How John Ramsey Continues to Perpetrate a Fraud Upon the Public

By Juror13 and guest-blogger, Cottonstar

The battered justice system had creaked and shuddered, but it had worked!  We had not been indicted! People would have to finally see the jury’s decision as our vindication.”

– John Ramsey, Death of Innocence, 2000

That wasn’t the jury’s decision.  More importantly, John Ramsey knew that wasn’t their decision when he and Patsy co-wrote their book the following year.  That’s fraud.  Rather than saying we weren’t formally indicted by the DA, which is factually true, he chose to manipulate the narrative and instead say the jury – a group of their peers – vindicated them.  They did not.

One would think, now that the grand jury indictments are public knowledge after Judge Robert Lowenbach unsealed them in 2013, that John would be a little humbler with his responses regarding the jury’s vote.

When asked by CNN in September 2016 how he felt about being labeled an accessory to Murder via the indictments, his response:

“Really?  I didn’t know that. I don’t even know what that means, frankly.” – John Ramsey

Frankly, nobody’s buying it anymore.  In fact, Aphrodite Jones, who previously believed an intruder was likely responsible for the crime, spoke to Tricia Griffith on Websleuths Radio this week and said she’s since changed her mind.


In 2011, Aphrodite wanted to sincerely explore the intruder theory.  In support of her show, she interviewed John San Agustin, one of the Ramseys’ (multiple) private investigators, as well as John Ramsey in private [for three hours].  She describes San Agustin’s lengthy PowerPoint presentation, including crime scene photos, fancy slides about Touch DNA, and stun guns, as a “nicely wrapped present”.  Add to that Mary Lacy’s public exoneration letter to the Ramseys, and indeed it was a gift – for the Ramseys.  It worked.  It wasn’t until this past year that Aphrodite started to look at the case in more detail, partly due to some of the insights shared by the investigators involved in the CBS show. What she discovered was that there was clearly a diligent effort on behalf of Team Ramsey to distort the investigation.


As Tricia pointed out, why wouldn’t you believe a DA; never before have we ever seen anything as outrageous as a DA “exonerating” individuals while a case is still open.  So at face value, one may be inclined to believe the DA had good reason to clear the family.

“I feel that I had been taken for a ride.” – Aphrodite Jones, October 15, 2017

Believe me, Aphrodite, you’re not alone.

In a People magazine article from December 2016, current DA Stan Garnett says then Boulder DA, Mary Lacy, jumped the gun on July 9, 2008, when, on the basis of DNA analysis from the crime scene, she issued a letter to John Ramsey stating “we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son Burke to be under any suspicion.  “When any district attorney goes around and starts issuing exonerations based on a particular piece of evidence, that can be very misleading to the public about the nature of the case.”

For 20+ years, the Ramseys have misled and bullied the public.  They’ve hypocritically sat down for interviews and documentaries, touting “the truth [will be] uncovered” while chastising so many others for trying to do the same.  Lin Wood, goes so far as to describe seasoned investigators who participated in the CBS show as playing “an acting role”.  Meanwhile, John is seen “acting” out his new life for the camera, walking on the beach, hand-in-hand with Jan, walking thru picturesque mountains, hob-nobbing with legal analysts. The narrative, I suppose, is that we should think John is a really swell guy.

jeanandjohn  johnandjan

Nevertheless, the public continues to dissent, and team Ramsey responds by suing somebody else.  The latest civil suit filed by John last month, brings us to at least twelve suits (on behalf of Burke and themselves) to-date, related to the case.

If you read through the Complaint, you’ll find, many of the central arguments are rehashed from suit to suit.   Their arguments are old and for the most part, consistent.  What’s far less consistent is what the Ramseys have uttered to the police, to TV and newspaper reporters, and written in their books, over the years.

Cottonstar, who’s vigorously investigated this case, and I, teamed up to analyze the Factual Allegations set out in John’s Complaint.

What is a Factual Allegation?  An allegation, of course, is a claim or assertion that somebody has done something wrong, typically absent of proof.  Factual allegations in a legal complaint have one purpose – to narrate a story.  If the Factual Allegations don’t satisfy each element of the complaint, the case faces dismissal.  John Ramsey’s claims, we feel, are flagrantly unsatisfactory.

Lin Wood recently told Westword during a Q&A that one of the central claims in John’s lawsuit is the accusation that John perpetrated a criminal cover-up of the crime [CBS asserts] committed by Burke.

Wood sells this as if it’s the most absurd thing he’s ever heard.  I guess, just like John, Wood kinda sorta forgot that a Grand Jury, after examining the evidence, also believed John may have committed a criminal cover-up [was an accessory to Murder] and wanted him to answer to those allegations at trial.  It would be nice if rather than completely and repeatedly evading the details of the indictment by moaning about unsophisticated jurors and ham sandwiches, somebody on Team Ramsey could actually, intelligently, address the following:

On or about December 25, and December 26, 1996 in Boulder County, Colorado, John Bennett Ramsey did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death. – Count VII [A True Bill]

Since the statute of limitations for these charges has long since passed, it’ll never adequately be addressed in court.  All we can do now, for the time being, is address the fraud perpetrated by the Ramseys, with the help of their council, by pointing out their changing stories.

Note:  The complaint contains 141 Factual Allegations.  For purposes of brevity, we’ve addressed some of the most glaring contradictions and mendacious statements.


  1. Twenty years later, with the crime remaining unsolved, Defendants stole the headlines and viewership by maliciously and falsely accusing John of covering-up Burke’s crime in their four-hour Documentary, which they promised would reveal JonBenet’s killer.

REBUTTAL:  Burke Ramsey’s interview with Dr. Phil was the first JonBenet special to air in September 2016, ahead of the other special programming, including CBS’s The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey.  Weren’t John and Burke Ramsey the ones to “steal the headlines” by jockeying to have their interview broadcast first?  Also, let’s not ignore that Dr. Phil and John Ramsey share Lin Wood as their lawyer and both men conveniently appeared on the show in defense of Burke, along with Dr. Phil – not exactly an impartial host – who defended Burke himself in Episode 3.  Making sure you’re first in line to share your story is indeed controlling the narrative, is it not?

  1. Both the judicial system and the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office have previously declared John’s innocence in the death of his daughter.

REBUTTAL:  While John may enjoy a presumption of innocence, considering the case never went to trial, a judicial system has not declared John innocent.

  1. Despite being fully aware of Judge Carnes’ order, Defendants ignored and did not disclose the Wolf Decision during the Documentary, including many of key facts and information cited therein in support of Judge Carne’s decision.

