Ive read nearly all of the books , on this case, by the blogger and I really enjoyed them. I always find different peoples views on this case to be fascinating and i am just mindful of the difference between fact and opinion.

This is a reply to Straydog, but since I’ve blocked him, I’m posting it here. I hope you don’t mind. [I’m not interested in that user’s response to this post].

“This is a blogger who self-publishes e-books about high-profile cases–with over a million hits, his ideas are very popular online.” >>>You made an error in your second sentence. The blog was written and posted by Juror13 who isn’t male, and doesn’t blog for a living. Juror13 has been a juror several times in the American court system, hence the name. It’s also misleading to describe me as a blogger who self-publishes books when I worked for over a decade as a fulltime magazine photojournalist, writing investigative pieces for men’s magazines including GQ. I also studied law at university. And this is ostensibly a post about fact checking? Your reference to “massaging” the evidence suggests you think [or wish to communicate] that there is deliberate misinformation in an effort to deceive. I guess to make money? Do you realize making a claim like that about products that are sold online is damaging and defamatory?

Do you?

You also wish to emphasize “books that are self-published” again to undermine the authors. Kolar’s book was also self-published, and his book formed the basis of the CBS documentary in which he also appeared.

There are also other books self-published on the Ramsey case, some better than others. As a matter of fact not “all” my book are self-published. I do have a publishing contract with an American publisher. So you’re wrong on that score as well.

You conclude by saying basically “don’t read this author’s books but stick to people like Kolar” who also self-published his work, and got sued.

In the Kolar/CBS version JonBenet is hit on the head in the kitchen in a random, spontaneous action, something all the “experts” agreed on. The torch wasn’t what struck JonBenet on the head, and Kolar’s scenario makes no provision for the sexual contact that coincided with the crime. All it does is it links the pineapple in JonBenet’s stomach with the torch on the counter, and Burke’s fingerprints on the bowl. It doesn’t integrate the other evidence, and in the CBS documentary, there is no attempt to explain where or when – within this scenario – the garrotte was fashioned.

Steve Thomas believed Patsy Ramsey committed the crime, which is pretty much the jumping off point for most newcomers to this crime.

To the moderators of this site you should be aware that it’s this kind of smearing, sneering commentary that’s the reason TCRS isn’t on Reddit. I refer to points #1 and #5 in your own stated rules. Probably also worth pointing out a glaring double standard here. It’s okay to put up a post discrediting and undermining an author’s work, criticizing the product and the person, but when the same author publishes a post on Reddit, he may not promote his work. It’s okay to discredit someone, it’s not okay for that same someone to stand up for their own product, which in this case is the theme of this entire Reddit – research and information on JonBenet Ramsey. And this makes sense to you?

Many thanks for that post!

Do you know the identity of any of the folks responsible for this post? I want to hand them over to my attorney.

must admit I was once a follower before… but then I realized a lot lately… if you learned more about the real evidence in this case, you’ll know eventually who’s telling the right info or not.

Thank you !!!

1,3, and 5 are very fair critiques of the blog post, a post I recently linked. #2 used the language “appeared” to be whittled, and I think a case can be made. In #6 I’m not sure there’s a lot of room between a prusik hitch and “concentric loops and ended in a simple hitch that secured the knot in place” but it’s not a perfect prusik and should not have been identified as such without qualifiers.

As for #4, I think the various accounts of where the knife was found are interesting. The Det. Yamaguchi information is reported once by the Daily Camera and never turns up again as far as I can tell. Both Woodward and the Bonita Papers put the knife in the wine cellar. The fact that the knife was regarded as a possible smoking gun late in the grand jury phase the case by tabloids AND the mainstream press and was not addressed by Kolar and Thomas is interesting. Why didn’t Thomas try to connect it to Patsy or Kolar try to connect it to Burke?

tabloid #1

tabloid #2

daily camera

From Kolar’s AMA (bold mine):

What’s your opinion of Linda Hoffmann-Pugh’s testimony that said she hid a Swiss army knife in the linen cupboard and yet it was found in the murder scene? Linda points out that an intruder would never have found that knife. Unlikely a 9yr old kid would either. More likely Patsy would have found that knife when getting linen from the cupboard.

jameskolar:

I don’t have any reason to doubt Linda’s statement. It is difficult to say either how, or who may have found it after she did so.

EDIT: I forgot to say good post. Well reasoned, well researched. I will be more careful in my language if I link to theories like this one.

This may add absolutely nothing to the conversation, but here goes anyway.

u/mrwonderof ,TY for including the tabloid article in the discussion with u/straydog77 . It’s the only place I’ve seen which states that the knife was monogramed with Burke’s name. Was this information from BPD?

‘97 Patsy interview

ST: He’d walk through the house whittling and for the tape, I’m showing Patsy a photo of a little red Swiss army knife.

PR: Right. He had one we had gotten him in Switzerland, it had his name on it. Does this have his name on it?

ST: I don’t know.

(So I’m thinking if the tabloid Examiner knows, I would imagine that ST would know.)

’98 Patsy interview

TOM HANEY: In the previous interview on

19 the — last April, there was some discussion about

20 Burke having a Swiss Army knife, I think at that time,

21 correct me if I am wrong. You said it had his name or

22 initials on it?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

24 TOM HANEY: Would he have had any other

25 knives or would there have been any other Swiss Army

0335

1 type of knives in the house? Did John have any?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don’t know. I don’t

3 remember.

(Note Patsy answered in the same manner she responded whether she bought one or two packages of Bloomies. She doesn’t remember.)

4 TOM HANEY: Would Burke have had more than

5 one, more than just one with his name on it?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems like we might have

7 had a little tiny one like a key chain or something,

8 but it might have been — I just remember the red one

9 with his name on it that I got him in Switzerland.

(Why would Haney ask this question if they had found a monogrammed knife? It leads me to wonder whether it’s a fact that the knife they found had Burke’s name on it. Also, did John own a Swiss army knife? As a sailor it wouldn’t be out of the question for him to have one.)

