Sunday, August 14, 2016

JonBenet Ramsey: Analysis of Statements Conclusion

With the 20th anniversary of the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, media reports ongoing interest from the public. 

Statement Analysis shows a 'solved case', howbeit sans adjudication. 

What did Statement Analysis of the case indicate?

What was analyzed to draw the conclusion? 

Analyzing the statements made public, including the 911 call show:

Jonbenet was a victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of her father.  

Statement Analysis shows the connection to "lights" within statements and sexual activity, and "doors" to childhood sexual abuse.  Repeated studies into these two elements shows a consistent  linguistic connection.  When taken with the belief that it is rare to lie outright, we consider:

Instead of saying, "I found my daughter in the basement closet" or something else, John Ramsey went to 'narrative' form; that is, to lengthen out information, to explain, where no explanation is needed.  In doing so, he gave us links to sexual abuse without the need to even view the sexualization of the child in her outfits, or the  world of childhood beauty pageants.  We listen to him:  

"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was" as a truthful statement.  

Here we have not only the "door" but the "opening of the door", something closely associated with childhood abuse of the subject, himself.  This sometimes enters the language of adults who were abused in childhood and it does not take much imagination to understand why as the memory of a door opening, leading to abuse, is something that is strongly ingrained due to the hormonal increase to the brain under trauma.  

When these words are used unnecessarily they are recognized as "freely chosen" by the subject who is now going into the narrative form within his answer. 

Next, it is not necessary for him to tell us that the lights were off, or that they were even turned on, but for him, he must tell us that the lights were off, the lights were turned on, and it was he, himself, who turned on the lights.  

This, too, fits the "narrative" form of speech instead of simply saying, "I discovered my daughter's remains in the basement" or anything similar.  He halts this in order to add in:

a.  door
b.  opening the door
c.  he, himself, not his friend, opening the door
d.  lights
e.  lights off
f.  he, himself, not his friend, turning on the lights.  

This is to take sexual activity (lights), in a kinetic form (turning on) and cross it with linguistic indicators of his own childhood sexual abuse.  

Outside the statement we learned that she was a chronic bed wetter and she had chronic urinary tract infections and was an otherwise healthy child who was at her pediatrician's office an extreme number of times (consternation of mother).  Social workers and law enforcement who have investigated cases of sexual abuse of children recognize, as do many teachers, what chronic urinary tract infections and bedwetting can indicate. Bed wetting, alone, is not conclusive evidence of childhood sexual abuse, nor is a single urinary tract infection.  

Chronic bed wetting can be a warning. 
Chronic urinary tract infections can be a warning .

Taken together, the warning has now increased.

Add to this that the language of the father matches these signals and the evidence builds. 

Then we look at how John Ramsey related, linguistically, to his daughter, including the 'corrective action' after the publicity of analysis and intervention of lawyers.  The free editing process was touched upon and 'corrected' social introductions made.   

Jonbenet's mother failed to protect her, and was cognizant of the ongoing abuse, perhaps incapable of stopping it due to her own background.

Jonbenet died as a result of child abuse, which was the finding of the Grand Jury.  

Alex Hunter used passive voice in deceiving the public into believing that the Grand Jury had not handed down an indictment. Thus he was able to both deceive the public and avoid the outright lie but allowed them to interpret his words.  Alex Hunter had sabotaged the case as soon as he met the wealthy, high powered, private attorneys of the Ramseys.  He would not be made a fool of in public, justice be damned.  He undermined the police investigation, which was cited for errors early on, but did not destroy the investigation as sometimes reported.  The police were used as scapegoats.  

The Ransom Note Analysis showed "deception indicated" which means, specifically, the author of the note intended the note to appear to be written from multiple persons, foreigners, and money related.  The deception exists as it is a cover of a crime.  The phraseology of the note suggests single female author.  

The 911 call, made by Patsy Ramsey, is indicated for deception.  This means, specifically, that the caller knows her daughter is not kidnapped and is concealing information about what happened to her. It is useful for analysis instruction and presents an insight into not only the deception, but Patsy's priorities, background, experiences and personality.  

These conclusions come  from the public statements, ransom note, interviews and 911 call.  

There is no mystery left within the case, but media sells it as such because mystery sells.  When the mystery is solved, the case is closed. 

John and Patsy Ramsey got away with homicide.  


Bingo3 said...

Absolutely they did. I never understood the big mystery of this case. The ransom note was a joke. Just like the Casey Anthony case, OJ case and now the Blackburn case. Too many things point toward the guilty to come to any other conclusion in my opinion. Has it become a little too easy to get away with murder in America? Yes it has!

Nic said...

Coincidentally, a couple nights ago I read an announcement that the son, Burke, will be on Dr. Phil in September. I don't watch daytime TV (and I don't have cable anymore;) but I think I can still get the channel that broadcasts the Dr. Phil show. I think it would be interesting to hear what Burke Bennett has to say.

I found an archive on reddit with both parents' police interview transcripts:

Lis said...

Right on.

lynda said...

Since Patsy dies relatively young from ovarian cancer I would think she had plenty of time while lying there in pain to reflect on what she let happen to her own daughter. I'm sure the devil was waiting for Patsy with open arms.

Me2l said...

The conclusion of guilt is based solely on statement analysis?

Fm25 said...

