tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post8535668299579656769..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Open Thread -- Part TenDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger260125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-67625303079849382292016-09-03T00:18:17.237-04:002016-09-03T00:18:17.237-04:00First let me ask you to comment only on the most r...First let me ask you to comment only on the most recent blog post or else most reading here won't see what you've written.<br /><br />Patsy was indeed confronted with this information and it upset her. John was confronted with the fact that fibers from his shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch area. He and his lawyer simply refused to deal with it, insisting it was a lie (which it wasn't). There's no evidence that anyone working for the Ramseys ever looked into any of this, though it's possible they did and never reported their findings. My guess is that Patsy was psychologically incapable of dealing with the possibility that JonBenet could have been abused prior to her murder and just put it out of her mind. Or else she let herself be convinced by "experts" consulted by their lawyers, who disputed that evidence, claiming it could have been produced by masturbation or even bubble baths.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-14730092698081475712016-09-02T17:44:52.438-04:002016-09-02T17:44:52.438-04:00First let me ask you to comment only on the most r...First let me ask you to comment only on the most recent blog post or else most reading here won't see what you've written.<br /><br />Patsy was indeed confronted with this information and it upset her. John was confronted with the fact that fibers from his shirt were found in JonBenet's crotch area. He and his lawyer simply refused to deal with it, insisting it was a lie (which it wasn't). There's no evidence that anyone working for the Ramseys ever looked into any of this, though it's possible they did and never reported their findings. My guess is that Patsy was psychologically incapable of dealing with the possibility that JonBenet could have been abused prior to her murder and just put it out of her mind. Or else she let herself be convinced by "experts" consulted by their lawyers, who disputed that evidence, claiming it could have been produced by masturbation or even bubble baths.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-27927916348590442052016-09-02T16:16:25.427-04:002016-09-02T16:16:25.427-04:00Just starting to do my own research and familiariz...Just starting to do my own research and familiarize myself with the case ahead of all the TV specials coming out this month ( I am addicted to the ID channel)<br />My first question to experienced commentators is, after they determined she was "chronically sexually abused", what did her parents ever say about it? Were they ever even asked what to make of the information? I am probably missing something huge, again I am just starting to read up on everything. I would think they would investigate family friends or any male that had substantial frequent contact with JBR.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-45234256749290932412016-08-30T14:50:32.208-04:002016-08-30T14:50:32.208-04:00The "absurd window story, contradicted by Lin...The "absurd window story, contradicted by Linda . . . the edges of the broken glass . . ." is not incontrovertible evidence. The John/Linda contradiction is a typical he said/she said, and would be open to interpretation, veracity determined by that same pesky juror. The broken window glass, even if clean, could still be laid at the doorstep of a mythical intruder were that same fellow determined to believe IDI. <br /><br />I understand your goal to give John his day in court, but that's not how prosecutors approach cases. Give me one piece of evidence - real evidence - that points irrefutably to John, just one, and coupled with the prior sexual abuse, I'd take the shot. . . but as it stands, no way no how.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-31216180011191933562016-08-30T14:18:00.140-04:002016-08-30T14:18:00.140-04:00Yes, of course, you are right. But that's the ...Yes, of course, you are right. But that's the case with just about any trial. Even when it looks like a slam dunk there is always the possibility that one juror will balk. In any case, as you well know, my intention is not necessarily to see John put away for life, but to give him his day in court. If his legal team can make a convincing defense, then even I might vote to acquit.<br /><br />But I think you are too quick to dismiss all the evidence pointing away from an intruder. It's not just the lack of intruder evidence or the fact that no intruder theory makes sense -- it's also John's absurd window story, contradicted by Linda, for one thing, and also, very likely, contradicted by the edges of the broken glass, which I feel sure were, and hopefully still are, clean -- if that evidence hasn't been lost. <br /><br />Once it's established that his story is a lie, then no amount of intruder evidence will matter, even to someone eager to give him "the benefit of the doubt." There will no longer be any doubt.