Too much reasonable doubt

First off, I apologize for starting a new thread. But I joined this board because I am on the fence in this case--one day I think the Ramseys did it, then I consider some other evidence and conclude that they could not have killed their daughter, then I consider the IDI theory and that seems preposterous, so I'm back to the Ramseys. I tried reading thru the archives to gain others' perspectives, but got a headache at all the infighting and bickering. Sooo, if anyone is willing (and yes I do realize that this has probably been all hashed out before), can you answer a few questions?

1. For the RDIs, presumably one parent was the killer and the other an accomplice after the fact. So, which parent do you think killed her?

2. If the parents went to all this trouble to stage this elaborate botched kidnapping, why did they not stage the most critical component--an obvious break in?

3. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, didn't John give it his stamp of approval? He seems to be an intelligent man, why would he allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left?

4. If one parent accidentally knocked her to the floor and she hit her head (or was bashed on the head with something in a fit of anger, etc, etc) and saw JB unconscious (remember no bleeding from that head wound), why wouldn't they just call 911? Instead they garrot, molest, and tie up their daughter to make it look like a kidnapping gone awry? Seems ridiculous when you think about it considering these are educated people.

I am sorry if these questions are redundant, but these are the inconsistencies with the RDI theory that are preventing me from taking that side. Usually I am very opinionated with criminal cases (e.g. OJ-guilty as sin; Karla Homolka should be locked up for life; Joseph E Duncan-please let me flip the switch) but NOTHING in this case makes sense!! I understand that there will always be unanswered questions in criminal cases, but the unanswered quesions in this case rise to the level of reasonable doubt imo. Can anyone sway me one way or he other? Thanks in advance for your perspective.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives

<snip>
1. For the RDIs, presumably one parent was the killer and the other an accomplice after the fact. So, which parent do you think killed her?

2. If the parents went to all this trouble to stage this elaborate botched kidnapping, why did they not stage the most critical component--an obvious break in?

3. If Patsy wrote the ransom note, didn't John give it his stamp of approval? He seems to be an intelligent man, why would he allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left?

4. If one parent accidentally knocked her to the floor and she hit her head (or was bashed on the head with something in a fit of anger, etc, etc) and saw JB unconscious (remember no bleeding from that head wound), why wouldn't they just call 911? Instead they garrot, molest, and tie up their daughter to make it look like a kidnapping gone awry? Seems ridiculous when you think about it considering these are educated people.

<snip>

Your questions are excellent and go to the heart of the mystery that permeates this case. I'll try to answer each as best I can.

1. There is no reason to assume that, if one parent killed her, the other would be an accomplice. In fact there is every reason to assume otherwise. An accident seems absurd to me, for the reasons you offer in question 4. As I see it, there is only one likely motive: incest, and the need to cover it up. Which tells us that John, not Patsy, is the most likely suspect.

2. A breakin WAS staged. How else can we explain the scene at the basement window? That window had been broken, glass and debris from the well were found on the basement floor, a suitcase was found beneath the window. Everything points to a staged breakin followed by an attempt to UNstage, prompted in all likelihood by police comments regarding the lack of footprints or any other sign of disturbance outside the house.

3. The note was written, as I see it, largely for Patsy's benefit, to discourage her from searching the house and calling the police. If you read it carefully you'll figure out the plan behind it, which involved dumping the body that night under pretext of delivering the ransom. I doubt very much that the writer planned on handing his incriminating note over to the police. He could easily have claimed the "kidnappers" insisted he return it. But Patsy called 911 despite the threats in the note, and his plan had to be scrapped.

4. Yes, the accident scenario is certainly ridiculous. John had been "ruled out" as writer of the note and Patsy hadn't. So the Keystone Kops, plus the Keystone media, took off after her just like in those hilarious old time movies. The experts were wrong. John is the most likely one to have written the note. Patsy couldn't have written it because if she had she most certainly would NOT have called 911 first thing in the morning -- and then handed them a patently phoney note printed in her own hand. How dumb is that?

[bullmoose]

Of course, if you are an IDI, none of the 4 points makes any sense; if you are an RDI, its as good as any other theory. At least it provides a motivation for what seems to be a one of a kind child murder- incest. But, being an IDI, I just do not buy it. There are too many very strange things here for it to make any sense to me; a while back we were discussing the 'heart' drawn on her hand---or is it a stylized V? for victory. If the Ramseys did it, why the heart, or V? Why the horrible strangulation, the cord was wound twice around her neck, the first turn was imbedded in her neck; if it was the Ramseys, why the horrific strangulation? Even the FBI doesn't have any other case like this. Why the incredible weird ransom note? It makes no sense, for instance John is from Michigan, so why the reference to his good southern sense? And if the Ramseys were, either or both capable of such a strange staged murder and were bright enough to completely and totally dispose of the flat cord in the garrote and the duct tape used on Jonbenet, so that they have never been found; then why oh why would they leave the pad and sharpie the weird ransom note was written on and with? I suppose that is why we come to this board, to try to make sense of it one way or the other. I'm still working on it.

[Athena]

docg:

I have a question for you re: #2.

