Dr. Lee's Book

Some interesting bits from Lee's new book:

"While the possibility remains that someone outside the immediate family broke into that home during the night after Christmas, this set of circumstances is a REMOTE possibility."

Lee brings up the 911 call and the background voices heard when analyzed of Burke and John as FACT. He says, "Burke Ramsey again (again?) became the focus of intense police interest the following spring. (with the discovery of his voice now heard on the 911 tape proving he was indeed AWAKE and up).

Lee wonders why Patsy Ramsey evidently LIED about Burke being awake and up - and also why Burke did not contradict his mother's lies about it.....

"Did this mean that Burke Ramsey had killed his little sister and his terrified parents had created the ransom note to divert attention away from him?"

Lee mentions the "increased sense that there had been a sophisticated cover-up."

"The FBI concluded that the sexual trauma to JonBenet Ramsey seemed intended to mislead investigators."
"...the way the rope was applied to the victim's neck was very unusual. Since the rope and the abrasion ran around her neck in an even fashion, there was no real evidence of any kind of struggle."

The black fibers were found on the duct tape, JonBenet's body, the white blanket AND on the floor of the wine cellar.

Material found inside Jonbenet's vagina was wood Lee states. "The group studied the cellulose substance that was found inthe victim's vagina and determined that it was consistent with the wood from the broken shard of the paintbrush handle used in the garroting."

And - Lee clearly believes that the HEAD BLOW came first.
"The ligature around the victim's neck and wrist seemed staged. In fact, no one at the (FBI) bureau had ever seen a child garroted AFTER being fatally wounded with a blow to the head."
"They could not determine if the head blow preceeded the garroting with
scientific certainty, though the head blow, in all probablility, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time."

Lee "told the district attorney that there was a distinct possibility that JonBenet Ramsey had been accidentally killed by someone in her family and that the family had panicked and had decided to stage a cover-up to avoid anyone getting into terrible trouble."

Lee makes a point to note that "under Colorado laws, an accessory could not be arrested unless the principal to the crime had already been charged."
SO... if Burke Ramsey was discovered to have really been the one to deliver the head blow to JonBenet with his parents doing the staging and cover-up - then since Burke could NEVER be charged with a crime in Colorado due to his age - they could not then even charge Patsy and/or John as accessories for the staging and cover-up.
Is this what happened?

Lee's book is "OK." Not a whole lot of new information but alot of confirming facts.
It is obvious to me that he 1) Believes one of the Ramseys did it and the others helped lie and cover it up. 2) The head blow came first and the rest of the scene was staged - including quite possibly the sexual molestation.
3) He thinks it is possible that Burke was the perp and the parents covered it up.

Glad I bought it. Not earth-shattering stuff, but a good one to have on hand as Lee was deeply involved in the case and knows ALL of the evidence and has the skill and reputation to analyze it professionally.

~Angel~

K777angel said:

The black fibers were found on the duct tape, JonBenet's body, the white blanket AND on the floor of the wine cellar.
~Angel~

Click to expand...

I thought the fibers on the tape were red.

JMO

the fibers were red and black...

I have always believed that the head blow came first....but Patsy is responsible for the head blow.

Lee was on CourtTV last night...he suggested it could have been rough horse play. So is he suggesting Burke was responsible? He also alluded to staging afterwards. He definately believes one or all of the three Ramseys is responsible for death and coverup.

BlueCrab...let's go with Lee's scenario of rough horseplay...

When did this occur? What time was it? Where was it?

I know the Ramseys were home by 9:30pm and John and Patsy settled down for the night around 10:30. When did Burke and JonBenet meet up again?

Toltec said:

Lee was on CourtTV last night...he suggested it could have been rough horse play. So is he suggesting Burke was responsible? He also alluded to staging afterwards. He definately believes one or all of the three Ramseys is responsible for death and coverup.

BlueCrab...let's go with Lee's scenario of rough horseplay...

When did this occur? What time was it? Where was it?

I know the Ramseys were home by 9:30pm and John and Patsy settled down for the night around 10:30. When did Burke and JonBenet meet up again?

