I can't find a hole in this theory...

[txsvicki]

To me, patsy seems the most likely to have sexualized the kids and had no concept of behavior. She taught jonbenet to be flirty and friendly in the pageants then didn't seem to understand how that could carry over. Then, she sat in an interrogation and said her probably age 5 daughter had a crush on an older boy. That is bizarre, imo.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Ok, thank you. I stand corrected.

Many boys reach puberty early, so I'm not surprised by the 12 year olds. I would imagine that 10 year olds with an interest in sex are much rarer, and 9 year olds rarer still, so these statistics surprise me. These are certainly the exceptions, however, and I see no evidence that Burke was one of them. Doesn't mean he couldn't be, but in a criminal case you need real evidence, not just possibilities and speculations, which are all Kolar offers.



Based on the statistics you present, a child of Burke's age could possibly be capable of having a sexual relationship with his six year old sister, granted. That is very far from being likely however, which is a completely different thing.

So sorry, but I still see John as the most likely molester by far, and I feel sure any jury would agree. If there were some compelling reason to rule John out in that respect, then of course there would be no choice but to consider Burke as a possibility. But for most people I think that would be a huge stretch, based not only on his age but his general appearance, his past history, etc. I know about the golf club incident, and I'm even willing to see that as deliberately aggressive behavior, not necessarily an accident. But that's a far cry from penetration of his sister's vagina and bludgeoning her with a "blow that could have felled a grown man," sorry.

I assure you it's not all that rare for a 9 or 10 year old to be a sexual predator. Adult male convicted sex offenders polygraphed admit to starting very young, some around the age of 6 when given their histories as part of treatment. Again IMO.

It's my opinion something sparks the deviance in a young child. Perhaps the child is aroused, excited while witnessing a diaper change, the spanking of a younger child, a rape scene in a movie etc and the brain becomes hard wired and arousal only occurs when domination over another occurs.

Oh...and it's not called a sexual relationship when a 9 year old molests a 6 year old.

I also am familiar with cases where dad actually encourages his sons participation. Cases where father and son molest the girls in the family. That too isn't as rare as people may think.

Women too sometimes molest their children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eileenhawkeye]

To me, patsy seems the most likely to have sexualized the kids and had no concept of behavior. She taught jonbenet to be flirty and friendly in the pageants then didn't seem to understand how that could carry over. Then, she sat in an interrogation and said her probably age 5 daughter had a crush on an older boy. That is bizarre, imo.

I don't think JBR's crush was bizarre. The boy, Luke, is described as "older than Burke" so I figured he was like middle school age. Patsy also said that JonBenet got very shy around him, which seems normal. Besides, there are lots of girls JonBenet's age who have huge crushes on Justin Bieber, and he is 18.

 

[txsvicki]

I don't think she had a crush at all. But just a little shy and awed towards an older kid and wondering if she'd be allowed to play. Patsy had her flushing and peeking at him like some southern belle in a romance novel. That's what is so bizarre when i read it, and the woman had no concept of how it must have sounded to the detectives.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't think she had a crush at all. But just a little shy and awed towards an older kid and wondering if she'd be allowed to play. Patsy had her flushing and peeking at him like some southern belle in a romance novel. That's what is so bizarre when i read it, and the woman had no concept of how it must have sounded to the detectives.

I actually remember having a huge crush on my neighbor when I was 5, he was 12! I used to imagine our wedding. I remember untying my sneaker one day and running to the front yard as he came walking down the street to ask him to tie it.

My own son had such a huge crush on our friends much older daughter every time they visited he would throw up! He picked flowers for her and talked incessantly about her for almost a year. It was over when she failed to thank him for a gift he gave her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whaleshark]

If there were some compelling reason to rule John out in that respect, then of course there would be no choice but to consider Burke as a possibility. But for most people I think that would be a huge stretch, based not only on his age but his general appearance, his past history, etc.