You are saying that when the police searched the outside of the house prior to JR finding the body, they told everyone in the house or at least JR - that they "found no footprints in the snow" and no points of entry, etc.? I don't believe that information would have been shared at that time in order for him to unstage a "false" break-in prior to 10AM.

My thinking would be that JR would not have known what was written in the notes that morning so how could he have known to unstage a break-in designed by the broken window?

[shill]

Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

[docg]

Originally posted by bullmoose
<snip>If the Ramseys did it, why the heart, or V? Why the horrible strangulation, the cord was wound twice around her neck, the first turn was imbedded in her neck; if it was the Ramseys, why the horrific strangulation? Even the FBI doesn't have any other case like this. Why the incredible weird ransom note? It makes no sense, for instance John is from Michigan, so why the reference to his good southern sense? And if the Ramseys were, either or both capable of such a strange staged murder and were bright enough to completely and totally dispose of the flat cord in the garrote and the duct tape used on Jonbenet, so that they have never been found; then why oh why would they leave the pad and sharpie the weird ransom note was written on and with? I suppose that is why we come to this board, to try to make sense of it one way or the other. I'm still working on it.

As I see it, IDI makes as little sense as PDI. (Forget about RDI, that don't work either.) Just as there was no reason for Patsy to write that note and then call 911 there was also no reason for any intruder to write the note and not then take the child, dead or alive. Also, no footprints or ANY OTHER SIGN OF DISTURBANCE was found outside the house. And the ONLY way for an intruder to avoid the lawn and stick to the pavement was if he entered AND exited via the front door, which seems completely contrary to what any intruder would do. And don't forget those Xmas lights! Intruders tend to avoid the light. ALL the so-called intruder evidence can be easily explained, including the DNA fragments.

Why the heart? I have no idea. Maybe she drew it herself earlier, just out of boredom. Why the horrible garotte strangulation? Probably to cover the real strangulation, most likely manual. You can't think like the rube in the audience trying to figure out how the magician did his trick. You have to think like the magician himself. It was all about misdirection. If you take the bait, you are lost. The ransom note was very much to the point with very explicit directions, all consistent with my theory. The odd references were part of the misdirection, why take them seriously? The cord and tape were probably taken from some leftover Christmas packaging and all used up during the crime. Why make such a big deal over such a minor issue? It's easy to dispose of such items in any case -- but not so easy to dispose of a legal size writing pad! Where do you think John could have dumped that without taking a HUGE risk?

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena
docg:

I have a question for you re: #2.

You are saying that when the police searched the outside of the house prior to JR finding the body, they told everyone in the house or at least JR - that they "found no footprints in the snow" and no points of entry, etc.? I don't believe that information would have been shared at that time in order for him to unstage a "false" break-in prior to 10AM.

My thinking would be that JR would not have known what was written in the notes that morning so how could he have known to unstage a break-in designed by the broken window?

I see no reason the police woudn't have shared such info with John. They had no reason to suspect John or Patsy at that time, they were operating on the basis of a kidnapping note and working with the Ramseys to look for clues. It could certainly have become obvious to John that his window staging wasn't going to fly. And if not, then it would be strong evidence against him once the body was found.

If you want to argue that there was no insider staging, then please explain what the debris was doing on the floor under the window or why the suitcase was flush against the wall under it. If you look at the photos of the window well, you can see very clearly that no one could have actually gone through that window. The thick layer of dirt on the sill is pristine. If an intruder entered and left via a door, using a key, then what happened to the basement window, how did it get opened, and what was all that stuff doing under it?

[docg]

Originally posted by shill
Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa?

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.

Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. It really bothers me that the brutal murderer of this little girl remains at large. The obvious suspects of course (as in every child murder case) are the parents. At first I was convinced that the Ramseys did it. BTW I was also convinced that Elizabeth Smart's parents were involved in her disappearance (originally the police said the screen was cut from the inside) and obviously they turned out to be totally innocent.
So back to the Ramseys, yes their behaviour was unconventional to say the least. But I'm not a big believer in behaviour as a science. Nor am I an advocate of handwriting analysis. After the arrest of John Mark Karr I heard numerous handwriting "experts" say with 95% certainty that JMK wrote the ransom note! There was even some "proof" from an old high school year book where he signed off SBTC (he didn't use those initials, but used a phrase with those initials that escapes me right now). Anyway I dont think it is good detective work to find a suspect, then try to fit the facts around said suspect.
That said, John Ramsey as the prime suspect with Patsy in the dark about everything, hmmm....I had always assumed that the RDi's are of the belief that Patsy was the killer. I find too many inconsistencies with that one as I mentioned above. As far as John Ramsey, I am still not convinced that he was the killer, not even close. For one, if he did write the ransom note for Patsy's benefit (and was able to disguise his handwriting enough to fool everyone) with the idea that the police would never see it, then why would he tell Patsy to call the police? When she asked what they should do, why didn't he say "Don't call the police or they might kill Jonbenet. I'll get the money and deliver it in an attache, you take Burke to the Whites for safety". Then he could dispose of the body, clean up the crime scene etc. This is a very intelligent man. If he was trying to kill his daughter, then why do such a sloppy job? He surely would know that he and Patsy would be thoroughly investigated. Also when did he develop the penchant for child molestation. He has two older daughters who he never molested (okay one of them is dead and I've heard several theories that he rigged her car to crash to shut her up too--too absurd as far as I'm concerned). Do people just wake up one day and decide they are sexually attracted to children? I have always assumed that this is a biological malfunction, not something that comes and goes, or develops when you're in your 50s. I know the police did a thorough forensics investigation on his computers and found no evidence of kiddy porn. Don't you think someone would at least look at some kinky website first before going after the real thing? I am still so baffled by this case. Nothing makes sense. I lean toward the intruder theory by default, but I still have some questions with that one. But at least you can presume that an intruder would have been psychotic...and I think if either Ramsey was involved with this twisted crime, they would have to have some history of psychosis, especially with that ludicrous ransom note. So again, I'm back to being totally on the fence. If anyone can help me off, I'd appreciate it.

