Happenings of December 26

[Chrishope]

midwest mama,
You could be correct in what you write, some events and behaviour can be interpreted to present it as JDI.

I'm a little skeptical since its an interpretation built on a lot of qualified assumptions, i.e. Patsy dialled 911.

Don't all theories involve some assumptions? Among the assumptions is what is "plausible" which varies person to person. I know you think my theory (well, Doc's theory) is hard to believe. You're theory is equally implausible, from my perspective.

Assuming you have a theory that matches the forensic evidence, why do you think Kolar goes for BR and ST for Patsy, but not JR, when patently they know all the stuff we dont, you would think JR should be at the front of the suspect list?
.

And LS goes for IDI. My take is that three professional police detectives, of varying experience and reputation, all disagree. I don't see any sense in considering what other detectives may think, obviously at least 2 of them, and possibly all 3 are wrong.

I would also say - and this is a very important part of the DocG theory, the detectives may be placing too much stock in the handwriting "experts". JR managed to get himself "ruled out" and as far as I can see there is no valid basis for such a finding. I think ST especially focused on PR because after JR is ruled out, she is the only logical choice as the author of the RN.

IMO, there is nothing about the handwriting that convincingly says PR is the author. Doc deals with this issue pretty extensively on his blog, so I will not go into the details here. In short, the investigation was tracked towards PR or a JR/PR coverup for BR because John was "ruled out" as the author. The police put way too much faith in that. A lot of people have a theory that is based, in part, on the mistaken notion that JR could not be the author of the RN.

 

[UKGuy]

midwest mama,
You could be correct in what you write, some events and behaviour can be interpreted to present it as JDI.



Don't all theories involve some assumptions? Among the assumptions is what is "plausible" which varies person to person. I know you think my theory (well, Doc's theory) is hard to believe. You're theory is equally implausible, from my perspective.




And LS goes for IDI. My take is that three professional police detectives, of varying experience and reputation, all disagree. I don't see any sense in considering what other detectives may think, obviously at least 2 of them, and possibly all 3 are wrong.

I would also say - and this is a very important part of the DocG theory, the detectives may be placing too much stock in the handwriting "experts". JR managed to get himself "ruled out" and as far as I can see there is no valid basis for such a finding. I think ST especially focused on PR because after JR is ruled out, she is the only logical choice as the author of the RN.

IMO, there is nothing about the handwriting that convincingly says PR is the author. Doc deals with this issue pretty extensively on his blog, so I will not go into the details here. In short, the investigation was tracked towards PR or a JR/PR coverup for BR because John was "ruled out" as the author. The police put way too much faith in that. A lot of people have a theory that is based, in part, on the mistaken notion that JR could not be the author of the RN.

Chrishope,

Don't all theories involve some assumptions?

Sure, but I think Doc's theories requires assumptions that have subjective qualifications, e.g. the handwriting is JR's or JR intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, PR unexpectedly dialled 911.

All these these assumptions are not based on fact, but are inferences generated from the conclusion of the theory. This does not make the theory false, its just a little more convoluted.

A lot of people have a theory that is based, in part, on the mistaken notion that JR could not be the author of the RN.

My take on this is that using staged forensic evidence to underpin a theory is simply asking for trouble. Other than accepting that the RN was staged, I try not use it in any theory, since we know it must come after whatever befell JonBenet that night.

A lot of people have a theory that is based, in part, on the mistaken notion that JR could not be the author of the RN.

Why is it mistaken? You must demonstrate categorical evidence that this is the case, and not simply assert, that JR was bypassed, i.e. this is an example of a qualified assumption.

I think ST especially focused on PR because after JR is ruled out, she is the only logical choice as the author of the RN.

Who knows. It could be ST did not want to risk litigation via his book, so instead of going for JR he went for PR, bear in mind once he wrote his book his career was over, and he knew he had probably been used by his superiors, as they minimised any fallout for both the R's and BPD, not to mention the DA.

And LS goes for IDI. My take is that three professional police detectives, of varying experience and reputation, all disagree. I don't see any sense in considering what other detectives may think, obviously at least 2 of them, and possibly all 3 are wrong.

I do, someone just might have the correct insight, you will never know unless you entertain their theory.

There are nominally three suspects, not very large odds there, getting the theory right will match one of those suspects behaviour.

On the subject of assumptions it did occur to me that with one extra assumption, Doc's theory could be turned into BDI.

That is, JR covering for BR, he does the size-12's and possibly the longjohns dumping the pink barbie nightgown, part of his motive is to hide BR's behaviour from PR and pin it on a Foreign Faction.