Me21, as noted in peters article, multiple statements indicated deception. Are you familiar with the Ramsey case? There wears other evidence outside of the statements that support his conclusion. the grand jury did hand down an indictment but as noted in peters article the da failed to prosecute. There are many instances where le believes a party is guilty but lacks sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof, although the Ramsey case appears more a result of corruption. The link nic posted above will bring you to transcripts of multiple statements if you would like to try your hand at an analysis. I am not a student of peters, but I do find it interesting to try to apply the principles I've learned on this blog and these transcripts make for an excellent practice exercise.

Anonymous said...

Peter's work on this case has been comprehensive and conclusive of guilt on the part of Ramseys. I assumed intruder theory until fully convinced of the Ramsey's guilt by Peter's analysis of Patsy's interrogation by police. If you need further evidence, compare the handwriting in the note to Patsy's handwriting.
I do wonder if the note was a group effort, although unlikely, the action movie phrases in the note in my opinion would be something a teenage/preteen boy might be likely to memorize.

Me2l said...

Yes, I'm trying to understand the principles, as well, and yes, I'm aware of details of the Ramsey case.

I still wonder about regional (and even individual) speech patterns and if that affects SA application.

Fm25 said...

And now for a more personal post. Peter, you're comments about child abuse victims having memories of doors opening struck a nerve with me. I have no specific memories of being abused as a child, but I sometimes am haunted by an image from when I was young and it's very emotionally conflicting for me. I remember being at my grandmothers and left alone with my uncle and sister. I remember something about cops and robbers and I have a very clear vision of a door being locked. I think my sister was with me- she's 18 months younger. I don't remember anything else from that day. I also have a random memory of my mom telling me that it seems good people die young and the bad live forever. I remember thinking that meant my uncle would live forever. Aside from that, I remember being terrified to sleep alone. I remember a shadow in my room that seemingly talked to me and would tickle me. The shadow may have just been my imagination but I thought it worth mentioning. My uncle is dead now- he died a horrible death from ms. He was hospitalized for years, unable to move, covered in bed sores. His death was hard on my father. I have never told another living soul about my suspicion that something bad happened that day. I have never spoken about it with my sister and she's never mentioned it. I'm not even sure exactly how old I was a the time. I don't want to tarnish my uncles reputation by bringing this up when my memories are so vague and may mean nothing at all. I can't believe I Im posting this as I've never spoken the words allowed. Does anyone have any experience with repressed memories or thoughts about why these specific images would remain after 30+ years.

Fm25 said...

I understand where you're coming from. I question the application when there are language barriers as well. I think the analysis becomes stronger with context and when multiple statements are available. It gives a better idea of the subjects expected speech patterns and makes it easier to highlight the unexpected. Peter is extremely knowledgable in the field from what I've seen and is careful to take things such as personality disorders and ideology into consideration when he conducts his analysis and publishes his conclusion.

Calvin said...

Thoughts on this statement from Olympian Ryan Lockety?

Scout said...

Anonynmous at 6.21, Burke was only 9 years old when his sister was killed. That's pretty young to be considered a preteen, and it's not very likely that he saw most or even any of the movies in question. While some parents do allow kids to watch R rated movies, I have yet to meet the 9-yr-old aficionado of any genre of movie made when they were preschoolers or before they were even born. If he watched R rated action movies, more contemporary ones would be far more likely.

In any case, it really strains incredulity to think that he would be coming up with lines for a fake ransom note the night his sister was murdered in his house.

Anonymous said...

Basically, also, with repressed memory, I don't think it is quite as mysterious a phenomenon as people may think. Basically, as a defense mechanism, your mind protects you from thinking about something because you don't want to think about it, as oftentimes, as a child, it would overwhelm you. So your mind accomodates you and represses the memory. Your mind just puts the memory way in the back of your mind so that you don't think of it often, however, it is not really a fool-proof defense mechanism because I think it involves expending a lot of mental energy repressing a memory or memories and the memories do "nag" at you in weird ways and then your mind slams the closet door on them. It's healthiest to process memories but oftentimes NOT pleasant whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Scout, interesting comment. I don't remember all of the movies quoted from, although I think some were contemporary? I'm not sure...does anyone know?

I have always rejected ideas that Burke was in any way involved with Jon Benet's death. (I do not think Burke had anything to do with killing her.) However, I have always wondered about the movie lines quoted and always thought it was peculiar (though certainly not improbable) that a woman would have memorized these lines. Recently I've wondered if Burke could have known these lines.

I agree also it strains credulity to think Burke could have had any involvement in writing the note, however, it has always boggled my mind that both parents could have conspired in the coverup of Jon Benet's death when I believe only one person (probably Patsy) was responsible for her death, and, as you said, in the middle of the night. Therefore, who knows what else is possible? Most people believe that Patsy killed Jon Benet, evidently then woke John up and he helped her with the lying and coverup, so it seems this family is far from normal.

Anonymous said...


"I still wonder about regional (and even individual) speech patterns and if that affects SA application."

Blackburn has a degree in communications, and majored in English.
Although you are trying, you will not find an excuse for him in his language.

Nic said...

On the subject of context, a while ago someone asked about "yep" in statement analysis. I've heard it used a lot of times, i.e., yup, yep, yeppers, but I can't say if I thought of it as something I would give a second thought about, (except when someone posted the question!)

I've been reading JR's police transcript from April 30, 1997. He used "yep" in this interview . It didn't strike me odd the first time I saw it (I didn't even remember seeing/reading it.) But it struck me as a "change in language" the second time I read it when he was asked if he was alone when he went down to latch the window in the basement the morning of the 26th. So I did a 'find' function to see how many times he used "yep" while communicating -- -- just twice compared to "yeah" 30+ times, "right" 20+ times and "uh-huh" umpteen times (I counted by using my find function: ctrl + F). The first one was further up in the transcript in the context of medication, when they asked him if he took one of his medications before bedtime on the 25th. (JR was on two medications, one was "on demand", the other, Paxil, at bedtime which according to google/message boards causes significant drowsiness.)

