Episode 3 is titled “A Father’s Anguish”, and bills itself as John Ramsey addressing inconsistencies in his own accoutns of Christmas Night and the day after Christmas. Except he doesn’t. There is no admission of inconsistencies, and no addressing of inconsistencies.
That’s to be expected.
In reality episode 3 is a 39-minute moan by John Ramsey and his eldest son John Andrew, Burke’s older half-brother, about how inept and unfair the investigation was into them.
In effect it’s a follow-on to the previous episode which was just as misleadingly titled “The Case Against the Ramseys.” A more honest title would have been “The Witchhunt Against Us” with Episode 3 being Part 2 to that bitch and moan.
Despite the latest episode’s abundance of bullshit and bogus Apologia, episode 3 is chock-full of nuggets. It’s the best and most useful episode thus far thanks to plenty of freeflowing disclosures from the Ramsey patriarch and his eldest son. It’s easy to see how and why there’s a chip on someone’s shoulder here. John Andrew has one, where did he get it from? And if John Andrew has a chip on his shoulder, why wouldn’t Burke? In fact Judith Philipps, the family photographer described Burke in precisely those terms in the CBS documentary [yes, the one they tried to sue].
The 39 minutes are literally littered with gems and small little revelations that seem incidental on the surface. When one knows the case back to front, however, it’s clear where to place these little titbits of information. And they’re not titbits as much as the final puzzlepieces missing from the already elaborate mosaic that is the Ramsey case.
In the TCRS Debunk series dealing with this episode, four separate aspects are interrogated in detail.
John Ramsey
John Andrew
“DNA CASE”
Bottomline Suspect
Listen to the TCRS Debunk of the Killing of JonBenet Podcast [episode 3] on Patreon.
DR.PHIL: So you remember the last time you saw JonBenet alive?
BURKE [Smiling]: I wanna say it was in the car…on the way back from…the Whites.
Dr. PHIL [Holding up a picture of JonBenet]: I think this is the last picture…
BURKE [Interrupting]: Really…?
DR. PHIL:...that was ever taken of her…alive.
BURKE [Chuckles, cocks his head to the side]: Funny, I don’t remember her hair being that long.
DR. PHIL: It’s hard to believe that…a short time later…she would be dead.
BURKE [Half smiling, raises his eyebrows, answers softly]: Yeah.
The clip then edits out a visual of Burke’s facial response [and lack of verbal response] by editing in a generic image of the Ramsey home as Dr. Phil continues to speak.
There are a couple of basic issues to note related to this single scene in Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil on the 20 year anniversary.
1. When Burke is asked about the last time he saw JonBenet, he’s not convincing. Him saying “I wanna say” is not the same as saying “in the car” or “in her room.” This is an important question because JonBenet was ambulant later in the night, eating pineapple, and it appears Burke was too. Burke also seems to be suggesting if the last time he saw JonBenet alive was in the car, then he couldn’t have seen his parents carrying her to bed when they arrived home. It’s highly unlikely Burke wouldn’t have seen or noticed this.
2. Then it’s also interesting that Burke’s only comment about JonBenet is with regard to the length of her hair. It’s a strange comment, but perhaps not so strange. The garrotte tangled with her hair to such an extend it couldn’t be untied. Some of her hair also got caught under the extremely tight garrotte.
3. The biggest issue is the most obvious. In 2016 when Dr. Phil mentioned this image [below] as the last photo, why did no one correct him?
Why didn’t John, or Burke or Lin Wood let Dr. Phil know that he’d made an error, either at the time, or since? Also, why is Burke edited out of the original photo, and why doesn’t Burke locate himself in it when asked about it? Why doesn’t he say, “Yeah, actually I was sitting right next her…”?
The photo of JonBenet smiling while opening Christmas gifts wasn’t the last photo, this is the last photo. Looks different, doesn’t it?
Decided to fact check this blog post. This is a blogger who self-publishes e-books about high-profile cases–with over a million hits, his ideas are very popular online, particularly among some of the moderators of this sub, and I often see them repeated by newcomers to the case. So I thought I would note here a few examples of the blogger massaging the evidence (or even completely misrepresenting the evidence) to make his particular variant of the BDI theory seem a little more plausible.
1: “Camping” Cord
BDI blogger: “The distinctive white camping cord could also be traced to a nearby camping store for which the Ramseys held receipts.”
The cord was identified as white Stansport nylon cord. This type of cord was sold at McGuckin’s Hardware Store and the Boulder Army Store. The phrase “camping cord” and “camping store” are used nowhere other than on the blog. It’s possible the Ramseys bought that cord for camping, but shouldn’t really be presented as undisputed fact. The origins of the cord are not known.
2: “Whittled” paintbrush
BDI blogger: “The paintbrush used as a garrotte appears to be whittled.”
No it doesn’t. Here is an image of the paintbrush pieces. Note the bottom one is the paintbrush from the crime, and the top one is a paintbrush somebody has snapped by hand to demonstrate what a broken paintbrush looks like. Here is another view of one of the pieces. These clearly look like a paintbrush that has been snapped by hand into three pieces. There is no indication that a knife ever came into contact with that paintbrush.
This is what whittling looks like. Here is a nifty whittled design. Here is a whittled dinosaur. Whittling is when you carve a piece of wood into a shape by shaving slivers off it. It is something people do to pass the time and to create little artworks. It is not the sort of thing anybody would randomly decide to do after accidentally killing their sister, and would serve no practical purpose in that scenario. Moreover, there is absolutely no indication that the paintbrush was whittled, as can clearly be seen in the photographs.
3: “Whittled wood” found in genitals
BDI blogger: “A fragment consistent with the paintbrush [of whittled wood] was found in JonBenét’s genitalia”
Again, this is a claim that exists only on the blog. A microscopic particle of “cellulose material” was found in the genitalia. Nobody who worked on the case has ever claimed that it was a shaving of “whittled wood”. Experts disagreed over the origin of the microscopic particle, and James Kolar has suggested that it was “consistent” with the wood of the paintbrush.
You may be wondering why this blogger is so determined to connect whittling–a random innocuous pasttime–to this crime. The reason, of course, is because Burke used to whittle sometimes, and the “whittling” connection is one of the BDI Blogger’s hot takes on the case.
4: Burke’s knife found “near the body”
BDI blogger: “Burke’s knife was found in close proximity in the basement to JonBenét’s corpse in the basement wine cellar”
If you look closely at this sentence, you will see that it is ambiguous. Is he saying the knife was “found in the wine cellar, in close proximity to the body”, or that it was “found in close proximity to the body, which was in the wine cellar”? Most people would assume that it means the knife was found in the wine cellar near the body. BDI blogger certainly allows us to draw that conclusion.
But the fact is–police officer Kerry Yamaguchi actually found the knife in a completely different part of that cluttered basement–on a countertop near a sink at the end of the hall. The search warrant later described the knife confusingly as “knife with broken ornament”. A broken Christmas ornament was found in the wine cellar, which led some to believe the knife was also found there. But in the crime scene photos of the ornament in the wine cellar, there is no knife. BDI Blogger capitalizes on this confusing state of affairs, to imply that Burke’s knife was found at ground zero of the crime–in the cellar, near the corpse. Unless you think Detective Yamaguchi was lying, you must accept that this is more smoke-and-mirrors from the bloggers.
It’s worth mentioning that James Kolar and Steve Thomas do not even bother mentioning Burke’s knife at all in their books. There is no indication police ever determined that Burke’s knife was relevant to the crime in any way.
5: Burke’s knife used to create garrote
BDI blogger: “Besides the whittling of the garrotte itself, a sharp knife was used to cut the lengths of cord used to tie JonBenét’s wrists and fashion the garrotte”
Another dubious claim. We have no idea when that cord was cut–in fact, according to a 2016 documentary produced by Lawrence Schiller: “it’s now believed that the wood frame canvases that Patsy Ramsey purchased came wrapped and secured with a piece of duct tape and the rope may have been used to bind canvases together for easy carrying”. The cords (which appear to be equal in length and much longer than they needed to be) may have been cut long before they even arrived at the Ramsey home.
Even if the cords were cut that night, we have no information about what implement (if any) was used to cut them. Several knives were found in the home in various rooms, there were scissors and a paper trimmer in the basement laundry as well. It is not known what items were tested for fiber evidence.
6: “Prusik Knot” on the garrote
The garrotte knot is known as a prusik hitch, a typical boy scouts or camping knot.
This guy and his supporters make a big deal about the apparent complexity of the knots, and their association with boy scouting. Again, this is not based on the findings of law enforcement, but on a desire to match up aspects of the crime scene with publicly-known information about Burke Ramsey.
As James Kolar points out, “there was nothing particularly fancy about the knots”. According to Kolar, knot expert John Van Tassel determined that they were “standard fare … The end of the cord wrapped around the the remains of the paintbrush were observed to be concentric loops and ended in a simple hitch that secured the knot in place.” ‘
The notion that these were specialized scouting knots is again not supported by the people who worked on the case.
Conclusion
Watch out for weasel words and ambiguous language. Stick to people who actually worked on the case for information about the investigation–James Kolar, Steve Thomas. It may surprise people to learn how different Kolar’s actual theory is to the popular BDI theories on the internet. Don’t even get me started on that “toggle rope” BS.