FYI - Ruling Burke in does not have to mean ruling John out. Just because I consider a BDI scenario does not mean that I do not consider a JDI scenario. Some of us are not committed to one theory only.

John is not a saint, no.... But if you think it absurd to consider anything else but a JDI scenario based on whom you think is most likely, then you are being just as close-minded as you are accusing others of being. For just as much as I am willing to see John's handwriting in the note, and tried to open others to that possibility, you are just as adamant that it possibly could not be Burke - simply based on who you think is 'most likely'. How can you expect others to be open-minded and consider your theory for a change, if you won't do the same?

And again, it's not a stretch to consider Burke due to his age, based on the facts I just presented about juvenile offenders above. And as far as general appearance - what does your average sex offender look like? And past history - well, he was known to play with himself out in the open, been previously caught with JonBenet before, had hurt her with a golf club before, and even if he did none of those things, I showed above that most child on child abuse cases go unreported or are underreported, and most child offenders do not reoffend, and even so, there is always a first time....

And, you could use that same argument about John anyway - does he 'look' like a sex offender, have previous history of violence or sex abuse? So then we are back to the basic argument of probably more likely to be the older sexually mature male, and then I would refer back to that not necessarily being the case based on the facts I showed above.

And based on those things, will wisely consider both possibilities, and not rule either of them out.

 

[dodie20]

I don't think she had a crush at all. But just a little shy and awed towards an older kid and wondering if she'd be allowed to play. Patsy had her flushing and peeking at him like some southern belle in a romance novel. That's what is so bizarre when i read it, and the woman had no concept of how it must have sounded to the detectives.

can you point me to a link? I'd like to read this interview. If JB was acting like this, (PR could have been exagerating), did it ever occur to her to ask why?

 

[Linda7NJ]

FYI - Ruling Burke in does not have to mean ruling John out. Just because I consider a BDI scenario does not mean that I do not consider a JDI scenario. Some of us are not committed to one theory only.

John is not a saint, no.... But if you think it absurd to consider anything else but a JDI scenario based on whom you think is most likely, then you are being just as close-minded as you are accusing others of being. For just as much as I am willing to see John's handwriting in the note, and tried to open others to that possibility, you are just as adamant that it possibly could not be Burke - simply based on who you think is 'most likely'. How can you expect others to be open-minded and consider your theory for a change, if you won't do the same?

And again, it's not a stretch to consider Burke due to his age, based on the facts I just presented about juvenile offenders above. And as far as general appearance - what does your average sex offender look like? And past history - well, he was known to play with himself out in the open, been previously caught with JonBenet before, had hurt her with a golf club before, and even if he did none of those things, I showed above that most child on child abuse cases go unreported or are underreported, and most child offenders do not reoffend, and even so, there is always a first time....

And, you could use that same argument about John anyway - does he 'look' like a sex offender, have previous history of violence or sex abuse? So then we are back to the basic argument of probably more likely to be the older sexually mature male, and then I would refer back to that not necessarily being the case based on the facts I showed above.

Thank you! Excellent post....agree with every word


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txsvicki]

Lol. But, patsy mentions nothing except some shyness and blushing. Shyness with older kids is normal behavior, and patsy had to dramatize it yet gave no real indications of a crush.
I have trouble quoting for some reason on a kindle. The interview is one of those online. I'm not sure if we can link to the site where all the interviews and info is located.but it's the '97interview with Trujillo and Thomas. She also talks of it again in the june '98 interview, and has jonbenet having a crush even when "real little".

 

[UKGuy]

Lol. But, patsy mentions nothing except some shyness and blushing. Shyness with older kids is normal behavior, and patsy had to dramatize it yet gave no real indications of a crush.
I have trouble quoting for some reason on a kindle. The interview is one of those online. I'm not sure if we can link to the site where all the interviews and info is located.but it's the '97interview with Trujillo and Thomas. She also talks of it again in the june '98 interview, and has jonbenet having a crush even when "real little".

http://www.acandyrose.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

TT: Was she afraid of anybody? Anybody that she talked about that she didn’t like, she was afraid of, again, from the neighborhood, family, friends, anybody like that that she talked about being afraid of?