[watson]

I'd just like to chime in with a couple of points. It's a logically impossible fact that BOTH parents could've done it, or been 'in' on it, because if they both were, then the police never would have been called first thing. If they were both involved they would have gotten rid of the body that morning as the ransom letter clearly intended, and gave them perfect cover, time and excuse to do. It's impossible they both cooperated in the murder and in writing the excuse for not calling police first thing that am, and then called the police on themselves, to be caught with the body still at the scene! IF a parent did it, only 1 of them could have, and the other is innocent.
Patsy can be automatically cleared of doing it, or being in on it, because as a FACT, she called the police, against ALL the ransom letters instructions (so she did not write those instructions), within minutes of finding the letter, and brought the police to the scene BEFORE the body was removed, ruining the killers plans of staging it as a kidnapping.
DocG's logic is inescapable.........if a parent did it, it couldn't be both, Patsy can be cleared by her ignoring the note and calling police, and John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives
<snip>As far as John Ramsey, I am still not convinced that he was the killer, not even close. For one, if he did write the ransom note for Patsy's benefit (and was able to disguise his handwriting enough to fool everyone) with the idea that the police would never see it, then why would he tell Patsy to call the police? When she asked what they should do, why didn't he say "Don't call the police or they might kill Jonbenet. I'll get the money and deliver it in an attache, you take Burke to the Whites for safety". Then he could dispose of the body, clean up the crime scene etc. This is a very intelligent man. If he was trying to kill his daughter, then why do such a sloppy job? <snip>

Another excellent question! According to Patsy's version of what happened, as immortalized in Tracey's first documentary, calling the police was HER idea, not his. And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.

John announced to the world that calling was HIS idea, on their CNN interview, just a few days after the crime. So what was Patsy supposed to do, publicly accuse him of lying? I'm convinced the call was her idea, not his. If he'd wanted the call made, he'd have made it himself. The rest of your scenario is right on. Good thinking.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by docg


Another excellent question! According to Patsy's version of what happened, as immortalized in Tracey's first documentary, calling the police was HER idea, not his. And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.

John announced to the world that calling was HIS idea, on their CNN interview, just a few days after the crime. So what was Patsy supposed to do, publicly accuse him of lying? I'm convinced the call was her idea, not his. If he'd wanted the call made, he'd have made it himself. The rest of your scenario is right on. Good thinking.

With all due respect, Docg, in everything ever written, including the interviews with the LE and in all of the books, John is the one who said to call the police upon finding the note.
So are you saying that she was calling John a liar on the documentary? Hard to believe anything the Ramseys say when they can't keep the story straight.
Also, if you have read Cherokees analysis of the ransom note on FFJ (there is a link in here somewhere), I think it will make about as much sense as your analysis does, with Patsy being the writer of the note and both of them "being in on it."
Personally, I believe they both were involved in every aspect of the staging. How and why the head wound occured is still the big mystery. It is not such a mystery as to why they did not remove the body and opted to call the police. Please do read Cherokees theory on the ransom note. It makes perfect sense as he went over every single aspect of the ransom note and fit the pieces together very well. IMO
Removing the body from the home was far more risky than writing that note and staging the scene. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
Being IDI, only docg's theory of John doing it comes close to being reasonable. I have completely ruled out Patsy since she lacked motive, your point #4 rules out what most Patsy did it folks base their theory on.
Elabotartly staged but poorly staged is what those who think it was staged say. It's a contradiction and as you pointed out, the most important part of the staging is missing, the break in.

I do agree that docg's theory is probably the most plausible out of any that I have read/heard. I have disagreed with docg on some issues but nevertheless have to admit it's the most persuasive argument and one of the reasons I'm not 100% IDI but still not totally convinced JDI.
JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by docg


I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa?

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.

Fleet White admitted to moving the suitcase and picking up glass and put it on the sill which means he could have also stirred the debris. Just a couple of months ago (and almost 10 years later) Thomas told Greta he thinks Fleet also opened the window.

I just cannot imagine that if JDI he would not have provided an entry/exit point. The note bothers me as well re: JDI. He literally framed himself if he wrote that note as it had the opposite effect of diverting it away from himself.

