than everyday flatware - a small sin, but one the woman of the house would not commit. Yet the direction from which the head blow was delivered has never been mentioned, at least not to my knowledge.

    The basis for my interest was a further attempt to dismiss Burke as a suspect, as his sister would have had to be sitting on the ground and he standing in order to deliver the blow, which seems to me to eliminate a BDI heat-of-passion, stole-a-piece-of-pineapple argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly Burke Ramsey is right handed. Watch the video with the social worker where he makes a stabbing motion with his right arm-hand, and the "hit with a hammer" motion.

      Delete
    2. If Castor is here, can Pollox be far behind?

      Yes, I recall that interview, though my recollection is more a knife-wielding, stabbing motion - entirely inappropriate to the circumstances.

      In any case, my precis stands: she would have had to be on the ground, Burke behind and above, and Mommy would not have chosen a piece of good sterling.

      Delete
    3. As Mommy would also have known where she kept JonBenet's appropriately sized underwear and pajama bottoms.....something John, who took little to no interest in the daily running of the house, would have almost certainly been unaware of. The serving spoon, the underwear and the long johns all strongly indicate John, as Burke has served himself enough pineapple snacks in the past to know where the appropriate sized spoons are kept, Patsy knows where she keeps her daughter's clothes, and Burke Ramsey wouldn't even think to redress his sister to begin with. The *only* person who would have had reason to change JB's clothes would be someone who was worried he may have left some incriminating DNA evidence on the clothes JonBenet was initially wearing, I just can't see any other logical reason for doing so.

      Delete
  10. Your second paragraph does makes sense. The head blow is more indicative of an intentional act, delivered with force, from behind - rather than an attempt to take a swing at a moving target or while giving chase.

    ReplyDelete
  11. She would have been turning 27 today. I know a lot of people on here did not seem to care for the film casting jonbenet but it really struck a chord with me. If it was John if it was Burke hell even if it was Patsy but the ending showed me that no matter which culprit what a terrible tragedy this story is. A little girl killed in her own home and almost certainly by someone she loved. Hoping she is at peace and that the truth will one day come to light.
    -SM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, SM. The ending of the film struck a chord with me also, and it was the only movie/doco that has ever truly entertained the notion that her father could well be the culprit, which I appreciated.

      Delete
    2. I started bawling when they showed the John scenario. It's the only theory that makes sense to me and seeing even a flash of what may have happened broke my heart. I just really hope she didn't see it coming and wasn't scared. The woman who also spoke of how her father was secretly abusive but you would never know from looking at them what went on behind closed door. I thought the documentary was a very interesting insight into the small tragedies we all carry around with us.
      -SM

      Delete
  12. I remember hearing about that movie but I haven't watched it. Thanks for the reminder, SM. I'll have to check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Until now, I hadn't heard anything positive from JDIers about this movie. Do you have to subscribe to Netflix to watch it?

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes Mike G. You have to have Netflix. You might be able to see it by going to yesmovies.too, but it's a risky site.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I streamed it for free on 123 Movies (I think that's the name of the site), Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You just have to be careful with these free sites MsD. Since everything is pirated, you can accidentally get a computer virus.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 'Casting JonBenet' was very interesting. I'm disappointed they wasted time on John Mark Karr, but Dixon White (the first Karr) is an incredible actor and his performance was riveting.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Might be worth watching again - I just thought the smashing watermelons was crude - but no more so than using a kid who probably outweighed Burke in the CBS special smashing wig- adorned heads.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To Zed, EG, and all BDIs: I just found the second pillow from JBR's bed, and no, it isn't the white one downstairs in the breakfast room - it's a match to the one in the Beauty and the Beast pillowcase on the foot of her bed, and it's on the floor, half behind her headboard.

    Check out JBR crime scene video on radaronline, at about the 10:30 mark.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Old news CC. Known about that for years.

    JB usually had plenty of pillows on her bed, not just two. That pillow downstairs wasnt Burkes so once again, its extremely likely it belongs to JB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sources please Zed

      Delete
    2. It's highly possible that one of Patsy's friends brought the pillow down from upstairs to place under Patsy's head whilst she was lying comatose on the sofa in the sunroom, making the pillow yet another red herring, along with the pineapple.

      Delete
  21. You may have me there Anonymous...I used to have heaps of JBR stuff saved on my old USB but have unforutnately lost it all.