I’m open to the possibility that Burke did it, but I am really not fond of people lazily connecting Burke’s hobbies to the crime scene, fudging the evidence as much as they possibly can, and acting as though that is a coherent theory.
Ive read nearly all of the books , on this case, by the blogger and I really enjoyed them. I always find different peoples views on this case to be fascinating and i am just mindful of the difference between fact and opinion.
This is a reply to Straydog, but since I’ve blocked him, I’m posting it here. I hope you don’t mind. [I’m not interested in that user’s response to this post].
“This is a blogger who self-publishes e-books about high-profile cases–with over a million hits, his ideas are very popular online.” >>>You made an error in your second sentence. The blog was written and posted by Juror13 who isn’t male, and doesn’t blog for a living. Juror13 has been a juror several times in the American court system, hence the name. It’s also misleading to describe me as a blogger who self-publishes books when I worked for over a decade as a fulltime magazine photojournalist, writing investigative pieces for men’s magazines including GQ. I also studied law at university. And this is ostensibly a post about fact checking? Your reference to “massaging” the evidence suggests you think [or wish to communicate] that there is deliberate misinformation in an effort to deceive. I guess to make money? Do you realize making a claim like that about products that are sold online is damaging and defamatory?
Do you?
You also wish to emphasize “books that are self-published” again to undermine the authors. Kolar’s book was also self-published, and his book formed the basis of the CBS documentary in which he also appeared.
There are also other books self-published on the Ramsey case, some better than others. As a matter of fact not “all” my book are self-published. I do have a publishing contract with an American publisher. So you’re wrong on that score as well.
You conclude by saying basically “don’t read this author’s books but stick to people like Kolar” who also self-published his work, and got sued.
In the Kolar/CBS version JonBenet is hit on the head in the kitchen in a random, spontaneous action, something all the “experts” agreed on. The torch wasn’t what struck JonBenet on the head, and Kolar’s scenario makes no provision for the sexual contact that coincided with the crime. All it does is it links the pineapple in JonBenet’s stomach with the torch on the counter, and Burke’s fingerprints on the bowl. It doesn’t integrate the other evidence, and in the CBS documentary, there is no attempt to explain where or when – within this scenario – the garrotte was fashioned.
Steve Thomas believed Patsy Ramsey committed the crime, which is pretty much the jumping off point for most newcomers to this crime.
To the moderators of this site you should be aware that it’s this kind of smearing, sneering commentary that’s the reason TCRS isn’t on Reddit. I refer to points #1 and #5 in your own stated rules. Probably also worth pointing out a glaring double standard here. It’s okay to put up a post discrediting and undermining an author’s work, criticizing the product and the person, but when the same author publishes a post on Reddit, he may not promote his work. It’s okay to discredit someone, it’s not okay for that same someone to stand up for their own product, which in this case is the theme of this entire Reddit – research and information on JonBenet Ramsey. And this makes sense to you?
must admit I was once a follower before… but then I realized a lot lately… if you learned more about the real evidence in this case, you’ll know eventually who’s telling the right info or not.
1,3, and 5 are very fair critiques of the blog post, a post I recently linked. #2 used the language “appeared” to be whittled, and I think a case can be made. In #6 I’m not sure there’s a lot of room between a prusik hitch and “concentric loops and ended in a simple hitch that secured the knot in place” but it’s not a perfect prusik and should not have been identified as such without qualifiers.
As for #4, I think the various accounts of where the knife was found are interesting. The Det. Yamaguchi information is reported once by the Daily Camera and never turns up again as far as I can tell. Both Woodward and the Bonita Papers put the knife in the wine cellar. The fact that the knife was regarded as a possible smoking gun late in the grand jury phase the case by tabloids AND the mainstream press and was not addressed by Kolar and Thomas is interesting. Why didn’t Thomas try to connect it to Patsy or Kolar try to connect it to Burke?
What’s your opinion of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh’s testimony that said she hid a Swiss army knife in the linen cupboard and yet it was found in the murder scene? Linda points out that an intruder would never have found that knife. Unlikely a 9yr old kid would either. More likely Patsy would have found that knife when getting linen from the cupboard.
jameskolar:
I don’t have any reason to doubt Linda’s statement. It is difficult to say either how, or who may have found it after she did so.
EDIT: I forgot to say good post. Well reasoned, well researched. I will be more careful in my language if I link to theories like this one.
This may add absolutely nothing to the conversation, but here goes anyway.
u/mrwonderof ,TY for including the tabloid article in the discussion with u/straydog77 . It’s the only place I’ve seen which states that the knife was monogramed with Burke’s name. Was this information from BPD?
‘97 Patsy interview
ST:He’d walk through the house whittling and for the tape, I’m showing Patsy a photo of a little red Swiss army knife.
PR:Right. He had one we had gotten him in Switzerland, it had his name on it. Does this have his name on it?
ST:I don’t know.
(So I’m thinking if the tabloid Examiner knows, I would imagine that ST would know.)
’98 Patsy interview
TOM HANEY: In the previous interview on
19 the — last April, there was some discussion about
20 Burke having a Swiss Army knife, I think at that time,
21 correct me if I am wrong. You said it had his name or
22 initials on it?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
24 TOM HANEY: Would he have had any other
25 knives or would there have been any other Swiss Army
0335
1 type of knives in the house? Did John have any?
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don’t know. I don’t
3 remember.
(Note Patsy answered in the same manner she responded whether she bought one or two packages of Bloomies. She doesn’t remember.)
4 TOM HANEY: Would Burke have had more than
5 one, more than just one with his name on it?
6 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems like we might have
7 had a little tiny one like a key chain or something,
8 but it might have been — I just remember the red one
9 with his name on it that I got him in Switzerland.
(Why would Haney ask this question if they had found a monogrammed knife? It leads me to wonder whether it’s a fact that the knife they found had Burke’s name on it. Also, did John own a Swiss army knife? As a sailor it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to have one.)
After all the discussion, which I appreciated, I remain baffled. It’s always good to know what one doesn’t know. 🙂
All your contributions these days emanate negativity and scorn. When I see a post with your name on it I can wager it involves hating on somebody or nitpicking about how someone got a fact wrong.
IMO, if you only see negativity and scorn, then it’s a clear sign of cognitive dissonance. you only focus on the discomfort you felt because your beliefs were challenged by his posts .
found at ground zero of the crime–in the cellar, near the corpse.
Not for nothing, but here you you have done the same thing you are accusing the blogger of doing.
It is unknown the location of JBR when each event occurred. It is further unknown if her body was moved at any point after death and before being “discovered” by JR around 1 pm. Lastly, it is fairly proven she expelled urine post mortem OUTSIDE of the cellar as the carpet was urinated on. If any locating would be called ground zero it would be much more accurate to say there.
My point is 1) there are “facts” of this case that may be false having been put out by LE (Steve Thomas was notable for this), put out by Team Ramsey Attorneys, the Ramseys themselves, countless “friends”, and armchair detectives; 2) and then there are the real facts, the GJ exhibits and testimonials, and true accounts by those who may be posing on the internet as unrelated armchair detectives who actually know things.
Where this blogger falls in line I don’t know but unless you know who they are I don’t see how anyone can discredit them completely. Or really anyone else for that matter.
I am a long time believer that family, friends, attorney staff, and possibly even Ramseys themselves, are actively posting.
It is very well known Jonbenet was not moved till the livor mortis got stabilised some 10-12 hours after her death. We don’t know what happened before she died and when the tragedy started, we have though an evidence that it ended in the boiler room, near the door to the wine cellar. That evidence is the urine stain on the carpet.
> there are the real facts, the GJ exhibits and testimonials, and true accounts by those who may be posing on the internet as unrelated armchair detectives who actually know things
I’m the co-author of the books this blog is based on. It forms but a small sample of our research.
The poster seems to be making the claim that unreliable information is being recklessly and opportunisitically recycled in an effort to gain benefit or popularity. Those familiar with our work know most if not all claims are referenced using hyperlinks. If there is speculation [and there has to be in an unsolved case] we provide our reasoning for coming to particular conclusions but always based on exlicit knowledge of the case and evidence. We maintain very high standards in this regard. The poster tries to imply that we do not.
I’d like to respond to the selective reasoning and cynical cherry picking of this particular post:
for which the Ramseys held receipts.”
The camping cord is very clearly the white nylon cord similar to the one found on JonBenet’s wrist. It’s typically used to anchor tents. Most people in the world are familiar with what this is, but the key word here is “receipts”. While it’s not undisputed fact that the Ramseys bought the cord from McGuckin’s or the Army Store, it’s likely [and reasonable] that they did. The receipt is reasonable proof of this assertion. To argue that camping cord or camping store is misleading is trying to make an argument out of nothing.
2: “Whittled” paintbrush
BDI blogger: “The paintbrush used as a garrotte appears to be whittled.”
It’s difficult to be clearer on such an obvious point. It either appears to be whittled to you or it doesn’t. Are there two shades of wood varnish on the brush or aren’t there? Is the brush broken off from the parent? Are there small areas or indentations in the brush? Does the wood appear to be smooth and varnished or not? If you think it doesn’t appear to be whittled, that’s your right, but please don’t conflate a difference of opinion with some elaborate plot to intentionally misinform or mislead.