After all the discussion, which I appreciated, I remain baffled. It’s always good to know what one doesn’t know. 🙂

(Why would Haney ask this question if they had found a monogrammed knife?

Maybe they found more than one knife? They have to investigate if it could have been left by an intruder?

Thank you for this detailed post which is a good reminder on making sure what we base our opinions on is fact not opinion.

All your contributions these days emanate negativity and scorn. When I see a post with your name on it I can wager it involves hating on somebody or nitpicking about how someone got a fact wrong.

Since when clearing misinformation is negativity and scorn?

“Better be slapped with a TRUTH than kissed with a LIE.”

…. justsayin’ 🤷

IMO, if you only see negativity and scorn, then it’s a clear sign of cognitive dissonance. you only focus on the discomfort you felt because your beliefs were challenged by his posts .

found at ground zero of the crime–in the cellar, near the corpse.

Not for nothing, but here you you have done the same thing you are accusing the blogger of doing.

It is unknown the location of JBR when each event occurred. It is further unknown if her body was moved at any point after death and before being “discovered” by JR around 1 pm. Lastly, it is fairly proven she expelled urine post mortem OUTSIDE of the cellar as the carpet was urinated on. If any locating would be called ground zero it would be much more accurate to say there.

My point is 1) there are “facts” of this case that may be false having been put out by LE (Steve Thomas was notable for this), put out by Team Ramsey Attorneys, the Ramseys themselves, countless “friends”, and armchair detectives; 2) and then there are the real facts, the GJ exhibits and testimonials, and true accounts by those who may be posing on the internet as unrelated armchair detectives who actually know things.

Where this blogger falls in line I don’t know but unless you know who they are I don’t see how anyone can discredit them completely. Or really anyone else for that matter.

I am a long time believer that family, friends, attorney staff, and possibly even Ramseys themselves, are actively posting.

Interesting. What makes you think those associated with the Ramseys are posting here?

It is very well known Jonbenet was not moved till the livor mortis got stabilised some 10-12 hours after her death. We don’t know what happened before she died and when the tragedy started, we have though an evidence that it ended in the boiler room, near the door to the wine cellar. That evidence is the urine stain on the carpet.

> OUTSIDE of the cellar

> as the carpet was urinated on

> there are the real facts, the GJ exhibits and testimonials, and true accounts by those who may be posing on the internet as unrelated armchair detectives who actually know things

what to say more…

https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/cy7h95/bdi_blog_fact_check/eyre562?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x has currently”7 points”

better to have an army of flies than a single professional doing a proper autopsy.

the most important: “know things” as adding 2+2 is not needed for any person participating in discussion.

It have to be a realy big bull… a huge one to feed allllll these flies.

I’m the co-author of the books this blog is based on. It forms but a small sample of our research.

The poster seems to be making the claim that unreliable information is being recklessly and opportunisitically recycled in an effort to gain benefit or popularity. Those familiar with our work know most if not all claims are referenced using hyperlinks. If there is speculation [and there has to be in an unsolved case] we provide our reasoning for coming to particular conclusions but always based on exlicit knowledge of the case and evidence. We maintain very high standards in this regard. The poster tries to imply that we do not.

I’d like to respond to the selective reasoning and cynical cherry picking of this particular post:

1. for which the Ramseys held receipts.”

The camping cord is very clearly the white nylon cord similar to the one found on JonBenet’s wrist. It’s typically used to anchor tents. Most people in the world are familiar with what this is, but the key word here is “receipts”. While it’s not undisputed fact that the Ramseys bought the cord from McGuckin’s or the Army Store, it’s likely [and reasonable] that they did. The receipt is reasonable proof of this assertion. To argue that camping cord or camping store is misleading is trying to make an argument out of nothing.

2: “Whittled” paintbrush

BDI blogger: “The paintbrush used as a garrotte appears to be whittled.”

It’s difficult to be clearer on such an obvious point. It either appears to be whittled to you or it doesn’t. Are there two shades of wood varnish on the brush or aren’t there? Is the brush broken off from the parent? Are there small areas or indentations in the brush? Does the wood appear to be smooth and varnished or not? If you think it doesn’t appear to be whittled, that’s your right, but please don’t conflate a difference of opinion with some elaborate plot to intentionally misinform or mislead.

3: “Whittled wood” found in genitals

BDI blogger: “A fragment consistent with the paintbrush [of whittled wood] was found in JonBenét’s genitalia”

This comes via topix.com, Lou Smit, if I remember correctly:

Vaginal injuries: Something — possibly one end of the broken paintbrush — was forced into JonBenet’s vagina because her hymen was partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn’t think somebody was sexually assaulting her over a long period of time. Plant materials similar to the paint brush’s wood shards are found in her vagina.

There’s also a reference to birefringent foreign material. Do your research for what that is. It can be a reference to a wood fragment [cellulose] or paint on wood – either fit the profile of the paintbrush. If you have a different explanation, great, but once again please don’t make the accusation that this is uninformed speculation.

If the complaint is that the wood found in the genitals wasn’t whittled, then how did it get there? It’s quite diffiult for wood splinters to break off of smooth surfaces. For example when eating an icecream off a smooth icecream stick, one doesn’t expect pieces of wood to tear off in the mouth.

4: Burke’s knife found “near the body”

This deserves a deep, contextual dive but I’m not going to do that. Sorry.

The housekeeper refers to having to confiscate the knife. Burke said he had two knives, and besides this, there are signs of what appears to be whittling on the kitchen door. Was Burke’s knife found in the basement – yes, or no?