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-71822482759097721642016-08-30T14:00:17.761-04:002016-08-30T14:00:17.761-04:00". . . no intruder theory makes sense . . . n...". . . no intruder theory makes sense . . . no viable defense". No intruder theory makes sense to you and me, Doc. Regrettably, neither of us would sit on John's jury, and it only takes one recalcitrant juror, one stubborn contrarian determined to interpret "reasonable doubt" as "benefit of the doubt" (and they do, believe me), and that panel is hung. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-45037607666929863022016-08-29T17:58:08.771-04:002016-08-29T17:58:08.771-04:00If John had been alone, the broken window and note...If John had been alone, the broken window and note would still have been there. And as you say, in the absence of conclusive intruder evidence, coupled with the fact that no intruder theory makes sense, he would have had no viable defense.<br /><br />So, assuming his lawyers would not be in a position to even suggest that Patsy or Burke did it, how does their presence change anything? If there was no intruder then the note could not have been written by an intruder. And if the defense refuses to suggest that Patsy or Burke could have written it, then the only alternative would be John, no?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-91590512911145664082016-08-29T15:52:28.602-04:002016-08-29T15:52:28.602-04:00I don't think the evidence found in the house ...I don't think the evidence found in the house is worth a damn, with the exception of the body and what it yielded at autopsy - prior sexual abuse. That's what would have nailed our boy John had he been alone with his daughter, particularly as Patsy would probably have become an ardent prosecution witness rather than John's unwitting cohort.<br /><br />I don't happen to believe there was an intruder, but there is a ransom note and a broken window, neither can be definitively attributed to any particular person, and it would be foolish to mount a defense not based on those elements. <br /><br />I don't understand your third paragraph at all, as clearly this is a US case, and clearly no criminal attorney worth his salt would point to Patsy or Burke in defense of John.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-75134437059082551312016-08-29T11:44:00.032-04:002016-08-29T11:44:00.032-04:00But doesn't that apply equally to the situatio...But doesn't that apply equally to the situation where John is alone in the house with the victim? There is no direct testimony, physical objects, etc. in that case either. <br /><br />And once it's established that there was no intruder, the only way his lawyers could argue for reasonable doubt would be to cast suspicion on Patsy or Burke, which would be hugely counterproductive, no? The only way to make such an accusation plausible would be to put John on the stand and force him to confess to his complicity in this crime.<br /><br />Remember the difference between the European system and the American system, based on the old British legal process. In Europe the judge is charged with determining the truth, while in the States, the process is adversarial. Here in the States, it would be up to the defendant's lawyers to argue that Patsy or Burke could have done it -- there would be no third party ready to intervene on behalf of "the truth." And imo it would be fatal to John's case if his lawyers even suggested that someone else in the Ramsey family could be guilty.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-5198598956842661872016-08-29T11:06:07.517-04:002016-08-29T11:06:07.517-04:00My conviction that John could not be indicted is b...My conviction that John could not be indicted is based upon the dearth of sufficient evidence pointing exclusively to John. Logic, inferences and argument are not evidence. Evidence is direct testimony or tangible physical objects or documents, and you have neither, so no - a case could not be made against John.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-46928147917029720092016-08-29T10:42:26.221-04:002016-08-29T10:42:26.221-04:00So your conviction that John could never be indict...So your conviction that John could never be indicted has nothing to do with reasonable doubt regarding a possible intruder, but based solely on the possibility that Patsy or Burke could be the killer? Because there is no smoking gun telling us John had to have done it?<br /><br />As I see it, once a jury has been convinced that there could not have been an intruder, then the evidence of prior abuse, plus all John's obvious lies, would make a convincing case against him very possible indeed. And if his lawyers would want to argue for reasonable doubt based on the possibility that Patsy or Burke did it, that would be impossible without putting John on the stand to testify against one of them, something he would never do, as it would totally destroy his credibility.<br /><br />So yes, I do think a case could be made against John and imo it wouldn't be that difficult, because between Patsy, Burke and John, the most likely by far is John -- and his only defense would be to finger either Patsy or Burke, a defense that would be self-defeating.