    I swear Patsy said something along the lines of JBR having quite a few pillows and some were “play” pillows or “sleeping” pillows. The beauty and the beast pillows were for mainly looking pretty when the bed was made up. But for the life of me I can’t find that information from my quick 10min google so I’m happy to concede defeat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now that you're back, Zed, how about attempting to answer CC's questions from a couple of threads ago? :)
      You know.....the one where you abruptly disappeared - in typical, BDI, style, I might add - the moment you were asked some difficult questions regarding the fatal flaws in your theory? Running away for a month at a time whenever you're asked to defend your theory in a logical manner only makes your position look very tenuous, indeed.....so how about you give it some legitimacy (just for something different) by not only asking the questions, which you do very well, but by answering them also? You know - like a regular, respectful, mature, discussion between adults who are capable of sticking around and defending their arguments without resorting to cheap ad homs?

      Sorry if I sound more than a little annoyed, but you belittle other theories, yet disappear for weeks at a time when it comes to defending your own.....then you come back after the dust has settled, hoping it will be forgotten.
      That's no way to have an honest discussion, and if you can't manage to maintain some degree of integrity when defending your theory, then clearly your theory is weak.

      Delete
    2. I check this site probably once a month now because theres no real point when its obvious everyone in the house was involved. For me, the mystery is not so much a mystery anymore and there's more interesting ways to entertain my time.
      Aussie. Aussie. Aussie.
      Oi. Oi. Oi.

      Delete
    3. MsD, what are your questions regarding fatal flaws in BDI theories. I think there are fatal flaws in most of the theories, but if you will pose them I'd like to take a crack at them from a BDI perspective.

      Delete
    4. The questions are mine. Here ya' go:

      You and the other BDIers all stumble when asked to explain, (1) Why two intelligent, law-abiding adults would choose to cover up an accident with premeditated murder, thereby risking the death penalty; and (2) Why, if they were co-conspirators, their window stories and 911 call stories were not perfectly aligned, and the latter not have included Linda, when they had 4 months to collude?

      Delete
    5. Sorry; the former, not the latter. I copy prior responses so many times to you folks, I get scrambled.

      Delete
    6. Cannot answer "why" questions, that would go to the psychology of the individual or individuals and am not a mind reader. No wonder Zed didn't attempt an answer. With all due respect.

      Delete
    7. Typically feeble BDI non-response. With all due respect.

      Nothing psychological about it; it only requires the application of logic, to-wit: No intelligent, educated person (in fact, no one at all) would cover up an accident with a murder, thereby risking the death penalty - they'd call an ambulance. And given four months to rehearse their responses, Patsy's and John's responses would have been perfectly in synch, therefore they were not, in fact, co-conspirators.

      Delete
    8. If she, or they, found her already dead there would be no need for an ambulance, and a consequent police report. The window stories are still the sticky wicket and I have no explanation for Patsy's odd story around it, or John's crazy previous break in story either. Didn't mean to come across so rough, for certain Doc's theory is the simplest, most concise, but the window is a problem (to me).

      Delete
    9. Castor, if you think the Rs found JBR already dead, does that mean you believe BR did everything, including tightening the cord, which took JBR's last breath?

      Delete
    10. "For me, the mystery is not so much a mystery anymore and there's more interesting ways to entertain my time."

      And there we have it.
      Just as I suspected, you again refuse to even attempt an answer, which you've been doing so well since you first appeared here with your BDI theory. Make all the excuses you want, but we all know why you won't dig too deep, as I'm sure you're all too aware of also. If you have better ways to spend your time, and mutual dialogue certainly isn't your goal, why bother coming here at all? Your refusal to participate only makes you look as though you come here solely to mock.

      Delete
  22. A contributor to a reddit JBR thread, VirtualDelana, recently posted that the notepad on which the RN was written was a mini legal pad, only 5"X8". I had always assumed it was letter sized.

    Interesting, as it helps explain the three pages, and the cramped handwriting. It also explains how Patsy was able to recognize it as hers when shown a photocopy of the RN later that morning, which had always puzzled me.

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/ram1014k.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks CC, I had assumed it was letter sized as well.

      To me, thats even more evidence that it was Patsy who wrote it.

      Delete
    2. That's the prevalent opinion on reddit too, Zed - that the 5"X8" pad is somehow inherently "feminine".

      Since I hold the (unpopular) opinion that John premeditated the murder and deliberately used his wife's paintbrush, pen, "hats" on her A's, and possibly even duct tape from one of her paintings, the use of her pad is just more of the same, as is his handing it to LE and identifying it as Patsy's.

