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

[dodie20]

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....

As far as I know, PR is the only person, close to this case, who was not ruled out as the writer. Try as I might, I can't imagine her writing those horrible things about her daughter, to protect her son. It's possible, but oh my gosh, what kind of mother would stoop to that level? IMO, the person who wrote that note, was only protecting herself. Although the note was immature in places, so what? Adults can be immature at times, and I've read more than once, that PR acted childlike...for instance, in the Enquirer interview, where she talked about her heart going pitty pat, when she thought about the whole ordeal. Also, I haven't ruled her out as the 'child's' voice on the 911. I wish we had access to the enhanced tape, but we don't, so we can only accept that the job was state of the art, and would yield the same results, if reexamined. IMO, PR wrote that note, not BR, not JR, and not some intruder. But Why she wrote it, is the million dollar question. moo

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

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....

Hello Whaleshark - I read recently about the police being very interested in Burke's friends and the neighbourhood kids and whether or not they ever played with Jonbenet and specifically about a lad called Luke who Patsy said was very nice - and who most likely was.. of whom she was somewhat shy around and Patsy saying how the kids would sit in Burke's room and play Nintendo (nothing wrong there - just recalling the convo I am referring to) but I wonder if initially, the first thing the police felt upon seeing the scene of death was that it was as though children had been playing - in a den - a private area - that the bounds tying this child were very loose - that the duct tape around the legs was not properly secure - that the garrotte was in a similar way to a home-made catapult made by a child... but that it was the letter which they felt was too mature for a 9 year old to have written - despite the fact the words could more or less have been lifted from a cartoon.. and this is what changed the theory of who was involved. If the gut instinct was child's play, I wonder why the avenue wasn't fully explored. i read somewhere on this forum, from hearsay and not from a direct quote that Burke was not so good at his schoolwork and may have had some sort of attention deficit disorder or some form of autism and shady motor skills which I have said elsewhere is strange for a Nintendo player. Some children who do not show themselves adequately in the classroom can often exhibit much higher intelligence levels when motivated by personal interests - such as children not interested in maths but who can quickly calculate gaming scores or the points they will achieve in a computer game - just as others will not memorise poetry well but will remember every line of their favourite movie.

I would like to ask also: if someone was unaware of the injury to Jonbenet's head or the seriousness of its nature such that no help was called (I read some doctor's reports saying they have seen children walk into accident and emergency fully coherent with such injuries) and they were unare that she only had a short time to live if left untreated (I believe the injury gave her one and a half hours to two hours time - or was it that she died within that timespan of the injury - not sure.. ) but say - it was causing her brain to dysfunction - possibly blocking oxygen supply? Then, and its a horrible question.. would it have taken less force or strength to strangle the child to death with the pre-existing condition? Would someone become asphyxiated more quickly if there was already bleeding into or bruising on the brain?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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?

Could that be being flirty and friendly? And Pasty was staring to take notice of what was happening to her daughter? Would Pasty ever own up to teaching JonBenet to act that way?

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

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


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!


.

Who told whom that John said to call 911? Pasty Ramsey?

When you're on stage you have to have props. Rounding up money was from John believing a real kidnapping was taking place and he'd need that money. If it wasn't a real kidnapping he still had to get the money. It's all about appearances.

 

[Chrishope]

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

Interesting theory. What is the maximum number of fiber deposits possible with 2ndry transfer ? Remember that the fibers don't have to go from A to B to C to D, they just have to go from A to B, from A to C, etc. Would it be impossible for JB's clothing and hair to contain enough tiny fibers to appear in 4 places, 3 of which are in contact with the body? I'd be interested in your source for this.

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

What is self serving about asking a question -Why can't the fibers be there from secondary transfer? Again, what do multiple instances have to do with it? Again is there some maximum number, far below 4, of possible instances of secondary transfer?

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

My request for proof still stands. I am not relying on your quote from doc, I am asking why the fibers can't be there from secondary transfer.

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.