5: Burke’s knife used to create garrote

BDI blogger: “Besides the whittling of the garrotte itself, a sharp knife was used to cut the lengths of cord used to tie JonBenét’s wrists and fashion the garrotte”

This is a good point to criticize, and it was probably put too strong. But were the ends of the nylon cut by teeth or pulled apart. Or cut by a child with a knife? https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/444814d1366833152-jonben-t-ramsey-autopsy-crime-scene-photos-ropeloose.jpg

6: “Prusik Knot” on the garrote

The garrotte knot is known as a prusik hitch, a typical boy scouts or camping knot.

This guy and his supporters make a big deal about the apparent complexity of the knots, and their association with boy scouting. Again, this is not based on the findings of law enforcement, but on a desire to match up aspects of the crime scene with publicly-known information about Burke Ramsey.

As James Kolar points out, “there was nothing particularly fancy about the knots”.

The Prusik knot is both dead simple to execute and the typical thing an eagle scout would know. If law enforcement didn’t know about this, it’s because they weren’t preoccupied with child psychology, or the habits of a child, and this is the key to understanding this case.

Conclusion

Watch out for weasel words and ambiguous language.

Weasel words?

You can make a sincere effort to research a case, and we have, which is why some of our insights were published in the international media.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/shock-claim-burke-ramsey-killed-jonbenet–but-with-different-weapon/news-story/b700bcd48d7bbc093b34cf7feb77d6de

But there will always be trolls wanting to throw stones. When you come across a troll ask yourself what that troll has achieved in his or her research of a case? Has he written a single book let alone three trilogies, all of which are very positively reviewed? There is also a proper way to discuss differences of opinion – plead your case if you think it’s more reasonable, and try to do so respectfully. Is that what this poster has done here?

Hi u/TCRocketScience — thanks for your detailed reply to this post. A couple questions/comments:

Regarding the birefringent foreign material (point 3):

1. You seem to imply that if the brush wasn’t whittled, it was smooth, and thus would have been unlikely to leave fragments behind. However, even if the brush weren’t whittled, we know it was at the very least broken, which would have resulted in jagged edges (conducive to fragments being left behind).

2. Do you have any idea how much “birefringement foreign material” was found? It’s been difficult for me to find a reliable source with information about exactly how much material was found.

Regarding the knot (point 6):

If you’d be willing to share more details, I’d be curious to hear more about how and why you came to the conclusion that the knot is definitively a prusik.

Removed for violating Rule 1.

Two points awarded for censorship. Boy you guys have high standards here.

It’s not necessarily definitively a prusik, and not necessarily not. It’s basically a knot that conforms to the eagle scout manual Burke had and that was available that year, and the knots in there and the knot on the garrotte are similar.

You are welcome to argue that technically the garrotte-knot is a variation, but that’s a little like arguing semantics. Is it “organise” or “organize”? Whether you spell it one way or the other, it’s basically the same thing. Claiming that organize spelled with a z isn’t organise spelled with an s is the idiot’s version of an argument. Technically the words aren’t the same but most people of sane mind would agree that the meaning is the same.

A similar argument came up in the Zahau case where the knot tied behind Zahau’s back was said to be one so simple it could easily be done by an amateur, and since Zahau had been on boats, why wouldn’t she have tied her own hands behind her back? This is a defense argument, and also one a lunatic would make.

If the knot was fairly simple, and it was, it was less simple for a complete amateur to do, and very few adults would intentionally tie knots for themselves and then put their own hands behind their backs – and even harder to get the rope under the plastic wristbands on Zahau’s hands while doing so. This suggested someone else [but also someone with basic skills as a sailor] made the knot.

The same basic issue applies here. Did JonBenet’s brother have a basic knowledge of knots, or didn’t he? Was that knowledge compatible or incompatible with the knot actually found? Not 100% compatible, but near enough. And from there it’s a question of using common sense.

Hi u/TCRocketScience, I think you may have misunderstood the spirit of my question — I wasn’t hoping you’d tell me the knot was a prusik so that I could argue that it wasn’t. I genuinely wanted to know which characteristics of the garrotte knot lead you to conclude that is was a prusik (or enough like a prusik that you would label it as such in your post/book).

And I agree with you that the knot was fairly simple, and that Burke, given his extracurricular activities, probably did have enough knowledge of knots to tie whatever it was.

However, I do respectfully disagree with your contention that arguing over whether the knot was a prusik (or not) is a semantic argument. Whether a knot is a prusik, or something that looks somewhat similar, is not the same as whether one spells “organize” with a “z” or with an “s”. As someone who has climbed rocks for many years, I can tell you that whether a knot is a prusik, or something like it, can mean the difference between a great day of climbing, and coming home in a body bag. The difference is functional. You can spell organize with a z or an s — either way, it serves the same function.

If you’d be willing to share, I’d still be interested to hear what characteristics of the garrotte lead you to think it conformed to the knot in the eagle scout manual. I’m also curious if you have any information you can share regarding the amount of birefringent material that was recovered during the autopsy.

Thank you!

I wasn’t hoping you’d tell me the knot was a prusik so that I could argue that it wasn’t. >>>Feels like you’ve done that anyway.

I’m happy with my response here. Sorry the prusik argument and the way words are spelled is exactly the same thing. You either see that or you don’t. And maybe if you don’t what you want to do is make the argument that some unknown unknown person was more familiar with your knot. Good luck with that argument.

The amount was a fragment. So small enough to be found and analyzed, and also small enough to remain present after being wiped down and carried.

It’s not necessarily definitively a prusik, and not necessarily not.

It’s not a Prusik. You didn’t answer u/theswenix‘s question about what characteristics led you to think it’s sort of a Prusik, but I’d also be curious to hear.

eagle scout

Burke wasn’t a Boy Scout, much less an Eagle Scout – he was a Cub Scout. Does it materially impact your point about the knot? Probably not – either way, Burke was familiar with tying knots. However, given all of the misinformation in this case, I think it’s critical for us to be precise about the facts. And even more critical that you, specifically, are precise about the facts, since you have written a number of books on this case, and therefore probably have an audience that sees you as an authority on the matter.