3: “Whittled wood” found in genitals
BDI blogger: “A fragment consistent with the paintbrush [of whittled wood] was found in JonBenét’s genitalia”
This comes via topix.com, Lou Smit, if I remember correctly:
Vaginal injuries: Something —possibly one end of the broken paintbrush— was forced into JonBenet’s vagina because her hymen was partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn’t think somebody was sexually assaulting her over a long period of time.Plant materials similar to the paint brush’s wood shards are found in her vagina.
There’s also a reference to birefringent foreign material. Do your research for what that is. It can be a reference to a wood fragment [cellulose] or paint on wood – either fit the profile of the paintbrush. If you have a different explanation, great, but once again please don’t make the accusation that this is uninformed speculation.
If the complaint is that the wood found in the genitals wasn’t whittled, then how did it get there? It’s quite diffiult for wood splinters to break off of smooth surfaces. For example when eating an icecream off a smooth icecream stick, one doesn’t expect pieces of wood to tear off in the mouth.
4: Burke’s knife found “near the body”
This deserves a deep, contextual dive but I’m not going to do that. Sorry.
The housekeeper refers to having to confiscate the knife. Burke said he had two knives, and besides this, there are signs of what appears to be whittling on the kitchen door. Was Burke’s knife found in the basement – yes, or no?
5: Burke’s knife used to create garrote
BDI blogger: “Besides the whittling of the garrotte itself, a sharp knife was used to cut the lengths of cord used to tie JonBenét’s wrists and fashion the garrotte”
The garrotte knot is known as a prusik hitch, a typical boy scouts or camping knot.
This guy and his supporters make a big deal about the apparent complexity of the knots, and their association with boy scouting. Again, this is not based on the findings of law enforcement, but on a desire to match up aspects of the crime scene with publicly-known information about Burke Ramsey.
As James Kolar points out, “there was nothing particularly fancy about the knots”.
The Prusik knot is both dead simple to execute and the typical thing an eagle scout would know. If law enforcement didn’t know about this, it’s because they weren’t preoccupied with child psychology, or the habits of a child, and this is the key to understanding this case.
Conclusion
Watch out for weasel words and ambiguous language.
Weasel words?
You can make a sincere effort to research a case, and we have, which is why some of our insights were published in the international media.
But there will always be trolls wanting to throw stones. When you come across a troll ask yourself what that troll has achieved in his or her research of a case? Has he written a single book let alone three trilogies, all of which are very positively reviewed? There is also a proper way to discuss differences of opinion – plead your case if you think it’s more reasonable, and try to do so respectfully. Is that what this poster has done here?
Hi u/TCRocketScience — thanks for your detailed reply to this post. A couple questions/comments:
Regarding the birefringent foreign material (point 3):
You seem to imply that if the brush wasn’t whittled, it was smooth, and thus would have been unlikely to leave fragments behind. However, even if the brush weren’t whittled, we know it was at the very least broken, which would have resulted in jagged edges (conducive to fragments being left behind).
Do you have any idea how much “birefringement foreign material” was found? It’s been difficult for me to find a reliable source with information about exactly how much material was found.
Regarding the knot (point 6):
If you’d be willing to share more details, I’d be curious to hear more about how and why you came to the conclusion that the knot is definitively a prusik.
It’s not necessarily definitively a prusik, and not necessarily not. It’s basically a knot that conforms to the eagle scout manual Burke had and that was available that year, and the knots in there and the knot on the garrotte are similar.
You are welcome to argue that technically the garrotte-knot is a variation, but that’s a little like arguing semantics. Is it “organise” or “organize”? Whether you spell it one way or the other, it’s basically the same thing. Claiming that organize spelled with a z isn’t organise spelled with an s is the idiot’s version of an argument. Technically the words aren’t the same but most people of sane mind would agree that the meaning is the same.
A similar argument came up in the Zahau case where the knot tied behind Zahau’s back was said to be one so simple it could easily be done by an amateur, and since Zahau had been on boats, why wouldn’t she have tied her own hands behind her back? This is a defense argument, and also one a lunatic would make.
If the knot was fairly simple, and it was, it was less simple for a complete amateur to do, and very few adults would intentionally tie knots for themselves and then put their own hands behind their backs – and even harder to get the rope under the plastic wristbands on Zahau’s hands while doing so. This suggested someone else [but also someone with basic skills as a sailor] made the knot.
The same basic issue applies here. Did JonBenet’s brother have a basic knowledge of knots, or didn’t he? Was that knowledge compatible or incompatible with the knot actually found? Not 100% compatible, but near enough. And from there it’s a question of using common sense.
Hi u/TCRocketScience, I think you may have misunderstood the spirit of my question — I wasn’t hoping you’d tell me the knot was a prusik so that I could argue that it wasn’t. I genuinely wanted to know which characteristics of the garrotte knot lead you to conclude that is was a prusik (or enough like a prusik that you would label it as such in your post/book).
And I agree with you that the knot was fairly simple, and that Burke, given his extracurricular activities, probably did have enough knowledge of knots to tie whatever it was.
However, I do respectfully disagree with your contention that arguing over whether the knot was a prusik (or not) is a semantic argument. Whether a knot is a prusik, or something that looks somewhat similar, is not the same as whether one spells “organize” with a “z” or with an “s”. As someone who has climbed rocks for many years, I can tell you that whether a knot is a prusik, or something like it, can mean the difference between a great day of climbing, and coming home in a body bag. The difference is functional. You can spell organize with a z or an s — either way, it serves the same function.
If you’d be willing to share, I’d still be interested to hear what characteristics of the garrotte lead you to think it conformed to the knot in the eagle scout manual. I’m also curious if you have any information you can share regarding the amount of birefringent material that was recovered during the autopsy.
I wasn’t hoping you’d tell me the knot was a prusik so that I could argue that it wasn’t. >>>Feels like you’ve done that anyway.
I’m happy with my response here. Sorry the prusik argument and the way words are spelled is exactly the same thing. You either see that or you don’t. And maybe if you don’t what you want to do is make the argument that some unknown unknown person was more familiar with your knot. Good luck with that argument.
The amount was a fragment. So small enough to be found and analyzed, and also small enough to remain present after being wiped down and carried.
It’s not necessarily definitively a prusik, and not necessarily not.
It’s not a Prusik. You didn’t answer u/theswenix‘s question about what characteristics led you to think it’s sort of a Prusik, but I’d also be curious to hear.
eagle scout
Burke wasn’t a Boy Scout, much less an Eagle Scout – he was a Cub Scout. Does it materially impact your point about the knot? Probably not – either way, Burke was familiar with tying knots. However, given all of the misinformation in this case, I think it’s critical for us to be precise about the facts. And even more critical that you, specifically, are precise about the facts, since you have written a number of books on this case, and therefore probably have an audience that sees you as an authority on the matter.
I referred to the type of manual, not the kind of scout Burke was. As a MOD you really ought to know better how to moderate a forum according to your own rules. It seems you’re unable to do that because you’re threatened by another expert who may have a view contrary to yours, and better than yours. Which it is by the way.
This isn’t a discussion on this thread, it’s a personal vendetta. If you want to get personal, be my guest. I’ll make it really worth my while. I can see now why it’s such a big deal for you not to reveal yout identity, but that’s the difference in honesty, integrity and courage between you and me. Carry on!
Yes, that’s a comment on YouTube, taken out of context. Burke did have a manual on the journey to becoming an eagle scout, or are you unaware of that? In the manual are instructions on how to make prusik knots.
Maybe you prefer the term “tightening stick” to prusik or garrotte. Just how far do you want to take your ridiculous argument?
I’d like you to remove this thread completely before close of business today. And also, if you refuse to reveal your identity I will take this as a signal that you wish to continue defaming and undermining my work in public, while hiding your identity, while continuing to make misrepresentations. Insisting on continuing to make misrepresentations which have an impact on book sales.
Some adults, on the other hand – like you – will argue that it doesn’t. One has to ask, why are you so strenuously arguing against such a dead obvious point? It’s a very simple question if you want to split hairs; if it’s not a prusik knot, does it look like one?
Does it look like one?
I guess you could argue about what level of scout Burke was, or you could argue that because his older brother was an Eagle Scout , Burke would not only have been influenced by John Andrew, but would have learned from him.
2. Was John Andrew an Eagle Scout? How about John Ramsey?
Was Burke a scout – yes or no? Regardless of whether you want to argue at what level of scout he was, the point is that scouts know how to make knots, it’s part of their curriculum, and it’s very obvious Burke was a scout. It’s mentioned repeatedly by Patsy in her book, and also in one of her end of year letters to the family. The scouting dimension of his life was a big deal, wasn’t it?
You could also argue that the garrotte knot was much too sophisticated for a child, but you couldn’t argue that the knots around JonBenet’s hands were sophisticated. They were so clumisily applied one slipped off when John brushed at it, and the other wasn’t even tightly tied over the sleeve of the wrist?
3. What’s your explanation for that? A vicious predator who forgot to be vicious with his other knots? Or that the way the crime was executed was so very, very sophisticated, your vicious predator forgot a ransom note and forgot to sexually assault his victim?