But as you claim before he could remove JonBenet PR dialled 911, spoiling the party.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Chrishope,
Possibly a better description is decisions consistent with the RDI theory being developed.

Placing a ransom note on the stairs and returning to bed seems to me to be questionable when you are attempting to control events.

The 911 call could have been avoided if JR had found the ransom note, who could say otherwise?

Then there is BR's voice in the background on the 911 call, how does that fit into the theory?


MWM has answered this, and probably better than I can do. But I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I think that's a fair criticism of the theory. It may well have been better if JR had found the note. But he'd have to let PR read it. So maybe the net result is no different? I doubt he'd want BR to find it, so it was either him or PR. There may have been family dynamics that we don't know about. Maybe JR habitually takes shower in the morning and PR habitually gets up at that time and makes him breakfast, or at least coffee? JR would want everything as "normal" as possible since things were going to become very abnormal. Maybe it would have been suspicious if he'd stayed up - leading PR to wonder how long he'd been up?

Possibly. It's hard to say whether the 911 call could have been avoided just by JR finding it. PR would still want to read it, at least partially. Unless JR was going to physically control her at all times there's really no way to prevent a 911 call. But I agree, had JR found it and read it aloud to PR, emphasizing the threats, maybe she could have been convinced not to call 911. Then again, maybe not. Would you trust your spouse to handle a kidnapping case or would you prefer the FBI got involved? If you see this as a weakness of the theory, that's fine with me. I don't pretend any theory is free of doubt (even if I speak, sometimes, as though there is no doubt) or that any theory ties up every possible loose end or answers every possible objection.

The theory doesn't depend on BR not being up at the time of the 911 call, or having gotten up minutes before because PR is running around shouting and carrying on. A lie about him being asleep doesn't mean he was a party to the coverup, nor does it mean he did it. Of course if BR had been up for hours then the theory is wrong, but we don't know how long BR had been up.

Not sure what you mean here.

Chrishope,

It may well have been better if JR had found the note.

Absolutely and potentially in control of subsequent events. He could suggest to Patsy we must comply with the demands, I'll get the money immediately, so do not dial the police OK, etc, etc.

This aspect is similar to the size-12's, if Doc's theory is correct then JR really does exhibit amateurish behaviour!

Not sure what you mean here.

Just areas where the evidence is ambiguous, e.g. 911 call, handwriting identification, plus others.

.

 

[InstantProof]

I think it's possible a lot of what seems confusing or senseless about the cover-up has to do with John and Patsy at odds about how to handle it. It sounds to me like an angry Patsy at the end of that ransom note. Patsy dials 911, and stops John from his next move.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Sure, but I think Doc's theories requires assumptions that have subjective qualifications, e.g. the handwriting is JR's or JR intended to dump JonBenet outdoors, PR unexpectedly dialled 911.

Let me rephrase; don't all theories have assumptions with subjective qualifications? For example, it's part of your theory that the WC is a staged scene. There is no proof of that, it's just how you tend to see it. A lot of us see it as a place to hide things until they can be dealt with.

Or your contention that "The Ramseys" decided to role the dice on an illogical crime scene. There is no proof of that either, it's an assumption you are making.

Doc's theory, if I understand correctly, does not hold that the handwriting is JRs, but rather that there was no legitimate reason for him to be "ruled out". There is no scientific basis to say someone could not have written something. There is "expert" opinion, but it's just opinion, not fact. If the police treated it as a fact, they should not have.

All these these assumptions are not based on fact, but are inferences generated from the conclusion of the theory. This does not make the theory false, its just a little more convoluted.


My take on this is that using staged forensic evidence to underpin a theory is simply asking for trouble. Other than accepting that the RN was staged, I try not use it in any theory, since we know it must come after whatever befell JonBenet that night.

You use it as a reason for calling the police, and some sort of explanation as to why JB is dead - it's a kidnapping gone bad, the Rs wanted authorities to believe. Unless I've misunderstood.

Why is it mistaken? You must demonstrate categorical evidence that this is the case, and not simply assert, that JR was bypassed, i.e. this is an example of a qualified assumption.

It's mistaken because there is no real science behind handwriting comparison. That's more than a mere assertion. But by all means, if you can show us how it's a science, rather than an opinion, that would be interesting.

From the Boulder Daily Camera, 3/15/97

John Ramsey could not have written a ransom note found in the family home the day his 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, was found strangled in the basement, sources close to the investigation say. ​

Two groups of handwriting experts, one from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the other hired by the Ramsey family, have reached that conclusion, sources say.
However, the same two groups of experts differ on whether the girl's mother could have written the note. CBI document examiners have concluded that comparisons with samples provided by Patsy Ramsey do not provide enough evidence to confirm or deny her authorship of the three-page note, a source said.
Meanwhile, unidentified experts hired by the Ramsey family - described as "nationally known and respected" - have concluded there is a slight chance Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, but that it's "highly unlikely."
​

I invite you to read up on this at - http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ruled-out.html


If the police relied on this, they should not have. I don't recall now what ST said about the handwriting, or how much reliance he placed on the "experts".