I referred to the type of manual, not the kind of scout Burke was. As a MOD you really ought to know better how to moderate a forum according to your own rules. It seems you’re unable to do that because you’re threatened by another expert who may have a view contrary to yours, and better than yours. Which it is by the way.

This isn’t a discussion on this thread, it’s a personal vendetta. If you want to get personal, be my guest. I’ll make it really worth my while. I can see now why it’s such a big deal for you not to reveal yout identity, but that’s the difference in honesty, integrity and courage between you and me. Carry on!

I referred to the type of manual, not the kind of scout Burke was.

https://imgur.com/PU6cTE0

Yes, that’s a comment on YouTube, taken out of context. Burke did have a manual on the journey to becoming an eagle scout, or are you unaware of that? In the manual are instructions on how to make prusik knots.

https://crimerocket.com/2019/12/30/the-killing-of-jonbenet-podcast-is-a-huge-steaming-pile-of-horseshit/imagesgthth/

https://crimerocket.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/tightening-stick.jpg

Maybe you prefer the term “tightening stick” to prusik or garrotte. Just how far do you want to take your ridiculous argument?

I’d like you to remove this thread completely before close of business today. And also, if you refuse to reveal your identity I will take this as a signal that you wish to continue defaming and undermining my work in public, while hiding your identity, while continuing to make misrepresentations. Insisting on continuing to make misrepresentations which have an impact on book sales.

A kindergarten child shown a prusik knot would acknowledge that it looks like the knot on the garotte.

https://crimerocket.com/2019/12/30/the-killing-of-jonbenet-podcast-is-a-huge-steaming-pile-of-horseshit/

Some adults, on the other hand – like you – will argue that it doesn’t. One has to ask, why are you so strenuously arguing against such a dead obvious point? It’s a very simple question if you want to split hairs; if it’s not a prusik knot, does it look like one?

1. Does it look like one?

I guess you could argue about what level of scout Burke was, or you could argue that because his older brother was an Eagle Scout , Burke would not only have been influenced by John Andrew, but would have learned from him.

2. Was John Andrew an Eagle Scout? How about John Ramsey?

Was Burke a scout – yes or no? Regardless of whether you want to argue at what level of scout he was, the point is that scouts know how to make knots, it’s part of their curriculum, and it’s very obvious Burke was a scout. It’s mentioned repeatedly by Patsy in her book, and also in one of her end of year letters to the family. The scouting dimension of his life was a big deal, wasn’t it?

You could also argue that the garrotte knot was much too sophisticated for a child, but you couldn’t argue that the knots around JonBenet’s hands were sophisticated. They were so clumisily applied one slipped off when John brushed at it, and the other wasn’t even tightly tied over the sleeve of the wrist?

3. What’s your explanation for that? A vicious predator who forgot to be vicious with his other knots? Or that the way the crime was executed was so very, very sophisticated, your vicious predator forgot a ransom note and forgot to sexually assault his victim?

You’re right about misinformation, but it’s folks like you who are responsible for it. I don’t appreciate your sneering reference to the books I’ve written on the case, as if the books are imprecise. All facts in the book are cited. You would know that if you’d read them. I’m the author of over a dozen books on this case alone, all of them well reviewed. Those are my credentials. I can also identify myself as Nick van der Leek, the author of those books. As you say, it’s crucial to be precise about facts, even simple facts. So let me ask you a simple question.

4. Can you identify who you are, stating your name? It’s just a very simple question, can you be precise in your answer?

The reason it’s an important question is context. We know I’m a true crime author and I’m happy to defend my work and research. So is my co-author. It’s credible enough that it’s been aired in the international media. But how about you? What are your credentials? What have you written? And so, you just being a somebody matters if you are going to address matters of accuracy.

5. What’s your level of expertise? So give your name and then let’s see what our standards are in terms of accuracy and quality of information, and what you do for a living.

I’m guessing you can’t or won’t, and if that’s the case, I won’t continue to argue this case with you, because people [like Jameson] who hide behind fake avatars peddling false information [she pretended to be a man] is precisely about misinforming people.

In this case, what you’re trying to convince people is that an adult [intruder] is involved, and without even going through your history on Reddit, I’d guess that that’s your agenda. The Intruder Theory. And yet the Grand Jury voted that the Ramseys had covered up for a third party. Who could that be? Who could that person be who fashioned the garrotte?

I suspect I know your answer. It’s the same way you want to conjure knots into something else. Go right ahead if that’s your reasoning, but don’t expect anyone to take it seriously. I look forward to seeing how many of the 5 questions posed here you’re prepared to answer. PS> If you can’t answer with your name, which is really not asking too much, you’ll be blocked.

Can you identify who you are, stating your name? It’s just a very simple question, can you be precise in your answer?

The reason it’s an important question is context. We know I’m a true crime author and I’m happy to defend my work and research. So is my co-author. It’s credible enough that it’s been aired in the international media. But how about you? What are your credentials? What have you written? And so, you just being a somebody matters if you are going to address matters of accuracy.

What’s your level of expertise? So give your name and then let’s see what our standards are in terms of accuracy and quality of information, and what you do for a living.

Wait a second. Your books–I have five of them–are full of information and quotes you’ve pulled from online forums. Many of these quotes come from users who are only identified by their online usernames. Why is it necessary for someone on Reddit to identify themselves in order for their comments to be considered valid and accurate, yet the same standard doesn’t apply to the anonymous sources included in your books? That seems a bit hypocritical.

For the record, /u/adequatesizeattache is not an intruder theorist. Perhaps you should have reviewed her history before making such an assumption. You also would have found that she is very well-versed on the case.

Writing a bunch of books does not necessarily make someone an expert. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people here whose knowledge of the case is on par with–or exceeds–even yours.

Because this is an attack on my credibility, and the credibility of a product by an anonymous person. If a coworker at your job did the same, it would matter if the complaint was filed by a janitor or an executive.