REBUTTAL:  First, the purpose of the CBS show was to investigate the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey, not to revisit a civil case filed by a journalist, presided over by Judge Carnes.  Second, see the first paragraph of this blog post.  The Ramseys repeatedly made public statements about the Grand Jury clearing them of all charges, when they knew that was a total fabrication.  When John and Patsy appeared on Connecting Point with Reverend Wayne Cordiero, on a show where John praised God and spoke of living a good and spiritual life, he not only lied, but threw in a joke for good measure when he said [at 7:25 in the video]: “Thankfully the system did work.  Obviously a grand jury looked at our case and said, No.  And [chuckling] I will always be available for jury duty now that I see how important it is.”

  1. On July 9, 2008, former Boulder DA Lacy relied on newly discovered [Touch] DNA evidence to officially exonerate the Ramsey family (including John) in an open letter released to the public. DA Lacy found: New scientific evidence convinces us that it is appropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to state that we do not consider your immediate family including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime. [snipped]

REBUTTAL:   First, start with this article which talks about the efficacy of Touch DNA.  Then consider this…. From…experts said the evidence showed that the DNA samples recovered from the long johns came from at least two people in addition to JonBenet – something Lacy’s office was told, according to documents obtained by the Camera and 9NEWs, but that she made no mention of in clearing the Ramseys. The presence of a third person’s genetic markers has never before been publicly revealed. The presence of that DNA on JonBenet’s underwear and long johns, be it from one or multiple people, may very well be innocent; the profiles were developed from minute samples that could have been the result of inconsequential contact with other people, or transferred from another piece of clothing.”  And this is the rock-solid evidence Lacy used to declare this murder a “DNA case” and in turn, completely cleared the Ramsey family of any wrong-doing.

  1. In early 1998, former Boulder PD Chief Mark Beckner stated during a news conference that Burke was not involved in the killing of JonBenet, was not a suspect in JonBenet’s murder, and was not being looked at as a suspect.

REBUTTAL:   If they’re referring to the well-known, televised press conference by Becker, the date was actually Dec 1997, not early 1998.  Beckner says in December 1997, “one of the most important tasks yet to do is the re-interviewing of some family members, specifically Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, and their son, Burke Ramsey. We have made a formal request for these interviews and do expect this to completed in the near future.”

“We have an umbrella of suspicion and people have come and gone under that umbrella.  They [the Ramseys] do remain under an umbrella of suspicions, but, uh, we’re not ready to name any suspects.”  When asked if Burke was a suspect, Beckner answered “At this time, we’re treating him as a witness.” The implication of that statement is not the same as “Burke was not involved in the killing of JonBenet.”


When asked why they were calling the Ramseys back, Beckner also says “it’s been 6 months since they last spoke with them and “it’s not unusual to call people back and re-interview, especially in a case that’s this complex.  Also understand, it’s been approximately 6 months since we last interviewed the Ramseys During that time, there’s been a lot of investigation, we’ve uncovered a lot of new information, we have a lot of new questions, and, uh, they can help us answer those questions.  They are significant in this case and they have information that’s important to us.”

  1. In a sworn affidavit dated October 12, 2000, former Boulder DA Alex Hunter reaffirmed under oath that Burke had never been a suspect in the investigation into his sister’s murder. [snipped]

REBUTTAL:  From sequin star 2000-2006Alex Hunter didn’t devise this affidavit on his own. He was propositioned by Lin Wood on October 11, 2000, to sign an already written [by Wood] affidavit that would help minimize any future appearances by the DA’s office, including Hunter, in further Burke Ramsey litigation.  It’s important to note that Hunter didn’t automatically agree to sign what Wood sent him.  In fact, the portions of the affidavit that Hunter either revised or deleted are telling.  The following is the suggested Paragraph 6 that Hunter revised before signing:

“All questions related to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey were resolved to the satisfaction of the investigators and Burke Ramsey has never been viewed by investigators as a suspect in connection with the murder of his sister.”   And here’s what Hunter agreed to sign:

“From December 26, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey’s status from that of witness to suspect.”  In other words, just because Burke wasn’t formally named a “suspect” doesn’t mean he wasn’t or hasn’t [or won’t be] investigated.  Hunter address this by deleting paragraph 9 and not replacing it.  Here’s the deleted text that he felt was necessary to remove before signing:

“from December 26, 1996 to the date of this Affidavit, Burke Ramsey has not been and is not at present, a suspect in the investigation into the murder of his sister, JonBenet Ramsey.”

  1. After the family returned home, John and Patsy put their children to bed and went to bed themselves soon after.

REBUTTAL:  In Linda Arndt’s police report, she stated: “JonBenet and her brother, Burke, went to bed shortly after the family returned home.  John Ramsey had read to JonBenet after she’d gone to bed, and before she went to sleepThis, reportedly, is what John told Arndt that morning.  Of course, he denies it, but Arndt doesn’t.  It was the last time John would mention reading in his narrative.  In all subsequent questioning, John never mentions reading again.

  1. Burke did not leave his bedroom during the night.

REBUTTAL to 112 & 117:  Burke said on Dr. Phil, in response Dr. Phil’s question about him sneaking out [that night] and going downstairs to play: “Yea. I remember being downstairs after everyone was kinda in bed.”

  1. John and Patsy checked on Burke, who appeared to them to be sleeping in his room.

REBUTTAL:  In Death of Innocence from 2000, and John’s book, the Other Side of Suffering from 2012, both John and Patsy claim to have gone to check on Burke, yet this is in contradiction to what Patsy stated in both her April 1997 and June 1998 interviews with police.  She says she didn’t check on Burke.

April 1997 Transcript:

TRUJILLO:  Right around the corner. Okay. When did you check on Burke during all this? You talked about John going to check on Burke.

PATSY:  Yeah. I think he ran and check on him when I was up, up there uh, you know, it just all happened so fast. I said, ‘Oh, my God. What about Burke?’ And I think he ran in and checked him while I was running back downstairs or something.


PATSY:  But I remember he, you know, I think he ran and checked on him and, and he told me he was okay or whatever.

TRUJILLO:  Okay. Was Burke still in the same bed? He hadn’t moved beds or anything like that?

PATSY:  I don’t know. I didn’t go in there and look.

June 1998 Transcript:

HANEY: Okay. Do you ever go up and check on Burke, you yourself?

PATSY: Oh, yeah. I mean, you mean like that or —

HANEY: This morning, the 26th. Let’s get you back there. We are still pacing around?