PR: She was a little shy with that Luke next door, I think a little blonde fellow. But he was always just real nice to her. I think she kind of had a little crush on him or something. I mean, I can of, always took him as that. By the was never, he never hugged her or any, we never saw him…

TT: She ever talk about being afraid of Luke or anything like that?

PR: No. She’d just kind of get real shy, I mean this is since she was little, kind of get shy with him or something like that.

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

9 TOM HANEY: I want to talk about

10 some of the kids from the neighborhood too.

11 This Luke, is it Vermiere?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Vermiere, yes.

13 Next door, yes.

14 TOM HANEY: What, what about him,

15 how much time did he spend at your place, who

16 did he play with?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: You know, I mean he

18 wasn't in our house really very much. He was

19 with Burke and certainly JonBenet, but he was a

20 very sweet child and would give JonBenet

21 attention. You know, even when she was real

22 little, he would stoop down and talk with her

23 and all that.

24 And she, she was -- I thought was a

25 child that could have a little crush, you know,

0112

1 she sort of liked him, because he was soft

2 spoken and gentle and you know. Pretty features

3 and you know, just a nice little boy. She would

4 get kind of flush she -- sort of around him or

5 something. And she called him Big Luke, because

6 we had another friend, Luke Fernie who we

7 referred to him as Little Luke. But he was not

8 ever really around a lot.

9 TRIP DeMUTH: You say he would give

10 JonBenet attention. Would he play with her?

11 PATSY RAMSEY: Not really. I mean

12 I sort of kept an eyeball there. Because he was

13 a little bit older, you know. But he would just

14 be -- you know, there might be several kids down

15 on the patio, the back patio, he would be on a

16 bike or something and he would talk with her or

17 something.

18 TRIP DeMUTH: Did he ever spend any

19 amount of time in the house playing with Burke,

20 for example?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: A lot of the

22 neighborhood boys came over and would play video

23 games with Burke. The Colby (phonetic) boys,

24 Luke sometimes, but he was just a little bit

25 older, you know, so he really wasn't there too

0113

1 much.

.

 

[Chrishope]

"Meanwhile the duct tape was sent to the FBI, which had a large database for matching purposes. Special Agent Douglas Deedrick, an FBI hair and fiber specialist who had testified in the 0. J. Simpson criminal case, notified the Boulder PD that he had found what seemed to be red and black microscopic fiber traces on the duct tape. The four fibers would have to be analyzed further to determine what kind they were." PMPT p. 240. I found this reference at the ACandyRose site.

According to this report, only four of Patsy's fibers were found on the tape. And they were microscopic, meaning they were not visible to the naked eye. As far as the other sites are concerned, I see no reason to doubt that they too could have gotten there via indirect transfer via the victim. Also, since Patsy's paint tote was used by the attacker I see no reason to assume many if not all the fibers could have been transferred via that source as well, since she used those brushes whenever she painted.

This approach is well known to scientists. It's called "cherry picking." You keep looking until you find "evidence" that fits your theory. Then you make a big deal out of that, while at the same time ignoring everything else that doesn't fit. There is no direct evidence linking Patsy to any aspect of the crime. And that goes for the equally dubious handwriting evidence, as I've demonstrated very clearly on my blog.

As you know I strongly suspect John of committing every aspect of this crime, but I don't see his fibers as conclusive evidence either, since they too could have been transferred indirectly.

People keep claiming the fibers had to be there from primary transfer, but they never offer any proof why they couldn't be there from secondary transfer.

 

[txsvicki]

Kolar must have good reason to point so many red flags to Burke, but i just can't get past the fact that he wasn' t already up in his room thoroughly instructed on what not to say when the 911 call was made. If either parent is innocent of the murder and body staging then it would be the one who woke him to ask questions, and the most nervous one the guilty, which was Patsy.