Who knows. It could be ST did not want to risk litigation via his book, so instead of going for JR he went for PR, bear in mind once he wrote his book his career was over, and he knew he had probably been used by his superiors, as they minimised any fallout for both the R's and BPD, not to mention the DA.

I don't see why a lawsuit was less likely fingering PR. But it may be a mistake to take anything the LS,ST,JK et. al. say in public, including their books.

I do, someone just might have the correct insight, you will never know unless you entertain their theory.

I thought you mentioned the detectives opinions to show that none of them are JDI. Perhaps I misunderstood. My point is that at least 2 of the 3 are wrong, and since none are JDI, maybe all 3 (ST, LS, JK) Though it might be, as MWM suggests that Kolar is more JDI than he appears.

There are nominally three suspects, not very large odds there, getting the theory right will match one of those suspects behaviour.

Doc's theory seems to match JR's behavior.

On the subject of assumptions it did occur to me that with one extra assumption, Doc's theory could be turned into BDI.

That is, JR covering for BR, he does the size-12's and possibly the longjohns dumping the pink barbie nightgown, part of his motive is to hide BR's behaviour from PR and pin it on a Foreign Faction.

Doc doesn't rule out BDI, though it's regarded as unlikely. He specifically mentions, in his blog, how it could be BDI.

But as you claim before he could remove JonBenet PR dialled 911, spoiling the party.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Let me rephrase; don't all theories have assumptions with subjective qualifications? For example, it's part of your theory that the WC is a staged scene. There is no proof of that, it's just how you tend to see it. A lot of us see it as a place to hide things until they can be dealt with.

Or your contention that "The Ramseys" decided to role the dice on an illogical crime scene. There is no proof of that either, it's an assumption you are making.

Doc's theory, if I understand correctly, does not hold that the handwriting is JRs, but rather that there was no legitimate reason for him to be "ruled out". There is no scientific basis to say someone could not have written something. There is "expert" opinion, but it's just opinion, not fact. If the police treated it as a fact, they should not have.



You use it as a reason for calling the police, and some sort of explanation as to why JB is dead - it's a kidnapping gone bad, the Rs wanted authorities to believe. Unless I've misunderstood.




It's mistaken because there is no real science behind handwriting comparison. That's more than a mere assertion. But by all means, if you can show us how it's a science, rather than an opinion, that would be interesting.

From the Boulder Daily Camera, 3/15/97

John Ramsey could not have written a ransom note found in the family home the day his 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, was found strangled in the basement, sources close to the investigation say. ​

Two groups of handwriting experts, one from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the other hired by the Ramsey family, have reached that conclusion, sources say.
However, the same two groups of experts differ on whether the girl's mother could have written the note. CBI document examiners have concluded that comparisons with samples provided by Patsy Ramsey do not provide enough evidence to confirm or deny her authorship of the three-page note, a source said.
Meanwhile, unidentified experts hired by the Ramsey family - described as "nationally known and respected" - have concluded there is a slight chance Patsy Ramsey wrote the note, but that it's "highly unlikely."
​

I invite you to read up on this at - http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/ruled-out.html


If the police relied on this, they should not have. I don't recall now what ST said about the handwriting, or how much reliance he placed on the "experts".



I don't see why a lawsuit was less likely fingering PR. But it may be a mistake to take anything the LS,ST,JK et. al. say in public, including their books.



I thought you mentioned the detectives opinions to show that none of them are JDI. Perhaps I misunderstood. My point is that at least 2 of the 3 are wrong, and since none are JDI, maybe all 3 (ST, LS, JK) Though it might be, as MWM suggests that Kolar is more JDI than he appears.



Doc's theory seems to match JR's behavior.



Doc doesn't rule out BDI, though it's regarded as unlikely. He specifically mentions, in his blog, how it could be BDI.

Chrishope,

Let me rephrase; don't all theories have assumptions with subjective qualifications? For example, it's part of your theory that the WC is a staged scene. There is no proof of that, it's just how you tend to see it. A lot of us see it as a place to hide things until they can be dealt with.

Some theories are built using only objective facts, or only information that can be corroborated, so its completely erroneous to make such a universal claim regarding theories. Also it's Doc's theory that I am commenting on, not my own, if I employ subjective assumptions then that should not impact on Doc's theory?