By the way, can you assist me in escalating this matter to the head honchos at Reddit. I’m not happy about this, this is actually defamatory, and a bunch of you are in on this, including the mod and need to be sent letters from my attorney.

Writing a bunch of books does not necessarily make someone an expert.

Actually it does. One book makes you an expert. More than 10 makes you some kind of guru. I doubt you have read a single book or you’d know that. What’s her name please, I’d like to contact attache directly please.

I suggest you decide on what exactly it is you are arguing, because you are moving the goalposts. First it was:

1. The knot is a Prusik

2) Burke was an Eagle Scout

Now you are saying:

1. The knot looks like or is reminiscent of a Prusik

2) Burke was a scout who had an older half-brother or father who was an Eagle Scout

The former two are the statements I am addressing, and they are demonstrably false.

Fact: The knot on the broken paintbrush is not a Prusik hitch – I made a post demonstrating the difference here. I showed photos of the Ramsey “garrote handle” knot to two forensic knot experts who corroborated that it did not appear to be a Prusik hitch. Additionally, the consulted forensic knot analyst who examined the “garrote handle” knot in person, John Van Tassel, described how the knot was formed and that description is not consistent with how a Prusik hitch is formed.

Fact: Burke was a Cub Scout (specifically either a Bear or Webelo).

You can call it splitting hairs – I call it being factual, which is a standard I take seriously regarding the evidence in this case.

I call it being anal. You mock because you cannot make. You criticize because you have no ideas or insights of your own. And you’re apparently too afraid of even revealing your own name. Shame.

I suggest you decide on what exactly it is you are arguing

I suggest you watch your language!

his ideas are very popular online, particularly among some of the moderators of this sub

If you’re referring to me then you would be incorrect. I called out something from this same blog piece months ago and have many of the same issues with it that you do.

It was me – I just cited it yesterday. Will edit my comment to link to this critique. I was too hasty to endorse the piece.

Still, you were citing it as a user and not a moderator so I don’t know why it would be relevant to the moderation of the sub.

Well, as a mod I have fact-checked the crap out of some IDI, so I’d better mind my own garden when I can.

Our blog clearly says “appears to be” whittled and I stand by that opinion. Yes, it’s an opinion and I think readers understand that. I never stated it was whittled, as fact. If you and u/straydog77 disagree, so be it, that’s your own opinion. But I don’t appreciate u/straydog77 making the accusation that Shakedown is a misleading site, something he directly states in the beginning of his post. He also bashes Shakedown in his conclusion, saying we use weasel words and ambiguous language, then encourages people not to read our work. It’s comical though that he would be critical of ambiguity in terms of the knife when not one single person here in this sub, including him, can state with 100% certainty where it was found.

u/Straydog77 Yesterday Shakedown was accused of being intentionally misleading, and you went so far as to tell the readers of this sub to steer away from reading our work. So, I’d like to address the points you brought up. Before I do that, I’d like to point out that the first two words you find in our blog post are “we believe” which should indicate to the reader that the piece is our analysis of the evidence. If one takes the time to fully read the post, as opposed to the manipulations you posted, they will see that we categorize what is fact, what is circumstantial, what is inference, etc. We are not being ambiguous when we use words like “we believe, may, and appears”, we’re actually being mindful that what we are inferring is our interpretation, and our belief. Isn’t that what you rally people to do all the time – state the difference between fact and opinion? Well, let me now show your readers how precisely you have been misleading in your post, and not the other way around:

1. Is Stansport nylon cord a cord used for camping? Yes, it is, and Stansport certainly thinks so. If you go to their website right now, cords are found under “Camping / Camp Essentials”. Is McGuckin’s a store that sells camping equipment? Yes, they have a sporting goods section. If you want to play games with semantics, go for it. But it’s not factually inaccurate that the cord is a camping cord and was purchased at a store that supplies camping equipment.

2. As I pointed out in my response last night, saying “appears to be whittled” in our blog is not factually inaccurate, because we didn’t state it as fact, it’s clearly our opinion. Amazingly, your response is “No, it doesn’t” which is… also an opinion.

3. In regards to the cellulose material found in JonBenet, we say in our blog: “a fragment consistent with the paintbrush (whittled wood)…” This is a continuation of our assessment that the wood looks whittled, but we are not saying in this statement that the fragment was from the paintbrush or that it was whittled, as 100% fact. You then, in turn, call that ambiguous. So how does one actually ever win with you? Our assessment is that it’s whittled but we’re not going to say with certainty that it is, because it’s not fact. I’ll beat a dead horse. Our blog is our analysis and just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean we are misleading. The funny thing is, you even point out yourself how the experts all disagree about the origin of the cellulose material. Yet, somehow we’re a bunch of hacks because we’ve linked evidence together, and have our own take on it.

4. This point is perhaps the most egregious of your post. You are the one to actually go so far as to claim that it’s FACT where Kerry Yamaguchi found the knife. Are you honestly telling us that you know with complete certainty that the knife was on the counter in the basement? That’s amazing, because some of the investigators that you love to praise actually aren’t as sure as you are. I’m not going to rehash the variety of information out there about where the knife was found and where it was collected – the readers can scroll thru the other responses. But just as bad as you saying you know that info, is the way you describe the location of the counter with the sink… “a completely different part of the cluttered basement”… “at the end of the hall”…. You are mischievously making it sound like this counter was practically in another room altogether, but anybody who knows this case and has seen the basement, knows the counter is mere feet away from the wine cellar. So, please don’t come at me as if I’m the one making wild exaggerations here. You downplay the knife a lot, yet the knife was collected as evidence, it came up in questioning in both 97 and 98, and Burke was questioned about it too. It was piquing their interest. You say: “There is no indication police ever determined that Burke’s knife was relevant to the crime in any way.” Oh, Ok. What did the police ever actually determine in this case? Did the police ever determine the murder weapon? Did the police ever determine with certainty if JonBenet was head-bashed or strangled first? Did the police ever determine exactly where she was killed? I could go on, but I’m sure you get my point.