PATSY: Right. I don’t think I did. I think John said he was fine

  1. John opened the door to the Wine Cellar, turned on the light, and discovered JonBenet’s body.

This is also addressed later in John’s complaint with the following point:

  1. Defendants [CBS] knew and failed to disclose that John turned the light on before finding JonBenét as confirmed by John and the sole witness, Fleet White.

REBUTTAL:  John has no recollection of turning on the light, so he can’t factually state that he did.  From John’s deposition in Wolf v Ramsey, 2001:

HOFFMAN: When you opened the cellar door, can you describe with the best of your recollection today, what it was that you saw?

JOHN: I saw a white blanket and I knew immediately, I’d found JonBenét.

HOFFMAN: Had you turned the light on? Or.

JOHN: I don’t remember turning the light on (shaking head from side to side)

  1. The Ramsey home was not secure on the night of December 25, 1996. They had not turned their security alarm on, and at least seven windows and one door were found unlocked on the morning of December 26, 1996. A door from the kitchen to the outside was found open.

REBUTTAL:  In Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Linda Hoffman-Pugh, the Ramsey’s housekeeper, recalls a conversation with Patsy at the memorial service in Boulder:

“Who could have done this to JonBenét?” Patsy asked.

“I wish I knew,” I said. “Are you sure you had all the doors locked?”

Yes, we are sure.”

“Are you sure you pushed the button on the patio door?”

We had all the windows and doors locked,” Patsy said.

  1. A rope was found inside of a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor.

REBUTTAL:  The rope was not found in a brown paper sack as proven by the questioning of John by Smit in June 1998.  The brown paper sack seen in the picture was a Boulder PD evidence bag, yet, Wood seems to be implying in his Factual Allegation that somebody carried this rope into the house in a bag.  The rope was found in John Andrew’s back pack (used for climbing/scouting activities – John Andrew, just like Burke, was a scout)

June 1998 Transcript:

SMIT: But he could have had things there in his [John Andrew’s] backpack?

RAMSEY: It wouldn’t have been out of the question.

SMIT: Just for the camera, the photographs we are looking at is photo 113, 114, 115 and 116. – (0535-24)

MORGAN: May I ask just one question. Can you tell us if this is the form in which it was originally found?

SMIT: No, that’s the bag it was put in for evidence.

MORGAN: So the paper bag is just in evidence.

SMIT: Evidence bag. And again that was just found in the room, and it was found in a bag in her room, that’s all I can tell you at this time.

  1. Small pieces of the material of this brown sack were found in JonBenét’s bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body.

REBUTTAL:  Revisit point #170 above, and you’ll understand just how mischievous this is.  Yes, there were pieces of brown sack found in the body bag and in JonBenet’s bed because it’s from the evidence bags used to collect evidence at the crime scene – as is typical in all investigations.

JonBenet 3

  1. John and Patsy disclaimed ownership and knowledge of that rope.

REBUTTAL:  In Patsy’s June 1998 interview, she couldn’t seem to recall the rope, yet, the rope, or one identical, can be seen in numerous pictures taken around the home from various timeframes.

June 1998 Transcript:

PATSY: I don’t recognize it, specifically.”

DEMUTH: “Okay. And that, that particular piece of rope, do you ever remember seeing anything like it around? And if you look at photo 115, you notice the… ends are unusually secured… can you think of any reason to have that kind of rope around?”

PATSY: “I’ve just never seen ends like that, done like that. John had some, you know, boat ropes and things up at the lake, but it seems like when they cut those they kind of melt the ends of them or something to keep them from fraying or something. I’ve never seen one done like that.”

DEMUTH: “The kind of ropes you’re talking about that John used up there”

PATSY: “For the sailboat or”

DEMUTH: “Are they colored the same or similar?”

PATSY: “Well, some of them have like little blue flecks in them or red, or there’s some white ones, you know.”

DEMUTH: “Okay. Do you know what, what those are composed of? Is it a nylon-like that melts?”

PATSY: “Yeah, it must, something that melts, yeah. But it seems to me like they somehow torch the ends and kind of keep them from fraying. I can’t remember seeing any one looking like that.”

DEMUTH: “You don’t remember that being used anywhere in the house or yard or”


DEMUTH: “Would you think that unusual to be found in the house?”

PATSY: Yeah, I mean, Burke had some ropes that he would play with through something out on the playground, you know, in that, in that picture yesterday the rope around the, the fort, you know, or something.” 

DEMUTH: “Right”

PATSY: “Always trying to make a boat or something like that.”

DEMUTH: “This was found inside the house”

PATSY: “Inside the house?”

DEMUTH: “In John Andrew’s room?”

PATSY: “Oh. Maybe it was a, some rope he used for camping or something, I don’t know.”

DEMUTH: “Did he have rope in his room that he would use for camping?”

PATSY: “…I don’t know. I just don’t remember seeing this specifically, and I don’t remember ever seeing a rope like that.”

DEMUTH: “Do you know John Andrew had a rope in that room?”



  1. An unidentified baseball bat was found on the north side of the house containing fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenét Ramsey’s body was found.

REBUTTAL:  Burke on Dr. Phil: “They showed me a picture of the baseball bat like on the side of the house or something [referring to the black bat on the ledge]. That was my baseball bat.” And by claiming ownership of that bat – he then claims ownership of the basement carpet fibers on the bat as well.

  1. In 2013, it was leaked to the media that the grand jury had voted to recommend that John and Patsy be indicted by the Boulder DA for “commit[ting] a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child’s life or health” and for “render[ing] assistance to a person with the intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such a person knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse Resulting in Death.”

REBUTTAL:  The [unsigned] True Bill Grand Jury indictments weren’t leaked.  Charlie Brennan successfully filed suit in court requesting the documents be made public, citing the Freedom of Information Act, and the judge unsealed the documents.  Unsealed documents are public record.  To my point from the beginning of this post, it resonates that all Lin Wood can say about these extremely damning indictments is that they’re leaked, and even that’s not true.

We’ll leave it at that… for now… and will leave you with this thought from one of the [anonymous] grand jurors who voted to indict John and Patsy on four counts, collectively, in 1999.