The WC is a staged crime-scene, since patently its not the primary crime-scene and JonBenet has been cleaned up, e.g. see Coroner Meyer's remarks, and been redressed. If you assume its an RDI case and JR's behaviour correlates with the known staging statistics, then JR discovering JonBenet completes the staging.

Assuming Doc's theory is valid then once JonBenet's body was recovered those size-12's would have popped up, posing awkward questions for JR, and if he intended to relocate her where she could never be found, why bother cleaning and redressing etc?

Doc's theory, if I understand correctly, does not hold that the handwriting is JRs, but rather that there was no legitimate reason for him to be "ruled out". There is no scientific basis to say someone could not have written something. There is "expert" opinion, but it's just opinion, not fact. If the police treated it as a fact, they should not have.

Which is a subjective assumption based on staged forensic evidence and if you are familiar with elementary first order logic you can generate any valid theory from an inconsistent statement.

You use it as a reason for calling the police, and some sort of explanation as to why JB is dead - it's a kidnapping gone bad, the Rs wanted authorities to believe. Unless I've misunderstood.

I think the R's amended a prior staging, relocating JonBenet and sundry forensic evidence to the wine-cellar, so they could cleanup the previous crime-scene, which may or may not have been the primary crime-scene. This movement of JonBenet is explained by the Ransom Note under the guise of a kidnapping scenario. So its not really a reason, per se, to call the police, since the R's were always going to have to diall 911.

The wine-cellar staging is intended to hide and mask events which took place elsewhere in the house. So to employ the staged forensic evidence as a critical part of any RDI theory not only makes it inconsistent but plainly misguided.

It's mistaken because there is no real science behind handwriting comparison. That's more than a mere assertion. But by all means, if you can show us how it's a science, rather than an opinion, that would be interesting.

You have my position on staged forensic evidence, so I'll pass on the science exam.

If the police relied on this, they should not have. I don't recall now what ST said about the handwriting, or how much reliance he placed on the "experts".

Everyone knows you can select expert opinion to promote a case, irrespective of its validity.

I don't see why a lawsuit was less likely fingering PR. But it may be a mistake to take anything the LS,ST,JK et. al. say in public, including their books.

Because ST was not alleging sexual abuse to adopt JDI ST would have been alleging incest with no corroborating evidence, opening the doors to litigation from JR. JR was quite sensitive on this subject, you might recall him in interview asking the interviewer if he was disgracing his relationship with his daughter when the subject of sexual assault was raised?

I thought you mentioned the detectives opinions to show that none of them are JDI. Perhaps I misunderstood. My point is that at least 2 of the 3 are wrong, and since none are JDI, maybe all 3 (ST, LS, JK) Though it might be, as MWM suggests that Kolar is more JDI than he appears.

I did, but in a rhetorical context. LS is patently wrong, end of story! ST I think is wrong, but thats a subjective assumption.

Given that its plainly JDI or BDI. How come Kolar arrives at BDI?

.

 

[madeleine]

Given that its plainly JDI or BDI. How come Kolar arrives at BDI?

.

If he thinks BDI why did he push and tell Lacy that the case is SOLVABLE?BR can't be charged,nothing can be done.You can't charge the parents of cover-up anymore.So why bother?
There's more to it IMO.

 

[UKGuy]

If he thinks BDI why did he push and tell Lacy that the case is SOLVABLE?BR can't be charged,nothing can be done.You can't charge the parents of cover-up anymore.So why bother?
There's more to it IMO.

madeleine,
Maybe there is more to it. I hope so, but Kolar could be playing with words, because solvable is not quite the same as prosecutable or even chargeable!

One solution could be Kolar thinks it all kicked off with BR, but JR did the staging allegedly killing JonBenet either by whacking her on the head or asphyxiating her?

It might be he thinks he can find enough evidence to demonstrate this?


.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
Maybe there is more to it. I hope so, but Kolar could be playing with words, because solvable is not quite the same as prosecutable or even chargeable!

One solution could be Kolar thinks it all kicked off with BR, but JR did the staging allegedly killing JonBenet either by whacking her on the head or asphyxiating her?

It might be he thinks he can find enough evidence to demonstrate this?


.

What I found interesting is that he is talking about looking at the mental history of the FAMILY,he isn't talking only about BR.And then he says something about some medical records when he mentions JR's 98 interview.I didn't get that part though....JR's medical records?BR's?didn't get it

 

[Nom de plume]

I agree, it doesn't make sense. For me this has always been the single biggest problem of the case. I don't wish to sound too dogmatic, but the DocG theory is the only one that, IMO, deals with this problem in a way that makes sense.