The way JR uses "yep" strikes me as a subliminal "stop", emphasis on "p". That's not to say that I think "yep" is a sensitive word, but in this context, in my opinion, it looks like a change in language, which makes it sensitive.

TT: . . . Okay. How much where you taking?
JR: Uh, well one tablet a night, I don’t know how, but I can get the prescription from (inaudible) the size of it, whatever it is.
TT: Is it the same prescription that Patsy is on or. . .
JR: Basically, yeah, probably exactly the same thing.
TT: And the second medication, you take that once a night?
JR: Right.
TT: Right before bedtime?
JR: Yep.
TT: And second medication, how often to you take it?
JR: Uh, recommended is two to three tablets a day, and I tend to go from zero to just three. It’s uh, kind of depends on how you feel, it’s kind of a quick reacting.
TT: Okay. (inaudible) Let’s go back to the 25th,


ST: And Fleet had talked about earlier being down there, I think alone at one point, and discovering that window. When you say that you found it earlier that day and latched it, at what time of day was that?
JR: I don’t know. I mean it would have been probably, probably before 10 o’clock.
ST: Was that prior to Fleet’s first trip down?
JR: I didn’t know he was in the basement. I didn’t know that. I mean other than that trip with me.
ST: And on the trip that you latched the window, were you alone when you went down and latched the window?
JR: Yep.
ST: And on this, what I’m assuming is only your second trip to the basement on the 26th with Fleet, how much time did you spend in the basement before moving to the cellar room door?
JR: Not very much time. A minute maybe, or less, probably less than that.
ST: And when you moved to that cellar room door to open the door, did you move the tag on the top of the door?
JR: Yeah.
ST: And did you open the door?
JR: Yeah.
ST: And did you open the door?
JR: Uh-huh.

Anonymous said...

Also, there is the reference to water with Patsy, when she states the first thing she did when she got up was some laundry work with one of Jon Benet's articles of clothing--memory fuzzy on exact clothing article.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Re: Me21- I think that Peter is not basing his conclusions on SA alone, but rather SA in context with the various underlying factors of the case.

Weighing on the movie lines discussion...If I recall correctly from previous case discussion in the JonBenet Ramsey thread, John Ramsey had a fairly extensive action adventure movie collection which Patsy would have been familiar with.

Something that has always seemed odd and out of place to me- Having the money and the hired household help, particularly in view of their socially busy Christmas season, why would Patsy be up early doing laundry: after a late night Christmas party and on a hurried morning the family is scheduled to catch a flight? Unless the outfit was a special Christmas outfit, surely they had other clothes available to wear.

Anonymous said...

Washing away evidence?

Nic said...

Foolsfeedonfolly said:
Something that has always seemed odd and out of place to me- Having the money and the hired household help, particularly in view of their socially busy Christmas season, why would Patsy be up early doing laundry: after a late night Christmas party and on a hurried morning the family is scheduled to catch a flight? Unless the outfit was a special Christmas outfit, surely they had other clothes available to wear.

Interesting. I haven't gotten to Patsy's transcripts, yet, (my knowledge of this case is limited to what I've read on Peter's blog). However, in JR's Apr. 30th transcript I read that their clothes were already packed and the bags ready to go at the back door for the next day. JR had a full wardrobe at the other end. That's organized! Throwing a load on shortly before they're due to leave for a trip sounds urgent (unexpected) considering everyone's wardrobes were already decided.

TT: Okay. Who packed your bags to go out to Charleviox?
JR: Uh, well Patsy packed, I think, the kids bags, and was just going to take a dock kit.
TT: Okay . . .
JR: Because I had another full set of clothes up there.
TT: Okay. So you guys don’t have to take a lot of luggage or anything like that, uh?
JR: We packed some presents that we were going to take up the day before . . .
TT: Where were those presents at?
JR: Well I taken up, I grabbed them Christmas morning I think, or late Christmas morning and I took them up to the airport Christmas day . . .
TT: So they were already out of the house . . .
JR: They were out of the house and in the airplane, preloaded.
TT: Okay. What kind of, what type of, you just carried a little small bath kid, shaving kit I guess; uh, how big of a suitcase does Patsy carry for the kids and herself?
JR: Oh, I don’t remember, I remember there were some suitcases sitting out by the back stairs, uh usually it’s three of them, bags.

Nic said...

Uh, recommended is two to three tablets a day, and I tend to go from zero to just three. It’s uh, kind of depends on how you feel, it’s kind of a quick reacting.


I'm noting a lot of prescription drug use -- multiple prescriptions *before* JonBennett was killed.

Anonymous said...

One thing that is odd about this case, though it has been "resolved" is that noone seems willing to theorize what exactly DID happen.

Ex. Patsy kills JonBenet, wakes up John, tells him what? she "accidentally" killed JonBenet, John says "Oh OK let's stage a horrendous crime scene making it look like sexual homocide. After then you can write a ransom note.
See, I DO believe Patsy killed JonBenet, but how John would have so willingly cooperated in such a disgusting coverup I just cant wrap my head around. It seems to boggle the mind.
The logistics of what occurred have always eluded me.
And John didnt really seem upset after she was found (by him), wanted to just go on the trip as planned? You can go back and forth in your head w this case trying to figure out which parent killed her, and when you do, whether you consider John may have killed her...OK Patsy's reaction makes no sense...readily penning a ransom note full of action movie phrases. OK if Patsy killed her, John's reaction makes no sense...willingly cooperating w staging a horrendous crime scene.
It is a very hard case to understand imo.