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19726262144011931792016-08-29T08:21:58.947-04:002016-08-29T08:21:58.947-04:00Had John been alone in the house with his daughter...Had John been alone in the house with his daughter he would likely have been arrested after the autopsy and given the evidence of prior abuse, tried and convicted. Sure, he could try to create reasonable doubt with an intruder theory, but I think the prior sexual abuse would have sealed the deal, particularly as Patsy would have been appalled and not have lied for him under those circumstances. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-46635395535524953122016-08-27T11:09:43.307-04:002016-08-27T11:09:43.307-04:00No, the glass fragments were not small. We can see...No, the glass fragments were not small. We can see them very clearly in the video that was released in conjunction with Kolar's book. If in fact the edges are not clean, then yes, it would not be easy to claim John lied. But from what we know about the investigation it seems clear, to me at least, that they'll be found to be clean. And that could not possibly point to an intruder, since, as the police determined, no one could have passed through that window without clearly smudging the dirt on the window sill. That, plus the testimony of Linda Hoffman, would be enough to prove that John lied.<br /><br />Once that's established, then any allegations regarding a possible intruder become moot.<br /><br />But let me ask you this, CC. If John had been alone in the house with JonBenet that night, what then? Would there be grounds for his arrest and indictment? Would he credibly have been able to invoke reasonable doubt? Or does your skepticism still hold, even on that score?<br /><br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-55175040215185862772016-08-25T15:56:49.882-04:002016-08-25T15:56:49.882-04:00I don't see that your definition differs subst...I don't see that your definition differs substantively from mine; both place emphasis on facts, and I continue to maintain that your inferences, logical though they may be, do not rise to the level of facts. Your entire paragraph five above, other than the statement about motive and prior abuse, can be applied equally well to Patsy. You put great emphasis on John's "lie" about the window, but cannot prove, by direct testimony or tangible evidence that it was in fact a lie, as you have no idea what the examination of the broken glass would show. Perhaps the glass fragments collected were so small it was impossible to determine the age of the break - that's how I interpret Thomas's (or was it Kolar's?) equivocation about the glass.<br /><br />Regardless, I think you'll find that most trial attorneys do agree on circumstantial evidence, facts, and the relative merit of inferences.<br />CC Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-87469225676114736272016-08-25T14:51:51.098-04:002016-08-25T14:51:51.098-04:00CC, let me direct you to the following website, a ...CC, let me direct you to the following website, a legal dictionary, where circumstantial evidence is defined and discussed: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/circumstantial+evidence<br /><br />Some excerpts:<br /><br />"Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence."<br /><br />An excellent description of my method, based on the combination of facts and inference.<br /><br />"Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused."<br /><br />In the Ramsey case, we have the accused's unwillingness to be questioned by the authorities; the existence of a likely motive (suggested by the evidence of prior abuse); opportunity, presence in the home at the time of the murder, denial, evasions and contradictions aplenty, as you well know; and John's conduct on the morning after the murder, including his disappearance for a significant amount of time, his contamination of the crime scene, and his blatant lie about breaking the basement window at an earlier date.<br /><br />"In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime."<br /><br />Yes, although the fact that Patsy is the one who made the 911 call does not in itself prove John's guilt, the circumstances under which that call was made points straight to him as writer of the note, and in my view can be considered the equivalent of proof.<br /><br />Though there is no direct evidence proving John staged a breakin at the basement window, it can be demonstrated that his story is a lie, and under those circumstances his lie constitutes proof of his involvement. Once this has been established as a lie, which can be done by examination of broken glass, then obviously there was no intruder. And since it's already possible to establish that both John and Patsy could not have been in it together (thanks to her 911 call), John's involvement as both stager and murderer becomes clear and can be regarded as proven.<br /><br />While it's true that evidence of prior molestation does not in itself prove that John was the molester, once again the circumstances under which such molestation would have taken place strongly points to John. Proof positive? No. But given all the other circumstantial evidence pointing to John's involvement, it would in my opinion be enough to sway a jury.<br /><br />I appreciate your legal expertise, CC, but as I'm sure you are well aware, not all lawyers agree on such matters and many cases have been prosecuted on far less compelling evidence. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-12977696675268515862016-08-25T13:49:18.045-04:002016-08-25T13:49:18.045-04:00Evidence is any proof offered at trial by witnesse...Evidence is any proof offered at trial by witnesses or through documents, exhibits or other tangible objects to prove the truth of an alleged fact. You have no evidence. You have a collection of factoids you have chosen to interpret in a particular way - a way I find compelling and mostly believable, but it in no way constitutes evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.<br /><br />A circumstantial case can be a perfectly winnable one, PROVIDED the chain of circumstances points to one suspect to the exclusion of all others. Motive is usually a necessary component to a circumstantial case as well, and while I agree John molested his daughter and that the eleven medical experts can make a case that she was molested prior to the night of her murder, it's impossible to prove that her father was her abuser.<br /><br />The broken glass is not evidence that points to John Ramsey to the exclusion of any other suspect; it works just as well for an IDI or PDI theory. Handwriting "experts" testimony would merely be offset by experts brought by the other side, and in a bench trial would likely be disallowed altogether. And on and on and on. <br /><br />It's a dandy little theory Doc, but it ain't evidence.<br />CC <br /><br />You'd never get a probable cause warrant for arrest, and no prosecutor would attempt to try such a case. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-62742194912709747002016-08-25T12:18:26.083-04:002016-08-25T12:18:26.083-04:00CC, over the last few years, as I reluctantly admi...CC, over the last few years, as I reluctantly admit, I've become addicted to true-crime television, something that never interested me before. And I must say that in a great many cases, people have been convicted on the basis of a lot less evidence than the evidence I've unearthed pointing to John. In the great majority of instances, there is no smoking gun or any decisive evidence of the sort you seem to feel is necessary. If there were, then things would have been settled very quickly and the case would not have been featured on national TV. These are circumstantial cases, and yes, many people have been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of guilt usually leads to a plea bargain rather than a trial.<br /><br />I must admit, however, that in this case, because of the complexities and the history, I too can't see a prosecutor being willing to take on John and his defense team on the basis of a theory such as mine. So you do have a point.<br /><br />My hope is that someone in a position to make a difference, a prosecutor or a member of the BPD or an investigative reporter, would be willing to build on the case I've put together and fill in some of the gaps that I can't. I think it would be necessary to interview some of the handwriting "experts" who ruled John out, challenging them to explain how such a decision could be arrived at, and outline what sort of scientific principles could be applied in such a case. One could then, I feel sure, find forensic doc. specialists who could dispute that finding and so testify in court.<br /><br />Another important piece of evidence not currently available is the broken glass from the basement window. That glass was collected on the morning of the 26th I feel sure, and if proper procedure was followed it would have been placed in a plastic container and filed. Unless that evidence has been destroyed or lost, it might well be sitting on a shelf somewhere and could be re-examined. According to James Kolar it was not possible for the forensics people to determine from the condition of the glass whether or not this was an old break. I find that conclusion rather odd. <br /><br />Either the edges of the glass were clean or not. If not, then that would be a sure sign of an old break -- and there would have been no reason for the police to question John about his breakin story, nor any reason to ask, on two different occasions, whether the window had been repaired. I feel sure the edges must have been clean, and if they've been preserved properly in a plastic container they would still be clean. A fresh break confirms my conviction that John was lying -- no doubt to cover for the fact that he himself broke that window on the night of the crime.<br /><br />This, combined with all the other evidence so strongly suggesting prior molestation, and the logic of the case, as I've presented it here, would imo justify an indictment and very likely a conviction as well.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-22638216098072797562016-08-25T08:50:12.437-04:002016-08-25T08:50:12.437-04:00Again, still, there is and has been insufficient p...Again, still, there is and has been insufficient probable cause to arrest John Ramsey. Probable cause may be less than the evidence necessary at trial, but it must be more than suspicion. What you have, Doc, is a theory unsupported by evidence.<br /><br />Again, still, no right-thinking defense attorney would choose trial by jury given the dearth of evidence. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-91744703914272275672016-08-25T00:37:23.007-04:002016-08-25T00:37:23.007-04:00Your wasting your time. I've never denied that...Your wasting your time. I've never denied that someone with a key could have gained entrance to the house. It's just hard to understand how someone sufficiently off the radar to not be investigated could know about certain details referenced in the note.