Police leaving and coming back makes no sense, you're right. He (they) had to know once the police were called, JBR was going to be found - dead.




IMO this is hard to believe. Since it's hard for us to believe, it's also hard for the police. Since it's hard for the police to believe, it probably isn't what they were trying to imply. Plus the RN clearly states that the already have her -past tense, act completed- so most likely the RN is meant to deceive someone into thinking JB has been taken?

I agree, it's hard to believe the kidnapper/killer was still in the house. But then again it's even harder to believe that the kidnapper turned into a pedo perv killer and left her! For that matter, it's hard to even read the RN without :floorlaugh: !!

I was just trying to think of any other possible reason that he/she/they could have thought leaving her in the house and calling 911 was a good idea. I wouldn't buy a RN and JB dead in the house under any circumstances. IOW, I was trying to account for PR's 911 call if she were involved. I still haven't ruled out in my own mind that she might have been. She displayed some really bizarre behavior. She had to have known something that morning. I really think it could be JDI all the way, but she at minimum had knowledge of what he'd done. :moo:

 

[UKGuy]

What I found interesting is that he is talking about looking at the mental history of the FAMILY,he isn't talking only about BR.And then he says something about some medical records when he mentions JR's 98 interview.I didn't get that part though....JR's medical records?BR's?didn't get it

madeleine,

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

1 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes.

2 LOU SMIT: John, at this particular time,

3 do you have any medical problems at all that you

4 know of?

5 JOHN RAMSEY: No.

6 LOU SMIT: Okay. Are you under, taking any

7 medication?

8 JOHN RAMSEY: Taking Prozac.

9 LOU SMIT: Okay.

10 JOHN RAMSEY: Twenty milligrams in the

11 morning, ten milligrams at night.

12 LOU SMIT: Okay. And who is the doctor?

13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, Dr. Sheevy, Catherine

14 Sheevy, is who I saw in Boulder. Well I haven't

15 seen her in a while. Steven Jaffee, Dr. Steven

16 Jaffee in Atlanta, prescribed the Prozac for me.

17 LOU SMIT: Okay.

18 JOHN RAMSEY: He's actually Burke's

19 psychiatrist.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

16 LOU SMIT: Okay. And I know, John, that it

17 really hurts to talk about this guy, but that's

18 probably all you've thought about since day one.

19 You must have a mental picture of the type of

20 person this is. I mean, in your mind. I know I

21 have a mental picture of various people that I

22 would look at. But I'm sure you think about this

23 all the time.

24 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, absolutely, everyday. You

25 know. Of course, my first instinct is, it was a

0040

1 man. Because of some of the similarities,

2 apparently in Patsy's handwriting, I wondered if

3 it was a woman. The ransom note seemed childish,

4 in terms of a young person. I think this person

5 was very sick or trying to be very clever.

6 You know, if they really wanted to do this, hurt

7 us and walk away, why did they go to the trouble

8 of leaving a ransom note? When Mike Bynum said,

9 (Thank God they left a ransom note.̃ You know, why

10 is that? And it finally dawned on me what he

11 meant. They left us a piece of evidence. They were

12 clever enough not to leave much else, apparently.

13 I think it's say somebody that's very sick, thinks

14 they're very clever, is playing games. You know,

15 we heard about the two Bible verses, Psalms, that

16 were circled in some book. I don't know, some

17 book or not. I was not told that directly. We

18 heard it through the backdoor.

19 LOU SMIT: You didn't circle Bible passages?

20 JOHN RAMSEY: (INAUDIBLE). They were leaving

21 little clues to analyze this. I think entry was

22 gained through the basement window.

23 LOU SMIT: Why do you think that?

24 JOHN RAMSEY: Because the window was cracked

25 open. There was this large suitcase under it, as

0041

1 if it was used to climb out. That suitcase didn't

2 belong there. I think the person was in the house,

3 if not when we got home, shortly after. I think

4 she was killed that night, versus in the morning.

5 LOU SMIT: What makes you think that?

6 JOHN RAMSEY: Well the note talked about

7 (I'm going to call you tomorrow.̃ And we debated,

8 it was like tomorrow tomorrow, or tomorrow today.

9 And, of course, we hoped it was today, you know,

10 the 26th. When I found her, she was -- her body

11 was cooled. Her arms were stiff. And that was it.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

1 just JonBenet, Burke and Patsy and me. And that

2 was a package deal. We had tickets on TWA and that

3 was all kind of pretty pre-laid out for us.

4 So that was the plan. I had gone out to the

5 airport Christmas day to kind of tinker with

6 airplane and load some presents and kind of get it

7 pre-loaded because we're going to leave early in

8 the morning. We had to be there, I wanted to be

9 there when the kids arrive in Minneapolis.