Click to expand...

Toltec,

IMO the "rough horseplay" that Lee is trying to be coy about in his description, was erotic asphyxiation sex, possibly associated with the experimental use of a stun gun. That contraption around JonBenet's neck was an EA device, and JonBenet had stun gun injuries.

IMO the kids were downstairs in the kitchen snacking on pineapple by 11:00 - 11:30 P.M.

IMO JonBenet died two hours later at around 1:00 A.M. in the basement when the boys, not knowing what the hell they were doing, accidentally killed her during the "rough horseplay".

IMO the parents discovered at around 3:00 or 4:00 A.M. what the boys had done to JonBenet. The boys had already completed most of the bizarre and grisly staging, and the parents took over from there.

Just my opinion, and there can be several variations of this general BDI scenario, based on the evidence staring at us.

Guess I will have to buy Lee's book after all. After reading other posters' remarks about it, I'm intrigued.

BlueCrab, it could be that the "horseplay" Lee refers to is kid EA, but if other kids besides Burke and JonBenet were involved, wouldn't they have had tea with Burke, or a soft drink...or something? There was only one glass on the table and no pop cans or anything to indicate anyone but Burke and JonBenet were at the table. Why would Burke ignore his friends and sit with JonBenet at the table and drink tea while she snacked on pineapple?

Ivy said:

Guess I will have to buy Lee's book after all. After reading other posters' remarks about it, I'm intrigued.

BlueCrab, it could be that the "horseplay" Lee refers to is kid EA, but if other kids besides Burke and JonBenet were involved, wouldn't they have had tea with Burke, or a soft drink...or something? There was only one glass on the table and no pop cans or anything to indicate anyone but Burke and JonBenet were at the table. Why would Burke ignore his friends and sit with JonBenet at the table and drink tea while she snacked on pineapple?

Click to expand...

Ivy,

Most kids like pineapple. JonBenet apparently didn't have anything to drink besides the moisture of the pineapple. The pineapple was all Doug would have needed too.

JMO

No, no, no. Lee indicates that he thinks the death was ACCIDENTAL and that the HEAD BLOW came first. There was no "auto erotic" sex horseplay in any of his suggestions. Just how the accident occured - no one is really certain.
But the incident that started the whole ball rolling in JonBenet's death he believes was an ACCIDENT. In that, meaning that extreme injury and of course death was never the intention.
He suggests that the evidence indicates the strangulation and cord around the wrist and even the sex abuse was ALL staging. Not to mention the note which was a no-brainer fake from the beginning. He called the note "contrived" and that is exactly what it was.

This is how he ends the very long chapter in his book on JonBenet Ramsey, if I may quote:
"Finally, what do I feel really happened to cause the death of JonBenet Ramsey? I do not know. I think that it is quite possible that some kind of horrific domestic accident may have occurred involving this extremely talented and attractive little girl. Perhaps she fell or was even pushed down that narrow staircase that led from her bedroom to the kitchen and struck her head against an object, such as a banister. Perhaps it was in some rough horseplay with someone. Perhaps this tragedy occured inthe course of an argument turned violent, or was the act of a sexual predator in Boulder. But who really knows? Unfortunately, the mishandling of the crime scene and the lack of physical evidence have severely impeded the chances of ever solving this case. Only one or two people really know the facts, and there is the strong probability that these individuals will never step forward and say what happened during the cold and dark hours after Christmas of 1996. I find this all very sad."

He does not really think it was a "sexual predator in Boulder" but just added that for CYA purposes. Just as he omitted the real names of many players in this case and used psuedonyms instead.

This was a familial homicide and I am of the opinion that the most likely perp originally was Burke Ramsey and the theatrical note and elaborate cover up that goes on still to this day was orchestrated by Patsy Ramsey herself.
I am not even convinced at this point that John Ramsey knows the whole truth himself. Or wants to.