Anonymous said...

Breakfast and a tail pipe.
Vernal Kunz

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
One thing that is odd about this case, though it has been "resolved" is that noone seems willing to theorize what exactly DID happen.

Ex. Patsy kills JonBenet, wakes up John, tells him what? she "accidentally" killed JonBenet, John says "Oh OK let's stage a horrendous crime scene making it look like sexual homocide. After then you can write a ransom note.
See, I DO believe Patsy killed JonBenet, but how John would have so willingly cooperated in such a disgusting coverup I just cant wrap my head around. It seems to boggle the mind.
The logistics of what occurred have always eluded me.
And John didnt really seem upset after she was found (by him), wanted to just go on the trip as planned? You can go back and forth in your head w this case trying to figure out which parent killed her, and when you do, whether you consider John may have killed her...OK Patsy's reaction makes no sense...readily penning a ransom note full of action movie phrases. OK if Patsy killed her, John's reaction makes no sense...willingly cooperating w staging a horrendous crime scene.
It is a very hard case to understand imo.

It has been reviewed ad naseum, including here at the blog.

Most experts speculate that Patsy blew up when JB wet her bed yet again, demanding to eat (pineapple) in the middle of the night and either she or John hit her with unintended consequence. If she, for example, hit her head against the tub, in a moment of rage, they were both tied into this together --Patsy knew of John's "tickling" of JB and John could blame Patsy off her meds or her OCD temper.

The staging was silly and it was from the books they read and movies in their home. That's where Hodge got much of his info and his guess work has some accuracy because of it. The problem is that it is undisciplined and unprincipled; it is just guess work. Good therapists do it all the time.

The Grand Jury knew. She died of chid abuse which was chronic.

I spent years investigating child sexual abuse and money/wealth did not exempt anyone.

The pattern was always the same though often it was repeated as the woman left the father and found another to take his place with similar abuse patterned backgrounds. It is a terrible cycle.

The money factor:

poverty can be the result of dysfunction and generally money hides it better, but enough trips to the pediatrician for UTIs and they know...yet, he had his doubts based upon the presentation of the wealthy and successful. Those who specialized in child abuse can look right past presentations and know the signs.

The need to deceive in the 911 call and the need to deceive in the ransom note, alone, tell us that the parents shared guilt.


Anonymous said...

Me2l said...
"Yes, I'm trying to understand the principles, as well, and yes, I'm aware of details of the Ramsey case.

I still wonder about regional (and even individual) speech patterns and if that affects SA application."

@Me21 From my understanding, in addition to analyzing grammar such as use of pronouns, "a" versus "the", etc., the analyst also works to understand the subject's own personal dictionary and unique speech patterns.
By doing that, regional patterns, colloquial terms, and individual habits can be accounted for and identified. When someone diverges from their typical style or habit, that would be noted for follow up - either additional information needed or deception indicated.

I've found the Search feature on this blog is great, it links to Peter's archived articles for more information on SA.


Amy Smith said...


Someone sent me a link to a subreddit on Justice For Amanda Grace

This post really has struck me and I have questions and concerns about the sudden death of a teenage member of Davey's Resonate Church. (2 Resonate Church deaths in 8 months)

There are links to a some news stories about JK's disappearance in Oct. 2015 . He was found safe the next day in Chicago. He died suddenly on July 8, 2016. In lieu of flowers, his obituary requests donations be sent to Davey's church. As far as I can tell, Davey or Resonate have not mentioned JK's passing at all. JK seemed to be close to Amanda and wrote a post on the day of her murder:

On JK's guest page, there are a lot of photos, including one of Davey hugging JK after his baptism at Resonate.

I found an interested tweet by JK's brother

Also, Davey is doing a sermon series now on death.
"Today, we buried my brother, Joey Kellogg. Joey, your death was not in vain. We will avenge you. We will fight. We will act. We love you."

Nic said...

From JR's April 1997 transcript:

ST: ... but if you were to take a polygraph, how would you do?

JR: Well, what I’ve been told is that, and felt tremendous guilt after we lost JonBenet, because hadn’t protected her, like I failed as a parent. And was told that that’s, with that kind of emotion you shouldn’t take a lie detector test because you did have that guilt feeling, and, but, so I don’t know about the test, but I did not kill my daughter if that’s what you want to ask me. She was the most precious thing to me in the world. So if the lie detector test is correct and it was done correct, I’d pass it 100%.

The question was, "if you were to take a polygraph how would you do?"

The words JR introduces:
guilt, failed, guilt feeling, kill, lie detector test, correct (x2) 100%

I felt tremendous guilt
we lost Jonbenet
(no pronoun) hadn't protected "her"
"like" I failed as a parent
so I don’t know about the test
I’d pass it 100%.

1. Changing pronouns

2. "I felt" tremendous guilt
This is just four months after Jonbenet was killed, and his "tremendous" guilt is expressed in the past tense.