“It’s still unresolved,” one juror said. “Somebody did something pretty horrible that wasn’t punished. I’m not saying that I am at peace. But I had sympathy with his (Hunter’s) decision. I could see the problem that he was in. I could understand what he was doing.”Daily Camera, 1/27/13

Why would a juror who spent over a year of their time considering the evidence be understanding of Hunter’s decision to ignore their vote?  What do the jurors know?

jonbenet 11

“Burke is quite the sailor”

Special thanks to guest-blogger, Cottonstar from Websleuths, for this contribution:

Be prepared in Mind by having disciplined yourself to be obedient to every order, and also by having thought out beforehand any accident or situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it.  Be Prepared in Body by making yourself strong and active and able to do the right thing at the right moment, and do it.”The Scout Motto

Burke was in the Boy Scouts for more than 3 years.  That’s longer than JonBenet was involved in pageants.

What do we know about Burke and the Boys Scouts?  Actually, not a heck of a lot which is odd, right?  For all the bragging Patsy did about the achievements of her offspring, why can’t we find a single picture of Burke in his scouting gear?

What we do have, though, are pics of a flashlight, nylon cord and a tightening stick.  All items found in the Boy Scout Handbook as needed checklist items for successful scouting adventures.

Tightening stick? Yes, I called it a tightening stick because that’s exactly what was found hanging from JonBenet’s neck when her body was discovered. A tightening stick is described on pg.150 of The Boy Scout Handbook, 10th edition, the same copy Burke was rumored to have received on Christmas morning, 1996.

tightening stick.JPG

Use a tightening stick to draw your lashings extra snug.

The “garrote” wasn’t a garrote per se, and wasn’t used how a real garrote would function [the cord was double knotted at the back of JonBenet’s neck] if someone was trying to murder someone in a sexually deviant way.

In the autopsy report, the medical examiner describes the evidence as a “wooden stick”.  The word “garrote” only enters the narrative at the same time JonBenet’s pageant videos make the airwaves, then suddenly, the conversation shifts [thanks in part to Ramsey PR, and Lou Smit] to… It must have been a pedophile – a sadistic, monster!

Let’s address the complexity of the knot tied around the stick.  Knot tying has long been part of the scouting program. A Google search of scouting knots reveal the knot tied on the stick – a prusik knot/hitch – is one of the most basic knots Scouts learn.

From Patsy Ramsey’s annual Christmas newsletter to family and friends in 1995, we learn more about the Ramseys’ level of knot use and expertise:

“This year John [former active-duty Navy], John Andrew [former advanced Eagle Scout], and Melinda took the crew of Miss America (our sailing sloop) to victories in the NOOD races in Chicago and a 4th Place Division Finish of the Chicago-Mackinaw Island Race. Seventy-knot winds in the MAC race really made the finish line look pretty good!”

In the same newsletter, we also learn that:

 “He [Burke] continues with Boy Scouting and the piano. This winter he is the tallest guy on his basketball team. Summer on Charlevoix was spent taking golf and sailing lessons each day. Burke is quite the sailor!”

It seems Burke is also quite the camper. That same summer in 1995, at Camp McSauba in Charlevoix, Burke was awarded Best All-Around Camper. Scouting, sailing, and camping. All three of these activities require a basic, if not extensive, knowledge and use of various knots and hitches. Not only does it seem Burke had a great deal of training and experience with knots, but he had highly-trained instructors in his immediate family.

Something else I’ve recently learned, has shed light on a previously ignored piece of evidence collected from the Ramsey’s basement. There’s an old boatswain mate’s trick used in the Navy and in sailing for learning to tie knots. A wire, such as a copper wire, is formed into a loose exemplar of a particular style of knot, which can later be used as a guide when tying rope.  Boatswain mates are known to carry around these wires for that purpose. It seems, these same type of wires were found at the crime scene in at least two places: the boiler room wire tied in knot (5BAH) and the wine cellar wire near body (7KKY).  Did the intruder, in the pitch dark of the Ramsey basement, forget how to tie the knot he wanted and leave his exemplars behind?

Hi-Tec footprint in basement

KANEWe have been provided, and again, one of the sources of this information is confidential grand jury material I can tell you in the question, but we have been provided information from two sources that your son Burke, prior to the murder of your daughter, owned and wore Hi-Tec boots that had a compass on them, which makes them distinctive. Do you recall — if you don’t recall that they actually were Hi-Tec, do you remember Burke having boots that had a compass on the laces?

JOHNVaguely. I don’t know if they were boots or tennis shoes. My memory is they were tennis shoes, but that is very vague. He had boots that had lights on them and all sorts of different things.



Excerpt #2 from sequin star #JonBenetRamsey

From the chapter…

Sexual Deviant or Just Deviant

Crimes and criminals, devils and deviants will always defeat logical inquiry, they will sidestep our attempts at nailing down forensics.  All can be covered-up, all can be concealed but never the cogent psychology it springs from, even when that psychology is evil incarnate.

It’s interesting that a week after JonBenét’s murder John’s reinforcing [on CNN] the assumption that there was a kidnapping, and he does so by invoking the note.  What’s also worth noting is Patsy’s response to the question.  Interviewer, Brian Cabell has asked John whether he thinks a kidnapping is the “wrong assumption” and John, invoking the note, seems to suggest that no, the idea of a kidnapping still makes sense.  What does Patsy think?  Is the kidnapping a wrong assumption?


PATSY [shaking her head]: It don’t sound like kidnapping to me. [John shoots Patsy a dark look].

JOHN: I guess that’s what concerns me because if we don’t have the full resources of all the law enforcement community on this case, I am going to be very upset.

It’s amazing how John already associates the idea of his concern with police resources around his assumption that it’s a kidnapping.  Isn’t this John already hedging an outcome where the police don’t think it’s a kidnapping, and John can then say, see, it’s because of the poor resources involved in this case.

The point is, a week after JonBenét’s murder, John’s focus is on defining the crime as a kidnapping.  There’s zero mention of “strangling” or of a “garrotte” or that JonBenét was tied up. There’s also zero mention of JonBenét’s head injury; that Little Miss Christmas was bludgeoned.

Meanwhile, the same day the Ramseys took CNN into their confidence, Boulder’s Daily Camera confirmed what they knew.


  • A handwritten ransom note was found at the house requesting $118,000.
  • Between 1:30 and 2 p.m. Thursday, an undisclosed family member found JonBenét’s body in the basement. Police ruled the death a homicide.
  • The autopsy revealed that JonBenét had been strangled.
  • There were no signs of a break-in at the house.
  • Many people – including multiple housekeepers, gardeners, caterers and a landscaper – had keys to the house.
  • Police collected blood, hair and handwriting samples from John Ramsey and his children. No samples were collected from Patsy Ramsey.
  • John Ramsey hired Denver criminal lawyer Bryan Morgan.