You’re right about misinformation, but it’s folks like you who are responsible for it. I don’t appreciate your sneering reference to the books I’ve written on the case, as if the books are imprecise. All facts in the book are cited. You would know that if you’d read them. I’m the author of over a dozen books on this case alone, all of them well reviewed. Those are my credentials. I can also identify myself as Nick van der Leek, the author of those books. As you say, it’s crucial to be precise about facts, even simple facts. So let me ask you a simple question.
4. Can you identify who you are, stating your name? It’s just a very simple question, can you be precise in your answer?
The reason it’s an important question is context. We know I’m a true crime author and I’m happy to defend my work and research. So is my co-author. It’s credible enough that it’s been aired in the international media. But how about you? What are your credentials? What have you written? And so, you just being a somebody matters if you are going to address matters of accuracy.
5. What’s your level of expertise? So give your name and then let’s see what our standards are in terms of accuracy and quality of information, and what you do for a living.
I’m guessing you can’t or won’t, and if that’s the case, I won’t continue to argue this case with you, because people [like Jameson] who hide behind fake avatars peddling false information [she pretended to be a man] is precisely about misinforming people.
In this case, what you’re trying to convince people is that an adult [intruder] is involved, and without even going through your history on Reddit, I’d guess that that’s your agenda. The Intruder Theory. And yet the Grand Jury voted that the Ramseys had covered up for a third party. Who could that be? Who could that person be who fashioned the garrotte?
I suspect I know your answer. It’s the same way you want to conjure knots into something else. Go right ahead if that’s your reasoning, but don’t expect anyone to take it seriously. I look forward to seeing how many of the 5 questions posed here you’re prepared to answer. PS> If you can’t answer with your name, which is really not asking too much, you’ll be blocked.
Can you identify who you are, stating your name? It’s just a very simple question, can you be precise in your answer?
The reason it’s an important question is context. We know I’m a true crime author and I’m happy to defend my work and research. So is my co-author. It’s credible enough that it’s been aired in the international media. But how about you? What are your credentials? What have you written? And so, you just being a somebody matters if you are going to address matters of accuracy.
What’s your level of expertise? So give your name and then let’s see what our standards are in terms of accuracy and quality of information, and what you do for a living.
Wait a second. Your books–I have five of them–are full of information and quotes you’ve pulled from online forums. Many of these quotes come from users who are only identified by their online usernames. Why is it necessary for someone on Reddit to identify themselves in order for their comments to be considered valid and accurate, yet the same standard doesn’t apply to the anonymous sources included in your books? That seems a bit hypocritical.
For the record, /u/adequatesizeattache is not an intruder theorist. Perhaps you should have reviewed her history before making such an assumption. You also would have found that she is very well-versed on the case.
Writing a bunch of books does not necessarily make someone an expert. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people here whose knowledge of the case is on par with–or exceeds–even yours.
Because this is an attack on my credibility, and the credibility of a product by an anonymous person. If a coworker at your job did the same, it would matter if the complaint was filed by a janitor or an executive.
By the way, can you assist me in escalating this matter to the head honchos at Reddit. I’m not happy about this, this is actually defamatory, and a bunch of you are in on this, including the mod and need to be sent letters from my attorney.
Writing a bunch of books does not necessarily make someone an expert.
Actually it does. One book makes you an expert. More than 10 makes you some kind of guru. I doubt you have read a single book or you’d know that. What’s her name please, I’d like to contact attache directly please.
I suggest you decide on what exactly it is you are arguing, because you are moving the goalposts. First it was:
The knot is a Prusik
2) Burke was an Eagle Scout
Now you are saying:
The knot looks like or is reminiscent of a Prusik
2) Burke was a scout who had an older half-brother or father who was an Eagle Scout
The former two are the statements I am addressing, and they are demonstrably false.
Fact: The knot on the broken paintbrush is not a Prusik hitch – I made a post demonstrating the difference here. I showed photos of the Ramsey “garrote handle” knot to two forensic knot experts who corroborated that it did not appear to be a Prusik hitch. Additionally, the consulted forensic knot analyst who examined the “garrote handle” knot in person, John Van Tassel, described how the knot was formed and that description is not consistent with how a Prusik hitch is formed.
Fact: Burke was a Cub Scout (specifically either a Bear or Webelo).
You can call it splitting hairs – I call it being factual, which is a standard I take seriously regarding the evidence in this case.
I call it being anal. You mock because you cannot make. You criticize because you have no ideas or insights of your own. And you’re apparently too afraid of even revealing your own name. Shame.
his ideas are very popular online, particularly among some of the moderators of this sub
If you’re referring to me then you would be incorrect. I called out something from this same blog piece months ago and have many of the same issues with it that you do.
Our blog clearly says “appears to be” whittled and I stand by that opinion. Yes, it’s an opinion and I think readers understand that. I never stated it was whittled, as fact. If you and u/straydog77 disagree, so be it, that’s your own opinion. But I don’t appreciate u/straydog77 making the accusation that Shakedown is a misleading site, something he directly states in the beginning of his post. He also bashes Shakedown in his conclusion, saying we use weasel words and ambiguous language, then encourages people not to read our work. It’s comical though that he would be critical of ambiguity in terms of the knife when not one single person here in this sub, including him, can state with 100% certainty where it was found.
u/Straydog77 Yesterday Shakedown was accused of being intentionally misleading, and you went so far as to tell the readers of this sub to steer away from reading our work. So, I’d like to address the points you brought up. Before I do that, I’d like to point out that the first two words you find in our blog post are “we believe” which should indicate to the reader that the piece is our analysis of the evidence. If one takes the time to fully read the post, as opposed to the manipulations you posted, they will see that we categorize what is fact, what is circumstantial, what is inference, etc. We are not being ambiguous when we use words like “we believe, may, and appears”, we’re actually being mindful that what we are inferring is our interpretation, and our belief. Isn’t that what you rally people to do all the time – state the difference between fact and opinion? Well, let me now show your readers how precisely you have been misleading in your post, and not the other way around:
Is Stansport nylon cord a cord used for camping? Yes, it is, and Stansport certainly thinks so. If you go to their website right now, cords are found under “Camping / Camp Essentials”. Is McGuckin’s a store that sells camping equipment? Yes, they have a sporting goods section. If you want to play games with semantics, go for it. But it’s not factually inaccurate that the cord is a camping cord and was purchased at a store that supplies camping equipment.
As I pointed out in my response last night, saying “appears to be whittled” in our blog is not factually inaccurate, because we didn’t state it as fact, it’s clearly our opinion. Amazingly, your response is “No, it doesn’t” which is… also an opinion.
In regards to the cellulose material found in JonBenet, we say in our blog: “a fragment consistent with the paintbrush (whittled wood)…” This is a continuation of our assessment that the wood looks whittled, but we are not saying in this statement that the fragment was from the paintbrush or that it was whittled, as 100% fact. You then, in turn, call that ambiguous. So how does one actually ever win with you? Our assessment is that it’s whittled but we’re not going to say with certainty that it is, because it’s not fact. I’ll beat a dead horse. Our blog is our analysis and just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean we are misleading. The funny thing is, you even point out yourself how the experts all disagree about the origin of the cellulose material. Yet, somehow we’re a bunch of hacks because we’ve linked evidence together, and have our own take on it.
This point is perhaps the most egregious of your post. You are the one to actually go so far as to claim that it’s FACT where Kerry Yamaguchi found the knife. Are you honestly telling us that you know with complete certainty that the knife was on the counter in the basement? That’s amazing, because some of the investigators that you love to praise actually aren’t as sure as you are. I’m not going to rehash the variety of information out there about where the knife was found and where it was collected – the readers can scroll thru the other responses. But just as bad as you saying you know that info, is the way you describe the location of the counter with the sink… “a completely different part of the cluttered basement”… “at the end of the hall”…. You are mischievously making it sound like this counter was practically in another room altogether, but anybody who knows this case and has seen the basement, knows the counter is mere feet away from the wine cellar. So, please don’t come at me as if I’m the one making wild exaggerations here. You downplay the knife a lot, yet the knife was collected as evidence, it came up in questioning in both 97 and 98, and Burke was questioned about it too. It was piquing their interest. You say: “There is no indication police ever determined that Burke’s knife was relevant to the crime in any way.” Oh, Ok. What did the police ever actually determine in this case? Did the police ever determine the murder weapon? Did the police ever determine with certainty if JonBenet was head-bashed or strangled first? Did the police ever determine exactly where she was killed? I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point.
We say in our post that a sharp knife was used to cut the cord. We never said when that occurred, yet that’s your beef here. I agree, we don’t know when it was cut, and we never stated that we did. Again, you also make it seem as if we stated as fact that it was Burke’s pocketknife that cut it. We made an inference to it because the whole point of our blog is to look at the totality of the evidence and analyze what it means, but we never went so far as to say it was Burke’s knife and he cut it during the commission of the killing.