<br /><br />Also if some off the radar person entered and exited with a key, then how do we account for the scene at the broken window, where a suitcase was found propped against the wall just under it and packing peanuts from the window well were found strewn over the floor.<br /><br />As I've said before, a real intruder would have left conclusive evidence of his presence, not just a few bits and pieces that can easily be explained. For example the palm print was found to be from John's daughter Melinda and the Hi-Tec boot print could have been from a Hi-Tec boot Burke admitted to having owned at the time. The tape and cord could easily have been taken from detritus left over from Xmas presents and wrappings or else from things workmen had left behind in the basement.<br /><br />When all is said and done, the preponderance of evidence tells us an intruder is extremely unlikely, both for lack of real evidence and also because no intruder theory makes sense. While anything is possible, there is imo more than enough probable cause to place John Ramsey on trial for the murder of his daughter. If his lawyers then choose to argue for reasonable doubt based on arguments such as yours they will be free to do so -- and the jury will decide.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19831595781779743892016-08-24T21:07:55.333-04:002016-08-24T21:07:55.333-04:00ST book page 150
“a recent letter from the Ramsey...ST book page 150<br /><br />“a recent letter from the Ramsey private investigator supplied a multitude of new "suspects" who had had "frequent and recent access" to the house-hundreds of unnamed guests at Christmas parties, nannies, friends, neighbors, people from the Historic Boulder tour, a battalion of cleaning women, street musicians, caterers, florists, friends, contractors, window cleaners, plumbers, and videotaping crews. When the case began, police were told that the only outsiders with keys were John Andrew Ramsey and the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann-Pugh. Now a couple of dozen keys were said to be missing."<br /><br />CC2<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-85121595146847989662016-08-24T20:46:24.940-04:002016-08-24T20:46:24.940-04:00ok, citation now supplied re: number of handymen, ...ok, citation now supplied re: number of handymen, cleaning personnel, at the Ramsey residence, courtesy of JR:<br /><br />http://www.acandyrose.com/s-neighbors-boulder.htm<br /><br /><br />“DOI Page 380<br /><br />"Change your locks at least every year and keep a list of who has your house key -- and make sure it is a short list. If you change cleaning ladies, change the locks. You don't know who has made a copy of someone else's key to your house. We thought we had only given a few of our keys to other people, but as we thought about this, we realized there could have been more than twenty keys outside of our hands, which had been given out over a period of five years.”<br /><br />CC2<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-75742779925726374782016-08-24T19:30:49.600-04:002016-08-24T19:30:49.600-04:00“this note was not written by an irrational person...“this note was not written by an irrational person. It was carefully thought out, carefully composed, carefully penned, with margin carefully observed, and consistently wide spacing between words.”<br />100% disagreed, this is absolutely the work of a deranged mind both in intent and execution. The fact that the RN is 3 pages long, mentions movie tags, has the word “hence”, “attaché” in it, claims a kidnapping occurred when it didn’t, warns of dire consequences without any sort of recourse to actually enact anything dire (since the victim is already dead) - tells us this is a deranged psychopath for sure. Under no circumstance will anyone of sound mind deem this RN to be a wise crime scene move ! Its absolutely positively 100% irrational. The perps wanted to deflect blame, and babbled on endlessly, as if in taunt, in the note. At the legal level, shown the crime scene photos, its extremely difficult to consider that any jury would not simply be stunned, and also deem the RN and perp totally and completely irrational. <br />Further, if the perp could be identified, he would be forever branded among the worst kind of criminals in history, and if we look at (perhaps) the most similar scenario in recent memory, the Elizabeth Smart case, then we see how the court system dealt with Brian David Mitchell – and I quote from:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_kidnapping<br /><br />“Welner opined that Mitchell was competent to stand trial, and diagnosed him with pedophilia, nonexclusive type, antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder”. <br /><br />With that list in mind, how could you argue the perp is psychologically much different than BDM ? <br /><br />“So the notion that J has no history of child abuse or any other form of devious behavior is meaningless, as we just don't have enough information to confirm or deny that.”