I'm not referring to evidence that I need for my theory. My position, yet again, is that there are two methods of fiber transfer, Direct (primary) and Indirect (secondary). I do not see how we can distinguish between the two methods of transfer, given the evidence that we know of. Yet again, if you have such information please share it. I would be happy if we could determine that the fibers could not possibly or even likely be there from secondary transfer. That would tell us much about the case, and we could eliminate at least one theory of the case. I'm simply asking you, and anyone else who insists that the fibers must be from primary transfer to offer some proof. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the science of fiber transfer, combined with the known evidence that tells us this was primary, or secondary. It could be either.

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 never implied that it must be one or the other. Certainly it could be from both methods. Please tell us which fibers were deposited by the one, and which by the other.

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?

Yet again, and I cannot make this clearer, I have never said the fibers are there from secondary transfer. I have only said that they could be. I can't prove they are there by one method, or the other method, or by any combination. If you can determine this, please share your knowledge with us. Your continued misunderstanding of this point almost seems willful.

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


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!
.

I don't see why you've included this in a discussion of fiber evidence. Are you of the impression that I must agree with every detail of Doc's theory?

Again, if you can prove by which transfer method the various fibers got where the are, please share. I'm sure we'd all be interested to know.

 

[dodie20]

Hello Whaleshark - I read recently about the police being very interested in Burke's friends and the neighbourhood kids and whether or not they ever played with Jonbenet and specifically about a lad called Luke who Patsy said was very nice - and who most likely was.. of whom she was somewhat shy around and Patsy saying how the kids would sit in Burke's room and play Nintendo (nothing wrong there - just recalling the convo I am referring to) but I wonder if initially, the first thing the police felt upon seeing the scene of death was that it was as though children had been playing - in a den - a private area - that the bounds tying this child were very loose - that the duct tape around the legs was not properly secure - that the garrotte was in a similar way to a home-made catapult made by a child... but that it was the letter which they felt was too mature for a 9 year old to have written - despite the fact the words could more or less have been lifted from a cartoon.. and this is what changed the theory of who was involved. If the gut instinct was child's play, I wonder why the avenue wasn't fully explored. i read somewhere on this forum, from hearsay and not from a direct quote that Burke was not so good at his schoolwork and may have had some sort of attention deficit disorder or some form of autism and shady motor skills which I have said elsewhere is strange for a Nintendo player. Some children who do not show themselves adequately in the classroom can often exhibit much higher intelligence levels when motivated by personal interests - such as children not interested in maths but who can quickly calculate gaming scores or the points they will achieve in a computer game - just as others will not memorise poetry well but will remember every line of their favourite movie.

I would like to ask also: if someone was unaware of the injury to Jonbenet's head or the seriousness of its nature such that no help was called (I read some doctor's reports saying they have seen children walk into accident and emergency fully coherent with such injuries) and they were unare that she only had a short time to live if left untreated (I believe the injury gave her one and a half hours to two hours time - or was it that she died within that timespan of the injury - not sure.. ) but say - it was causing her brain to dysfunction - possibly blocking oxygen supply? Then, and its a horrible question.. would it have taken less force or strength to strangle the child to death with the pre-existing condition? Would someone become asphyxiated more quickly if there was already bleeding into or bruising on the brain?

I saw the crime scene photos, and there's no way JB's injuries resulted from play of any kind. As far as 'less force' being needed because of the preexisting condition? maybe, but IMO, it doesn't apply here, because the bruising and ligature marks proved that somebody used great force when she was strangled. IMO, it was done with the intent to kill. moo

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I saw the crime scene photos, and there's no way JB's injuries resulted from play of any kind. As far as 'less force' being needed because of the preexisting condition? maybe, but IMO, it doesn't apply here, because the bruising and ligature marks proved that somebody used great force when she was strangled. IMO, it was done with the intent to kill. moo

Thank you dodie - to be fair I am up reading the case as presented by the candyrose link and the more i get a grasp of more of the info the more I can see or feel or sense that Burke was not the person who committed these acts at all. I believe I have made my final conclusions already though I am still reading and minds beliefs and perceptions can change, but I now sincerely believe in the innocence of all the Ramseys but believe that Burke knows much more than he has told. Thank you for answer and I am sorry for what you have witnessed and been through. xx

 

[qtc]