3. we "lost"
the word, "lost" doesn't describe the truth around Jonbenet's death, she was killed

4. because introduces the answer: "hadn't protected"

5. we lost Jonbenet because hadn't protected her
dropped pronoun
who hadn't protected "her", is unknown

I have really struggled with the following and may be off base here, so please feel free to chime in your thoughts about this:

6. "hadn't protected her";
hadn't is unexpected
.....the thing about "hadn't protected her" is the implied consequence of the negation. JR didn't say "didn't protect her", he said "hadn't protected her". I expect to hear "if" along with "hadn't" (protected). This sounds so sinister to me. Keeping in mind that the outcome is negative (Jonbenet was killed):

"we lost Jonbenet because if X hadn't protected her, she wouldn't have sustained grave bodily harm/died. (or)
"we lost Jonbenet because X didn't protect her".

The word "hadn't" reveals that Jonbenet needed "protecting", the dropped pronoun conceals from whom.

JR is blaming and concealing identity.

This has really had me flexing my brain today.

7. like I failed as a parent
as though, as if (not definitively)

8. protected her
The thing about "protected her" and "failed as parent" is that each one of the Ramsey's was vulnerable to the alleged intruder/s. Everyone's safety was hanging in the balance because of the basement window. But JR only assigns the need of protection to Jonbenet.

9. like I failed as a parent
he does not say he failed (as a father, as a husband, as a provider)
what is the difference between a father and a parent? You can be a parent (mother or father), you can act as a parent (on someone's behalf).
parent is distancing

10. so
blue highlight/very sensitive

11. so, I don’t know about the test
what is said in the negative is sensitive, that it follows "so" makes it especially so. He was asked about taking "a" polygraph, but he refers to not "knowing" about "the test". JR most like knows what the outcome of a polygraph test would be, that he says he "doesn't know" about "the" test makes it likely he had already taken one.

12. I’d pass it 100%.
I'd is a contraction for "I would" (future conditional)
he is saying he would pass it 100% in the future, he doesn't say if he was to take it now (or if he took one in the past) that he would pass it 100%


Anonymous said...

Peter, yes it does make much more sense if both Ramseys were awake when Jonbenet was killed, and who knows, maybe both inflicted violence on her? I have read that the blow to her head was incredibly forceful though, so I wonder the exact scenario of what happened. Also, with the pineapple, I never thought of that that she could have requested to eat it after being awake from bedwetting, but the fact the bowl was out with the pineapple and some eaten would mean they were accomodating her by feeding it to her, so I wonder what triggered the explosion of temper unless one parent was being nice to her and the other was fuming about the bedwetting?

Anonymous said...

Also, could someone remind me how did investigators know what the crime scene was staged to look like if Jonbenet was moved by her father. Did his friend describe what the crime scene looked like before John moved Jonbenet upstairs? I dont remember.

Anonymous said...


Nic said...

I haven't gotten past JR's statement of April 30th or the 911 call, so maybe this has already been addressed.

Was there sibling rivalry between the kids? Everything appeared to be about JonBenet. She had *a lot* of her mom's attention. How much time did Patsy spend with Burke? JR was a professional. Was he home?

I don't think Burke was asleep. He went to bed, but nobody has said (that I have read yet) whether he got up or whether he slept through the night.

He wasn't asleep when they arrived home.
JR spent time assembling a toy with Burke because he wouldn't go to bed until he was finished.

"JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so . . .
ST: You mentioned on the morning on the 26th after the note was discovered, certainly you wanted to check on your son, and you went and he was in his room unharmed, I’m assuming. And it was a conscious decision or did you simply want to get back to Patsy, to let him sleep through this episode?
JR: Well, I think he was asleep and that was the best place for him to be for awhile.

Thinking out loud:
Was a snack part of that? Did Patsy get him a bowl of pineapple before she finally retired (went downstairs to say goodnight after getting JonBenet in her pjs/bed) indulged Burke a bedtime snack and then go to bed? Exhausted.

JR says that he finally got Burke upstairs and into his pj's and into bed, then JR took his medication, put himself to bed, and fell asleep "fast". Don't nine year olds get themselves dressed for bed? What if JR let him snack by himself and trusted him to go to bed when he was done? They let him watch movies in bed at bedtime (if it was earlier), but it was too late that night.

"Uh, Yeah he always like to put a pitch in for a movie or something, but I’m almost certain he went right to bed because it was by then, it was beyond when he went to bed anyway because he knew we had to get up at 5:30 a.m., so he went right to bed. .. "

Jonbenet was a bedwetter. She was asleep when they got home. I wonder if [Patsy] put her on the toilet before getting her into bed? My friend's oldest was a chronic bedwetter. They had to rouse her at 11:00PM every night to get her to go to the bathroom, otherwise she wet the bed.

Regarding the laundry the next day, if I had a bedwetter and she/he wet the night before getting up on a travel day, the laundry wouldn't wait. (Maybe why Patsy was doing the laundry the next morning.)

If Patsy and JR both spent extensive time jumping hoops to get Burke to bed, what would happen if JonBenet wet the bed just as Patsy was falling asleep?

I ASSume, Jonbenet would have gone to her mom for help changing her bed/pj's. I ASSume, her mom would have tended to JonBenet first and then the bedding. What if while her mom was tending to the bedding , JonBenet went downstairs and found Burke eating pineapple and caused a raucous by "stealing" some from his bowl?

Could there have been violent sibling rivalry between the two? Could Burke have viciously lashed out at JonBenet?

Could Patsy have snapped out of shear fatigue?

Do I understand right that the parents slept on a different floor from the kids?


Anonymous said...

Most experts believe Burke would not have had the strength to deliver the powerful head blow Jonbenet received...I believe it cracked her skull 6-8 inches long. Same thing with Patsy slamming her against would not have caused that type of injury. (This is one element that led me down the path of intruder theory before Peters analysis convinced me of Ramseys did it theory). And yes I believe parents did sleep on separate floor from kids.