You do have a persuasive argument but you just haven't convinced me. JMO

[docg]

Originally posted by watson
I'd just like to chime in with a couple of points. It's a logically impossible fact that BOTH parents could've done it, or been 'in' on it, because if they both were, then the police never would have been called first thing. If they were both involved they would have gotten rid of the body that morning as the ransom letter clearly intended, and gave them perfect cover, time and excuse to do. It's impossible they both cooperated in the murder and in writing the excuse for not calling police first thing that am, and then called the police on themselves, to be caught with the body still at the scene! IF a parent did it, only 1 of them could have, and the other is innocent.
Patsy can be automatically cleared of doing it, or being in on it, because as a FACT, she called the police, against ALL the ransom letters instructions (so she did not write those instructions), within minutes of finding the letter, and brought the police to the scene BEFORE the body was removed, ruining the killers plans of staging it as a kidnapping.
DocG's logic is inescapable.........if a parent did it, it couldn't be both, Patsy can be cleared by her ignoring the note and calling police, and John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect.

Thank you, my dear Watson! By process of elimination, we arrive at John. And once we see how likely it is that he and he alone is the guilty party, then we must re-evaluate all the other evidence to see whether or not we have made some mistake, whether there is something, anything, that would make his involvement an impossibility. People have been tossing out all sorts of problems with John as suspect for many years now and I have, so far, been able to answer every single one. The toughest question is why Patsy would want to lie for him if she believes him to be innocent. Because if she WAS telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, he could NOT have done it. The flaw here is the assumption that an innocent person wouldn't have any reason to lie. I think she was manipulated into lying. I think she was led to believe that the two of them had to function as a team and what made one of them look bad made both look bad. Her alternative would have been to confront John with his lies, leave him, get a lawyer of her own and . . .then what? All eyes were on HER as suspect. John had been ruled out as writer of the note, so what could she possibly have gained by accusing him? I don't think she had any choice but to tell a few "innocent" lies to bolster his version of what happened.

[aussiesheila]

Hi elvislives,

Since I am an IDI I did not reply to your post that started this thread, but I am reading through the replies looking for any RDI answers that are credible.

I want to take issue with three of the four points Docg makes in reply to your post

Docg suggests that as he sees it, incest is the only likely motive and that John therefore is the most likely suspect. I think while this might have been a reasonable belief to hold to in the early days, the fact is that the BPD thoroughly investigated John over a number of months, and found absolutely nothing, nothing in his family background, nothing on his computers, nothing in his work files or reading matter in the home to indicate that he might have ever indulged in any form of child molestation whatsoever. Knowing this, surely it is drawing a very long bow to still be deriving theories based on the assumption that he was

I think Docg is saying that John wrote the note. However, as you say, and I completely agree with you, that John seems to be an intelligent man and therefore most unlikely to allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left. I have made this point to RDIs in posts I made at Websleuths, but never got a satisfactory reply.

Docg goes on to say that Patsy couldn’t have written the note because she most certainly would NOT have called 911 and showed them a note written in her own hand. But this same logic could be applied to John. He was right there beside Patsy, He TOLD her to ring the police, and it was he, or him together with Patsy who handed them the note.

Docg’s reply was all I had time to read tonight. I will have more to say when I read the rest of the replies


So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives?

[docg]

Originally posted by Athena

<snip>
You do have a persuasive argument but you just haven't convinced me. JMO

Thanks, Athena. It's gratifying to know that you find my argument persuasive. And it's OK if you're not convinced, because this is anything but slam dunk. I myself am convinced, but have never claimed I can actually prove John's guilt.

What's important, as I see it, is that the authorities catch on to the possibility that I could be right, the possibility that John could have manipulated Patsy into telling some fibs and therefore distorting their picture of what did and did not happen. There is at this point no real case to be made against John Ramsey, despite the many reasons I've presented to suspect him. But there ARE compelling reasons for a renewed investigation of John.

First and foremost, the mystery surrounding the document on Brugnatelli's website must be investigated. Did John print this or not? If he did print it, then why wasn't it seen by the handwriting experts who ruled him out? And why are the exemplars by John that they DID see so completely different? This information comes from one of the Ramsey's staunchest defenders: Jameson herself.

Secondly, his story about breaking into the house months earlier must be thoroughly checked. If he was returning from a business trip, then where did he go, who did he meet with? What flight did he take, with what airline? Why didn't he have his key? And why didn't he make an effort to call ahead to a friend while at the airport, or go next door to the Barnhill's who had a key? Was that window ever repaired or not? And why was it so hard for both John and Patsy to recall anything about that?

Also, why did he close the basement window without reporting not only the open window, but also the debris and glass on the floor and the suitcase? On this, as with so many other segments of the interview, he was questioned with a powder puff and allowed to dissemble freely without every being sharply challenged over anything.

There is presently no solid case to be made against John, and thus no reason for you to be convinced of my theory. What my theory DOES provide, however, is good reason to re-investigate him, with far more energy and persistence than before. Perhaps we can agree on that.