Your grievance here is that the knot is nothing special. We never said it was. We simply stated that the prusik knot is a typical boy scouts knot, and that is true. Burke was a boy scout, as were John and John Andrew back in the day. We were making the connection. You’re completely manufacturing words here when you say: “The notion that these were specialized scouting knots…” We never said they were specialized. To the contrary, our blog post says they are typical. Stop putting words in our mouth.
u/Straydog77 your post reads as nothing more than somebody with a burning desire to simply be right, and in your righteousness, you quite nastily tear down others unnecessarily. Your post didn’t have to be some big deal about “BDI bloggers” and “this guy and his followers” are massaging and misrepresenting. Why not simply say this is Shakedown’s opinion, and I disagree, here’s mine? Also, Shakedown wasn’t a guy and some followers. Nick van der Leek and I, Lisa Wilson (aka Juror13), worked on those blog posts together. You can actually use our real names, unlike so many others who are hiding behind facades. I’m not a follower, I’m a researcher and blogger who spent years researching this case. You don’t have to agree with Shakedown’s views, and I’ll be the first to admit, my views continuously evolve. But I won’t stand by while somebody unduly disrespects my work for their own egotistical purposes.
u/straydog77 Where have I ever claimed to know more, or be better, than the police? And when did I portray myself as something other than a layperson? Please tell me. I’ve never presented myself as somebody who worked on the case in a direct capacity, and I’m very well aware that there’s evidence that none of us have seen, obviously. Anyone reading the Shakedown or Juror13 blogs and books, and those who have listened to our podcasts, know we are lay people. We have always been abundantly clear about that, so stop spewing your nonsense about needing to make proper distinctions as if we’re claiming to be superior to Kolar and Thomas. If readers prefer to get info directly from former investigators, then they can, and they should. They should read it all, and we have too. Never once have we claimed to know more than the police. Yes, we’ve been critical of the investigation and at times, critical of the investigative theories including Thomas’ – who hasn’t? – but we’ve always presented our writing as our own take on what the evidence may mean. Just like you have a conclusion in your post here, we too have come to many conclusions. What the hell is the point in researching and analyzing if you don’t have a conclusion? Actually, you can talk to your buddy Schiller about that. I think it’s absurd that he’s had a treasure trove of evidence available to him all these years yet he claims he has no opinion about who killed JonBenet, or if he does he refuses to share it. I think it’s a buzzkill that Schiller doesn’t publicly share his own personal insights and conclusions about what the scene says to him, because I’d actually love to hear them. But according to you, the only insights with merit belong to the police. And this whole thing about needing to present all possibilities to my readers to let them decide – I think you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The blog isn’t an encyclopedia. I’m under no obligation to list every single investigator’s theory, or every possible use for an item at the scene, with every blog post I write. You do understand that blogs are created for people to share their OWN views about things, right? With that said… this whole argument is based on ONE single blog post we wrote 3 years ago. Do you realize we have actually discussed several other theories and evidence ad nauseam throughout our numerous books and articles, and have always encouraged our readers to do their own due diligence and make decisions for themselves. You’re making a mountain out of one blog post about the knife without acknowledging that our complete work on the case encompasses virtually every other piece of evidence revealed over the years. And we’re the ones who are misleading? Just because you think the knife is a waste of time, and we see it otherwise, you’ve spotlighted one article of ours so you can get your jollies from playing Ramsey case patrol sergeant. I’m really not interested in playing games u/straydog77 and I don’t need to comply with your personal set of rules.
I’m a little late to this thread on Reddit but it’s completely unacceptable. I’ve reported this as a personal attack, but it’s worse than that, it claims we are purposefully and deceitfully misleading people with our “weasel words” which is defamatory and damaging. And yet it’s still up. I’m escalating this with you know who, and I’ve screengrabbed the whole thread.
Yes, clearly. You very clearly have a bias, but it’s more than that, it’s an agenda. Your agenda seems to be that how dare anyone claim to know more than you do.
I appreciate everything except number 2. In my opinion, the paint brush used in the murder is very whittled compared to the blue one above it in your picture. Although this whittling could’ve been done at a completely different irrelevant time.
I agree. Ive always thought the brush looks as though the original varnish or colour has been scrapped off. Ive got two boys and i could see them doing that with a pocket knife just because they wanted to try out the knife.
I was once , many years ago, into drawing and painting. Patsy wasnt an “artist” for long enough to produce such a worn out tool of the trade in my opinion. Having said that you bring up a valid point that the police sources say the the word Korea remained on the brush so that does suggest the brush wasnt as damaged as the photos suggest. At the end of the day the paintbrush was clearly in the tote and in my opinion the wood shards in the basement were from breaking the brush not from Burke whittling
Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague? He specifically asks Patsy about the red knife and shows her a photograph of it during her first interview:
Steve Thomas: Patsy, once we were told that Burke at times, would walk through the house whittling and that was something that apparently got on Linda Hoffmans’ nerves somehow to clean up after him.
Patsy Ramsey: Right.
ST: Was this consistent with his little pocketknife?
PR: Yeah.
ST: He’d walk through the house whittling and for the tape, I’m showing Patsy a photo of a little red Swiss army knife.
PR: Right. He had one we had gotten him in Switzerland, it had his mane (sic) on it. Does this have his name on it?
ST: I don’t know.
PR: You don’t know, OK
Were there two knives? One collected in the wine cellar near the purple ornament and one collected from the counter? We don’t know what “later” means here. A red knife was on the warrant from 12/26/96 and Thomas asked about it 4/97. The article about Det. Yamaguchi collecting one from the counter was dated 1999.
Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague?
ST’s deposition in the Wolf case was taken in Sept. 2001. He resigned from the BPD in Aug. 1998, so three years prior. Perhaps he just couldn’t recall all of the specifics of the knife? Or maybe the knife couldn’t be connected to the crime, so investigators didn’t focus on it? Or maybe Thomas didn’t concentrate on it, because he didn’t feel it was important to his PDI theory? I guess there are many possible reasons for why he responded the way he did.
Were there two knives? One collected in the wine cellar near the purple ornament and one collected from the counter?
There’s only one knife listed on the search warrant. I find the whole thing confusing. The knife is listed on the warrant as “red pocket knife with broken ornament.” The next item listed is “broken purple ornament from basement.” Since it seems that both JR and PR identified a broken ornament in the wine cellar in crime scene photos, I understand why people have come to the conclusion that the knife was found in the wine cellar next to a broken ornament. However, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that neither JR nor PR identified a pocketknife in any of those photos. Actually, I don’t believe the pocketknife was even mentioned during the 1998 interviews.
I’m actually starting to wonder if maybe there was more than one broken ornament in the basement. The search warrant lists “broken glass from wine cellar.” Maybe the broken glass in the wine cellar came from a broken ornament, and there was also a broken purple ornament outside of the wine cellar next to the knife. I’m not sold on this idea, but I think it’s worth considering.
The article about Det. Yamaguchi collecting one from the counter was dated 1999.
We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant. That doesn’t solidify the information in the article, but IMO, it does support it.
Perhaps he just couldn’t recall all of the specifics of the knife?
It was important enough for him to prepare the question with a photo ahead of time, so it seems curious for him to not even know it was collected.
Or maybe Thomas didn’t concentrate on it, because he didn’t feel it was important to his PDI theory?
That seems very possible. By 1999 it was a big deal after Linda said it was moved from the closet to the basement, implying someone in the family moved it.
However, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that neither JR nor PR identified a pocketknife in any of those photos. Actually, I don’t believe the pocketknife was even mentioned during the 1998 interviews.
I don’t think so either.
We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant.
Inside Job5 points · 4 months ago · edited 4 months ago
We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant. That doesn’t solidify the information in the article, but IMO, it does support it.
Thanks for clearing this up for me. I was looking at the search warrant lists recently and wondering if the evidence labeling system would tell us about the location of the items. But no, they are detectives’ initials. I agree that this supports the Brennan article’s claim. Still, the whole knife/knives [edit: and broken ornaments] thing is confusing.
I do not find it credible that in April 1997 Steve Thomas showed Patsy a photo of a Swiss Army knife, sourced a similar knife to Burke per the housekeeper, knew the story of her putting it away, and did not know if the knife they found had Burke’s initials on it or not. He said in an interview later that the knife was sourced to Burke after he left.
The fact that Kolar does not discuss the knife in his book is also very surprising.
I can understand your reasoning here, but the Ramseys also mention that “broken glass” in their 98 interviews, and once again, no knife. In fact, the broken glass seems to be in the same photo as the broken purple ornament. John identifies it as “little fragments of the artificial tree”, and Patsy says “are these little pieces of glass? What are those? See the little dots?”. They say this at the same time as they are viewing the purple ornament photo. Based on statements made by investigators in John’s 1998 interview, the photograph is either 182, 183, or 184, all of which depicted the wine cellar floor. Both Ramseys say it would not be unusual for a broken Christmas ornament to be found in the wine cellar.
Actually, I meant that perhaps the “broken glass from wine cellar” were remnants of the broken ornament the Ramseys identified in pictures. Neither Ramsey described the pieces of glass/broken ornament shown in the wine cellar photos as purple. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t purple, but it does leave room for the possibility that it wasn’t. Maybe the “broken purple ornament” wasn’t found in the wine cellar. Maybe it was found on the counter next to the pocketknife.
IOW, perhaps there were two broken ornaments: one in the wine cellar listed on the warrant as “broken glass from wine cellar” and one found elsewhere listed as “broken purple ornament from basement.”