Nic said...

Thank you, Anonymous. I haven't read JonBenet's autopsy results. I recently found a forensics page but haven't read it yet.

Lis said...

Nic- lots of good points-

The word "hadn't" reveals that Jonbenet needed "protecting", the dropped pronoun conceals from whom.

JR is blaming and concealing identity.

Yes, that jumped out at me, too!

Someone who had been pushed or shaken violently in a slippery bathtub could go flying and hit their head quite hard, I would think? Maybe things seemed under control after a snack and all was well and there was a second incident.

Maybe as theorized, Burke was given the snack and JonBenet snuck in and was sharing it with him instead of doing what she'd been told to? Who knows.

I agree with Peter that, whatever the actual incident was, the parents shared guilt and felt forced to cover for one another.

Anonymous said...

Jonbenet had an 8 inch long CRACK in her skull. That didnt happen from her slipping in a bathtub.
She had to have been hit with a HEAVY blunt object with tremendous force.

Unknown said...

JonBenet ate the pineapple after returning from the party. Burke stated that they ate a bowl of pineapple, then went up to bed.

Unknown said...

Then don't read it! Lol

Unknown said...

Parents slept on top floor of house.

Unknown said...

I believe she was hit with the heavy flashlight that sat on the kitchen counter. A neighbor reported seeing the light on in the kitchen, that resembled a flashlight. (Narrow, pointing upward.)

Nic said...

Lis said:
Maybe as theorized, Burke was given the snack and JonBenet snuck in and was sharing it with him instead of doing what she'd been told to? Who knows.

I wasn't suggesting that there was "sharing" going on. I suggested that maybe she grabbed a piece of pineapple from "his" bowl and he retaliated, violently. If she stole from him and he retaliated, forcing Patsy to intervene and "protect" JonBenet from him, or worse, JonBenet stuck out her tongue and taunted him while Patsy was "protecting" her, he could still "get her back" later on. Speculating: Much worse than if Patsy had sided with him and chastised JonBenet for stealing from him.

She was only six. Her bones and skull would still have been pretty soft, (the skill still thickening layer by layer.)

Bathtub: Projecting. If one of my kids was a chronic bed wetter, I wouldn't be changing linen *and* bathing them each night. Instead I'd wipe them down with baby wipes, get them into dry pjs and back into bed and wait to run them a bath in the morning. Alternatively, a clean, warm facecloth would clean her well enough. Baby wipes would be so much more convenient, and gentler on the skin, if the wetting was chronic.


Anonymous said...

Nic, You wrote

"She was only six. Her bones and skull would still have been pretty soft, (the skill still thickening layer by layer.)"

Did you just make that up? No, a human being's bones are not still "pretty soft" when they are 6 yrs old, and their skull is not still thickening layer by layer. That is all totally untrue. A 6 year old's bones are not soft and their skull is very strong and is not thickening "layer by layer"!!!!!!

Nic said...

From an evidence site I found:

"The CBI had been able to identify two fingerprints found on a white bowl on the dining room table that contained uneaten pineapple. One print belonged to Burke and the other to Patsy. Since partly digested pineapple had been found in JonBenet's small intestine at the autopsy, the police wondered if the Ramseys had been less than candid about JonBenet's bedtime activities and what time she fell asleep. Patsy and John had never mentioned with whom, where, or when their daughter had eaten pineapple.""

Anonymous said... you think it was odd the bowl was just left out?

Nic said...


No, I did not "just make that up". I little girl I babysat when I was a teenager had a tumour *in her skull*. Not in her head, ion her skull. They discovered it when she was admitted to emergency after she had fallen out of her (daytime) babysitter's truck. This was back in the 70's when kids didn't sit in car seats, let alone had to wear seat belts. She fell out of the truck, onto her head when the woman opened the door.

The x-rays revealed a tumour they thought from a fall she sustained before. The tumour was "in" the skull. When the skull thickens/grows, it does so in layers. Just like when bones elongate, they "stitch".

Are you aware that when a baby is born, their skull hasn't yet fused?

Nic said...

"The bones of a child are more likely to bend than to break completely because they are softer and the periosteum is stronger and thicker.[3] The fractures that are most common in children are the incomplete fractures; these fractures are the greenstick and torus or buckle fractures."

Nic said...

"The Skull is a unique skeletal structure in several ways: embryonic cellular origin (neural crest), form of ossification (intramembranous and endochondrial) and flexibility (fibrous sutures). The cranial vault (which encloses the brain) bones are formed by intramembranous ossification. While the bones that form the base of the skull are formed by endochondrial ossification. The bones enclosing the brain have large flexible fibrous joints (sutures) which allow firstly the head to pass through the birth canal and secondly postnatal brain growth. (See also notes on Head Development)

In humans, ossification continues postnatally, through puberty until mid 20's and in old age the sutures separating the vault plates are often completely ossified."

Ossification (or osteogenesis) in bone remodeling is the process of laying down new bone material by cells called osteoblasts. It is synonymous with bone tissue formation.

Here's an interesting piece of trivia:

Your skull never stops growing:

Anonymous said...

What is your point? The skull in a child is very strong! Do you think it is easy for a child to get an 8 INCH CRACK IN THEIR SKULL? Experts have said Jonbenet would have had to have been hit on the head with a heavy object with tremendous force to get an 8 inch crack in her skull!

Anonymous said...

Interesting quote for you on Clinton Foundation corruption:

Bill Clinton: "There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy. That just hasn't happened." --NBC News

Nic said...