5. We say in our post that a sharp knife was used to cut the cord. We never said when that occurred, yet that’s your beef here. I agree, we don’t know when it was cut, and we never stated that we did. Again, you also make it seem as if we stated as fact that it was Burke’s pocketknife that cut it. We made an inference to it because the whole point of our blog is to look at the totality of the evidence and analyze what it means, but we never went so far as to say it was Burke’s knife and he cut it during the commission of the killing.

6. Your grievance here is that the knot is nothing special. We never said it was. We simply stated that the prusik knot is a typical boy scouts knot, and that is true. Burke was a boy scout, as were John and John Andrew back in the day. We were making the connection. You’re completely manufacturing words here when you say: “The notion that these were specialized scouting knots…” We never said they were specialized. To the contrary, our blog post says they are typical. Stop putting words in our mouth.

u/Straydog77 your post reads as nothing more than somebody with a burning desire to simply be right, and in your righteousness, you quite nastily tear down others unnecessarily. Your post didn’t have to be some big deal about “BDI bloggers” and “this guy and his followers” are massaging and misrepresenting. Why not simply say this is Shakedown’s opinion, and I disagree, here’s mine? Also, Shakedown wasn’t a guy and some followers. Nick van der Leek and I, Lisa Wilson (aka Juror13), worked on those blog posts together. You can actually use our real names, unlike so many others who are hiding behind facades. I’m not a follower, I’m a researcher and blogger who spent years researching this case. You don’t have to agree with Shakedown’s views, and I’ll be the first to admit, my views continuously evolve. But I won’t stand by while somebody unduly disrespects my work for their own egotistical purposes.

WELL SAID u/straydog77

👊🏻

u/straydog77 Where have I ever claimed to know more, or be better, than the police? And when did I portray myself as something other than a layperson? Please tell me. I’ve never presented myself as somebody who worked on the case in a direct capacity, and I’m very well aware that there’s evidence that none of us have seen, obviously. Anyone reading the Shakedown or Juror13 blogs and books, and those who have listened to our podcasts, know we are lay people. We have always been abundantly clear about that, so stop spewing your nonsense about needing to make proper distinctions as if we’re claiming to be superior to Kolar and Thomas. If readers prefer to get info directly from former investigators, then they can, and they should. They should read it all, and we have too. Never once have we claimed to know more than the police. Yes, we’ve been critical of the investigation and at times, critical of the investigative theories including Thomas’ – who hasn’t? – but we’ve always presented our writing as our own take on what the evidence may mean. Just like you have a conclusion in your post here, we too have come to many conclusions. What the hell is the point in researching and analyzing if you don’t have a conclusion? Actually, you can talk to your buddy Schiller about that. I think it’s absurd that he’s had a treasure trove of evidence available to him all these years yet he claims he has no opinion about who killed JonBenet, or if he does he refuses to share it. I think it’s a buzzkill that Schiller doesn’t publicly share his own personal insights and conclusions about what the scene says to him, because I’d actually love to hear them. But according to you, the only insights with merit belong to the police. And this whole thing about needing to present all possibilities to my readers to let them decide – I think you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The blog isn’t an encyclopedia. I’m under no obligation to list every single investigator’s theory, or every possible use for an item at the scene, with every blog post I write. You do understand that blogs are created for people to share their OWN views about things, right? With that said… this whole argument is based on ONE single blog post we wrote 3 years ago. Do you realize we have actually discussed several other theories and evidence ad nauseam throughout our numerous books and articles, and have always encouraged our readers to do their own due diligence and make decisions for themselves. You’re making a mountain out of one blog post about the knife without acknowledging that our complete work on the case encompasses virtually every other piece of evidence revealed over the years. And we’re the ones who are misleading? Just because you think the knife is a waste of time, and we see it otherwise, you’ve spotlighted one article of ours so you can get your jollies from playing Ramsey case patrol sergeant. I’m really not interested in playing games u/straydog77 and I don’t need to comply with your personal set of rules.

Hi Lisa

I’m a little late to this thread on Reddit but it’s completely unacceptable. I’ve reported this as a personal attack, but it’s worse than that, it claims we are purposefully and deceitfully misleading people with our “weasel words” which is defamatory and damaging. And yet it’s still up. I’m escalating this with you know who, and I’ve screengrabbed the whole thread.

Yes, clearly. You very clearly have a bias, but it’s more than that, it’s an agenda. Your agenda seems to be that how dare anyone claim to know more than you do.

I appreciate everything except number 2. In my opinion, the paint brush used in the murder is very whittled compared to the blue one above it in your picture. Although this whittling could’ve been done at a completely different irrelevant time.

I agree. Ive always thought the brush looks as though the original varnish or colour has been scrapped off. Ive got two boys and i could see them doing that with a pocket knife just because they wanted to try out the knife.

I was once , many years ago, into drawing and painting. Patsy wasnt an “artist” for long enough to produce such a worn out tool of the trade in my opinion. Having said that you bring up a valid point that the police sources say the the word Korea remained on the brush so that does suggest the brush wasnt as damaged as the photos suggest. At the end of the day the paintbrush was clearly in the tote and in my opinion the wood shards in the basement were from breaking the brush not from Burke whittling

4: Burke’s knife found “near the body”

From Steve Thomas’ deposition for the Wolf case:

10 Q. There was a pocket knife found on

11 the basement counter?

12 A. Which I learned later, right.

13 Q. And was that ever sourced, to your

14 knowledge?

15 A. No. My recollection of that is

16 terribly vague because I don’t know when we

17 talked about those thousand-plus pieces of

18 evidence collected, those were potential

19 pieces of evidence, I think that the pocket

20 knife may have been collected, but I don’t

21 know. There was the suggestion that I

22 overheard that that belonged to Burke.