Like I said though, I’m not convinced of this. I was just throwing out the possibility.
(Incidentally, I wonder why this “broken glass” on the wine cellar floor doesn’t get mentioned more often in the discussions about unidentified abrasions found on the body.)
I actually thought the same thing when I was re-reading about the glass in the 1998 interviews. I had a thought, which may be far-fetched, but I’ll share it anyway.
JR said this about the photo of the wine cellar floor:
15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well it looks like it could
16 be a Christmas ornament. It looks a little bit
17 (INAUDIBLE) like the hook of the top of a
18 Christmas ornament.
IMO, what he’s describing sounds like an ornament cap, such as the ones seen here.
The search warrant lists “wire near body.” IIRC, we don’t know any specifics about the wire. Could the “wire near body” be the little piece of wire that goes through an ornament cap? As you can see here, the wire is a separate piece that pops through the cap.
Taking it a step further, I wondered if maybe an ornament cap could have caused the abrasion on JBR’s face. It looks to be approximately the right size (the caps do come in various sizes.) Although, I’m not sure I can come up with a plausible explanation for how the cap could have caused the abrasion. I don’t know if her face lying on top of an ornament cap, would result in such an abrasion.
I don’t know…I might be trying too hard to connect the various pieces of evidence.
At one time I thought that the wire found near her body was from the wine cellar or boiler room. But, if you look closely you can see a wire near her body(somewhat resembles your photos) in the crime scene photos. Evidence collection started when JonBenét’s body was upstairs. Anything listed as under her body or near body would have been collected upstairs on the carpet by the Christmas tree. If you follow the search warrant, you can see them catalog the Avalanche sweatshirt that Barb Fernie covered JonBenét’s feet with after she was brought up by John. The next item is the blanket John put on top of her body and then they catalogued, Wire Near Body(7KKY).
Well there’s a twist lol, I imagined that wire in the cellar too, I thought you were onto something for a moment there with the ornament cap. Looks like a garbage tie from toy packaging.
Inside Job2 points · 4 months ago · edited 4 months ago
I wondered if maybe an ornament cap could have caused the abrasion on JBR’s face.
It’s not a bad idea. One thing that’s a bit confusing to me is that the abrasion does appear round, but the measurements given for it in the autopsy (9.5 mm x 6.35 mm) would imply that it’s oblong or elongated. I’m wondering if the coroner was measuring the indent/pattern (the actual broken skin/abrasion part) inside the circular part or if * the angle (of the photo or it being located on a contoured part of the face) just makes it appear more circular than it is.
I didn’t think the train track could have made those marks but I’m reconsidering the idea. The revised measurements provided by /u/CommonSearch would have the large face abrasion and the other small mark at 3.4 cm apart (earlier measurements had them 3.7 cm apart).
Edit: * No no, that can’t be. The measurements of the indent/crater would be more like 2 mm x 3 mm.
Just incase anyone is paying attention to the measurements I’ll put a small revision note here.
The distance between the “indent” within the large abrasion and the other smaller mark have a distance of about 3.35 cm, so I went ahead and rounded it up to 3.4 cm.
The distance between the center of the larger abrasion as a whole and the smaller mark is 3.7 cm.
One thing that’s a bit confusing to me is that the abrasion does appear round, but the measurements given for it in the autopsy (9.5 mm x 6.35 mm) would imply that it’s oblong or elongated.
That’s a very valid point. I went back and looked at photos of the face abrasion. In some pictures it looks almost perfectly round, and in others, it does seem to be somewhat oblong. You’re right though; relying on the autopsy, rather than my own eyeballs, is the more accurate approach.
I guess lying with her face on an ornament cap would create more of a round mark than an oblong one, if it created any mark/abrasion at all. Maybe I should experiment ASA-style: pop some ornament caps off of my Christmas ornaments and lay on the floor with one under my face. 😉
I didn’t think the train track could have made those marks but I’m reconsidering the idea.
You think a pin from a train track could cause that large of an abrasion?
Maybe I should experiment ASA-style: pop some ornament caps off of my Christmas ornaments and lay on the floor with one under my face.
Do it. For all you know it might warp a bit oblong. Or at least take measurements for comparison to the mark.
You think a pin from a train track could cause that large of an abrasion?
At first no, but after a discussion with u/CommonSearch I don’t think it’s impossible. I could see the pin hitting the bone and tearing through the skin. The length of the pins would exceed the thickness of the skin and muscle layers on a child’s face. I wouldn’t even consider it if that second mark on face weren’t 3.4 cm away from the other mark.
That said, I also find Werner Spitz’s suggestion of a sharp-edged snap convincing.
Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague? He specifically asks Patsy about the red knife and shows her a photograph of it during her first interview:
You don’t happen to know the date of that interview do you? Just for some perspective of when it was of interest to Investigators.
I would prefer you not manipulate and twist words. You “fact checked” an opinion piece, and did so by interjecting your own opinions. I stand by my statements – we did NOT provide false information. You simply didn’t like our inferences which you’re entitled to. But you continuing to say the info is false makes you the manipulator here, not us.
We are a true crime community dedicated to exploring case facts, evidence and theories surrounding the death of JonBenét Ramsey. JonBenét Patricia Ramsey was a six-year-old girl found dead in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado home on December 26, 1996. Her case remains unsolved.
TCRS comment: Research is hard. Some people know how to do it, some don’t, and some resent those who can do what they can’t.
The 10-Part podcast on JonBenet Ramsey is executive produced by Susan Bennett, the tricksy cybersoldier that’s been pushing the dodgy Intruder Theory online for years. In the past she misrepresented who she was [see below links] pretending to be an abused man at one point, in an effort to discredit others.
Now Bennett’s back, in fact she can be heard within the first 70 seconds of the new podcast which promises to be “the most exhaustive investigation” into the Ramsey case in decades.
Do you really believe that?
Listen to episode 1 of The Killing of JonBenet here:
It started off as a simple question: What’s the source of Burke Ramsey throwing his toys after a child psychologist [or equivalent, or similar] took a sip from his soda? Not source in the casual sense of the word. The actual source. Where is it documented? Which page, where, when and by whom?
Finding it again independently – and quickly – proved difficult at first. There’s a lot to go through. Several books. Half a dozen of the more recent documentaries. Miles of online coverage but almost none of it dealing with this besides an obscure Reddit thread which wrongly references the offending soda sipper as Dan Schuler.
I knew about Soda Gate but I’d forgotten how I knew. Was it in The Bonita Papers? What about Ramseys vs Wolf? Or the National Enquirer’s paperback on the Police Files? Turns out I’d seen it dramatized in the Lifetime movie Who Killed JonBenet? [2016]. The movie was based on the source but what was the source? The references online to this incident are few and far between, but here’s one from USA Today:
So you think you’re a True Crime Rocket Scientist? Einstein once said he’s not necessarily smarter than anyone else, the difference is he sticks with a problem longer than others do, or others have.
In true crime that’s often the difference between interesting insights and gamechanging insights. So how about this one? I’ll make it easy for you by identifying it, all you have to do is find it. [It’s a lot harder looking for something without knowing it’s out there, and harder still to know what to do with it once you do find it.]
At one point in the interview Schuler takes a sip of Burke’s soda, which upsets Burke so much, Burke doesn’t drink from the soda again. Who or what is the source of this information?
If you can find the source of this information [social media doesn’t count] then you may just be a rocket scientist.
By February Gary Oliva’s confession was still rolling across the world’s media landscape, making waves in the United Kingdom. By the end of March, Gary Oliva was still the talk of the town three months after the CBS settlement. Not a bad run of distracting coverage to drown out the settlement narrative, was it?
Now, in April, we have a documentary featuring none other than John Ramsey himself. It’s not just a vacuous documentary either. 23 years after the unsolved murder of his daughter, for the first time ever, this photo of JonBenet Ramsey has been publicly released.
There’s a serious problem with this image.
Before addressing what it is, let’s have a look at the other images that were either previously the “Last Photo” of the slain beauty queen, or otherwise photos taken shortly before her death.
The image/s above was/were previously recognized and accepted as the “Last Photo” of JonBenet. It was taken a fair length of time before her death, fairly early on Christmas Day morning [note the background is still in darkness]. JonBenet was murdered about 18 hours after this image was taken, and her body discovered in the basement of the Ramsey home by her father another 13-or-so hours after that.
A review in the Daily Camera at the time was pretty frank about where Woodward’s true allegiance and objectivity lay:
[Woodward] signals an intention to shoot down “erroneous assumptions” to repeatedly cast doubt on the prevailing police narrative of the murder. Given the author’s access to the couple’s private journals as well as the cooperation of their attorneys, it’s no spoiler to say the book is firmly in the Ramsey corner.
Other photos taken that morning including these, including one with nine-year-old Burke beside his younger sister. If there are few photos of JonBenet on that last day there are even fewer images of Burke floating around.
On December 23rd, these images were taken:
In reality, the last photos taken of JonBenet in the Ramsey home were these:
A close-up photo just prior to the autopsy was taken of the little girl’s hand:
But let’s not quibble over semantics. By Last Photo what is meant is the last photo of JonBenet when she was alive.