[docg]

Originally posted by aussiesheila
>Docg suggests that as he sees it, incest is the only likely motive and that John therefore is the most likely suspect. I think while this might have been a reasonable belief to hold to in the early days, the fact is that the BPD thoroughly investigated John over a number of months, and found absolutely nothing, nothing in his family background, nothing on his computers, nothing in his work files or reading matter in the home to indicate that he might have ever indulged in any form of child molestation whatsoever. Knowing this, surely it is drawing a very long bow to still be deriving theories based on the assumption that he was

I'm not assuming anything. What is being assumed, by you and so many others, is that a "respectable" father like John could not have commited incest. What I'm arguing is that we have no reason to assume that. Much more is now known about incest than in the past. Respectable fathers HAVE been known to succumb to temptation and molest their daughters, that is a known fact. Also we cannot assume that the sort of investigation the police conducted could have given us a complete picture of John, as he spent a great deal of his time out of town and even overseas. Let's not forget, also, that a woman DID come forward claiming an affair with John and claiming also that he asked her to dress like a little girl.

>I think Docg is saying that John wrote the note.

I'm saying that the note makes sense only if it were written by John -- as part of a kidnap staging plan. No other explanation of the note makes any sense at all.

>However, as you say, and I completely agree with you, that John seems to be an intelligent man and therefore most unlikely to allow such a ridiculous ransom note to be left. I have made this point to RDIs in posts I made at Websleuths, but never got a satisfactory reply.

Here is my reply: I don't think John ever intended for that note to get into the hands of the police. The plan was to use the note to delay a call to the police long enough for the body and ALL the evidence to be disposed of. He could easily have claimed the kidnappers wanted the original note back. He would then have presented the police with a copy.

>Docg goes on to say that Patsy couldn’t have written the note because she most certainly would NOT have called 911 and showed them a note written in her own hand. But this same logic could be applied to John. He was right there beside Patsy, He TOLD her to ring the police, and it was he, or him together with Patsy who handed them the note.

If I am right and John wrote the note, he certainly would not have told Patsy to make that call. She herself has, on one occasion, presented a version of the story where this is HER idea, NOT his. I think he manipulated her into eventually going along with his version of what happened. She would have been convinced of his innocence by the early reports from HIS handwriting experts that ruled him out as writer of the note. So, since the truth would have made him look suspicious, and she "knew" he was innocent, she agreed to lie rather than pointlessly challenge him over a minor issue.

[rashomon]

Originally posted by docg


I'm glad you agree on the absurdity of any Patsy dunnit theory. But please explain to me how the window well debris got on the floor and the suitcase came to be where it was if there was no real breakin at that point and no insider staging? A late visit from Santa?

A breakin was never completely staged because the whole point of the note was to give John time to complete his staging. Once Patsy called 911, there was no longer any way for him to do that. So he had to improvise. Which he did, brilliantly.

I totally disagree that any 'Patsy dunnit' theory is absurd.
Quite the contrary, it makes perfect sense.

Again Docg:
Why do you keep ignoring that it was JOHN who told Patsy to call the police?
And Patsy Ramsey was one of the few people who could not be eliminated as the writer of the note. There exist handwriting comparisons soo similar that it makes one's head spin.
The whole note has Patsy Ramsey written over it. The dramatic tone, just about everything.

Why do you think it is totally unrealistic that Patsy snapped and lost it? Do you think such things never happen?
My theory is that Patsy, for whatever reason, delivered the head bash to JB in an attack of blind rage. She is frantic and desperate and wakes up John.
Why did John help her cover up? Because he had something to hide too. For he had been chronically abusing JB sexually and is afraid it will be found out in the autopsy. It is he who suggests to Patsy that she stage the sexual predator scene because his true motive is to camouflage the signs of chronic abuse in JB's body.
John lets Patsy write the note because he doesn't want to get too involved in the staging. For in case the police should not buy their story, the note will implicate her, and not him. Quite clever.
For I'm not at all sure that John ever believed they would get away with it.

And the head bash struck by Patsy relieved John from a big problem: his sexual abuse victim JonBenet would be silent forever ...

Aside from that, I think it is totally UNREALISTIC to assume that either John or Patsy could have carried all this out alone (thinking out what to do, staging the scene, writing the ransom note) without the other spouse becoming aware of what was going on.
For the Ramseys shared a common bedroom, and to do all this, one of them would have had to be gone from that bedroom for HOURS. Most people wake up at least once during the night, go to the bathroom etc, and what would e. g. Patsy have thought if John's side of the bed was empty and he didn't return? Wouldn't she have gotten up and looked for him?