10 LOU SMIT: What kinds of presents did you

11 bring there (INAUDIBLE)?

12 JOHN RAMSEY: Well we were going to have

13 a kind of second Christmas up in Charlevoix for

14 the big kids. And so we had their presents. We had

15 a few little extra presents for Burke and JonBenet

16 so they wouldn't feel left out.

17 So I guess I kind of fussed around that for a few

18 hours and then I came home.

19 LOU SMIT: Where were those presents kept?

20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well there were some presents

21 in a little, what we call, the butler's kitchen,

22 but it was a lower level kitchen. There were some

23 presents some presents down there. In fact, I

24 think I wrapped some Christmas day to take to the

25 airplane to get ready for the next day. I think

0090

1 those were there.

2 LOU SMIT: So when you wrapped them, the

3 items, you wrapped them, where would you get the

4 wrapping paper and all the things?

5 JOHN RAMSEY: I think I could have either

6 gotten it from there or down in the basement.

7 Patsy had by the (INAUDIBLE) a bunch of wrapping

8 paper and stuff, and I think there was some there

9 in the butler's kitchen area as well. I might have

10 even went downstairs to get the paper and stuff. I

11 don't remember. That's where a lot of them would

12 have been.

13 LOU SMIT: I think what I'm trying to get

14 at is, did you go into the wine cellar at that

15 time in order to get any of these items?

16 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't remember. It wouldn't

17 have been out of the question or impossible.

18 LOU SMIT: Try to think about that a little

19 bit. It's just one of those things that we're

20 trying to determine who all would have gone in

21 there into that room at a specific time. That's

22 whey we have to find that out. That's why

23 specifically if you can think about it. I know to

24 sequence your memory is kind of hard. But it's one

25 of those things that I figure you can think about

So John was pretty familiar with where all the gifts were located including wrapping paper, and like Patsy, he lost his memory about visiting the wine-cellar!

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

17 I think I ran upstairs to look at her room. I

18 think Patsy said -- I don't know if she checked on

19 Burke. I don't know if she checked on Burke. I

20 remember running around a lot.

21 LOU SMIT: Let's think back just a little bit,

22 John, because sometimes that's important. The

23 sequence of things.

24 First of all, I notice that you need glasses

25 read. How was it that you could read that note?

0134

1 JOHN RAMSEY: It was fairly large print,

2 as I recall. But I can read, if I have to.

mmm, I wonder about that. JR has very bad eyesight this is why employs a pilot for his private plane.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

22 LOU SMIT: Okay. Now you've called the police.

23 Patsy calls the police. Are you there with her

24 when she calls the police?

25 JOHN RAMSEY: I'm -- yeah.

0138

1 LOU SMIT: Where is she at?

2 JOHN RAMSEY: She's at the phone in the kitchen.

3 It's here, yeah, right here. I think I stood kind

4 of right here.

5 LOU SMIT: All right. Do you remember what she

6 said on that 911 call?

7 JOHN RAMSEY: She was screaming, as I recall.

8 I remember her struggling to make the person

So JR could have prevented Patsy from making the 911 call if he wanted, since he says he was present!

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

1 MIKE KANE: I think you touched on this,

2 and I want to go into it a little bit more than

3 this. You were pretty adamant about calling the

4 police and the FBI obviously and all these

5 references to knowledge of police tactics and

6 stuff like that.

7 Was there any discussion about not calling the

8 police?

9 JOHN RAMSEY: Yes, for a moment. I mean,

10 Patsy said, it says not to call the police. I

11 said, call them anyway. We called them. I mean,

12 there's no question in my mind that that was the

13 right answer.

14 MIKE KANE: Did you have any concern

15 about doing that? Even when you had made that

16 decision, did you have any concerns?

17 JOHN RAMSEY: No. No. Because we couldn't

18 just sit there. We would have gone mad.

19 (INAUDIBLE). We didn't. No.

WOW, so JR directly tells PR to dial 911 after she suggests not doing so! Doc's theory spontaneously combusted there.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

0 MIKE KANE: When you looked at this and

11 you said that you laid it on the floor and studied

12 it, what did you make of it?

13 JOHN RAMSEY: I was panicked. Patsy was

14 by the phone and what should I do, what should I

15 [/b]do.[/b] And I don't like to use the phone. (INAUDIBLE)

16 cause if there are reservations to be made or this

17 or that I always to get Patsy to do it. That's

18 just the way our family works.

19 MIKE KANE: Even under the circumstances.

20 JOHN RAMSEY: Even then.

21 MIKE KANE: Patsy, how was she acting?

22 JOHN RAMSEY: She was hysterical.

23 MIKE KANE: Didn't that concern you, that

24 she would make the call being hysterical?