Now it’s clear early on that television audiences would have been aware of the kidnapping aspect, while readers of the local newspapers ought to have known JonBenét was strangled to death.

Steve Thomas presciently observes in his book, when he first learned of the crime at night over the radio while driving from Denver with his wife, he wondered why the kidnapper would leave a dead body behind when he could still get the ransom?  The Lindbergh case is a case in point where precisely this happened.  Why go to the trouble to break in, abduct, write your note but then leave the most vital part behind after she’s been immobilized?

Jumping ahead to the Ramseys’ second press conference on May 1st, 1997, the words: “kidnapping,” “abduction,” and “strangled” are now entirely absent from the Ramsey narrative.  What are present for the first time are the words “sexually molested” and John is…..

sequin star interrogates sixteen years of ‘post-truth’ surrounding the unsolved case.  This first narrative of the trilogy spans nine lawsuits, two books, John’s first political campaign and the circumstances surrounding Patsy’s death.  It also interrogates the psychological fabric holding these “sequins” together.

Available on Amazon


An Excerpt from sequin star #JonBenetRamsey

From the chapter…

Mary, Mary Quite Contrary

 Deputy D.A. Mary Keenan said the body language of John and Patsy wasn’t suggestive of deception, and that men were not in a position to judge Patsy Ramsey’s demeanor. — Steve Thomas

What we see with Keenan is a logical psychology [a history of criminal behavior is logical] but it’s not applied with logical intuition.  Instead she leaps impulsively to suspects who suit her theory. She makes the same impulsive leaps in her intuitions because the original logic isn’t tied to the genuine fabric of the family dynamic.  McReynolds and Karr are two of the most implausible suspects for absolutely logical reasons, but Keenan is too blinded by her beliefs to appreciate this.

It makes me wonder to what extent the driving forces of this case are cancer and Christianity.  Lou Smit’s wife died of cancer and so eventually did Lou.  This coupled with Lou’s Christianity and the Ramseys’ Christianity set the stage for a marriage between investigator and suspect made in heaven [or perhaps instead of heaven, the safe haven of the District Attorney’s office, who knows?]

Were these same forces – driven by personal circumstances and personal belief – not driving the psychology of this case for people like Keenan?


When [Hunter] left, Mary Lacy took over, and she was even worse. At least–according to Henry Lee and ST–Hunter would hear all sides. Lacy was like Paul Simon’s Boxer: hears what she wants to hear and disregards the rest. She refused to even SPEAK to the investigators who worked on the case during Hunter’s tenure. She made up her mind from Day One that since the Ramsey’s didn’t fit the standard profile, they couldn’t have done this.

She sounds a little like Lou Smit, right? Lou soon became a lone ranger on the case, and an outspoken one, and Keenan, in her own way, did the same.

If there’s any case where one’s own biases are going to transfer into how one sees the case it’s this one.  What’s our relationship like with our own family, with siblings, with our mother, our father, with strangers, with friends?  Those individual experiences will tend to inform our intuitions, but is that intuition coming from the case or from us?

“This is not a greenhorn…”


Coffman said, “At least from what she told me about it, she was basing her opinion on the Ramseys’ innocence on the fact that they don’t fit the profile of murdering parents. This would have been the summer of 2000 that I talked to her.”

Again, I think one has to be careful fitting the profile to the crime.  There’s a difference between a profile for a murderer and an accessory.  What is the profile for someone who habitually covers up?  What is the profile for someone who dresses up, choreographs, and manages a scene and a narrative in a certain way?  Does this profile of pageantry and “controlling the narrative” fit the parents?

But if Keenan grew reticent late in the game, that wasn’t always so.


Keenan… joined the Boulder prosecutors’ office in 1983 [and] was far from a silent bystander in the early stages of the investigation.

Over the course of three days from June 22 to June 24 in 1998 – following a major presentation by Boulder detectives to the district attorney’s office but before Hunter’s announcement that he would take the case to the grand jury – the Ramseys submitted to a second round of interrogations. Keenan made an impression on investigators at that time.

Because the Ramseys distrusted Boulder police – who they believed were fixated on them as suspects – John Ramsey was interrogated by veteran El Paso County homicide investigator Lou Smit and grand jury specialist Michael Kane, while Patsy was grilled by Denver district attorney’s investigator Tom Haney and Boulder prosecutor Trip DeMuth.

All interviews were videotaped and every few hours, completed tapes were transported from the Broomfield Police Department – where the interviews were conducted to avoid media attention – to Boulder, where they were studied by Boulder detectives and prosecutors, including then-Deputy District Attorney Keenan.

And so Keenan herself studied the interrogations [just as we have], and what did the smart, tough, practical prosecutor make of her careful study of the Ramseys? ….

Read more in sequin star now available on Amazon Kindle

Deconstructing the Ramseys’ Tapestry

The following is a deconstruction of just one of many key fragments from the JonBenét Ramsey canon.  It’s the Ramseys’ account of events on Christmas day in their own words.  What we’re analyzing here is a cut-out from a carefully woven tapestry. We want to study this cut-out in-depth. We want to look at what is left in, what is left out, what is under-emphasized, what is over-emphasized, what’s distorted, what’s embellished? 

 The First Words Spoken

 The first words spoken in the Ramsey narrative come from JonBenét.  She tells her parents to “wake up” because it’s Christmas.  The next to speak is Burke.  His words are “we gotta see what Santa brought” and “hurry up.
I find the chronology and the quotes telling.  Burke is mentioned first, perhaps because he is the older brother, but he doesn’t say anything first.  We know from previous narratives that Burke was awake before anyone else, even JonBenét and evidently the most excited when it came to Christmas time.  We also know from Burke’s own words on Dr. Phil in 2016 that Christmas was such a big deal for him he crept downstairs later that same night to play with a toy. On Dr. Phil Burke describes his almost ten year old self that Christmas as “super-excited.”
In addition, in the Ramseys’ account they allude to Christmas 1996 being a much better year because the kids had waited this time to rouse them.  In Burke’s interview with Detective Schuler in 1998, he reveals his parents had given he and JonBenét a specific time that it was okay to wake them.  Even though he and JonBenét were awake before that time, they played in his bedroom while they waited.
The point is, I don’t think JonBenét speaks first, and I don’t think it’s JonBenét who rouses the Ramseys. Curiously on the first page of their account, John refers to his own childhood and his inability to wait for Christmas.  He puts the wait for Christmas and the wait for the signal to begin unwrapping presents as follows:

“I couldn’t stand all that waiting then.”