The "rice was cooked",he said so himself. He sat with the likes of Steve Thomas to gather his information ,he is trusting on the evidence as provided by LE, in this case the BPD.
So what the "hey" happened? He has been interviewed since then,stating the rice was cooked and he didn't have any idea who killed Jonbenet, has had no further contact with the BPD or Keenan's investigation ,yet he pronounces in this book nothing short of a "Burke dunnit"! I believe this is what his inferences are and I believe Wood should step in at this point and take the noted Mr. Lee to court.
A note: I am amazed that the same people who called a 63 yr old homicide detective "too old and addled" is accepting of this "new" information from a 65 yr old man. My money is on Smit!

sissi said:

The "rice was cooked",he said so himself. He sat with the likes of Steve Thomas to gather his information ,he is trusting on the evidence as provided by LE, in this case the BPD.
So what the "hey" happened? He has been interviewed since then,stating the rice was cooked and he didn't have any idea who killed Jonbenet, has had no further contact with the BPD or Keenan's investigation ,yet he pronounces in this book nothing short of a "Burke dunnit"! I believe this is what his inferences are and I believe Wood should step in at this point and take the noted Mr. Lee to court.
A note: I am amazed that the same people who called a 63 yr old homicide detective "too old and addled" is accepting of this "new" information from a 65 yr old man. My money is on Smit!

Click to expand...

In NO WAY does Lee pronounce "nothing short of a "Burke dunnit". He is very, very careful in targeting anyone specifically. What he does is tell you what the EVIDENCE points to and what it does not. It does not point to an intruder. He states that this possibility is "remote." It does point to someone who was in that house that night, was supposed to be in the house that night, was comfortable being in the house that night - and who PANICKED at the head blow dealt to JonBenet and subsequently went into action covering it all up and staging the crime scene to look like something it wasn't. THAT - is obvious.
Lee is not afraid of a snake like Lin Wood. LOL! Give me a break.
Lee's book is fair and objective. You - and all the Ramsey lovers are just going to have to deal with the fact that the sad truth about this case is that the evidence points to her family and nowhere else. To even entertain the idea that an intruder did this is to choose to IGNORE alot of facts and evidence in the case that discount this fantasy. Like Smit does.
He is no longer the "fox" he once was years ago. More like the ostrich.

K777angel said:

In NO WAY does Lee pronounce "nothing short of a "Burke dunnit". He is very, very careful in targeting anyone specifically. What he does is tell you what the EVIDENCE points to and what it does not. It does not point to an intruder. He states that this possibility is "remote." It does point to someone who was in that house that night, was supposed to be in the house that night, was comfortable being in the house that night - and who PANICKED at the head blow dealt to JonBenet and subsequently went into action covering it all up and staging the crime scene to look like something it wasn't. THAT - is obvious.
Lee is not afraid of a snake like Lin Wood. LOL! Give me a break.
Lee's book is fair and objective. You - and all the Ramsey lovers are just going to have to deal with the fact that the sad truth about this case is that the evidence points to her family and nowhere else. To even entertain the idea that an intruder did this is to choose to IGNORE alot of facts and evidence in the case that discount this fantasy. Like Smit does.
He is no longer the "fox" he once was years ago. More like the ostrich.

Click to expand...

What I find interesting in your post is your suggestion that the blow to the head came first. Both Meyer and Wecht are in agreement that the strangulation was first. Which of the coroners involved are you quoting?

Sorry to comment again without having first read Lee's book...but if he wrote that there was no apparent sign of a struggle on JonBenet's part related to the ligature, and that the ligature appeared to have been part of the staging, how does Lee explain the double neck furrow as shown in the autopsy photo?

I have never believed the ligature was part of the staging. I have always believed, and continue to believe, that strangulation was one of the events that led to JonBenet's death. The cord was yanked hard once, loosening slightly when the killer grabbed the Maglite and struck JonBenet's head. Then the killer yanked the cord a second time and held it taut. That explains the extra furrow, imo. The cord was displaced while the head blow was being struck.

AUTOPSY PHOTO...VERY GRAPHIC:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

sissi said:

What I find interesting in your post is your suggestion that the blow to the head came first. Both Meyer and Wecht are in agreement that the strangulation was first. Which of the coroners involved are you quoting?