Hello Whaleshark - I read recently about the police being very interested in Burke's friends and the neighbourhood kids and whether or not they ever played with Jonbenet and specifically about a lad called Luke who Patsy said was very nice - and who most likely was.. of whom she was somewhat shy around and Patsy saying how the kids would sit in Burke's room and play Nintendo (nothing wrong there - just recalling the convo I am referring to) but I wonder if initially, the first thing the police felt upon seeing the scene of death was that it was as though children had been playing - in a den - a private area - that the bounds tying this child were very loose - that the duct tape around the legs was not properly secure - that the garrotte was in a similar way to a home-made catapult made by a child... but that it was the letter which they felt was too mature for a 9 year old to have written - despite the fact the words could more or less have been lifted from a cartoon.. and this is what changed the theory of who was involved. If the gut instinct was child's play, I wonder why the avenue wasn't fully explored. i read somewhere on this forum, from hearsay and not from a direct quote that Burke was not so good at his schoolwork and may have had some sort of attention deficit disorder or some form of autism and shady motor skills which I have said elsewhere is strange for a Nintendo player. Some children who do not show themselves adequately in the classroom can often exhibit much higher intelligence levels when motivated by personal interests - such as children not interested in maths but who can quickly calculate gaming scores or the points they will achieve in a computer game - just as others will not memorise poetry well but will remember every line of their favourite movie.

I would like to ask also: if someone was unaware of the injury to Jonbenet's head or the seriousness of its nature such that no help was called (I read some doctor's reports saying they have seen children walk into accident and emergency fully coherent with such injuries) and they were unare that she only had a short time to live if left untreated (I believe the injury gave her one and a half hours to two hours time - or was it that she died within that timespan of the injury - not sure.. ) but say - it was causing her brain to dysfunction - possibly blocking oxygen supply? Then, and its a horrible question.. would it have taken less force or strength to strangle the child to death with the pre-existing condition? Would someone become asphyxiated more quickly if there was already bleeding into or bruising on the brain?

I know someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there was no duct tape on her legs. Just one her mouth. There is a transcript where it is stated duct tape was on her legs, but it has been said it was a mistake in the transcript and should have said "lips".

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I know someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there was no duct tape on her legs. Just one her mouth. There is a transcript where it is stated duct tape was on her legs, but it has been said it was a mistake in the transcript and should have said "lips".

Thank you. I guess that is one of the hardest or most frustrating things - which "evidence" you consider to from an accurate source.. I read on here that the child's word's overheard in the 911 call emphasised the word YOU - what did YOU find - but elsewhere the emphasis is on DID.. plus a lot of the time you hear about the Ramsey's lying like it has been proven under oath they have lied, when in fact they have just been human in recollections or perhaps corrected themselves - I see no deliberate lies myself.

 

[UKGuy]

I can't prove they are there by one method, or the other method, or by any combination. If you can determine this, please share your knowledge with us.

So why are you continuing to post on this subject? You have declared your absolute lack of knowledge, what more is there to say?

docg's theory is no longer a theory it has countervailing police testimony and forensic evidence contradicting it. Its simply a nice story regarding events in a Ramsey future that never arrived.

No amount of pedantic logic chopping can change that, e.g. repeated requests for proofs.

Both you and docg have painted yourself into a corner, nearly everyone else can see this, except of course the protagonists.


.

 

[Chrishope]

There is nothing in the evidence that contradicts my theory if by evidence is meant those aspects of the case that are fully established and have never been contested, i.e., conclusive evidence. If you read my first two blog posts, you'll see that my conclusions are based on that sort of evidence, i.e. the KNOWN facts.

As I see it, once we stray from those facts we are in trouble because no matter how you want to see this case and no matter who you think did what you are going to be in trouble, faced with absurdities and contradictions.

I find it remarkable that people like yourself who feel sure Patsy lied about all sorts of things, find it impossible to accept that she might have lied to support her husband's story regarding the 911 call. The FACT is that SHE made the call. The FACT is that John did NOT make the call. And simple logic tells us if they were both involved in the kidnap staging together, that call would NOT have been made.