Did Burke inherit this particular trait in this particular context, an inability to delay Christmas gratification, from his dad?
In the context of the crime isn’t it ironic that the child that would lie dead in the home would also urge the family to “wake up?” 
The child with the sequin star on her chest would lie for six hours overnight in the basement, seven hours with the police present, and another seven hours on the very carpet under the Christmas tree where they’d celebrated Christmas hours earlier.  In this context of an immobile person, this admonition to “wake up” is telling.
And still keeping in mind the context of this case, the interminable wait for the body to be discovered, there’s also Burke words, the nagging need to “hurry up” and “[someone’s] gotta see [something].”

Coming this year…

Our Message to the Media

Hours before publishing our latest book, I spoke with Loen Kelley, a producer at HLN.  HLN is an affiliate of CNN and a major contributor to the Mainstream Media narrative surrounding the JonBenét Ramsey case.

Kelley had gotten wind that we might have valuable information; they wanted to know exactly what we had.   But essentially what they wanted boiled down to this:

“What’s your smoking gun?”

How about an arsenal?  We have a mountain of evidence.  The Ramsey case is the Mount Everest of criminal cases.  Just as Mount Everest is the world’s tallest mountain, so too is the Ramsey case the world’s tallest mountain of criminal evidence.

We’ve completed two trilogies on this case with a third trilogy to go.  How are 9 narratives possible on one case about one little girl? Easy. Alex Hunter, the Boulder District Attorney at the time described the evidentiary mountain of the Ramsey case as greater “than any I’ve ever prosecuted in 29 years.”  Of course Hunter went on to cite a lack of evidence when he railroaded the case in August 1999.

Boulder police interviewed more than 600 people in this case; investigated over 140 potential suspects, reviewed more than 3,400 letters and 700 telephone tips and logged 1400 items of evidence. The case file in 2000 was approximately 40,000 pages long.  That’s not 40 000 words – 40,000 pages.  That’s 80 individual 500 page paperback books – all 80 filled not with fluff but wall to wall with facts and evidence.  And that was 17 years ago.

In terms of 80 paperbacks of evidence, what exactly is a smoking gun?  Is it a True Bill stating that the Ramseys are accused of being accessories not only to a first degree murder, but a murderer also considered guilty of child abuse?  Not sexual abuse, child abuse.

Is the smoking gun Burke Ramsey saying he often slept with his sexualized sister in his sister’s bed? Is the smoking gun a life-size doll found naked in the playroom that gave a little boy weird ideas about his sister?  Is the smoking gun the cutesy photos taken surreptitiously of JonBenét in the laundry room of the basement? Is the smoking gun a book providing a blueprint for murder, written by an FBI profiler, that was found and photographed in the house and then disappeared?  Is the smoking gun a moment where – confronted with the incriminating photograph 17.7 – Patsy Ramsey burst out crying? Or is the smoking gun the levitating Ransom Note – pieces of paper floating from one side of the Ramsey home to the other, pages the Ramseys admit they hardly read and never touched.

But HLN say they want something tangible – like a solid piece of new DNA evidence.   They want a magic trick where KAZAM here’s the DNA and it points to….

It’s the 21st century and there’s a reason 20 year old unsolved cases are unsolved.  It’s because we’re not paying attention.  Because we’ve lost the capacity to “listen carefully.”  We want a quick fix solution that’s no longer than 140 characters in a Tweet.

Sometimes the most obvious truth is the most recondite. The biggest smoke from the biggest gun occurred right at the beginning of this case.  The first police officer on the scene arrived at the Ramsey home before 06:00, before dawn.  He noticed trace snow had covered the exterior of the home, and surrounded all of it.  Nowhere was there any evidence of footprints leading away from the house.  The officer knew before entering the house that the crime had been reported as a kidnapping.  You’re approaching a home at more than an hour and twenty minutes before the crack of dawn with the idea of someone stealing a child out of the home.  The first thing you’re going to notice is why that doesn’t make any sense.  There are no footprints on the virgin snow leading to the front door, and no footprints anywhere else.

I said to the producer [who has an affiliation with CNN’s Jean Casarez / John Ramsey interview that aired this week] why not directly address what John Ramsey said on that show – that he didn’t know he was indicted as an accessory to murder, and that he doesn’t even know what “accessory” means.  Wouldn’t the public appreciate that – a real response to obvious misdirection?  Can you guess what the producer said?  It was something along the lines of – “I heard about that, but didn’t really watch the show.”  Then reiterated they’re looking for some type of solid, physical evidence.  But this is a circumstantial evidence case! Ugh.

These are the types of conversations – that although make you want to bang your head against the wall – ultimately reinforce the work we’re doing.

You want a smoking gun?  How about this.  Neither Patsy’s nor John’s fingerprints are on the Ransom Note.  But one fingerprint was found – it belonged to the technician who examined the note.  Make sense?

The Ramseys are the ones who found it, read it and moved it, according to their various versions of events.  Was this a case of possibly making the scene a little bit “too clean?”

And then this… on January 1, 1997, when the Ramseys did their CNN interview, Cabell asks John what he did immediately after finding the Ransom Note.  John says this:

“We went to check our son’s room, sometimes she sleeps in there.”


And Jean Casarez adds [as a voiceover clip] “there was no sign of JonBenét in her brother, Burke’s, room.”

Yet, when questioned by police just four months later, Patsy completely contradicts what John has just said.

From BOULDER POLICE INTERVIEW April 1997 police interview:

TRUJILLO:  Okay.  Do you have an idea if JonBenét moved over towards Burke’s room at all that night? Slept in his room?

PATSY:  Um, I can’t remember, can’t remember.

TRUJILLO:  Okay.  Is that something that she would normally do?


There’s a reason murders are tougher to figure out than election results are to predict.  The folks who commit murder have a huge stake in getting away with it.  They don’t want any obvious evidence out there, so evidence is destroyed, removed, and what can’t be removed is clouded over with confusion and murk.

This case is a very murky case, with a lot of murk hanging over the simplest things like:

  1. Which neighbor arrived at the Ramsey’s first?
  2. What happened to the Ramseys’ phone records for December?
  3. What happened to JonBenét’s panties?
  4. In a case where everything was found inside the home [pen, paper, garrotte stick], why don’t we know where the cord or duct tape came from?
  5. Why is the ownership of the supposed murder weapon – the MagLite torch – so murky?
  6. Why are there no fingerprints on the murder weapon or on the Ransom Note?
  7. Why do the Ramseys say they took their daughter straight to bed yet there’s a bowl of pineapple on the table with Patsy’s and Burke’s fingerprints on it, and undigested pineapple in the child’s stomach contents 12 hours after her death?