 

[rashomon]

If you read my latest blog post you'll see that, as far as establishing probable cause to indict John, this doesn't matter. What matters is that John's lies tell us there was no intruder. That's all we need. His lawyers are NOT going to argue they were in on it together, believe me. All the prosecution needs to argue is that John, as the sole mature male in the house was the most likely to have sexually assaulted the victim. THAT constitutes probable cause.

Sure, that's not your theory, and if all that matters to you is vindication of your theory, then fine, we can return to where we were so many years ago, when the last Grand Jury went nowhere. I'm arguing for a new approach, because the old one didn't work, remember?

I go by the evidence in its totality, and can offer you different RDI theories where all this evidence is present and explained.
But all my RDI theories have both John and Patsy being involved in the cover up of what had happened, since this is what the evidence tells us.
So they could have covered up either for Patsy, or for Burke, or for John.
Or for each other (in case Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet, but directed her rage against her daughter).

The problem with your theory is that you have John as the offender who had no help whatsoever in the cover-up from Patsy.

But since the evidence contradicts this, you have a problem in explaining away the fiber evidence which links Patsy to the 'garrote' scene. The same goes for the ransom note: no expert consulted by LE could eliminate her as the writer; some of them even were practically certain that she wrote it.

In addition, with regard to Patsy's 911 call, you have to 'invent' a highly unlikely scenario without which your whole theory would collapse.
But if a theory hinges on highly unlikely speculations, it means that there does not exist valid evidence to back it up.

 

[Whaleshark]

To put things in perspective imagine yourself on the jury in a child molestation case and the leading suspect finally confesses to going to great lengths to cover up the crime and point the finger at anyone he can think of for years. And then claims his son actually committed the molestation and he was "only" covering for him "to protect the family honor." Ask yourself, honestly, if this were any other case but the Ramsey case, how willing you would be to believe that and let this guy go free?

Because the Ransom Note and contradicting lies and actions of the Ramseys show us there is obvious adult involvement in the cover up, whether an adult Ramsey committed the assault and murder or not, I wouldn't be willing to let the guy go free.

Ransom note was written by an adult or adults, so even if Burke was part of it, an adult Ramsey is also part of it.

Even if he wanted to say he was 'only' covering for him to protect the family honor, or protect Burke from his consequences, he is still culpable. John wouldn't get out of one crime by admitting to only covering for the other - not in my book anyway. Even if he said he was 'just' covering up, I find all the associated actions, cover ups, lies, blaming, resources used and abused, and lengths they went to, to divert justice, completely unallowable. He is responsible either way.

One thing to note: sometimes, some of us are having the 'WHODUNNIT' discussion, without having the 'what is the most likely way to get this case prosecuted' discussion. Sometimes we are having both, and sometimes one or the other.

Of course I want to see justice in this case, but some of us are speculating on this forum what really happened to just finally know, and not arguing a theory based only on whether or not that certain theory can be argued and won in court.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

Because the Ransom Note and contradicting lies and actions of the Ramseys show us there is obvious adult involvement in the cover up, whether an adult Ramsey committed the assault and murder or not, I wouldn't be willing to let the guy go free.

Ransom note was written by an adult or adults, so even if Burke was part of it, an adult Ramsey is also part of it.

Even if he wanted to say he was 'only' covering for him to protect the family honor, or protect Burke from his consequences, he is still culpable. John wouldn't get out of one crime by admitting to only covering for the other - not in my book anyway. Even if he said he was 'just' covering up, I find all the associated actions, cover ups, lies, blaming, resources used and abused, and lengths they went to, to divert justice, completely unallowable. He is responsible either way.

One thing to note: sometimes, some of us are having the 'WHODUNNIT' discussion, without having the 'what is the most likely way to get this case prosecuted' discussion. Sometimes we are having both, and sometimes one or the other.