So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives? [/b][/quote]

First off, I agree that docg's theory is the most plausible I've heard from the RDI camp...at least it fits in with the physical evidence. The most important piece of hard physical evidence imo is the autopsy. She died of strangulation, but the final finish-her-off head blow came AT or VERY close to the time of death (by strangulation). This rules out the possiblility that the head blow was an accident and the garrotting just part of the staging to cover up an accidental killing. So the murder HAD to be premeditated. Even if I were to buy in to the fact that Patsy bashed JB on the head in a fit of rage, she would have to think at lightning speed in order to come up with the cover up plan, fashion a garrot, then strangle her daughter to death before she died of the head wound (remember:cause of death was asphyxia....and JB would have bled out from the 8 inch skull crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull within minutes. Way too improbable, impossible imo.
So Patsy's out, now on to John. While docg's theory is plausible, it is extremely improbable. First of all, I have never heard of a case where someone developed a sexual attraction to children in their 50s. This is a pathology that begins early in life and he had absolutely no history. But lets put that aside right now and assume that John was molesting Jonbenet. Sadly thousands of fathers molest their daughters and are able to keep them quiet thru manipulation or intimidation. Why would he have to KILL her to shut her up? Also why the day after Christmas?I think if he did plan to kill her he would have done a much better job planning it. But maybe it was an emergency and he didn't have much time to plan, perhaps Jonbenet was about to break her silence and report that her dad had been molesting her. Okay assuming he was molesting her and had some reason to believe she was about to talk, so he killed her unbeknownst to Patsy and staged the botched kidnapping and goofy ransom note for Patsy's sake. When Patsy said lets call the police, John could easily have persuaded her against it. He could simply say to Patsy--No we absolutely cannot call the police or they will kill JB. If Patsy insisted he could unplug the phone, after all he is trying to save his daughter's life. I think it would be easy to explain to police why you didn't want your wife to call the authorities under the circumstances-- a lot easier than explaining your daughter's dead body in your basement. He just seems way to intelligent and methodical to have done such a sloppy job.
So that leaves the intruder theory. Also possible but so highly improbable which is why this case is so baffling. For example, there were definitely some elements of the crime that were staged--why would the intruder need to stage anything? Why did he put the tape on her mouth for example? She was clearly dead or unconscious when that happened, so what purpose did it serve? Also, why did he leave her in the house? Some say that he couldn't get her out of the basement window, but why not just walk out the back door with her in the suitcase? And why take the risk of molesting her inside of the house? Why not just incapacitate her and take her to a location where he was less likely to be caught red handed? And if her intended to kidnap her, then killed her by mistake and decided to just leave the body...why wouldn't he go back upstairs and grab the ransom note before exiting? Seems like this guy was very careful not to leave any physical evidence, but he leaves a useless 3 page letter written by him? Any way you slice it in this case, it doesn't add up.

[shill]

I think John Karr was closer to the suspect in Thailand then the BP know.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
I think John Karr was closer to the suspect in Thailand then the BP know.

Putting aside all differences, would you be willing to share your thoughts on this. I have never dismissed your theory or deductive analytical process. Do you feel this way because Homeland Sec is wanting a further look or has this got something to do with the theory discussed in the past? I am open to hearing. Bearing in mind that to do so we must be respectful of one another even if we have differences of opinion as it is requirement of this forum. Also BP does not have charge of this case it is under the auspices of the DA's office if I am correct.

[John by process of elimination still must remain a possible suspect. [/b][/quote]

This is what bothers me. If Elizabeth Smart had never been found alive, her parents would still be under "an umbrella of suspission" by process of elimination. Who else had the motive, the means and the opportunity?? Perhaps her dad had been molesting her too and had to kill her to keep her quiet. She was an attractive girl like Jonbenet and while her dad had no history of child molestation, maybe like John Ramsey he just gave into temptation, then had to kill her so as not to lose his place in society. Not a bad theory, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it, only speculation based on the lack of other suspects. In Elizabeth Smart's case, her discovery turned out to exonerate the parents, but those theories were floated before her discovery, just like JB.

Originally posted by docg

And if John, as I strongly suspect, did try to talk her out of calling, then that information would certainly make him look bad, because it would be consistent with what the note writer tried so hard to do, make sure the police were NOT called.

But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Personally, I believe they both were involved in every aspect of the staging. How and why the head wound occured is still the big mystery.

I would agree that if one was involved the other would have to be incahoots. But that would make the murder a premeditated planned crime. What would be the motive???

[nuisanceposter]

Why would it have to be premeditated and planned of both were involved? One of them hits her, the other decides to help cover up. I think this crime would look a lot different had it been planned ahead of time by the Rs.

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Why would it have to be premeditated and planned of both were involved? One of them hits her, the other decides to help cover up. I think this crime would look a lot different had it been planned ahead of time by the Rs.

I think what you are implying is that one parent killed her, possibly accidentally and the other was an accomplice after the fact? The physical evidence prevents me from buying into that theory. I am an ER physician and have seen more head wounds than you can imagine. I reviewed the autopsy report and the photos and my conclusion based on the physical evidence and my experience is that the head wound occured just before, at the time of, or right after death by strangulation. If one of them hit her, he would have about 20 seconds to 1 minute (at most!) to 1) determine she was dead or close to it; 2) employ the complicity of the other parent in the cover up; 3) fashion a garrot out of materials in the basement; 4) wrap the garrotte twice around JB's neck and strangle her to death. There is just NO WAY, not enough time for the head wound to organize. She was bashed in the head just about the time of death by strangulation. IF the parents killed her, I believe docg's theory that it had to be planned and intentional. This was definitely no accident and cover-up.