Unlike HLN, we don’t try to pluck a single smoking gun out of the ether.  We look at everything –  all the latest interviews, the search warrants, the historical record of police reports, the medical reports, the books, the documentaries, etc. – and then we conduct our own interviews, we speak to our own experts and we crystallize it all into a psychology that makes sense.

Only when we’re satisfied we’ve answered “Why?” in an authentic way, in a way that rings true, do we consider our work done. That’s our process.  The vast majority of reviews from the reading public validate our work as enlightening and revelatory, more than anything else that’s out there including Ramsey Apologia, “definitive” books, and experts involved directly with the case.

As for those experts – there have been legendary detectives assigned to this case that have been defeated by their own shortsightedness.  There have been experts in DNA that, it turns out, have made a mess.  There have been people at the helm of this case that buried it.  There has been a circus of fools running ragged over a case that is complicated but not unsolvable.

We believe we’ve solved the psychology of this case.  As far as we know, no one else has.  Some have made a few stabs at who and how, but none have addressed why.  We have.

Our work needs exposure.  We can’t put it any more simply than that.  It needs exposure, not for us, for JonBenét.


Available on Amazon

Coming in 2017…

The Grand Juror Doesn’t Speak

AMY:  Do you feel you know who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

JUROR:  I highly suspect I do.

AMY:  And who do you think that is?

JUROR:  I wish not to answer.

Did ABC really think viewers would be OK with that?  That they could name a show “JonBenet:  Grand Juror Speaks,” have a logo with those exact words emblazoned at the bottom of the screen for most of the hour…. Then have the juror say, nah, not gonna answer the one thing everyone wants to know.  WTF!

I should have known better than to get my hopes up with the juror when I saw that Lawrence Kobilinsky was being dragged out of his crypt to [yet again] comment on the misleading DNA.   Here’s what he said on A&E back in September:

“I think the inescapable conclusion is that an unidentified male committed this crime.  This person committed that sexual assault and murdered JonBenet.” – Lawrence Kobilinsky, A&E

Inescapable?  Well whoever it was, they’ve escaped detection for 20 years.  Clearly that evidence isn’t exactly rock solid.  But for a moment 20/20 dangles a carrot and makes the viewer think that perhaps Kobilinsky has had a change of heart.  They declare that they’ve obtained the DNA reports – guess what, so have a lot of other people.  After he pores over them in a bit of a drumroll moment, and admits the two spots of Touch DNA on JonBenet’s clothing are ‘not perfect’ nor would he say the spots are a ‘match,’ Kobilinsky says Mary Lacy was right to exonerate the Ramseys.  Dr. Baden doesn’t agree.  Neither do several other experts.  Neither does the current DA, Stan Garnett.  Nor do we.

“What I am confident about is that the Ramsey case is more than a DNA case, and to ever have a prosecutable case, we have to have several different parts of it come together. DNA would be a part of it. We need a number of other things as well.” – Stan Garnett, Daily Camera

As for the mysterious grand juror, are there any insights we can glean from him at all?


AMY:  Before you became a grand juror, what did you know about the JonBenet Ramsey case?

JUROR:  Very little.  I saw that there was a little girl dressed up with, in my opinion, a sexual persona and it disgusted me and I turned off the TV.

Interesting that he was so turned off by the pageants.  I wonder if his opinion of that changed during the proceedings or if they played any part in the indictments.  We wouldn’t know, because unfortunately Amy Robach only asked him three questions, at least that we got to see.

He next shares what it was like to be in that basement when the jurors were taken on a field trip to see the house.  His response seems to support the same thing both housekeepers, Linda Hoffman Pugh and Linda Wilcox, said about the unlikeliness of an intruder committing this crime.

JUROR:  In the basement where she was found it was actually kind of an obscure layout.  And you had to, to go into, you come down the stairwell, and you had to go into another room to find a door that was closed.  It was a very eerie feeling.  It was like, somebody had been killed here.

The next question I found a bit ridiculous.  We’ve all known since 2013 that the grand jury voted to indict on two charges, so what’s the point of asking this?

AMY:  Was there enough evidence to indict John and Patsy Ramsey of a crime?

JUROR:  Based upon the evidence that was presented I believe that’s correct. 

This for me was probably the most interesting answer of the entire [brief] exchange.  The way he says ‘based upon the evidence that was presented’ you get the sense that he feels he voted accordingly but perhaps not as he would have liked had there been other information given or factors met.  And if that’s the case, what was missing for him?

AMY:  (voiceover) But did he believe the Ramseys would be convicted?

JUROR:  No.  There is no way that I would be able to say ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ this is the person.

He doesn’t hesitate at all on this answer.  But what’s frustrating is Robach has asked him a pretty vague question.  One would assume, when she asked him if the Ramseys would be convicted, she meant for the charges the grand jury voted to indict them on.  But she doesn’t exactly clarify that.  And his answer seems to suggest he was referring to which of them [John or Patsy] committed the actual murder.

Hasn’t that always been the problem with this case though… trying to pin “murder” on only one of the three?  In our narratives we explain precisely why this doesn’t work.

AMY:  There was no smoking gun?

JUROR:  Not to the point of knowing exactly what happened, or exactly who was involved, no.  And you are the district attorney, if you know, if you know that going in, it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to do it.

It’s a pretty cryptic and also contradictory interview, isn’t it?  He agrees there was evidence to indict, so he clearly feels there were crimes committed that were provable.  But he also feels strongly there wasn’t enough for a conviction, but a conviction of what and of who?  Murder, accessory, neglect? We just don’t know.

He does seem to think he knows who the killer is.  So why would it be a total waste for a jury to hear this case?  Isn’t that where justice is supposed to play out – in a courtroom?  There was obviously enough of something presented for him to positively think that he knows who did it.  But maybe that’s where the clue lies, in all of this silence.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume he believes the killer is one of the family members.  Even though we don’t know exactly what evidence was presented, we do know who [most] of the witnesses were and they were all Ramsey-centric.  So, which one of the three is it?  Does his hesitation stem from the very same reason the records remain so tightly sealed after all these years?

The Craven Silence and The Day After Christmas trilogies

are available on Amazon.



Our Reaction to the CNN Special Report: JonBenet

I didn’t have much hope for the CNN special, to be honest.  With the usual suspects like Pam Barday, Bob Whitson and clips of Lou Smit talking about the broken window that John could care less about on December 26th, you can expect Apologia.  At least in their marketing efforts they didn’t hoodwink us like the 20/20 special did.  We’ll get to that program in our next blog.