      Conversely, had Patsy - not a stupid woman - written the RN it seems the very last thing she would have chosen.

      Delete
    3. Hola, just popping in here. I totally forgot about this blog! Yeah it's been a long time since I was over this way.

      Okay CC do you have a link to your particular JDI theory anywhere? I was PDI when I found this blog back in August/Sept last year. This one opened up the possibility for it to be JDI but that ransom note just kept pointing to Patsy. But right about that time Burke was about to do that interview and once he did, and once I got back into the story and pieces it really made more sense to me it was BDI and his parents covered it up - John did most of the staging and unstaging and Patsy handled the note.

      A JDI theory that explains as much as can get explained is what I'm after :)

      Delete
    4. Welcome, Delana, and kudos again for the 8"X5" find on The Denver Post.

      I parallel Doc, for the most part, and give him major credit for drawing a distinction between "the Ramseys" and John and Patsy as individuals. If you haven't, read his first two threads from 2012.

      I have problems with his theory of the staging/unstaging of the window and a few points which are being thrashed out here yet again as we speak - premeditation and the framing of Patsy, which I believe in and Doc does not.

      In any case, glad you dropped by.

      Delete
  23. When John was asked during a police interview if he thought someone was trying to "frame" Patsy or himself, he was quick to remind them that he had been eliminated as the writer of the note. Doc is right...the handwriting analysis should be looked at again with fresh eyes.

    If, for example, I dotted my letter I's with a circle, that's the last thing I would do if I were trying to disguise my handwriting. But someone trying to implicate me might do just that....in my notepad...with my pen.


    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right on, K. The last time we discussed it, Doc disagreed with me about both the premeditation and John's deliberate use of Patsy's things, but it's too pervasive, imo, to be an accident. He could have chosen printer paper from his office, notebook paper from JBR's room, construction paper from the basement, a brown paper bag from the kitchen, if he wanted to suggest the hasty improvisation of an intruder. He could have pencilled the RN, used a child's crayon. He could have printed in upper case letters, and have avoided Patsy's idiosyncratic lower case As. He did none of those things.

      I don't know that he wanted to frame her, per se, but I don't think he was adverse to at least suggesting her, and possibly getting a twofer - in one stroke getting rid of the daughter who would soon expose him and the wife of 17 years who was no longer interested in sex.

      Proving, I guess, that you have competition in the dark, twisted and suspicious minds category, MsD.

      Delete
    2. OK, first of all, CC, I did not disagree with you about the POSSIBILITY of premeditation. That possibility is, in fact, the topic of at least one of my posts on this blog and is also discussed in an appendix of the new edition of my book.

      But no, I can't accept that John deliberately used Patsy's things in an attempt to implicate her, nor that he deliberately attempted to make it look as though she wrote the note. As I've argued many times here and elsewhere, the notion that there is ANY meaningful resemblance between Patsy's hand and that of the note is a myth perpetuated largely by the ham-handed efforts of Darnay Hoffmann's odd assortment of self-described "experts." I've exposed their glaring incompetence several times on this blog and in the book, as I'm sure you are aware.

      As for the letter "a"s, Patsy used both the cursive and the manuscript form, so it makes no sense to claim that there is anything "idiosyncratic" about the very odd manuscript a's in the note. Since as far as we can tell, John used cursive a, it would make sense for him to alter his a's to look like manuscript a's, and that is what we see in the note.

      Same goes for John's use of Patsy's pad and paintbrush. He was clearly trying to avoid anything that could be associated with him, and thus chose items NOT associated with him. Including Burke's knife, by the way.

      Any attempt on his part to implicate Patsy would have been a fatal error. Once she had realized what he was up to she would have spilled all his beans to the authorities and his jig would have been up.

      I'm sorry, CC, but there is no evidence whatsoever that John tried to implicate Patsy, and no reason on Earth for him to do so.

      And yes, he could have written the note on different paper, using a different method -- but obviously he didn't. If all had gone according to plan, he could easily have destroyed that notepad and there would have been NO evidence linking the note to either Patsy or himself.

      Delete
    3. I just laid out a respectable heap of evidence that John did indeed try to implicate Patsy, or at the very least, did not mind if he did..it just doesn't happen to support your intruder/staging position, which I find fatally flawed by the windowstaging/unstaging. We'll just have to agree to disagree...again.

      Sex was important to John - witness the affair that broke up his first marriage. If you accept that he was molesting his daughter, accept that it was situational incest rather than pedophilia, and last I heard, you do, then putting up (at age 54), with a wife who was no longer interested in sex was clearly out of the question.