25 JOHN RAMSEY: No, no. She was said, "what

0350

1 can I do?" and I said, "Call the police." And she

2 was standing by the phone. And it was how it

3 happened. (INAUDIBLE) could talk better. I mean,

4 she was hysterical at that time. I was just trying

5 to sort things out and can you call the police.

6 MIKE KANE: And you had discussed about,

7 just a little bit about, calling (INAUDIBLE)?

8 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah. Very briefly. (INAUDIBLE).

9 MIKE KANE: Okay. Do you remember it

10 specifically saying that?

11 JOHN RAMSEY: It says not to call the police.

12 MIKE KANE: Okay. And you said you said

13 something about, I guess when you were asked about

14 what are your impressions about (INAUDIBLE) how

15 you said something about the possibility of it

16 being a woman? Maybe you could tell me about that

17 a little bit.

18 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, there were apparently some

19 similarities of Patsy's handwriting the notes. All

20 the experts we had looking at it says it's almost

Thats twice at different points in the interview where JR claims he told Patsy to dial 911!



.

 

[Chrishope]

I agree, it's hard to believe the kidnapper/killer was still in the house. But then again it's even harder to believe that the kidnapper turned into a pedo perv killer and left her! For that matter, it's hard to even read the RN without :floorlaugh: !!

couldn't agree more.

I was just trying to think of any other possible reason that he/she/they could have thought leaving her in the house and calling 911 was a good idea.

It's difficult to think of any reason they'd have thought it was a good idea.

I wouldn't buy a RN and JB dead in the house under any circumstances.

Few people would. It takes years on the forums before something like that starts to sound plausible.

IOW, I was trying to account for PR's 911 call if she were involved.

As I see it, she either was innocent and ignorant, or their plan was to have the body found along with the RN. But I don't buy that either, so I go with innocent/ignorant.

I still haven't ruled out in my own mind that she might have been. She displayed some really bizarre behavior. She had to have known something that morning. I really think it could be JDI all the way, but she at minimum had knowledge of what he'd done. :moo:

I don't think she knew that morning. I have no doubt she figured it out later.

 

[Chrishope]

madeleine,

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt


.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt


.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

So John was pretty familiar with where all the gifts were located including wrapping paper, and like Patsy, he lost his memory about visiting the wine-cellar!

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

mmm, I wonder about that. JR has very bad eyesight this is why employs a pilot for his private plane.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

So JR could have prevented Patsy from making the 911 call if he wanted, since he says he was present!

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

WOW, so JR directly tells PR to dial 911 after she suggests not doing so! Doc's theory spontaneously combusted there.

.
.
.

Interview With John Ramsey, BPD 1998, excerpt

Thats twice at different points in the interview where JR claims he told Patsy to dial 911!



.

LOL. Well, you have convinced me. If JR said, twice, then it must be true.

Are you really versed in logic as you are always telling us?

 

[Nom de plume]

So John was pretty familiar with where all the gifts were located including wrapping paper, and like Patsy, he lost his memory about visiting the wine-cellar!

mmm, I wonder about that. JR has very bad eyesight this is why employs a pilot for his private plane.


So JR could have prevented Patsy from making the 911 call if he wanted, since he says he was present!


WOW, so JR directly tells PR to dial 911 after she suggests not doing so! Doc's theory spontaneously combusted there.


Thats twice at different points in the interview where JR claims he told Patsy to dial 911!

So what if he says he was present when PR made the 911 call? Doesn't mean it's true. Same with him saying he told PR to call. Does not mean DocG's theory is wrong! Patsy also said it was her idea....then his....then hers....etc. If you believe everything the R's have said, then you must believe IDI too. How do you believe what they say when it comes to this, but not that? For that matter, how do you believe anything they have said?

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Some theories are built using only objective facts, or only information that can be corroborated, so its completely erroneous to make such a universal claim regarding theories. Also it's Doc's theory that I am commenting on, not my own, if I employ subjective assumptions then that should not impact on Doc's theory? [/qutoe]

Could you briefly mention one that makes no assumptions?

The WC is a staged crime-scene, since patently its not the primary crime-scene and JonBenet has been cleaned up, e.g. see Coroner Meyer's remarks, and been redressed. If you assume its an RDI case and JR's behaviour correlates with the known staging statistics, then JR discovering JonBenet completes the staging.

I suppose if your definition of staging is the same as touching the evidence, then yes.

Assuming Doc's theory is valid then once JonBenet's body was recovered those size-12's would have popped up, posing awkward questions for JR, and if he intended to relocate her where she could never be found, why bother cleaning and redressing etc?