If you want a sense of how fluffy this “special report” really is, just visit Jean Casarez’s Twitter feed where you’ll find a picture of her and John together draped by a beautiful, sweeping background. Doesn’t exactly look like a murder interrogation; more like somebody who’s awe-struck and didn’t do their homework.

Jean sends out another tweet that says:  “It was really amazing to learn so much more about this case…”  Whatever she learned, she must have learned it off camera, because from what I saw, it was rehash and nonsense.  She mostly sat doe-eyed through the interview with John, never once challenging him on things like why his and Patsy’s fingerprints are absent from the ransom note that they were man-handling on the morning of December 26th.

How about this gem:

When John is asked about being indicted for abuse/neglect, he admits, he should have been better about locking the doors and checking the alarm.  Does John really think we’re that dumb?  Do people really get indicted for feloniously neglecting their children to the point they die because they didn’t lock their door?

Even better, when asked how he felt about being labeled an “accessory,” John doesn’t know what that means.  Not only that, he doesn’t seem to remember that particular indictment at all.

“Really?  I didn’t know that.  I don’t even know what that means, frankly.” – John Ramsey

While we’re being frank, let’s take a look at what John has to say about the indictments in their book Death of Innocence [originally published in 2000, excerpts in green].

“After thirteen long months of looking at all the evidence presented by the special prosecutors and police, the Boulder grand jury said no to an indictment

It takes a mountain of evidence to convict, but only a paltry amount of evidence to indict.  Yet in the eyes of the grand jurors, even that did not exist.”

Hmm.  Did his lawyers fail to mention to him and Patsy in 1999: Oh by the way, you dodged a bullet?  Are we really to believe they had no clue?  Or, is it more likely they knew that we’d have no clue, since everything was sealed?

Perhaps we’ll cut Jean Casarez some slack, and assume she hasn’t read their book.

“Of course, in the months that followed the grand jury’s secret decision, there was much speculation by the media on what the grand jury did conclude.  To suggest that it voted to indict and that the D.A. refused to go along, as some of the media speculated, is pure folly.”

Pure folly, indeed.  johnandjan

The “special report” ends with John and his new wife, Jan, taking a leisurely stroll through the red rocks of the Southwest.  I guess the paid-for PR message of the month is if they can move on, why can’t we?   I guess the joke’s on us.


Book 3 in our The Day After Christmas trilogy will be published next week.  Parts 1 and 2 are available now on Amazon.


JonBenet Ramsey Case Insights: #2 Red Flags Surround Photo 17.7

Before 09:00 on the day after Christmas, 1996, detectives asked John Ramsey for the film inside his camera.  John promptly took a number of photos in order to reach the end of the film reel.  Inadvertently John took a photograph of the wet bar area and a short glass table with two legal notepads on it.  This was Photo 17.7 from John’s own personal camera with film that also contained Christmas Day photos.  In 17.7 two notepads are clearly visible on the knee high glass table.  But in crime scene photographs taken during the “kidnapping phase” some unknown time later the notepads were missing from the glass table**.

  • Were they missing because John had already handed both pads to police? spiral-staircase
  • Or had the pads been moved before more police arrived***?
  • Where did John go when asked by detectives for samples of his handwriting?
  • Where did he collect the pads?
  • Did he collect them from the glass table as Photo 17.7 suggests?
  • Or did he collect them from somewhere else?
  • If the latter, then what?…

Let’s quickly get acquainted with this area of the house.  You see the infamous spiral staircase in the background where the three page ransom note sat on one of the bottom steps.  Directly to the right of the spiral staircase are the steps that lead down to the butler pantry [also called butler’s kitchen].  JonBenet and Patsy occasionally used the butler pantry area for painting.


Just slightly to the right of those butler stairs, on the same level as the spiral staircase, is a small sink and counter area that one could refer to as a wet bar.

Continuing right along that wall, you see the rectangular glass table [with shelves just above it.]  

To the right of the table is the entrance to the kitchen where Patsy dialed 911 and where the Sharpie pen was ultimately found.


Note the position of the white wet bar in the schematic in relation to the spiral staircase and low glass table.

Back to the table in the hallway.  Where are the two white lined notepads?  Why is that significant?  From police photos, the notepads – one of which was Patsy’s and was used to write the Ransom Note – aren’t there.  In Photo 17.7 from John’s own personal camera – with film that contained Christmas Day photos – two notepads are clearly visible on that table.

When exactly where those pads moved, by whom, and why?

Here’s Detective Lou Smit prodding John for an explanation of Photo 17.7 in June 1998.

SMIT:  Just one more question.  I have got a photograph here called 17.7.  Somehow this is in your roll of pictures or someone’s roll of pictures from before [investigators arrived and took photos] okay, and it shows, first of all, put it to the camera so they can see that.  And I am going to show you that.

JOHN:  Yeah.

SMIT:  Do you know who would have taken that photograph?

JOHN:  It’s remotely possible that I was having trouble with my camera, I think, and I don’t remember doing this, but I can remember just clicking camera, trying to see if it worked.

SMIT:  When was that?

JOHN:  I mean, I don’t know.  I mean it was, you know, the only time we got the cameras out were typically at Christmas time.  But this looks like the pad frankly that I gave her [Linda Arndt.]

SMIT:  Does that look like the spot where you would – that you picked it up from?

JOHN:  Yes, my recollection, yeah.

SMIT:  So that could be the actual pad of a picture [I think he means picture of the actual pad] taken prior to what happened?

JOHN:  That’s possible.

Well then why wasn’t it on the table when investigators photographed that table on the morning of December 26th?   In true Ramsey fashion, there’s a whole lotta waffling going on including the I don’t remember, but I remember and the ridiculous statement that they never took pictures other than at Christmas time, but oops, they couldn’t even manage to do that, that year.

As the questioning continued, John’s answers got dodgier and dodgier, but wait til you hear how Patsy responded to the discovery…

*Photo 17.7 has never been shared with the public

**The pads had been moved from the glass table [see red arrow] and placed in a different spiral-staircase_liunknown location, until they were given to the police upon request some time after 09:30. 

***More police arrived around 09:30.  BPD Sergeant Bob Whitson arrives at 09:30 and enters through the rear exterior kitchen door. Per the Bonita Papers: “Whitson and Patterson then asked John for samples of his handwriting.” JonBenet’s bedroom door was sealed around 10:30 that morning.

Read more in The Day After Christmas 3, due out this month.

The first two parts are available on Amazon.