Anonymous said... you think it was odd the bowl was just left out?
August 15, 2016 at 9:52 PM

Thinking more about it, I have two conflicting thoughts, both of which involve staging:

It was either made to look like Burke's bedtime snack or his breakfast. If it was meant to be his bedtime snack, then the autopsy (pineapple in the stomach) puts JonBenet up at night and contradicts the parents testimony that she fell asleep in the car and didn't wake up *at all*. If it was meant to look like Burke's breakfast, then his single print contradicts that he was asleep in his bedroom when the ransom letter was discovered, unless someone in the house that morning watched him eat it. IMO, I think it was meant too look like a bedtime snack (normal bedtime routine). Either they didn't know JonBenet had eaten a piece of pineapple, or they didn't know that part of an autopsy is examining the contents of the stomach, or both. I think they were surprised/caught off guard by this part autopsy result.

The thing I find "odd" about the bowl is that there were only two prints on it. How many times are dishes, mugs, glasses and utensils handled between the dishwasher to cupboards, then from cupboard to serving, to the person using it? Why the bowl would have been that clean is beyond me. I actually thought the reason might be because maybe it was used to 'konk' JonBenet over the head, but the skull fracture images don't look like it came from the base base/rim of a bowl. Plus, a ceramic bowl wouldn't withstand the kind of force necessary to do crack open JonBenet's skull.

Based on what I read in JR's transcript, in general terms when he talks about bedtime routines, JR said the kids got themselves into pjs, and ran through their routines solo. Yet, when speaking about the night of the 25th they helped the kids into pjs, and saw to them getting into bed. IMO there is a need to project involved parenting and "normal" bedtime routine in conjunction with the "excitement" of Christmas (Burke refusing to go to sleep until he finished assembling his new toy.)



Does JonBenet normally sleep with her TV on, does she normally go to bed with the TV on?
JR: It’s, it was always kind of a negotiating point. Uh, she liked to watch movies, and it would put her to sleep; so sometimes she would do that, but I don’t think that was the case that night because usually we’d have to go down and turn it off before she went to sleep; far as I know she stayed asleep, because she was asleep (inaudible) . . .
TT: Never woke up as far as you know?
JR: Not that I know of.

Nic said...

I'm 20 years late to this case so I get to pick and choose from a vat of available on-line information - not the trickle of limited print media spin stories many were forced to consume. There is an overwhelming amount of on-line information. I think the best of it is the first one (or two) transcripts from PR and JR and the autopsy report because the lies and contradiction just pile on after that.

Outside of that, I find it interesting what people remember/bring up. Like the flashlight. It makes me think of more staging. Not if, but while neighbours were out walking their dogs for their nightly constitution, might they notice whose lights were on or off? It was Boxing Day after all. People weren't in their usual routines, and it was Christmas so the houses would have looked really pretty. The Ramsey's had an early morning flight to catch, their house couldn't betray them and be lit "like a Christmas tree" at i.e., 2:00AM, right? Yet, evidently, unbeknownst to them, their neighbour was up and noticed the flashlight in use.

It makes me sick what was done to JonBenet afterwards (according to the autopsy) to make it look like someone broke in, and to "cover up" the chronic abuse she suffered (according to the autopsy,) while she was alive. What a horrible ending of life for that little girl.


Anonymous said...

Nic, right. But all that can lend itself to intruder theory also: a flashlight being used at 2 am in the kitchen, etc.
I believe Patsy did it, but in my mind, it is from clear how exactly her murder and coverup transpired.
Interesting thoughts about pineapple bowl...I never considered it could have been part of staging. Only 2 sets of fingerprints also odd. Do you think that suggests Patsy used a fresh bowl and cut or dumped (canned?) pineapple into it after they had gotten home or in the middle of the night?

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I think whoever wanted John to "grow a brain", was the mastermind/the one who orchestrated the whole scene.


Anonymous said...

So are you saying you think the perp prided him/herself in being smarter than John and thought he was an idiot?

Anonymous said...

IDI in the house!

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 5:56,

John Ramsey was a successful business man. I could be wrong, but if he was the author of the ransom letter, I don't think it would enter his psyche to tell himself to "grow a brain".

IMO, "grow a brain" is blaming. You have to have done something wrong to be told to grow a brain.

Something wrong could be as simple as "making" someone do something that causes something bad to happen. Like unknowingly provoking, i.e., jealous rage.


Nic said...

I listened the the 911 call and what struck me (apart from the fact that Patsy not once used JonBenet's name,) was that Patsy identified herself as "the" mother. Not, I'm "her" mother. Not, I'm "JonBenet's" mom. Not, I'm "her" mom. To me PR describing herself as, "the” conveys the one in control and final authority. It also sounds like a “part”, i.e., I'll be the mother, you'll be the father.

The operator asked PR how old JonBenet is. She says "She's 6 years old. She's blonde, 6 years old." and then there is dead air until the 911 operator talks.

PR answers the operator’s question, but then she she describes her daughter as an attribute associated with her head and assigns a number to her (dropped pronoun). Expected: JonBenet is/she's 6 years old. She's about 3' 8", and about 40 lbs. She has long, wavy blonde hair and blue eyes. She is wearing red and white pyjamas. Instead she objectified her by saying “she’s blonde”. This kind of description doesn’t sound maternalistic. To call someone blonde is competitive and can even be disparaging.

PR was teaching her daughter how to manipulate the judges to win their attention. If JR was an absent father, (frequently away on business compounded by JonBenet and PR away on the weekends for competitions,) what’s to say JonBenet would have used this training against her mother to win her father’s attention?