23 Q. Was that ever sourced to Burke?

24 A. Not prior to me leaving.

15 A. No. My recollection of that is

16 terribly vague because I don’t know when we

17 talked about those thousand-plus pieces of

18 evidence collected, those were potential

19 pieces of evidence, I think that the pocket

20 knife may have been collected, but I don’t

21 know.

Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague? He specifically asks Patsy about the red knife and shows her a photograph of it during her first interview:

Steve Thomas: Patsy, once we were told that Burke at times, would walk through the house whittling and that was something that apparently got on Linda Hoffmans’ nerves somehow to clean up after him.

Patsy Ramsey: Right.

ST: Was this consistent with his little pocketknife?

PR: Yeah.

ST: He’d walk through the house whittling and for the tape, I’m showing Patsy a photo of a little red Swiss army knife.

PR: Right. He had one we had gotten him in Switzerland, it had his mane (sic) on it. Does this have his name on it?

ST: I don’t know.

PR: You don’t know, OK

Were there two knives? One collected in the wine cellar near the purple ornament and one collected from the counter? We don’t know what “later” means here. A red knife was on the warrant from 12/26/96 and Thomas asked about it 4/97. The article about Det. Yamaguchi collecting one from the counter was dated 1999.

10 Q. There was a pocket knife found on

11 the basement counter?

12 A. Which I learned later, right.

Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague?

ST’s deposition in the Wolf case was taken in Sept. 2001. He resigned from the BPD in Aug. 1998, so three years prior. Perhaps he just couldn’t recall all of the specifics of the knife? Or maybe the knife couldn’t be connected to the crime, so investigators didn’t focus on it? Or maybe Thomas didn’t concentrate on it, because he didn’t feel it was important to his PDI theory? I guess there are many possible reasons for why he responded the way he did.

Were there two knives? One collected in the wine cellar near the purple ornament and one collected from the counter?

There’s only one knife listed on the search warrant. I find the whole thing confusing. The knife is listed on the warrant as “red pocket knife with broken ornament.” The next item listed is “broken purple ornament from basement.” Since it seems that both JR and PR identified a broken ornament in the wine cellar in crime scene photos, I understand why people have come to the conclusion that the knife was found in the wine cellar next to a broken ornament. However, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that neither JR nor PR identified a pocketknife in any of those photos. Actually, I don’t believe the pocketknife was even mentioned during the 1998 interviews.

I’m actually starting to wonder if maybe there was more than one broken ornament in the basement. The search warrant lists “broken glass from wine cellar.” Maybe the broken glass in the wine cellar came from a broken ornament, and there was also a broken purple ornament outside of the wine cellar next to the knife. I’m not sold on this idea, but I think it’s worth considering.

The article about Det. Yamaguchi collecting one from the counter was dated 1999.

We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant. That doesn’t solidify the information in the article, but IMO, it does support it.

Perhaps he just couldn’t recall all of the specifics of the knife?

It was important enough for him to prepare the question with a photo ahead of time, so it seems curious for him to not even know it was collected.

Or maybe Thomas didn’t concentrate on it, because he didn’t feel it was important to his PDI theory?

That seems very possible. By 1999 it was a big deal after Linda said it was moved from the closet to the basement, implying someone in the family moved it.

However, I don’t think we should ignore the fact that neither JR nor PR identified a pocketknife in any of those photos. Actually, I don’t believe the pocketknife was even mentioned during the 1998 interviews.

I don’t think so either.

We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant.

I never thought of that – thanks.

I find the whole thing confusing.

I think so too. And really interesting.

We know that Yamaguchi collected the knife because his initials are next to it on the search warrant. That doesn’t solidify the information in the article, but IMO, it does support it.

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I was looking at the search warrant lists recently and wondering if the evidence labeling system would tell us about the location of the items. But no, they are detectives’ initials. I agree that this supports the Brennan article’s claim. Still, the whole knife/knives [edit: and broken ornaments] thing is confusing.

Agree it is confusing.

I do not find it credible that in April 1997 Steve Thomas showed Patsy a photo of a Swiss Army knife, sourced a similar knife to Burke per the housekeeper, knew the story of her putting it away, and did not know if the knife they found had Burke’s initials on it or not. He said in an interview later that the knife was sourced to Burke after he left.

The fact that Kolar does not discuss the knife in his book is also very surprising.

I was looking at the search warrant lists recently and wondering if the evidence labeling system would tell us about the location of the items.

I did the same thing when we were trying to figure out which clothing items were on JBR’s trunk in her bedroom.

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to the order in which the items on the warrant are listed.

I can understand your reasoning here, but the Ramseys also mention that “broken glass” in their 98 interviews, and once again, no knife. In fact, the broken glass seems to be in the same photo as the broken purple ornament. John identifies it as “little fragments of the artificial tree”, and Patsy says “are these little pieces of glass? What are those? See the little dots?”. They say this at the same time as they are viewing the purple ornament photo. Based on statements made by investigators in John’s 1998 interview, the photograph is either 182, 183, or 184, all of which depicted the wine cellar floor. Both Ramseys say it would not be unusual for a broken Christmas ornament to be found in the wine cellar.

Actually, I meant that perhaps the “broken glass from wine cellar” were remnants of the broken ornament the Ramseys identified in pictures. Neither Ramsey described the pieces of glass/broken ornament shown in the wine cellar photos as purple. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t purple, but it does leave room for the possibility that it wasn’t. Maybe the “broken purple ornament” wasn’t found in the wine cellar. Maybe it was found on the counter next to the pocketknife.

IOW, perhaps there were two broken ornaments: one in the wine cellar listed on the warrant as “broken glass from wine cellar” and one found elsewhere listed as “broken purple ornament from basement.”

Like I said though, I’m not convinced of this. I was just throwing out the possibility.