When we stick to the facts and basic logic (aka common sense) based on those facts, we see a clear path to a resolution. When we veer from the facts to accept the suspect's version of what happened, and the profiler's version of what happened, and the handwriting "experts" version and the DNA "experts" version, etc., etc. then the case becomes a hopeless morass.

And if you want to insist on the fiber evidence as proof positive that Patsy constructed the garotte then by the same token you should accept the DNA evidence as proof positive of an intruder. Unlike the evidence on which I've based my conclusions, the fiber and DNA evidence are inconclusive and ultimately tell us nothing of real value.

Not only is there a logical conflict between how the dna is dismissed but the fiber evidence is insisted upon, but there is also a logical conflict just in how the fiber evidence is treated.

There are unsourced fibers. UKGuy pointed out the obvious; that some of the fibers could be there from direct transfer while others could be there from indirect transfer.

So if one wants to insist that, for example, PR's fibers HAD to be there due to direct transfer, then why don't the unsourced fibers have to be there due to direct transfer? To admit that some fibers may be at the crime scene due to indirect transfer leaves us wondering why PRs couldn't be there due to indirect transfer? Same with JR's fibers.

The only difference I can see between the unsourced fibers and the Ramsey fibers is that the Rs lived in the house with the victim, so their fibers should be more abundant in that environment, and the Rs had many opportunities for innocent close contact with the victim earlier in the evening.

It's best to admit that the fiber evidence is inconclusive, and put it on the shelf.

 

[Chrishope]

So why are you continuing to post on this subject? You have declared your absolute lack of knowledge, what more is there to say?

docg's theory is no longer a theory it has countervailing police testimony and forensic evidence contradicting it. Its simply a nice story regarding events in a Ramsey future that never arrived.

No amount of pedantic logic chopping can change that, e.g. repeated requests for proofs.

Both you and docg have painted yourself into a corner, nearly everyone else can see this, except of course the protagonists.


.

I continue to post because you and others continue to insist that the fibers are there from primary transfer. I continue to ask you, and others, for your proofs, but you continue to disappoint.

 

[BOESP]

Thank you. I guess that is one of the hardest or most frustrating things - which "evidence" you consider to from an accurate source.. I read on here that the child's word's overheard in the 911 call emphasised the word YOU - what did YOU find - but elsewhere the emphasis is on DID.. plus a lot of the time you hear about the Ramsey's lying like it has been proven under oath they have lied, when in fact they have just been human in recollections or perhaps corrected themselves - I see no deliberate lies myself.

I'm curious. How would you determine a deliberate or purposeful lie versus an accidental lie? Considering they are making statements about the death of their daughter, most people would be thoughtful and positive about their statements made to police. It is hard for me to believe that neither Patsy nor John could correctly remember whether or not Burke was awake or not when in fact the 911 call proves he was up and speaking to them.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I'm curious. How would you determine a deliberate or purposeful lie versus an accidental lie? Considering they are making statements about the death of their daughter, most people would be thoughtful and positive about their statements made to police. It is hard for me to believe that neither Patsy nor John could correctly remember whether or not Burke was awake or not when in fact the 911 call proves he was up and speaking to them.

If they parents perceived a child in bed in a room whose light they had just turned on to be asleep then later when asked: where was Burke - the answer would be: he was asleep.

This does not mean they lied, even though words were exchanged.

When later they "changed the story" and said: actually Burke was awake - explaining that he was wakened by screaming parents tearing round the house searching for their child and trying to know what to do, this was another truth and not another lie, because the initial answer was their perception of where he was "at the time" and their next response was: 1. because they had woken him and words had been exchanged and 2. because Burke has said: I was awake and I overheard.. and so they recalled and said yes - he was awake.

Furthermore.. I feel that they still did not realise at this time that Burke had in fact been awake (possibly) BEFORE the time when they assumed he had been awoken by their panic and distress. If this later came to their attention then they may have wondered about how long exactly Burke had been awake for and may have even suspected their own son, just as at times they may have fleetingly suspected eachother - under the circumstances I think this is reasonable.