Nic said...

From JR's Apr. 30th transcript:

so I worked with him on that for 10 15 minutes probably; and then I took him up to bed and got his pajamas on, probably brushed his teeth, and then I went up stairs from there and got ready for bed. I read her a little bit. The lights went out around ten-thirtyish or ten-forty.


and I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you.
JR: I scanned them.
ST: Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?
JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.
ST: John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer’s error in recollection or might you have said that and . . .
JR: I wouldn’t have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so . . .

Nic said...

More from JR's April 30th transcript. If I was an investigator, I would have asked JR more about the movie he referenced. The (other) woman in the movie boils his daughter's pet bunny.

well let’s see, kind of would been 79 or 80, cause I think it was before Patsy and I got married.
ST: Do you have any idea if she is still in the Atlanta area?
JR: I don’t know. I have seen her in, since then. But she was, it’s really one of those things your regret in life, but she was also a very, you heard of the movie Fatal Attraction, I didn’t go see it because I think I could have written it.
ST: Well, with that said John, is she somebody that bares further inquiry in this case?
JR: It seems like a stretch since it’s been so long. But if I think back in my past and there was people that I’ve angered, certainly I angered her.

Eliza said...

Have you read Chief Kolar's book on the case?

His theory is that Burke had been abusing his sister and that he was the one to hit her in the head. He then poked her with a toy train to see if she was alive (hence the marks on her body that some people thought came from a stun gun. They perfectly matched the toy). Finally, he woke up Patsym who staged it all.

He paints a disturbing picture of Burke, that he was not at all distressed about his sister's murder, he was smiling in the photo the CSU took etc.

Nic said...

Hi Eliza,

No, I haven't read it. I haven't even read Patsy's first transcript yet. Interesting theory especially if JonBenet was being trained to manipulate and she was "winning" her father's affection from her mom and both parents time and affection from Burke (JR reading to JonBenet at night but leaving Burke to watch TV on his own, Patsy "protecting" JonBenet from any type of sibling rivalry fighting for fear she would be "marked up".)

I'm looking forward to watching the docu-series scheduled for this September, though.

Eliza said...

Hello Nic,

in the book it is mentioned that Burke had already hit JonBenet with a golf club in the past. And maybe he used one that fateful night; that's why John insisted in removing his golf clubs from the house. They were among the items Patsy's sister took from the house when she was permitted entry. Also, for Chief Kolar, the parents formed a united front in order to protect their only surviving child. The theory makes sense. I am not 100% convinced that this is what happened, but there are several clues. You should read this book, as well as Steve Thomas' one. Peter here has written some excellent articles, too.

What docu-series are you talking about? I would like to watch it!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Burke killed Jon Benet and their parents tried to cover it up. That would explain their lying. Consider this: Once you tell a lie you have to tell another to cover up the first and it snowballs from there. In other words, their attempt to portray Jon Benet's death as the result of an intruder required them to lie over and over so the investigators would look away from Burke and they had to know after telling so many lies noone would accept they had no involvement in her death. Of course Burke could be innocent, but he could also be guilty and the parents attempt to cover up for him could have lead to the situation we have today: An unsolved death and no justice, if indeed it was murder and not an accident.

Anonymous said...

The "grow a brain" comment always struck as me being an obvious attempt to lead investigators away from the family and toward a business associate of John's. I think Patsy wrote it, but I don't think she killed Jon Benet. I think Burke killed Jon Benet by accident. However, I also think he was sexually abusing Jon Benet and that would have come out if they had simply reported the accident when it happened. They had to make it look like an intruder had abused Jon Benet to explain signs of abuse.

Anonymous said...

I'm interested to know if Burke has shown any abhorrent behaviors since the death of his sister. He's been off the rader for so long; what is he like, what are his interests, what do people who know him or have met him have to say about who he is? Also, WHY is he giving an interview at all??

Anonymous said...

I'm the writer of the last two posts. I watched part 1 of the Dr Phil interview with Burke and I'm appalled. With Dr Phil AND myself. HE has used Burke for ratings knowing the public would find Burkes demeanor unsettling and/or suspicious. I could barely finish watching the interview once I saw how Burke is so awkward and child-like that; he's no killer. He's emotionally fragile and has suffered too much over the years living in the shadow of his sister's death as it is. I hate that I contributed to one of many conspiracy theories about Burke. If he was here right now I'd apologise to him. In the future, I need to be a hell of a lot more careful about what I say based on emotions and rumours because more often than not there's likely a more rational explanation for the odd behaviors of people. I'm so mad at myself! I'm sorry, Burke.

Bobcat said...

I just read that the new analysis believes Burke hit her with the flashlight because she ate some of his pineapple. He poked her with a toy train track to see if she was still alive. John and Patsy helped cover it up to protect Burke.

They showed a snipped of video interview of Burke (when he was 9) and his statements give away his extreme sensitivity upon viewing a photo of the bowl of pineapple.

20 years later, the pieces all fit.

Randie said...

I agree Bobcat.

Also, at the end of the Dr. Phil interview. DP asks BR:

Dr. Phil: “Is there anything you want to set the record straight on?”

Burke: “I mean the obvious one is that I killed my sister and my parents killed my sister. And people still can’t get that in their head that we didn’t do it.”


Shazzy_May said...

True about repressed memories. They say that children who have suffered sexual abuse in their early years before they have language formed in their brains, will recall abuse via their senses, i.e. smells, sounds, taste and touch.