Reasonable Doubt - Part 3

In my view, it should not be all that difficult to convincingly argue, not only on the basis of the evidence, or lack of it, but also the logic of the case generally, that no intruder was present on the night of the murder. Whether such an argument would constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt would, of course, be up to each and every juror to decide. And regardless of how unlikely it is that an intruder would have wanted to do all the things that were done, and how seriously lame all the so-called "intruder evidence" has turned out to be, there would still be some wiggle room for the defense to assert reasonable doubt in this respect, since we have no way of knowing for sure what some unknown person or persons might have had in mind, or how devious they might be.


Fortunately, there is a lot more to the case than the intruder question, which brings me to the next phase of my presentation: John's behavior and testimony. For starters, I'll refer you to the chapter in James Kolar's book entitled, "The Evolution of John Ramsey's Statements," in which many "red flags" are raised, convincing this experienced detective that John's behavior was evasive and suspicious to say the least.

I examined this issue in an earlier post, The Case Against John Ramsey, which I urge you to read, or reread, before continuing. My analysis of John's testimony, including assertions made in the Ramseys' book, reveals many instances where he appears confused, can't recall, changes his mind regarding earlier testimony, discusses observations he'd made earlier that were never reported at the time, makes misleading statements, and generally seems to be blowing smoke in a deliberate effort to confuse or misdirect.

The "Smoking Gun," as I call it, is his story about breaking the basement window earlier, which I discuss at length here, here, here and here. As I believe I've convincingly demonstrated in these four posts, the story is clearly a lie. Why would John lie? Because far from being an honest account of how the window got broken innocently, which seemed credible, as it appeared to undercut the intruder theory, it is in fact an alibi.

Picture a suspect in a murder case whose gun has been identified as the murder weapon and whose fingerprints have been found at the scene of the crime. He informs the police that they have the wrong man. He was home with his wife and he thinks they might have been watching television that night, and afterward they might have played poker with a friend, though he can't recall for sure. And if you don't believe him, ask his wife, she'll confirm his story. What shows were they watching? He can't recall. Neither can his wife. Can the friend confirm that story? Well, no, but maybe they played poker some other night, he can't recall. His mother-in-law is questioned and it turns out she was there that night and saw neither hide nor hair of him at any time. Why would you believe him? It's clearly an alibi. His wife is "standing by her man," many wives would do that. But his mother-in-law could care less. Pretty lame alibi, wouldn't you say?

But what would John's story be an alibi for? Well, as I wrote in my earlier post, "since the only reason for making up such a story would be to explain away the window scene, we are left with the following clear realization: the window could only have been broken the night of the crime, by John himself, in a desperate effort to stage an intruder breakin."  If John were to phrase his story as an alibi, it would sound something like this: "Gosh, officer, I couldn't have broken the window last night to stage an intruder breakin because that window was already broken. I broke it myself some time ago when I forgot my key and gosh I can't recall when that was or what I did with the key or why I couldn't have gotten a key from my neighbor, but hey, my wife can confirm my story, so you gotta believe me. And besides, why would I want to make up a story like that if I'd been staging a breakin?"

And the officer's reply would go more or less as follows: "Well, the breakin you were staging was totally unconvincing because you forgot to dislodge any of the dirt on the window sill, or the cobweb sitting in it, or the grate over the window well, which means you are under arrest, because your staging was unconvincing and your alibi is not only riddled with holes, but contradicted by your mother-in-law -- er, sorry, I meant housekeeper."

If the prosecution wishes to completely obliterate any possible reasonable doubt argument regarding the intruder theory and John's involvement in the crime, it would need to very thoroughly go over John's window story and totally debunk it -- beyond a reasonable doubt, of course. Based on my own analysis, I have a feeling they could do this rather easily -- but you never know, John might be able to pull yet one more rabbit out of his hat. I'd be very curious to hear what he'd come up with.

If they are able to do this, then the elaborate misdirection known as the "intruder theory" would come tumbling down around his knees. If the window had been broken by John himself on the night of the crime, then clearly there was no intruder, this was an inside job. And if John was lying about it, then John was clearly involved. Beyond a reasonable doubt!

But what about Patsy? What about Burke? Could either of them have been involved? Is it possible he was only covering for one, or both, of them?

(to be continued . . . )