What is the serious problem with this image?
23 years after the unsolved murder of his daughter, for the first time ever, this photo of JonBenet Ramsey has been publicly released, presumably by John Ramsey himself. Why has it taken 23 years to release the last photo of his daughter? And if it’s only been released to the public and the media now, what about law enforcement?
The full implications of what the Last Photo represents are analyzed to completion in Christmas Star, available now.
Speculation is swirling that the irregular moving up of the Watts hearing from November 19th to November 6th involves a plea deal. There’s plenty of reason to believe this speculation is well founded.
Chris Watts’ first court appearance was on August 17th, followed by his last court appearance to date on August 21st. His next court appearance was meant to be approximately three months later. Now it’s been moved up by two weeks, falling on the same day as the mid-term elections in America, and what’s more, the time [at 14:00] means media coverage after midday will swamp all over coverage.
The hearing is also scheduled to be short, just 30 minutes, quick enough to raise and brush the legalities under the carpet without anyone noticing, and without the media being able to do much with any reporting that does happen.
One wonders what will happen to the autopsy reports? Are these also going to remain under seal permanently just like the Ramsey case file 22 years later?
Strangely, the District Attorney’s office has provided no reasons why this status hearing needed to be moved in the first place. But maybe providing no reasons is all part of the plan.
The Chris Watts case is poised to become one of the most high-profile cases in America right now, a scenario certain vested legal and business interests would like to avoid if they possibly can. The links between the Watts case and the Ramsey case aren’t incidental either.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to point out that Frederick, Colorado is just 31 minute’s drive [22 miles] due East of Boulder, and Greeley [where the Weld County Court is located] is also nearby – 53.8 miles north east of Boulder.
Boulder has made a name for itself over the past two decades and counting as a legal dead-end for the JonBenet Ramsey case, arguably one of the most famous and high-profile cases in the world. It never went to trial and the efforts to get legal closure on that case appear to be ongoing [but doomed] to the present day.
About two months after the murders, the Times-Call quoted Boulder’s former District Attorney Stan Garnett at length on the Watts case:
Defense attorneys for a Frederick man accused of killing his wife and daughters have filed a motion asking the government to investigate whether the prosecution has made extrajudicial statements or tried to prevent the spread of prejudicial information.
While the motion itself does not appear on the Weld County District Court’s website, a court order asking the prosecution to respond to the motion was recently posted after being filed on Aug. 29. Stan Garnett, the former district attorney for Boulder County, said it is not unusual for the defense to raise such issues early on, especially in high-profile cases.
The case of Christopher Watts, 33, is certainly high profile, having garnered national headlines for weeks…While it’s standard to point out potential to prejudice a jury , Garnett said the wording of the motion — requiring “the government” to investigate the issue — is unusual. It raises an issue, as the district attorney’s office is part of the executive branch of the state. “If you’re asking them to be investigated, who would do it?” Garnett said.
The prosecution had until Sept. 5 to file a response to the motion, though a response is not yet included on the case’s page online. While the court case is still in its early stages and little information has been released, a number of news outlets have reported new details on the case, citing “sources close to the investigation.”It’s doubtful many more details will be released before Christopher Watts’ next court appearance on Nov. 19.
Krista Henery, community relations director for the Weld County District Attorney’s Office, said staff members in her office are following court orders. Prosecutors are required to follow the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, which forbids them from saying something outside of court that could create prejudice in a legal proceeding. Other than charging documents and press conferences discussing the arrest affidavit, the district attorney hasn’t released any more information.
Frederick police Detective Dave Baumhover said the department also has a policy against making extrajudicial statements. Henery and Baumhover said they can’t speak for other agencies involved in the case, which include the FBI and Colorado Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI declined to comment on the issue and referred questions to the district attorney and Frederick police. CBI did not return a phone call seeking comment. However, if anyone from the prosecution is making extrajudicial statements, Garnett said the onus would fall on the district attorney, who is tasked with ensuring law enforcement complies with the rules.
The 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case that spurred the creation of such rules — Sheppard v. Maxwell— ended in an overturned murder conviction due to the pervasive publicity and incriminating information not presented at trial. In that case, prosecutors were “just kinda constantly playing to the press on it,” Garnett said, which is why district attorneys are now careful about what they say outside of court. “What the rules are trying to do is strike a balance between protecting the defendant’s right to be tried by an impartial jury and the public’s right to know,” he said.
Why would it be necessary to shut down a high-profile criminal trial in Greeley? Surely it has nothing to with the odds of getting a conviction. In the Watts case, law enforcement have a confession for one of the murders, how much more would they need?
I don’t believe the Ramsey case was shut down because of lack of evidence or lack of confidence, but that that case would be bad for business. I won’t go into detail here about what that meant [in terms of the Ramsey case], but I will say what it means in the Watts case.
Just as the unspoken backstory to the Ramsey case was John Ramsey’s massive billion dollar business empire with links to Lockheed Martin [America and the world’s largest defense contractor], the Watts case involves links to one of the most lucrative shale operations in America and the world. Most important Weld County is the number one producer of oil and gas in Colorado.
Does Colorado want a high-profile case in their midst that’s going to direct massive publicity [and negative publicity] not only onto Weld County, but through CERVI 319 onto the dynamics of the in situ oil industry as a whole?
What’s more, the landowners at and neighboring CERVI 319 are the two largest ranchers in the County, Art Guttersen and the Cervi dynasty. They wouldn’t want adverse publicity either.
A plea deal coming this Tuesday is very definitely on the cards.
If it's a plea deal, I hope it involves locking him up for as long as he is breathing. He should NOT go free. Ever. #ChrisWatts
A plea agreement means settlement of case without main hearing when the defendant agrees to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser charge or for a more lenient sentence and/or for dismissal of certain related charges.
Detective Steve Thomas was the former lead detective on the Ramsey case. He had a strong case, and a good theory on who wrote the Ransom Note, not so much who killed JonBenet Ramsey. Thomas’ book when it came out in 2000 provided valuable firsthand insight into what was going on on the ground inside the troubling case that rocked Boulder, Colorado in the Christmas of 1996.
As valuable as Thomas’ narrative was then, and remains now, Detective James Kolar’s case was stronger, his theory better and more refined, but then he had twelve years to fine-tune the theory.
But even after twelve years of editing and adapting and fixing the theory, when James Kolar actually put his hypothesis on the record, it was highly simplistic. You can listen to and watch it in full at this link, but what it amounts to is:
JonBenet arrived home at about 21:30 and went to bed.
She did sleep.
John Ramsey did carry her upstairs to bed.
Patsy remained downstairs with Burke.
She served him the tea and the pineapple.
“I think that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent print…”
“Then I think [Patsy] got JonBenet up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn’t wet the bed that night.”
“JonBenet was up. She may or may not have brushed her teeth that night.”
“Maybe she was still hungry. And she went downstairs.”
“In the meantime Patsy continued packing for the Michigan trip.”
“I think if Burke was upset about circumstances, or Christmas presents, he probably would have been upset about [JonBenet] trying to snag a piece of pineapple.”
“Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.”
All the experts around the table then sign off on this theory, saying they agree with it, and it’s not actually intentional murder, it’s an accident.
It seems like a pretty darned good theory, doesn’t it? Well, it’s a good theory if you’ve been snoozing through at least half of the sizable archive of evidence that’s out there! This theory makes zero provision for a garrote, and also zero provision for sexual interference. There were actually tiny drops of blood on JonBenet’s underpants. How did that happen when she got bashed on the head? Why were her genitals wiped down and her panties changed? Why was that necessary if she’d simply been hit on the head, presumably in the kitchen?
The TCRS take on the 13 points of Kolar’s hypothesis is that all 13 points are probably not true, and a few only half true. The gist of Kolar’s hypothesis nevertheless may be true, if that makes sense.
What does this mean?
Going through Kolar’s list one-by-one:
1. JonBenet likely never went to bed that night and thus 2. Never slept that night. An initial knee-jerk explanation for this is to simply look at her bed. Does that look like a bed someone went to sleep in, or a bed parents would have tucked their daughter in and left pillows and clothes on?
Beyond the low hanging fruit, there’s plenty of evidence from the housekeepers [plural] who worked for the Ramseys that JonBenet was a problem sleeper. She was often put to bed with a video and a bottle, the latter causing her to wet the bed. Since this was the only reliable way to settle her down, the Ramseys adopted it and had others [the housekeepers] clean up the mess the next morning. JonBenet was also very late in getting weaned off her bottle, a factor that’s not relevant strictly speaking in the circumstances that Christmas in 1996, but is nevertheless generally relevant, as I’ll explain in a moment.
3. John Ramsey probably didn’t carry JonBenet to bed that night. He just wasn’t that kind of dad.
4, 5 and 6: Patsy’s fingerprint on the bowl doesn’t mean that she served Burke the pineapple, though it might. The fingerprint could have left earlier when Patsy handled the bowl, or after the incident. One reason it seems unlikely Patsy served Burke is the over-sized spoon. Patsy cared about appearances, from matching outfits for herself and her kids, to Christmas trees in every room, and candy sticks on the lawn. It’s unlikely she would have not cared about her son using an oversized spoon. That seems to be the sort of error a little boy, and perhaps a hungry little boy, might make. The oversized spoon and the messy bed speak of the same thing – neglect.