      There's an old adage in my biz: There are only 3 motives for murder: love/sex, revenge/anger or money. Imo John's primary motive was to cover up his incestuous relationship with his daughter (sex), to preserve his lifestyle and fortune (money), and to clear a path to another relationship that gave him what his narcissistic sense of entitlement led him to believe he deserved (love).

      Delete
    4. If sex was so very important to John he would pick an adult to have sex with, on any number of his business trips, and avoid detection. He wouldn't risk everything, his career, his business, his marriage, his standing in the community, his standing with LM, his wealth, by secretly molesting his daughter. He would just go get a woman, as he did before. Cheating on his wife, if caught, would have been forgivable than risking it all molesting his daughter. And if you want to say that the way she was displayed on the pageant circuit turned him on I'd have to disagree with you there as well. Patsy was trying to mimic her own costumes from her pageant days, if anything she looked more like a sad 40 year old.

      Delete
    5. He married a pageant queen, molested a young one, allegedly had an affair with a woman in Arizona he had dress up in gowns, and has now married a woman who designs pageant costumes. You don't see a certain theme here, a certain sexual pecadillo not just any woman would satisfy?

      Delete
    6. I think the items pointing to Patsy were deliberate, and I think attaching her paintbrush to the cord was downright sadistic and cruel. I just can't see it any other way.

      I would be afraid of this man.

      K

      Delete
    7. Thanks, K. I think he's a monster, the embodiment of evil, in no small part because he looks and seems so innocuous. Obviously I need all the help I can get, appreciate yours.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. Doc, for what it's worth, I don't think John's original plan did include the framing of his wife. It was going to be a standard, cut and dried, kidnapping, with John delivering the ransom, and JB never being found, and - as you have speculated - the RN perhaps being destroyed altogether (or, as I think is more likely, rewritten on paper that couldn't be traced back to the house. I tend to think that John's initial plan was for LE to never see this version of the RN) But, once Patsy called the police and John realized it was going to be down to him and Patsy the moment LE discovered the victim's body in the house, I believe he felt he had no choice but to do his damnedest to implicate his wife to save his own ass. Certainly not ideal, but he was winging it at this point, wasn't he? There was no time to think of the pros and cons - in his mind, it was either Patsy or him. So, during the hour or so he was AWOL, I believe he spent that time meticulously planting evidence of Patsy's involvement: he broke off a piece of his wife's paintbrush, and fashioned a garrote-like device to twist around JB's neck (she had already been strangled with the cord, of course, he simply added a piece of physical evidence that would directly link Patsy to the murder weapon), he covered JonBenet with the blanket he found in the basement dryer, to add a mother's "loving" touch (which is perhaps why he was sure to bring Fleet White down to witness the moment he "found" his daughter's body.....after all, we know that John was eager to push the fact she'd been lovingly wrapped, "papoose style", because one of the first things he said, upon bringing her body up the stairs, was that the killer hadn't meant to kill her because they'd "wrapped her in a blanket".....why would John say that if he was trying to implicate an intruder at that point? Intruders don't lovingly wrap their victims.....but MOTHERS do, and he KNEW this, because he had recently read as much in Mind Hunter!) He then made the most of the fact he'd used Patsy's note pad to write the RN by handing it over to LE himself on a silver platter. His first words to Linda Arndt upon laying his daughter's lifeless body on the floor in front of the xmas tree were that it had to be "an inside job", which sounds an an awful lot like he was trying to frame someone very close to him. At any rate, they're certainly not the words of someone who is trying to implicate an unknown intruder. However, in the months between the murder and the interviews with LE, John had a lot of time to weigh things up, and I believe he realized that incriminating his wife wasn't such a good move, especially now that the intruder theory was beginning to gather a bit of momentum. So, he went with Plan C, as it were (third time's the charm), hence a couple of major changes in his version of events between his initial interview and the ones that took place four months later - it was only then he figured out the intruder theory might just work, and Pasty might actually be integral in lending credence to it.

      Delete
  24. There is no doubt that John had a "thing" for women in pageants. Key word there. "WOMEN". There isn't a single shred of evidence that John was a pedophile. Zero, Zilch, Nada, None.

    Good to see you posting, Zed!

    Not sure about the pillows, CC, so can't respond with anything specific. I know I read somewhere they the theory was JBR came down carrying the pillow and found Burke eating the pineapple. We don't know if any of that ever happened, so it's all speculation.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously, I do not maintain that he was a pedophile; in fact I just drew a careful distinction betweeen pedophilia and situational incest.