I don't know what you mean about being "thoughtful and positive" when you are under extreme stress or duress as they would have been. When I am under stress I don't know what has happened 5 minutes before let alone what the hell I am thinking and need to relax my mind, make it clear and then decide, still, exactly what information is required of me.

Sometimes i come in and my kids say hi where have you been what have you been up to did you speak to anyone - and i say: yeah fine - just been shopping - no - no gossip (lol) and then I get a brew and say oh yeah well i did speak to so and so in the shop and I saw so and so on the way home who said etc... because "speak to" registers in my mind as a relevant conversation and not just words exchanged briefly between passing neighbours and what have you - it isn't a deliberate "lie".

If someone said where was Burke what was he doing - and they said well he was awake asking questions - this would seem a lie because the perception was that he had been sleeping - despite being awoken by them. Inconsistencies in some memories are not lies but subject to recall at any given time and i know in our house we dispute things all the time or remember conversations slightly differently all the time and thankfully its only about daily events and nothing more serious cos quite often someone says: oh yes, you;re right - or oh yes well that's what i meant or oh but i understood it this way etc.

I think when the Ramsey's came forward to the media and the "revelation" that Burke was awake was "revealed" too big a deal was made about them having "changed their story" as opposed to either Burke having told them or them recalling their perception that he had woken through the fuss and drama - as would be normal.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Since I'm getting so much flack about the 911 call, I'm going to try to make my position as simple as possible here:
(respectfully skip...)

We need now to consider another aspect of this call that has a huge bearing on logic of the case but which is again rarely discussed. If the Ramseys were both staging a phoney kidnapping and were both aware the note was a fake, they would not have decided to call the police in so early, with the body still in the house. Another contradiction.

(skip)

DocG, let's concentrate on 911 call for now...IMO, your above assumption is absolutely wrong! They (PR and JR) MUST call police that early, they have NO OTHER choice: too many people knows about their vacation; their children were on the way to meet them for holiday gathering; their pilot was waiting by the plane to fly out of town...They cannot just leave town without explanation 'where is JBR'?...Calling 911 'so early' is NOT the 'contradiction'! Opposite, it's the logical, common sense step after 'kidnapping' plan is borned and RN is written!....

 

[BOESP]

If they parents perceived a child in bed in a room whose light they had just turned on to be asleep then later when asked: where was Burke - the answer would be: he was asleep.

This does not mean they lied, even though words were exchanged.

When later they "changed the story" and said: actually Burke was awake - explaining that he was wakened by screaming parents tearing round the house searching for their child and trying to know what to do, this was another truth and not another lie, because the initial answer was their perception of where he was "at the time" and their next response was: 1. because they had woken him and words had been exchanged and 2. because Burke has said: I was awake and I overheard.. and so they recalled and said yes - he was awake.

Furthermore.. I feel that they still did not realise at this time that Burke had in fact been awake (possibly) BEFORE the time when they assumed he had been awoken by their panic and distress. If this later came to their attention then they may have wondered about how long exactly Burke had been awake for and may have even suspected their own son, just as at times they may have fleetingly suspected eachother - under the circumstances I think this is reasonable.

I don't know what you mean about being "thoughtful and positive" when you are under extreme stress or duress as they would have been. When I am under stress I don't know what has happened 5 minutes before let alone what the hell I am thinking and need to relax my mind, make it clear and then decide, still, exactly what information is required of me.

Sometimes i come in and my kids say hi where have you been what have you been up to did you speak to anyone - and i say: yeah fine - just been shopping - no - no gossip (lol) and then I get a brew and say oh yeah well i did speak to so and so in the shop and I saw so and so on the way home who said etc... because "speak to" registers in my mind as a relevant conversation and not just words exchanged briefly between passing neighbours and what have you - it isn't a deliberate "lie".

If someone said where was Burke what was he doing - and they said well he was awake asking questions - this would seem a lie because the perception was that he had been sleeping - despite being awoken by them. Inconsistencies in some memories are not lies but subject to recall at any given time and i know in our house we dispute things all the time or remember conversations slightly differently all the time and thankfully its only about daily events and nothing more serious cos quite often someone says: oh yes, you;re right - or oh yes well that's what i meant or oh but i understood it this way etc.