<br /><br />1. It’s not meaningless, its an important point that any defense attorney would bring out in opening statements, and repeatedly throughout trial. Again, what you and I believe, may differ, its what a jury of the perps peers can be brought to believe in a court of law. <br />2. You don’t just start being a sexual perp in your 30s, 40s or 50s, this behavior starts much younger in life, imho.<br /><br /><br />CC2 (2/2)<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-41390437925263568202016-08-24T19:30:16.877-04:002016-08-24T19:30:16.877-04:00"But the number of people with keys was known..."But the number of people with keys was known and all were investigated."<br />Ext unlikely that all the people who actually had keys were known. Again this was a mansion of a house, 15 bedrooms, 7200 square feet in size, requiring a lot of maint. to upkeep, especially with the cold weather effect of snow and frost effects. There was a long list of handyman who had worked that property over the space of 5 years (my contention, no citation for this yet), including M Pugh. Yes, a list of authorized key holders perhaps got made, but it could have easily been incomplete. Any handyman can go to the local hardware store / Home Depot / Ace Hardware locksmith and get a Kwikset or Schlage lock key duplicated, its quite simple, as you know. <br />As far as any "stranger intruder" knowing about John's bonus, that is quite intriguing. But its possible that he was being surveilled, and that what was thought to be held in private, was actually known to several parties. Linda Hoffman Pugh comes to mind, she could’ve spied the note during her housecleaning duties.<br /><br />"None of the items in your list are convincing." This list is obviously not my list, its been on a public-for-justice forum, unchanged, for many years now. Taken alone, perhaps, one could explain them away as errors of memory on the part of the Ramsey’s. But a baseball bat AND duct tape AND animal hair AND boot prints AND a hand print on a door AND a moved chair AND a bunch of nylon cord, AND a red felt pen on victims palm, all brought into the house by a stranger, would certainly have a major effect on any jury. Perhaps you remain unconvinced, since it disrupts your RDI theory, however, my feeling is that there’s way too much evidence and opportunity here. <br /><br />"Why on earth would an intruder bother to take a roll of duct tape or cord back with him?" How many perps have been caught with the instruments of death in their cars, or residences ? We could begin to elucidate names, but most of us in the sleuthing mindset already know their names well. This statement I will therefore interpret to mean, why would a perp(s) leave such evidence at the crime scene? Answer, the perp(s) must have had to scramble to exit the residence quickly. Im not saying I think 4 perps did it, but perhaps at least two. Perhaps the victim’s screams triggered their panic. Its easily conceivable that large jackets with deep pockets might have been worn, after all, it was cold and snowy there in Boulder. According to the same websight, the Ramsey's could not account for the duct tape, baseball bat, animal hair (they didnt have pets), nylon cord... How does your JDI theory explain these critical bits of evidence being on the premise ?<br /><br />CC2 (1/2)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-74386956400992692302016-08-24T12:16:22.473-04:002016-08-24T12:16:22.473-04:00Thanks for this thorough and well thought out &quo...Thanks for this thorough and well thought out "refutation," CC2. I'll respond as best I can, but don't have the time for a complete consideration of every single item.<br /><br />"This was a 15 bedroom house, with at least 30 windows. There were plenty of entry points, including the Butler door,"<br /><br />Yes, 15 bedrooms, many windows, but only a very limited number of entry/exit points, all of which were checked. The Butler door was a red herring that was debunked ages ago. For details do a search here on that term.<br /><br />To save myself some time I will acknowledge that someone with a key could have entered the house, so there was no need for forced entry. But the number of people with keys was known and all were investigated. And yes, someone "off the radar" could have gotten hold of a key he wasn't supposed to have. But how would someone "off the radar" be so familiar with certain details mentioned in the note, such as John's bonus amount or the comment about "southern common sense"? <br /><br />Oh and the window that was found open to allow electrical cords to pass through was protected by iron bars.<br /><br />"“Second, there was no sign of an intruder anywhere on the premises.”<br />Again there are conflicting reports. Depends on what evidence you believe."<br /><br />What I meant was that there was no conclusive evidence of an intruder's presence anywhere. And it's not so easy to ignore that because this person would have to have been in the house for some time. And since he had no problem leaving a note and a dead body he would not have bothered to hide other evidence of his presence in that house. For example, he could have rifled through drawers, left muddy footprints in the basement, stolen valuable items, left fingerprints, etc. But nothing of that sort was found.