Click to expand...

Actually Wecht MUST say that the strangulation came first to fit his auto-erotic asphyixiation theory. Which Lee does not subscribe to.
Absent his theory - who knows.
Dr. Meyer NEVER stated that the strangulation came "first". Indeed - he documented on the autopsy report that the death was due to strangulation in ASSOCIATION with the head blow. Both were causes for her death. It does not mean at all that the head blow could not have come first. He was merely making the point that BOTH would have been satisfactory causes for death. He could not say for absolute certain which. But because there HAD to be at least a little life left in JonBenet (and very possibly completely unknown to perp after head blow)
to cause the petechial hemorrage spots noted from the strangling - he could list the head blow as "cause of death."
Remember - it was not Meyer's job to list "which" fatal injury came first. It was difficult to determine as BOTH did occur and death did result.
Here is what Dr. Lee said in his book: "Dr. Spitz was joined (in Boulder for an investigation) by Tom Faure, the coroner's chief investigator, and Weinheimer (Dr. Carey Weinheimer). The group studied the cellulose substance that was found in victim's vagina and determined that it was consistent with the wood from the broken shard of the paintbrush handle used in the garroting. They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded that garroting with scientifc certainty , though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time."

It makes no sense to consider that this litttle girl was strangled to death and THEN struck violently in the head. First of all - if she were rendered at the very least unconscious by the strangling - how was it possible to physically deliver that blow to her head if she were (obviously) lying down and not standing or sitting?????
Secondly - what would be the point?
But - if she were struck in anger about the head and rendered unconscious or most likely thought DEAD at this point - how is the perp/stager going to EXPLAIN this dead child with NO visible injury to show for it??
No blood. No stab wound. No gunshot wound. Nothing. Just a dead (or presumed dead) child.
So she/he HAD to come up with something "visible" so that they authorities would think, "Ah - so THIS is why she died. And the foreign faction did it."
There were NO injuries to her hyoid bone in the neck nor the strap muscles as is usually seen.
No injury to her tongue.
No indication of a struggle whatsoever.
The cord around the wrist was described as "loose" by the coroner.
So what was the point other than staging?
The tape that was placed on her mouth had no tongue impressions and her mouth area had no irritation noted in the autopsy report.

JonBenet was struck in the head, presumed dead and the rest done to her was part of the staging and cover up.
The molestation may or may not have precipitated the head blow.
Some experts evidently believe those injuries were done post-mortem.

Ivy said:

I have never believed the ligature was part of the staging. I have always believed, and continue to believe, that strangulation was one of the events that led to JonBenet's death.

AUTOPSY PHOTO...VERY GRAPHIC:

http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetfaceright.jpg

Click to expand...

Ivy,

I too believe the strangulation came first and was the cause of death. I believe this for a reason different than yours however. IMO JonBenet died while children were experimenting with a dangerous asphyxiation sex tool.

The cord around JonBenet's neck was not a garrote. Garrotes are simple devices and look nothing like that. That contraption around her neck was an erotic asphyxiation device. Even John Ramsey and Lou Smit admit that erotic asphyxiation had been employed on JonBenet.

What bothers me the most though is the evidence of a stun gun having been used on JonBenet. Please review the autopsy photo above that shows the large round mark near JonBenet's right ear. That, IMO, is the signature of a facial stun gun injury. The use of a stun gun would remove the killing from the accidental category to the premeditated category.

JMO

BC...I don't believe the ligature device was a garrote either. Never have. I'm not convinced it was an EA device, but I agree it could have been.

If the mark was from a stun gun ( I don't believe it was), would the fact that a stun gun had been brought into the R house necessarily indicate premeditated murder?

imo

BlueCrab... forensic pathologist Werner Spitz said, "A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do not look like electrical burns.”

imo

I haven't read it yet. I see no comments on the note from Lee. The two pieces of evidence we have to work with are the body and the note. The accident/cover-up theory doesn't explain the contents of the note. Lee is myopic/narrow/shallow. He should be welcome here.