      Anyone who doesn't think that 6-year old was made up and sexualized to the point that she looked 20-something needs to have another look at those pageant photos/videos.

      JBR was chronically sexually molested prior to 12/25-26, fact. The only adult male in the house, and the one with a pageant fetish is her likely abuser, also fact.

      Delete
  25. You can call it whatever you want, there is still not one single shred of evidence proving John molested JBR.

    You are clearly drawing a line between John's penchant for pageant "women", to being attracted to a child for those same reasons. No proof.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not. Nor is there any for you and your confreres' position that a geeky, frail, Nintendo-obsesse9-year old (!!!) molested her, fractured her skull over a piece of pineapple, fashioned a garrote, and strangled her. There's very little real evidence at all, as I've said many, many times

      I accept that we'll never agree, EG. I've made my case, and you yours. Mine is based on facts, logic and a 3-year career as a prosecutor in major crimes; yours on a shoddy TV docuseries and a book by a detective who never worked the case.

      Delete
    2. CC,

      I have a great deal of respect for prosecutors and the rule of law. I wish I could be convinced that JDI as it would make it so much easier. I've tried reading everything I could on this case, reviewed all of the threads on here, scrutinized testimonial scripts, watched depositions, etc.

      There are just too many inconsistencies which make it difficult for me to draw a direct line to John. There is a lack of evidence, which we both agree on. The GJ finding them (JR and PR) negligent, putting JBR in a position to be harmed. What exactly does that mean?!

      BR's previous behavior, the jealousy, the scatological issues, the opportunities afforded due to sleeping arrangements, books the grandparents purchased, the R's not questioning him that morning, allowing him out without police escort, this relationship after the fact with the Stines, throwing other friend's under the bus, PR changing her handwriting, opposing conclusions from "experts" on prior molestation, as well as what came first--head blow or strangulation. It's endless.

      You're right though, CC. We won't ever agree. And that's okay. ;)

      EG


      Delete
    3. It is OK. And I understand your conflicts - it may surprise you to know that I entertained them and worked through them years ago.

      The intellectual idea of a child, of Burke, as the perp never bothered me. When I was 9 and in the 4th grade in Boca Raton, Florida, I sat behind (we were alphabetized), an heir to the Pratt-Whitney fortune who attempted to poison the family next door on Easter. He killed two children, went to a children's psychiatric hospital for a number of years. His mother, a Pratt, went on to become the city's mayor and chair of the Republican Party. Her child, the killer, Raymer Cassidy, now to the best of my knowledge, is entirely forgotten and sells garage doors in Deerfield Beach. He's probably in no small part responsible for my career arc, but that's a story for another day.

      All of which is a laborious way of saying I have no preconceived idealization that children cannot commit crimes; I just do not, in this instance, believe this particular child committed this particular crime.

      Delete
    4. CC,

      I am not surprised that you were also conflicted with those same issues. I also expect that you would understand and know for a fact that children do kill.

      And it definitely would make total sense to accuse JR of the molestation, abuse, murder, etc. As the adult male in the house it all points to him. However, the evidence isn't there. That, together with all of the inconsistencies that I've named in my prior post, I can't in good conscience condemn the man. It's too much of a stretch for me, given the lack of solid evidence.

      I do not believe for one minute that they wouldn't have called 911 for a head wound had they found her unconscious. I think she was already dead for some time when they found her.

      EG

      Delete
    5. "The GJ finding them (JR and PR) negligent, putting JBR in a position to be harmed. What exactly does that mean?!"

      CC has explained, no fewer than half a dozen times "what that means".

      "PR changing her handwriting..."

      Come on, EG, why do you insist on bringing up the same points over and over again, when they have been addressed? You KNOW there is no actual evidence Patsy ever changed her handwriting, it's been discussed so many times here. *Sigh*

      "Opposing conclusions from "experts" on prior molestation, as well as what came first--head blow or strangulation."

      The coroner who performed the autopsy stated the sexual abuse was "chronic", and that JonBenet had died of asphyxiation....as he is the only "expert" who physically examined the body, there should be no confusion - his report is the only one to be trusted.

      Delete
    6. According to Kolar, Meyer called in Dr Andrew Sirontak, an expert in child abuse and child sexual abuse from Denver Children's Hospital to view the body and corroborate his findings. Six other nationally recognizef experts concurred.