(Incidentally, I wonder why this “broken glass” on the wine cellar floor doesn’t get mentioned more often in the discussions about unidentified abrasions found on the body.)

I actually thought the same thing when I was re-reading about the glass in the 1998 interviews. I had a thought, which may be far-fetched, but I’ll share it anyway.

JR said this about the photo of the wine cellar floor:

15 JOHN RAMSEY: Well it looks like it could

16 be a Christmas ornament. It looks a little bit

17 (INAUDIBLE) like the hook of the top of a

18 Christmas ornament.

IMO, what he’s describing sounds like an ornament cap, such as the ones seen here.

The search warrant lists “wire near body.” IIRC, we don’t know any specifics about the wire. Could the “wire near body” be the little piece of wire that goes through an ornament cap? As you can see here, the wire is a separate piece that pops through the cap.

Taking it a step further, I wondered if maybe an ornament cap could have caused the abrasion on JBR’s face. It looks to be approximately the right size (the caps do come in various sizes.) Although, I’m not sure I can come up with a plausible explanation for how the cap could have caused the abrasion. I don’t know if her face lying on top of an ornament cap, would result in such an abrasion.

I don’t know…I might be trying too hard to connect the various pieces of evidence.

At one time I thought that the wire found near her body was from the wine cellar or boiler room. But, if you look closely you can see a wire near her body(somewhat resembles your photos) in the crime scene photos. Evidence collection started when JonBenét’s body was upstairs. Anything listed as under her body or near body would have been collected upstairs on the carpet by the Christmas tree. If you follow the search warrant, you can see them catalog the Avalanche sweatshirt that Barb Fernie covered JonBenét’s feet with after she was brought up by John. The next item is the blanket John put on top of her body and then they catalogued, Wire Near Body(7KKY).

Here is a photo of the wire near body:

Wire Near Body(7KKY)

Anything listed as under her body or near body would have been collected upstairs on the carpet by the Christmas tree.

Well, shit. It never occurred to me that “near body” or “under body” meant near or under her body on the living room floor. That makes sense though.

Thanks for killing my theory. J/k

Well there’s a twist lol, I imagined that wire in the cellar too, I thought you were onto something for a moment there with the ornament cap. Looks like a garbage tie from toy packaging.

I wondered if maybe an ornament cap could have caused the abrasion on JBR’s face.

It’s not a bad idea. One thing that’s a bit confusing to me is that the abrasion does appear round, but the measurements given for it in the autopsy (9.5 mm x 6.35 mm) would imply that it’s oblong or elongated. I’m wondering if the coroner was measuring the indent/pattern (the actual broken skin/abrasion part) inside the circular part or if * the angle (of the photo or it being located on a contoured part of the face) just makes it appear more circular than it is.

I didn’t think the train track could have made those marks but I’m reconsidering the idea. The revised measurements provided by /u/CommonSearch would have the large face abrasion and the other small mark at 3.4 cm apart (earlier measurements had them 3.7 cm apart).

Edit: * No no, that can’t be. The measurements of the indent/crater would be more like 2 mm x 3 mm.

Just incase anyone is paying attention to the measurements I’ll put a small revision note here.

The distance between the “indent” within the large abrasion and the other smaller mark have a distance of about 3.35 cm, so I went ahead and rounded it up to 3.4 cm.

The distance between the center of the larger abrasion as a whole and the smaller mark is 3.7 cm.

One thing that’s a bit confusing to me is that the abrasion does appear round, but the measurements given for it in the autopsy (9.5 mm x 6.35 mm) would imply that it’s oblong or elongated.

That’s a very valid point. I went back and looked at photos of the face abrasion. In some pictures it looks almost perfectly round, and in others, it does seem to be somewhat oblong. You’re right though; relying on the autopsy, rather than my own eyeballs, is the more accurate approach.

I guess lying with her face on an ornament cap would create more of a round mark than an oblong one, if it created any mark/abrasion at all. Maybe I should experiment ASA-style: pop some ornament caps off of my Christmas ornaments and lay on the floor with one under my face. 😉

I didn’t think the train track could have made those marks but I’m reconsidering the idea.

You think a pin from a train track could cause that large of an abrasion?

Maybe I should experiment ASA-style: pop some ornament caps off of my Christmas ornaments and lay on the floor with one under my face.

Do it. For all you know it might warp a bit oblong. Or at least take measurements for comparison to the mark.

You think a pin from a train track could cause that large of an abrasion?

At first no, but after a discussion with u/CommonSearch I don’t think it’s impossible. I could see the pin hitting the bone and tearing through the skin. The length of the pins would exceed the thickness of the skin and muscle layers on a child’s face. I wouldn’t even consider it if that second mark on face weren’t 3.4 cm away from the other mark.

That said, I also find Werner Spitz’s suggestion of a sharp-edged snap convincing.

Am I crazy or is this a sketchy answer? Why is his recollection terribly vague? He specifically asks Patsy about the red knife and shows her a photograph of it during her first interview:

You don’t happen to know the date of that interview do you? Just for some perspective of when it was of interest to Investigators.

The interview was on April 30, 1997.

Thank you.

Well, if he’s on reddit by another name no doxxing please.

I would prefer you not manipulate and twist words. You “fact checked” an opinion piece, and did so by interjecting your own opinions. I stand by my statements – we did NOT provide false information. You simply didn’t like our inferences which you’re entitled to. But you continuing to say the info is false makes you the manipulator here, not us.

I stand by my

I agree 100%. In fact this post is false and misleading, and we’d like it removed now. Today!

It’s worth mentioning that James Kolar and Steve Thomas do not even bother mentioning Burke’s knife at all in their books.

The lack of it being mentioned does not necessarily mean they did not bother – this could have been deliberate for all we know.

There is no indication police ever determined that Burke’s knife was relevant to the crime in any way.

“Police have not disclosed whether they believe Burke’s knife was used in the crime.”

In the absence of evidence either way, seems fair game if people wanna speculate.