Given Linda's denial, the question arises: why would Patsy have included Linda in her story if she were lying to support John's version of what happened? Patsy included Linda when interviewed the following year as well:
Well, one of these windows is the one that John -- John got locked out one time, can't remember, at the lake, I think. And he said he broke a window pane and, you know, he reached in and came in through this window right into the house.If John's story is true, then why would Linda have denied any knowledge of any broken window or helping Patsy clean up the glass? And if both he and Patsy were lying, then why would Patsy have included Linda in her story, on two separate occasions, knowing full well she'd deny it?
TRIP DEMUTH: What did you do after the window was broken, did you have some involvement with that at all?
PATSY RAMSEY: Well, yes. When I came back, you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out -- 1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda sweep down there because the kids, the boys would sometimes play in here.
A bit later in the 1998 interview, Trip Demuth asks Patsy about the scuff mark just under the same window:
TRIP DEMUTH: [Pointing to a photo] What about this mark on the wall?How could Patsy say she didn't know if she was in there just after testifying that she'd been cleaning up glass that had fallen beneath that very portion of the wall?
PATSY RAMSEY: Oh, gosh, I don't know if I was in there. I think I would have noticed that because I had all that painted.
What's more, as is evident from a video taken by police shortly after their initial arrival, the area around that basement window is a total mess. (See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/new-clues-in-jonbenet-ramsey-murder.html) Not the sort of place children would be likely to play in. Patsy seems to be confusing that area with the room where Burke kept his train set.
Looks like Patsy is seriously confused about that entire incident. Why?
Before answering that question let's do some reviewing. First and foremost we must ask whether or not John's story can be believed. As I argued in my earlier posts on the window scene, the answer must be: no.
In responding to questions regarding that incident John is persistently vague and in some cases inconsistent. He can't recall whether or not he took a cab, how he lost his keys or whether he even needed them, why he didn't get a key from his neighbor who had a copy, why he could not have contacted a locksmith from the airport, how he entered the window well, how he broke the window, whether he had his shoes on or not, whether he had a shirt on or not, why he didn't break into a street level window, etc.
It is, moreover, very hard to believe the Ramseys would not have arranged for the window to be repaired over a period of months, including the very cold month of December, especially during a time when workmen were in and out of the house -- and, even more telling, it's impossible to believe that neither John nor Patsy had any recollection of whether or not it had ever been repaired. Considering that they had a team of investigators working for them, and considering that the condition of the window was clearly a key element in the crime scene, why would they have been so indifferent to the question of whether the window had ever been repaired?
Finally, we must take very seriously the testimony of the only truly independent witness in this case, the housekeeper Linda Hoffman Pugh, who declared very early on, at a time when she was loudly defending the Ramseys, that she knew nothing at all about any broken window. (See the reference in "Perfect Murder Perfect Town.")
Putting all of the above together, it is impossible, as I see it, to believe John's story. To me, it is clearly a fabrication, designed to misdirect the authorities away from the obvious conclusion that John must have broken the window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder break in.
But not everyone agrees. Certain individuals posting here, even some who believe John to be guilty, nevertheless insist that John's story could actually be true. So let us now back up to take another look at the evidence from this perspective.
(to be continued . . . )