Of course I want to see justice in this case, but some of us are speculating on this forum what really happened to just finally know, and not arguing a theory based only on whether or not that certain theory can be argued and won in court.

At what point do we rule out the potential or capacity for a 9 year old to write a dramatised mimicked (from movies) - almost cliched - ransom note as part of a game?

Here is a link to a talented 8 year old writer. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/story?id=4591478&page=1#.UEpGE42PWSq

Was this child's play gone awry? Did the kids sneak other kids in to play?

 

[rashomon]

Because the Ransom Note and contradicting lies and actions of the Ramseys show us there is obvious adult involvement in the cover up, whether an adult Ramsey committed the assault and murder or not, I wouldn't be willing to let the guy go free.

Ransom note was written by an adult or adults, so even if Burke was part of it, an adult Ramsey is also part of it.

Even if he wanted to say he was 'only' covering for him to protect the family honor, or protect Burke from his consequences, he is still culpable. John wouldn't get out of one crime by admitting to only covering for the other - not in my book anyway. Even if he said he was 'just' covering up, I find all the associated actions, cover ups, lies, blaming, resources used and abused, and lengths they went to, to divert justice, completely unallowable. He is responsible either way.

One thing to note: sometimes, some of us are having the 'WHODUNNIT' discussion, without having the 'what is the most likely way to get this case prosecuted' discussion. Sometimes we are having both, and sometimes one or the other.

Of course I want to see justice in this case, but some of us are speculating on this forum what really happened to just finally know, and not arguing a theory based only on whether or not that certain theory can be argued and won in court.

A good method to test whether one's theory would hold up in court is to scutinize it it from the perspective of a possible strategy by the defense.

In the hypothetical scenario of a possible trial, I'm one hundred per certain that no defense lawyer would advise John Ramsey to testify.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Their task it prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did it.

 

[redheadedgal]

But since the evidence contradicts this, you have a problem in explaining away the fiber evidence which links Patsy to the 'garrote' scene. The same goes for the ransom note: no expert consulted by LE could eliminate her as the writer; some of them even were practically certain that she wrote it.

exactly... "primary transfer" as several experts have said.

and as for cherry picking? why would the lab techs who deemed it "primary", care? they'd have no reason to hold a bias... whodunit isn't their concern. their concern/job/focus is anaylzing the evidence and reporting what was found.

 

[UKGuy]

People keep claiming the fibers had to be there from primary transfer, but they never offer any proof why they couldn't be there from secondary transfer.

Chrishope,
If there was only one instance of a fiber deposit, then your request for proof might seem reasonable.

When there are multiple instances, your request for proof simply appears self serving.

In docg's post it refers to: This approach is well known to scientists. It's called "cherry picking." Its actually termed Confirmation Bias.

And when both you and him refer to evidence that you require to confirm your theory by requesting others proof your thesis false, you are both indulging, even colluding in confirmation bias.

Then there is the consideration of the logic which is that of logical disjunction, which is similar to that of an OR Logic Gate in electronics, a Wittgensteinian Truth Table, or notation in Boolean Algebra.

Where when both operands or propositions are true then then the logical disjunction is also true.

That is the fibers could have arrived in the wine cellar by both primary and secondary transfer. e.g. the situation is not that of an exclusive or as both yourself and docg imply.

I think the time has come for you to put us all out of our misery and demonstrate your proof why the fibers arrived via secondary transfer?

Another matter relating to that of docg's theory which has probably been dealt with elsewhere, but it seems appropriate here:

Perfect Murder/Perfect Town, excerpt

Patsy screamed for her husband. Within seconds, John Ramsey reached the second floor. He was still in his underwear. Patsy told him there was a note downstairs that said JonBenét had been kidnapped. She ran to Burke’s room, she said, turned on the light, and saw her son sleeping. Then she went downstairs, where she found her husband hunched over the three pieces of paper.