7. Patsy didn’t care whether JonBenet wet the bed, just as she didn’t do anything about Burke’s scatalogical behavior. The bedwetting was a chronic pattern, so chronic it was happening virtually every night. The Ramseys’ response to this was to simply cover the mattress with a protective [water/urine proof] plastic sheet, and then have the housekeeper wash the urine-soaked pajamas the next morning. Patsy would habitually strip the urine-soaked sheets each morning, and load them into a conveniently situated washing machine right outside JonBenet’s bedroom.
The extract below is from the long form Vanity Fair article Missing Innocence, written in October 1997 by Ann Bardach. The original article has since been taken offline.
If Patsy wasn’t taking care of chronic bed wetting issues with both her children, isn’t it doubtful that she was preparing special snacks for them late at night, and taking her daughter to the bathroom before bed?
8. This is probably the most true fact in Kolar’s hypothesis: JonBenet was up. Yes she was, and Burke was too. They were both up late at night – it was Christmas after all. If she and her brother had been taken care of generally in a more consistent manner by her parents, probably they would have been in a routine to go to bed at a specific time. As things stood, they weren’t, and there were consequences for this ongoing oversight.
9. Was JonBenet hungry? Was Burke hungry? The pineapple bowl is hardly eaten, which suggests either that someone made the snack for Burke and he lost interest, or that he made it for himself, and then got sidetracked. He did seem to be thirsty as the glass of tea is completely drained.
Besides the evidence in her stomach, there’s no evidence JonBenet was hungry or actively eating, and one should bear in mind that Christmas tends to be a time when there is plenty to eat, including confection. There is a small amount of pineapple in JonBenet’s stomach contents. The autopsy reportsuggests 10 cc of mucous material remained in the stomach, while fragments of pineapple appeared even lower in the small intestine.
Although the pineapple isn’t irrelevant, if Kolar’s scenario is accurate, moments after ingestion a single piece JonBenet was smashed over the head. This would suggest the fragment would have lodged in her throat or esophagus, maybe her stomach. So how did it get all the way down to her small intestine?
The dramatization shows JonBenet heading downstairs with her pillow, and in the photo of her bed, the pillow is missing. A pillow was found on the kitchen counter, however crime scene photos in this respect are inconsistent.
10. According to Kolar, both children were in the kitchen – eating – while Patsy was upstairs [elsewhere] packing for their trip first thing the next morning to Michigan. The evidence doesn’t support the fact that Patsy was packing. Nothing was packed. In fact the only suitcase that’s worth noting is the almost empty one belonging to Andrew that was found in the basement below the window, likely as part of a staged scenario.
ccording to Patsy’s interview with the Boulder cops, all she packed was a single plastic bag. Have you ever heard of a pageant queen going on a glamorous trip via chartered jet carrying her clothes in a plastic bag?
I do think Kolar is generally correct that wherever the Ramsey children were, the parents were likely somewhere else that night. I don’t think the incident, as Kolar describes it, happened in the kitchen however. I’ll get to why I think that in a moment.
11. “I think if Burke was upset about circumstances, or Christmas presents, he probably would have been upset about [JonBenet] trying to snag a piece of pineapple.” This is Kolar’s best and most prescient insight, but in the terms expressed here only half true. The pineapple is valuable evidence in calculating time of death, and in confirming that JonBenet was up and eating when she was supposedly in bed and asleep. In terms of the merits of the crime itself I believe it’s completely irrelevant.
12. “Out of anger he struck her with a flashlight.” Kolar’s right, Burke probably had reason to resent his sister, and he’d struck her in past in a fit of pique on JonBenet’s fifth birthday, so why wouldn’t those same events play out on the night JonBenet was killed?
For one, no fingerprints were found on the flashlight. If the flashlight was the murder weapon, and the little girl was killed in the kitchen, why leave the flashlight there to “explicate” the circumstances? Let me be more clear. If Kolar’s version is accurate, then the Ransom Note was an elaborate ruse meant to mislead investigators about what really happened. If the Ramseys went to so much trouble to cover up evidence, why would they leave something as instrumental as the murder weapon at the crime scene? Why not get rid of it? Why not put it somewhere else?
In my opinion Kolar [and his cohorts in the documentary] are a tad unsophisticated in their assumption that pineapple + pineapple fragments + flashlight = death by flashlight in the kitchen. It’s too simplistic, and it doesn’t account for the fashioning of the garrote, the tying of the hands in nylon rope or the sexual interference. If Burke struck his sister, it was out of fear – in my view – of being found out about said sexual interference.
13. The thirteenth and last point is the most absurd of them all. The experts – from the FBI, the world’s leading forensic minds – are all unanimous. JonBenet wasn’t murdered, it was an accident. It wasn’t an intentional murder.
If it wasn’t an intentional act, why the intentional cover-up of an accident? Why cover-up an accident for 22 years? Why construct a Ransom Note? And when the police asked Patsy if it might be some sort of accident, why didn’t she tell the cops investigating and interrogating them that it was?
“JonBenet got up and somebody in that house – legally, lawfully, one of the three of you – also happens to be up, or gets up because she makes noise,” Haney said during the questioning. “There is some discussion or something happens, there’s an accident.”
“You’re going down the wrong path, Buddy,” said Patsy.
Haney continued: “OK. Somebody accidentally or somebody gets upset over bedwetting, that’s one of the things that’s been proposed.”
“Didn’t happen,” said Patsy. “If she got up in the night and ran into somebody, it was somebody there that wasn’t supposed to be there. I don’t know what transpired after that, whether it was accident, intentional, premeditated or what not. It was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement.”
If Patsy ever admitted it was an accident, she’d be throwing Burke under the bus, and herself [for misleading the cops], and implicating her husband as an accessory too. If one was implicated, all would be.
On October 18, 2018, an interesting update occurred in the Ramsey case. InTouchreported on Burke Ramsey “urging investigators to release files proving his innocence…” as well on Burke’s lawyers responses to Kolar’s Hypothesis:
Burke’s lawyers say key evidence about the contents of JonBenét’s stomach was deliberately left out of the docuseries in order to frame him. The scenario alleged that a then-nine-year-old Burke was furious at JonBenét for stealing pineapple from his bowl, so he smashed her over the head with a flashlight and killed her.
But Burke’s lawsuit claims the pineapple found in JonBenét’s body was in the intestinal tract below her stomach — meaning it had been eaten two to three hours before she died. Additionally, grapes and cherries were found in her system, which the series failed to disclose.
Experts — who testified in the case — said JonBenét would have died within three minutes of a blow to the head, so she wouldn’t have digested the pineapple. In other words, the docuseries’ theory is impossible.
TCRS’ assessment of this: the docuseries rather than “framing” Burke, implicates him in an accident. The 2-3 hour claim seems about right in the sense that it would take time for food to move through the stomach and into the small intestine. Three hours however seems excessively long. The mention of grapes and cherries in JonBenet’s system actually points to the little girl eating a small fruit cocktail, or the remains of one prepared earlier, before her death. The additional fruit pieces obviously pours cold water on the theory that JonBenet plucked pineapple out of her brother’s bowl.
The docuseries theory is implausible, but the theory that Burke smashed his sister over the head is not. As noted, he’d smashed his sister in the face before with a golf stick just one year earlier. The findings of the Grand Jury accusing both parents of child abuse, and accusing both parents of being accessories shows further reinforcement of Kolar’s contention.
In POST TRUTH, the 100th True Crime Rocket Science [TCRS] title, the world’s most prolific true crime author Nick van der Leek demonstrates how much we still don’t know in the Watts case. In the final chapter of the SILVER FOX trilogy the author provides a sly twist in a tale that has spanned 12 TCRS books to date. The result may shock or leave you with even more questions.
SILVER FOX III available now in paperback!
“If you are at all curious about what really happened in the Watts case, then buy this book, buy every one he has written and you will get as close as humanly possible to understanding the killer and his victims.”- Kathleen Hewtson. Purchase the very highly rated and reviewed SILVER TRILOGY – POST TRUTH COMING SOON.
TCRS MERCH available now – just in time for Christmas!
Book 5 – ALL NEW! “I have thoroughly enjoyed this audiobook…” – Connie Lukens. Drilling Through Discovery Complete Audiobook
Read the entire 9-Part TWO FACE series, the most definitive book series covering the Chris Watts Case
Visit the TCRS Archive of 100 Books dealing with all the world’s most high-profile true crime cases.
Join the TCRS Community on Patreon for as little as $1 per month. Multiple daily posts, interesting discussions, amazing audiobooks narrated by the author, ongoing series and powerful, informative weekly podcasts.
Subscribe to the Growing TCRS YouTube Channel
Book 4 in the TWO FACE series, one of the best reviewed, is available now in paperback!
“Book 4 in the K9 series is a must read for those who enjoy well researched and detailed crime narratives. The author does a remarkable job of bringing to life the cold dark horror that is Chris Watts throughout the narrative but especially on the morning in the aftermath of the murders. Chris’s actions are connected by Nick van der Leek’s eloquent use of a timeline to reveal a motive.”
Recent Comments