[Athena]

Originally posted by elvislives


But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

One of the same issues I've raised with docg before and I do agree with you. I believe if JR really did not want Patsy to call 911 in docg's theory, he definitely could have prevented it as I do not believe Patsy would have jeopardized JBRs life and that is easily how JR could have convinced her. JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by elvislives

This is what bothers me. If Elizabeth Smart had never been found alive, her parents would still be under "an umbrella of suspission" by process of elimination. Who else had the motive, the means and the opportunity?? Perhaps her dad had been molesting her too and had to kill her to keep her quiet. She was an attractive girl like Jonbenet and while her dad had no history of child molestation, maybe like John Ramsey he just gave into temptation, then had to kill her so as not to lose his place in society. Not a bad theory, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support it, only speculation based on the lack of other suspects. In Elizabeth Smart's case, her discovery turned out to exonerate the parents, but those theories were floated before her discovery, just like JB.

So true, so very very true.

[shill]

Originally posted by Athena


One of the same issues I've raised with docg before and I do agree with you. I believe if JR really did not want Patsy to call 911 in docg's theory, he definitely could have prevented it as I do not believe Patsy would have jeopardized JBRs life and that is easily how JR could have convinced her. JMO

For John to get rid of the body on the way to the bank, he would need to do it before calling the police, wait for the NO CALL from mystery kidnapper, then contact the police. That would have worked IMO.
Letting Patsy call flushes the whole plan down the tubes, and as such, ended up with JB still in the house.
Patsy calling foiled his plan, he should have given himself up at that point, since he gave up on stopping Patsy. Game Over.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Putting aside all differences, would you be willing to share your thoughts on this. I have never dismissed your theory or deductive analytical process. Do you feel this way because Homeland Sec is wanting a further look or has this got something to do with the theory discussed in the past? I am open to hearing. Bearing in mind that to do so we must be respectful of one another even if we have differences of opinion as it is requirement of this forum. Also BP does not have charge of this case it is under the auspices of the DA's office if I am correct.

Homeland Security being involved would be important if they were involved before Karr surfaced or believed Karr knew who the suspect was.
I have come up with even more correlating evidence to my theory since you left, but I only talk about that theory on that site. That's one of the things that makes that site special and different.
And we now have some names to look at as suspects, and I would be surprised if any of these people were ever questioned or put on the suspect list.

[docg]

Originally posted by elvislives


But why not insist? Absolutely insist? Patsy was a pretty submissive wife, I feel sure John could have convinced her. And while it might make him look bad to have convinced his wife not to call the authorities, he looks a lot worse when his daughter's dead body is found in their basement. At least insisting that his wife not call the police is explainable, considering the ransom note. The dead body in the basement of the family home is much more difficult to explain to police. Dosent make sense for an otherwise intelligent person imo.

I imagine he DID insist. And Patsy probably agreed with him. At first, anyhow. And that might have been enough to put him off his guard. No reason to assume she'd call the police after agreeing with him that this would be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened between them prior to the call. Actually we don't have a clue. We DO know, however, that 1. Patsy DID make the call and 2. she would NOT have done that if she'd written the note -- or was conspiring with someone who did.

So, either they both wanted the call made and are both innocent -- or something happened to change Patsy's mind, and, when John was distracted, make the call anyhow. I have no idea what that could have been. But I DO know there was no intruder. So where does that leave us?

John didn't want the call made. Patsy made it anyhow, for whatever reason, who knows? That's the logic of the 911 call, like it or not.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Homeland Security being involved would be important if they were involved before Karr surfaced or believed Karr knew who the suspect was.
I have come up with even more correlating evidence to my theory since you left, but I only talk about that theory on that site. That's one of the things that makes that site special and different.
And we now have some names to look at as suspects, and I would be surprised if any of these people were ever questioned or put on the suspect list.

Thank you for sharing that with me. In the future I'll remember that your theory is only discussed on that site. I apologize for bringing it up. I won't since that is a special things to that site. Congrats at the names to look at. I only wish I had know it was a confidential theory earlier. Thanks again Shill.

[Ames]

Originally posted by docg


<snipped>

Why the heart? I have no idea. Maybe she drew it herself earlier, just out of boredom.

I have read that it was faded, sounds to me like it was drawn days before the murder. I know that Patsy said that she didn't notice it, but...she didn't know if JB had a bath that day, either. Sounds like she wasn't very observant. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by elvislives


<snipped>
I reviewed the autopsy report and the photos and my conclusion based on the physical evidence and my experience is that the head wound occured just before, at the time of, or right after death by strangulation.

And based on MY experience...the strangulation came AFTER the head wound. In order for there to have not to have been scratch marks, where she would have been trying to pry the cord from her neck...she would have either had to have been unconscious (from the head wound) or suspended. Theres no evidence of her ever being suspended....so, I go with the facts...John saying that he found her wrapped in a blanket ON THE FLOOR. That leaves only one other possiblity...the head wound came first, rendering her unconscious....and THEN the strangulation. I am sure that the strangulation is what killed her though....although the head wound would have eventually done it, if she hadn't of been strangled. IMO

[rashomon]

Originally posted by elvislives
So what problem do you have with IDI theory elvislives?