John told Officer French that as he read the pages, he realized someone had taken JonBenét. He had no idea where she was. It was still dark outside. Later Ramsey would tell a British TV interviewer that he knew he had to do something. But how could he close the airports and block the roads out of Boulder? Those were the first thoughts that went through his mind, he said.

He soon realized that only the police could do what needed to be done.
Before he finished reading the ransom note, he told Patsy to call the police. Immediately afterward, Patsy called the Whites and Fernies and told them something terrible had happened. “Barbara, get over here as fast as you can,” she said to her friend. Seven minutes after Patsy’s call to 911, Officer French was at their front door.

So John told Patsy to phone the police, why should he do this if he has some other alternative plan?

If you read up on the arrangements John made to get the money, a bank was one place he need never set foot in. Both John Fernie and a Merrill Lynch broker were willing to withdraw cash from their personal accounts, so to find the ransom demand!


.

 

[UKGuy]

I go by the evidence in its totality, and can offer you different RDI theories where all this evidence is present and explained.
But all my RDI theories have both John and Patsy being involved in the cover up of what had happened, since this is what the evidence tells us.
So they could have covered up either for Patsy, or for Burke or for John.
Or for each other (in case Patsy caught John molesting JonBenet, but directed her rage against her daughter).

The problem with your theory is that you have John as the offender who had no help whatsoever in the cover-up from Patsy.

But since the evidence contradicts this, you have a problem in explaining away the fiber evidence which links Patsy to the 'garrote' scene. The same goes for the ransom note: no expert consulted by LE could eliminate her as the writer; some of them even were practically certain that she wrote it.

In addition, with regard to Patsy's 911 call, you have to 'invent' a highly unlikely scenario without which your whole theory would collapse.
But if a theory hinges on highly unlikely speculations, it means that there does not exist valid evidence to back it up.

rashomon,
Its not a theory, its simply speculation, its contradicted by police testimony and forensic evidence.

JDI might be the correct theory, but definitely not as docg's legend relays it!


.

 

[Whaleshark]

At what point do we rule out the potential or capacity for a 9 year old to write a dramatised mimicked (from movies) - almost cliched - ransom note as part of a game?

Here is a link to a talented 8 year old writer. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/PersonOfWeek/story?id=4591478&page=1#.UEpGE42PWSq

Was this child's play gone awry? Did the kids sneak other kids in to play?

Crimey crime crime -- you rascal you. You pulled a Whaleshark -- for this example is the same type of one I would have given, if requesting consideration for all possibilities.

Stellar, it is...that child's words brought tears to my eyes. I have paused for a moment.

The thing is, though, that child is gifted and talented, mature beyond her years, with heavy exposure to music, opera, classic literature and poetry, and possesses an uncommon ability to write better than most adults.

However, it does also mean that it is possible for a young child with similar sophisticated writing abilities, to have written the ransom note.

So I am willing to concede part of the point of 'completely ruling Burke out' as the writer of the note - for if I told docg to consider not ruling Burke out in this crime, then I cannot completely rule Burke out as the writer of the RN either, can I?

But, we would need to know for sure his full mental abilities at the time, knowledge/education level, his interest and exposure to culture, literature, and verbal level of sophistication, as well as all the info he would have needed to know for the note - whether he knew the adult Ramsey inside jokes, used the same manner of speaking, and the level of his spelling/verbal/grammar abilities.

He would also had to have had the same vocabulary level and known linguistics that Patsy/John used in their writings, and those which are used in the ransom note: hence, gentlemen, attache, fat cats, etc. Also, to know that he was exposed to, and remembered, all the lines in those movies-including the older Dirty Harry one(s), and employed them with the sophistication level of the vocabulary in the note.

The note is not only dramatized and gimmicky, but also well-educated with the proper (and aged/formal) use of the English language...

And, his handwriting would have to have not been ruled out.

This is why I usually rule out Burke, and any average teenager, as the writer of the note. However, point taken -- it is possible, per your example, that it could have been written by him -- but not probable, unless all those characteristics above were proven true for Burke....