Ivy said:

BlueCrab... forensic pathologist Werner Spitz said, "A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do not look like electrical burns.”

imo

Click to expand...

That's right Ivy. The coroner listed them as "abrasions" not burns.
They were NOT stun gun marks.
It makes no sense at all with the rest of what the evidence in this case points to that a stun gun was also used.
None of the evidence shows a planned crime nor is there any evidence of an entry or exit of this "intruder" or any forensic evidence of him left behind.
(Don't even mention the DNA fleck - there is absolutely NO evidence that this was anything other than transfer material from some innocent source. Were some "intruder" or 5th person to have been as involved with JonBenet and the crime scene as occurred - his DNA, hair, fibers, toilet evidence etc. would be all over the place. It is not. It doesn't exist.) There are always, at ANY crime scene - "evidence" or circumstances surrounding it that do not fit because they in fact really have nothing to do with the crime itself. Very common.

This case points nowhere but to a familial homicide covered up. The experts have seen them many times. They know no economic status or class.
The younger the child - particularly one that is found dead in her own HOME - the more likely a parent did it.

The cord and tape don't necessarily HAVE to have had a "source." A roll or spool left behind. These could be items that were handy and and part of the junk downstairs. The 'cord' could have come from that sled. Or been part of what was used in the past for it. They took 'string' from a sled in as evidence.
We don't know what may have been discarded somewhere (the garage? car?) and never found either.
It makes no sense that this "intruder" would think to bring skinny "cord" and not ROPE for one thing as is usually done, and "tape" - as well as a stun gun - and NOT bring the ransom note that the killer/stager purports was the whole entire reason for the crime.

You have to think logically with EVERYTHING about this crime. What occured that night, the next day and up to this day.

BrotherMoon said:

I haven't read it yet. I see no comments on the note from Lee. The two pieces of evidence we have to work with are the body and the note. The accident/cover-up theory doesn't explain the contents of the note. Lee is myopic/narrow/shallow. He should be welcome here.

Click to expand...

HA!!!!!

I'm certain I'm included in this ,however it still deserves a "HA"!

Ivy said:

BlueCrab... forensic pathologist Werner Spitz said, "A stun gun injury is an electrical burn, and these do not look like electrical burns.?

imo

Click to expand...

Ivy,

I don't have much faith in what Spitz says. He said the marks were likely from pebbles on the floor where JonBenet was lying. If so, where are the pebbles?

I think the injuries on JonBenet look very much like burns, and resemble the facial burn from the stun gun definitely used on murder victim Gerald Boggs, and the burns from the stun gun used on the test pig.

Coroner John Meyer changed his mind about the marks on JonBenet being abrasions. Pg 431, PMPT pb:

"When they had gathered sufficient information, Ainsworth, Pete Hofstrom, Trip DeMuth, and Detective Sgt. Wickman met with the coroner, John Meyer. After reviewing the photos and this new information, Meyer concluded that the injuries on JonBenet's face and back were, in fact, consistent with those produced by a stun gun."

JMO

K777angel said:

You have to think logically with EVERYTHING about this crime. What occured that night, the next day and up to this day.

Click to expand...

This is wrong, very, very wrong.

You have to consider the irrational as well. This is a basic theme in the study of the criminal mind, the killer, the sociopath, the psychopath.

It is also basic to the study of belief and belief systems.

And, btw, sociopathy, psychopathy and religion all too often are indistinguishable.

The content of the note, 118, Victory! S.B.T.C , delivery, calling, proper burial, etc. coupled with; the death occurring on a sacred Christian holiday derived from pagan death and resurrection myths and Patsy's own admission of a percieved relationship with a super-natural being, hearing voices, her pleas for resurrection of the girl and the stange content of DOI, the many references to The Psalms in the case and the many similarities between literature Patsy is known to have been involved with and facts of the case, all point to a crime that if not out-right premeditated was the result of pre-existing patterns of behavior and compulsive thought.