First off, I agree that docg's theory is the most plausible I've heard from the RDI camp...at least it fits in with the physical evidence. The most important piece of hard physical evidence imo is the autopsy. She died of strangulation, but the final finish-her-off head blow came AT or VERY close to the time of death (by strangulation). This rules out the possiblility that the head blow was an accident and the garrotting just part of the staging to cover up an accidental killing. So the murder HAD to be premeditated. Even if I were to buy in to the fact that Patsy bashed JB on the head in a fit of rage, she would have to think at lightning speed in order to come up with the cover up plan, fashion a garrot, then strangle her daughter to death before she died of the head wound (remember:cause of death was asphyxia....and JB would have bled out from the 8 inch skull crack and 1-3/4 x 1/2 inch hole in her skull within minutes. Way too improbable, impossible imo.
So Patsy's out, now on to John. While docg's theory is plausible, it is extremely improbable ? [/b][/quote]

DocG's theory does not fit in with the physical evidence. For it disregards the fiber evidence which incriminates Patsy. It also disregards that in all probability Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note.
So Patsy is not "out of it" at all.
Nor does the autopsy report say that the strangulation came first. The head wound was fully developed and there was a lot of blood inside JB's skull.
I agree with you that Patsy could not have carried out all that staging alone. And the same appies to John.
Imo John helped Patsy to stage the scne, for he too had something to hide.
Like you, I too think DocG's theory is highly improbable, for John could easily have talked Patsy out of calling the police.
And if he had absolutely wanted to prevent Patsy from calling the police, he would not have let the RN lying around for Patsy to find, but made sureit was HE who 'found' it.
It also was John who told Patsy to call the police.

Any way you slice it in this case, it doesn't add up.

Imo it adds up perfectly if one's theory involves both Ramseys and doesn't assume that one Ramseys carried all this out alone.
And the forensic evidence supports this theory.

[shill]

If Patsy had done it, the red fibers from her jacket/sweater would be all over JB's body, but they were not. There was only four on the tape and a few in the garrote knot.
She couldn't have transfered those few fibers with out transfering some fibers to JB's body.

Originally posted by Ames


And based on MY experience...the strangulation came AFTER the head wound. IMO

That is certainly possible, but if so the strangulation came IMMEDIATELY AFTER the head wound. It takes about 5 minutes for a 45 lb kid to die of ashphxia. It is highly unlikely, but possible that the head wound was bleeding for 5+ minutes before she died--the lack of blood could be explained by the fact that her carotid arteries were being constricted by the ligature, which could explain why there was a relatively small amount of blood from the head wound. So while it is impossible to determine which came first, they were definitely within a very close time frame. So IF Patsy accidentally hit her on the head, she would have to have had the garrotte within arms reach and strangled her immediately. Not enough time between injuries for that theory to float.

Originally posted by docg


I imagine he DID insist. And Patsy probably agreed with him. At first, anyhow. And that might have been enough to put him off his guard. No reason to assume she'd call the police after agreeing with him that this would be a terrible idea.

Unfortunately, we don't really know what happened between them prior to the call. Actually we don't have a clue. We DO know, however, that 1. Patsy DID make the call and 2. she would NOT have done that if she'd written the note -- or was conspiring with someone who did.

So, either they both wanted the call made and are both innocent -- or something happened to change Patsy's mind, and, when John was distracted, make the call anyhow. I have no idea what that could have been. But I DO know there was no intruder. So where does that leave us?

John didn't want the call made. Patsy made it anyhow, for whatever reason, who knows? That's the logic of the 911 call, like it or not.

You make some very compelling arguements, docg. And while much of your theory is speculative, it is certainly within the realm of possiblity that it could have happened that way. I am new to this board, can you explain to me why you are so certain that the intruder theory is impossible? I am still of the belief that like the JDI theory, the IDI, while highly improbable is still a possiblility. The only one I have ruled out (with 98% certainty) is Patsy.

[Ames]

Originally posted by elvislives


That is certainly possible, but if so the strangulation came IMMEDIATELY AFTER the head wound. It takes about 5 minutes for a 45 lb kid to die of ashphxia. It is highly unlikely, but possible that the head wound was bleeding for 5+ minutes before she died--the lack of blood could be explained by the fact that her carotid arteries were being constricted by the ligature, which could explain why there was a relatively small amount of blood from the head wound. So while it is impossible to determine which came first, they were definitely within a very close time frame. So IF Patsy accidentally hit her on the head, she would have to have had the garrotte within arms reach and strangled her immediately. Not enough time between injuries for that theory to float.

I believe that they happened between minutes of each other too. She also could have been struck, and knocked out...stranged...and THEN struck again. Who knows? This case just baffles me! My husband doesn't understand why I care about a ten year old case. It's just not a case to me...or the other poster's here...its about justice for little JonBenet. (IMO)
Off subject...are you an Elvis fan? (Just curious...I am from the south...my cousin married into his family. When he died, we found out through her first, before hearing it on the news. He could sing, but I wasn't a huge fan of his.)