Why doesn't anyone think it could've been John.

[UKGuy]

I might be misremembering, but I seem to recall that in Atlanta they were interviewed by LE. A question was poised about J and P's medication. When asked of them who was the prescribing physician, I believe John says it's Burk's shrink. MOO

GoBuckeyes,
There is nothing in the Atlanta interviews regarding medication being prescribed by Burke's shrink.

In another interview , e.g.

1998 BPD Patsy Interview excerpt

23 TOM HANEY: Talk to him about

24 questions or anything?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-uh.

0125

1 TOM HANEY: What did you tell him

2 prior to?

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, he had been

4 going to see his -- he has a therapist, a child

5 therapist, and I just, I wanted at make sure

6 that we take care of our mental health, all of

7 us, during this, because particularly for him,

8 you now when he's 40 to have repercussions of

9 all this. So he had been in therapy, and, then

10 we knew ahead, before Burke did, that it was

11 going to be okay to have the interviews with --

12 fellows were going to come to Atlanta, and it

13 was going to be kind of a kid friendly

14 environment and all that.

Patsy appears to be saying Burke was in therapy after JonBenet's death.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

The biggest issue is the link of Patsy to the Ransom note, the handwriting samples, the RN analysis. It's hard to say that the chemo diminished Patsy's strength and she was frail. Patsy was diagnosed on July 4th 1993. Her final chemo treatment was somewhere in the ballpark of March 1994. She had 1.5 years to recover. If the swing was done right, Patsy could have caused the injury.

The biggest JDI advocate out there is DocG. Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case Some people here will tell you how wrong DocG is because he vigorously defends his theory and ignores some evidence. That's true. For me, I believe DocG only went so far on the case, decided he had it and stopped asking questions. Case solved. That's it. The end.

John's motive is always sexual. He's not portrayed as a pedophile who seeks out children, but as a sexual situational aggressor. Basically, if Patsy isn't available, he'll turn to his daughter if they're in the right place and time. In this theory, John knows he'll be exposed so in a moment of panic, he kills his daughter. He's 52 at this time in his life, has money, and can seek out call girls for his sexual needs if he's so inclined so turning to his daughter makes him infinitely worse if he did such a thing.

JDI is a valid theory. It's every bit as valid as PDI. I'm not in the BDI camp not because I don't think Burke could have done it, but because James Kolar's most compelling piece of evidence, the train track, is wrong. It's like Lou Smit and the stun gun--easily debunked.

Please explain how the train track can blow the whole theory? Cant he still be correct even if it wasn't a train track but some other item in the basement?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

From the U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/193411.pdf (page 3) in 1997, there were less than ten homicides by children 10 and under.

How many gravely or serious injuries were caused by a sibling who didn't die?

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

I th

Time constraints. We need to ask ourselves why it was Patsy who was put to in the forefront whilst JR cleaned himself up. Who's going to be the object of closer scrutiny, whoever found the note and made the 911 call or old mate who was in the shower?



Why would JR need to be flushed or forensic evidence if he was only staging? Why wouldn't PR shower if she did any more than staging which can be argued away as circumstantial. "I live in the house, I was in there the morning before wrapping and moving Christmas presents, I may have been wearing the same jacket". Why the need to eliminate JR from the picture, minus those pesky fibres in JBRs crotch and not PR?


Side note, why was PR thrust into the scrutiny but JR was always carefully distanced. There is little pointing to him in forensics but with LE focussing on PR he can then worry about covering her behind instead of his own, a lot less in the stakes department for him.

I think they were wise enough to do some staging and crime scene disturbing but they were not professional csi. They also had the advantage of legitimately having their touch DNA everywhere.
Even in her private area. She was still being wiped by her parents.
There is no proof JR was inappropriate with a child. Look at his wives, and his one time GF Beth Holloway. I see a man who likes attractive women. PR would not have coved for him. He was gone often. There are more things, I feel that point away than to him. Statistics are the only thing that point to him. There were 2 other males in the home that had opportunity BR and JAR.
I had a 5 year old neighbor who was inappropriately touching children. He most likely was abused himself but where? You can't automatically blame parents. A lot of abuse happens with other trusted adults like church, Cub Scouts, relatives.
People need to broaden their thinking as to possibilities within the family IMHO.
If the parents were aware of the abuse by a sibling, they knew JR would be the first person suspected.

 

[ispywithmylittleeye]

Your question has been well addressed, I will just add what, for me, excludes John more than anything is the ransom note. Patsy wrote it, and It was the second biggest mistake they made (first being leaving the body in the home). The letter was completely absurd and I don't believe John would have written it or even allowed it to be left there if he was involved. In fact I believe the RN was what caused the lights to come on with John. He realized Patsy had written it and the picture started coming together then.

John Ramsey was a CEO . A corporate executive who probably wrote some serious correspondence in his career. This was not his note authoring.