<br /><br />None of the items in your list are convincing. Why on earth would an intruder bother to take a roll of duct tape or cord back with him? How would he carry it? -- in his pockets? As for the rest, it's all been investigated and explained. Again feel free to do a search for these items on this blog.<br /><br />Regarding my claim that no intruder theory makes sense you raise the possibility of some irrational person who's actions don't need to make sense. But this note was not written by an irrational person. It was carefully thought out, carefully composed, carefully penned, with margin carefully observed, and consistently wide spacing between words. Sure, anything is possible. But what counts in a trial is reasonable doubt, not any doubt at all and as far as I'm concerned that's a very meaningful and powerful distinction.<br /><br />As far as John's history is concerned, we do know that he lied systematically to his first wife over a period of at least a year, while he was having an affair with a secretary. Also it is well known that he was away from home much of the time, and we know nothing about his activities while away. So the notion that John has no history of child abuse or any other form of devious behavior is meaningless, as we just don't have enough information to confirm or deny that.<br /> DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-46333332178822339222016-08-23T21:56:08.703-04:002016-08-23T21:56:08.703-04:00IDI - why it must absolutely remain on our radar
...IDI - why it must absolutely remain on our radar<br /><br />DocG has done a fine job of proposing a very sincere, logical, and methodical JDI case. He deserves some serious praise for his dogged adherence to facts and avoidance of the “morass”. His JDI argument is the most compelling Ive seen or read anywhere. <br /><br />His case however mostly centers around the phrase “most likely to have happened”. The problem with this is that, if you have never seen the movie “Man on Wire” and were unaware that it IS possible to traverse from one tall bldg to another along a narrow cable, especially at 1350 feet in the air, you would swear that some other method of transport occurred because, it was “most likely to have happened”. “MLTHH” therefore can lead to other than the truth, for the logical inference that, until you know the universe of possibilities, your solution set is always a subset of UOP. <br /><br />In simpler terms, the problem of the case as presented by DocG with MLTHH - thats all it is, its not a statement of What Did Happen…now, before I go further again let me praise Doc for his fine work on this sight, and also, like Doc, I will not insist that I know What Did Happen (although I tend to think aussieSheila may have come the closest so far), but that my post here is to simply insist on IDI not being removed from our radar.<br /><br />One by one I will refute Doc’s rationale for “IDI cannot possibly be true”. Here we go:<br /><br />“First, there was no means for an intruder to enter or leave. <br />This was a 15 bedroom house, with at least 30 windows. There were plenty of entry points, including the Butler door, which may have in fact been left open (Ive read conflicting reports on this door). Reports from John or the police could have been errors of memory. <br />Refer to:<br />http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682499/Potential%20Points%20of%20Entry<br />“Two windows were open slightly, allowing electrical cords for the outside Christmas lights to pass through." (Glick et al. 1998).”<br /><br />“Second, there was no sign of an intruder anywhere on the premises.”<br />Again there are conflicting reports. Depends on what evidence you believe.<br />refer to: <br />http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682525/What%20Neighbors%20Reported<br />for all kinds of holes in this theory. <br />Sections include “Secret Santa visit”, “lights in kitchen”, “missing safety light”, “early morning scream” and “metal scraping sound”.<br />Thus we are far far from a solid “nobody saw or heard anything” scenario. <br /><br /><br />“Third, there was no sign that anything had either been introduced into the house or taken from it.”<br />Again conflicting reports. Refer to:<br />http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder#SpecificEvidenceofIntruderEntry<br />Black duct tape<br />cord<br />animal hair<br />footprints<br />palmprint<br />baseball bat<br />hardly conclusive ! <br /><br />“Fourth, there was no reason for any intruder, either a kidnapper, a child molester, someone "out to get" John or to frame John, etc., etc., to leave a note behind in his own handwriting, providing investigators with evidence that could be used against him”<br />this statement might be entirely true, but is irrelevant - the mind of a panicked criminal might be not be entirely rational. And as Doc would say “there’s a first time for anything”. <br /><br />“It seems obvious, therefore, that there could have been no intruder.”<br />uh, no - we’ve just made a long sweeping case as to refutation of this statement, in bold.<br /><br />Further, if John was indeed a true sexual predator, we would have heard something from or about his first two daughters, Elizabeth and Melinda, again in the spirit of “most likely”. <br /><br />Its not conclusive by any means that John was in fact a sexual predator, or that IDI cannot have been the case.<br /><br />CC2<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com