      Steve Thomas printed it as fact in his book, as did James Kolar, and former Chief Mark Beckner stated there had been chronic sexual abuse in his reddit AMA.

      We're way, way past the point where prior chronic sexual abuse is in any doubt.

      Delete
  26. Yes and a penchant for pageant women (and one child) would be a fetish, molesting his own daughter - incest - would be a strange disorder coupled with a pageant fetish. I have yet to read any cases like those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor did the FBI find any kidnapping cases with 3-page ransom notes, or kidnappings with a dead victim in the house.

      It's news to you that this case is rife with anomalies?

      Sit down, Inq. You fool no one.

      Delete
    2. Of course it's rife with anomalies. Twenty years later and the law can't nail anyone for it.

      Delete
  27. There goes CC, bringing up her profession again and stating that she knows more about this case then James Kolar. Please.

    There is no evidence and no reason for John to frame Patsy. Fact.

    There is no evidence John is or was a pedophile. Fact.

    Your "questions" around Burke are just not worth a grain of salt. But I am glad someone else above replied to keep you happy.

    There is waaay too many things that point to Patsy being involved. Yes, you can try and debunk each one of these but theres too many to be a coincidence. Way too many.

    Since John and Patsy were both involved, there needs to be a logical reason why. It could be a few different things but it points to Burke being involved as the most likely reason. I could keep going on about Burke but I've said it all before.

    Thanks EG. Good to hear from you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pertaining to JR in terms of the molestation---

    There should be something acknowledged in support of experience. (Art experts have ability to recognize good forgeries,for example.) In my opinion the same goes for recognizing the total picture and dynamics in a family of incest. Cyril Wecht hinted and psychiatrist author Hodges plus Boulder CPS identified JR as the molester. One more: Mark McClish, referenced as skilled in his craft of statement analysis by Kolar, analyzed JR’s statements early on in the crime. He believed JR failed in denying the molestation of his daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kolar's investigation was solid. He dispelled Smit's intruder theory by pointing to an old undisturbed cobweb. He also debunked the stun gun theory by lining up Burke's train tracks to the wound on the shoulder and offered a plausible explanation that she could have been prodded. She was strangled face down just outside the wine cellar room - was she carried down there or already down there. Who would be most likely to still be up that late, on a Christmas high - two kids, or two parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who would be most likely to still be up that late, on a Christmas high - two kids, or two parents."

      You have presented a false dichotomy, Castor.
      There is a third alternative you failed to mention, and considering the history of prior sexual abuse, it is this third alternative that is the most likely scenario.

      Delete
  30. Possibly a history of prior sexual abuse, but no evidence who the perpetrator was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope. Just the evidence that there was only one known sexually active male in the house, the only other male being pre-pubescent, obsessed by video games and not reported by anyone, anywhere, any time as having the least interest in sex or girls.

      But you're obviously committed to BDI, and reason and logic are wasted on you. Blather on.

      Delete
  31. Very old debate and conversation - whether she was sexually abused, whether it was once, twice, or chronic, whether the vaginal trauma was the result of prior interference, interference that night only, or deemed sexual abuse or interference.

    It's possible JB was sexually abused but you do not know by whom. A sexually active - was he active? - adult male would be interested in adult women, not little girls, not incest. It does happen, and in the best of families, but you do not know it happened in this family. You need it to have happened in this family otherwise you have absolutely no motive for John to have committed murder. And that is neither reasonable, nor logical. It's a theory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. "It's possible JB was sexually abused but you do not know by whom."

      O.k, we don't know.....so let's look at what we DO know:

      JonBenet was a victim of previous sexual abuse, whether it was once, twice, or a dozen times prior to her death.
      The victim was found dead in her own home, thus, statistically speaking, her killer is most likely to be a family member
      Her vagina had been penetrated violently the night she was killed, strongly suggesting the motive was a sexual one. Perhaps it was staging in order to cover up evidence of prior abuse, but either way, the motive for murder quite obviously appears to be of a sexual nature, therefore the logical inference to draw is that her abuser was her killer.


      Accepting that the adult male of the house sexually abused, then murdered his victim, is the, single, most "reasonable and logical" theory, in fact, Castor (John I....is that YOU?!) It is, sadly, quite common....so it's a mystery to me why so many have such a hard time accepting this scenario. I mean, seriously, whenever a young, female, victim of sexual abuse is found dead in her own home.....isn't daddy almost always the one who's arrested? Sex as a motive for murder is as old as time, so why is this such a difficult concept for so many to grasp?

      Delete