Maybe the size 12s wouldn't have been there if there had been time to take care of the body?

Which is a subjective assumption based on staged forensic evidence and if you are familiar with elementary first order logic you can generate any valid theory from an inconsistent statement.


I think the R's amended a prior staging, relocating JonBenet and sundry forensic evidence to the wine-cellar, so they could cleanup the previous crime-scene, which may or may not have been the primary crime-scene. This movement of JonBenet is explained by the Ransom Note under the guise of a kidnapping scenario. So its not really a reason, per se, to call the police, since the R's were always going to have to diall 911.

The wine-cellar staging is intended to hide and mask events which took place elsewhere in the house. So to employ the staged forensic evidence as a critical part of any RDI theory not only makes it inconsistent but plainly misguided.


You have my position on staged forensic evidence, so I'll pass on the science exam.


Everyone knows you can select expert opinion to promote a case, irrespective of its validity.


Because ST was not alleging sexual abuse to adopt JDI ST would have been alleging incest with no corroborating evidence, opening the doors to litigation from JR. JR was quite sensitive on this subject, you might recall him in interview asking the interviewer if he was disgracing his relationship with his daughter when the subject of sexual assault was raised?


I did, but in a rhetorical context. LS is patently wrong, end of story! ST I think is wrong, but thats a subjective assumption.

Given that its plainly JDI or BDI. How come Kolar arrives at BDI?

.

I think for the same reason other people latch on to BDI - it's the "Everythig plus the kitchen sink theory". A lot of people can't decide who did what, or why an innocent parent would cooperate with a guilty one. BDI seems to address those problems.

 

[Chrishope]

If he thinks BDI why did he push and tell Lacy that the case is SOLVABLE?BR can't be charged,nothing can be done.You can't charge the parents of cover-up anymore.So why bother?
There's more to it IMO.

Why indeed.

BR can't be identified as the culprit, even if he is the culprit. Why then go public with the statement that it's solvable?

 

[InstantProof]

John says he and Patsy debated about calling the police because of the threat in the letter, then why wouldn't Patsy mention this concern in the 911 call?
Did Patsy ever say later that she didn't read the whole note before calling 911?

 

[UKGuy]

So what if he says he was present when PR made the 911 call? Doesn't mean it's true. Same with him saying he told PR to call. Does not mean DocG's theory is wrong! Patsy also said it was her idea....then his....then hers....etc. If you believe everything the R's have said, then you must believe IDI too. How do you believe what they say when it comes to this, but not that? For that matter, how do you believe anything they have said?

Nom de plume,
I agree JR might be lying through his teeth. Patsy must be on board otherwise she can contradict him. Yet Doc's theory assumes its Patsy who is being setup?

From memory in some other interview Patsy states JR told her to dial 911, so they both seem to agree with each other. JR is not pulling any punches with what he said, no as much as I remember, he seems quite categorical.

Who said I believe everything the R's have said. I'm quoting what JR said. I've never seen ST, LS, or Kolar jumping on this and saying he lying because ...

Its an important aspect of Doc's theory that the 911 call was unintentional it was not part of JR's script, yet we have both JR and PR agreeing they debated then decided to dial 911.

Doc's theory is patently not waterproof, it has some holes in it.


.

 

[UKGuy]

John says he and Patsy debated about calling the police because of the threat in the letter, then why wouldn't Patsy mention this concern in the 911 call?
Did Patsy ever say later that she didn't read the whole note before calling 911?

InstantProof,
She did say JR told her to dial 911, so they are both in agreement over something Doc suggests Patsy enacted completely independently of JR.

JR says it twice too, he is actually flagging up an issue you might think he would want buried?

.

 

[madeleine]

13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, Dr. Sheevy, Catherine

14 Sheevy, is who I saw in Boulder. Well I haven't

15 seen her in a while. Steven Jaffee, Dr. Steven

16 Jaffee in Atlanta, prescribed the Prozac for me.

17 LOU SMIT: Okay.

18 JOHN RAMSEY: He's actually Burke's

19 psychiatrist.

btw,I was reading his depo again (vs S.Miles) and he says Dr.Beuff was also one of their close friends.Nice to have such friends in life,doctors,lawyers,you never know when you need them,huh.And how convenient that they all where there at the right time.But then again,it's no surprise,JR was in the military,he was a CEO,he's a strategic person.
And there's this problem everyone involved is having,jurors arguing they had no idea who did what,cops speculating (one thinks PDI,another one thinks BDI,another one thinks JDI)...when you look at the crime/staging/crime scene at first you think,wow,this is a mess!But involving so many people in it was actually a very clever move.(especially family members)