I think when the Ramsey's came forward to the media and the "revelation" that Burke was awake was "revealed" too big a deal was made about them having "changed their story" as opposed to either Burke having told them or them recalling their perception that he had woken through the fuss and drama - as would be normal.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate that. I disagree on the lying but we can agree to disagree.

By "thoughtful and positive," I mean that most parents/grandparents when calling 911 for help for a child or grandchild will try to give direct, straight-forward answers, thought out and spoken in as calm a manner as possible. They want to help and in order to do that they will respond in a helpful manner. I'm not saying they won't be upset but for the few minutes or seconds the dispatcher is guiding them most will maintain control because they know that the quickest response will come from clearly cooperating with the dispatcher. I am sure Patsy was upset but she was far too theatrical in my opinion, the hyperventilating being a contrivance. Her tone was phony to my ears.

 

[UKGuy]

DocG, let's concentrate on 911 call for now...IMO, your above assumption is absolutely wrong! They (PR and JR) MUST call police that early, they have NO OTHER choice: too many people knows about their vacation; their children were on the way to meet them for holiday gathering; their pilot was waiting by the plane to fly out of town...They cannot just leave town without explanation 'where is JBR'?...Calling 911 'so early' is NOT the 'contradiction'! Opposite, it's the logical, common sense step after 'kidnapping' plan is borned and RN is written!....

OpenMind4U,
Thanks, you saved me having to post. Also if two people offer the same version of events, then thats the official version until its recanted, e.g Patsy.

Without going into a detailed account of why docg's theory is invalid. I just ask why was it not John who found the Ransom Note, and took it to Patsy, allowing her to read it, with him saying Honey, we have to get the money, we need JonBenet back, safe, alive. So no calls etc

This would then allow docg's theory to unfold. With John telling Patsy to make the 911 call, this cannot happen.

simples.



.

 

[BOESP]

I get tired of repeating myself, but here goes, one more time. All it would take would be a couple phone calls cancelling the trip due to illness. OK?

I get tired of reading post hoc "reasoning" and ad hominem arguments but, hey, that's just part of it.

I think Lin Wood was worth every cent they paid him. That plan worked. No doubt or question about it.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I get tired of reading post hoc "reasoning" and ad hominem arguments but, hey, that's just part of it.

I think Lin Wood was worth every cent they paid him. That plan worked. Not doubt or question about it.

If they were guilty, which I do not believe them to be, then instead of taking the time to stage a scene they could have removed JB from the house. The psychological profile of cold blooded mindlessness does not fit with their behaviour before or after JonBenet's life was taken; it is farcical to keep blaming these people.

Ruthless people would not go about their own home with flashlights; they would not deny the presence of pineapple; they would not refuse to re-enter the home as they would be looking for any errors they had left in evidence; they would not call the hardware store trying to trace where the duct tape came from; they would not clean their own flashlight and batteries; they would not draw attention to another flashlight in the kitchen which they said was not theirs and which the police said was not theirs,


I do however think there is a possibility that the person who banged Jonbenet's head and wrote the note is not the same person who garrotted her and I believe all the Ramsey's to be innocent of all these acts.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

If they were guilty, which I do not believe them to be, then instead of taking the time to stage a scene they could have removed JB from the house. The psychological profile of cold blooded mindlessness does not fit with their behaviour before or after JonBenet's life was taken; it is farcical to keep blaming these people.

Ruthless people would not go about their own home with flashlights; they would not deny the presence of pineapple; they would not refuse to re-enter the home as they would be looking for any errors they had left in evidence; they would not call the hardware store trying to trace where the duct tape came from; they would not clean their own flashlight and batteries; they would not draw attention to another flashlight in the kitchen which they said was not theirs and which the police said was not theirs,


I do however think there is a possibility that the person who banged Jonbenet's head and wrote the note is not the same person who garrotted her and I believe all the Ramsey's to be innocent of all these acts.

They would stage a forced entry point - they would not include the amount of 118,000 in the ransom note and they would not insist so heartily in the ransom note not to call the police if they knew they were going to be called inevitably... no one except a ruthless psychopath could write that note after doing what was done....