Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 2

(continued from previous post)

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.
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. 
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?


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?
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. 
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?

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 . . . )

129 comments:

  1. Yes I agree with your first premise. That John's story is not to be believed. But the conclusion you draw from that is (in all due respect) erroneous: "the obvious conclusion that John must have broken the window on the night of the crime, to stage an intruder break in."

    It isn't obvious that John must have broken the window on the night of the crime.

    The second half of your statement, however, that it was used "to stage an intruder break in" is most likely true. Who broke the window we do not know, and if Burke broke it, on the night of the crime, then John could have used it to stage an intruder break in. By shoving the suitcase over to the wall just under the window.

    Because to me, it makes no sense to break a window yourself, clean up some shards of glass, and then put them back. It makes no sense to me for the wife to agree with her husband's story but then embellish on it by saying she cleaned it up (with her housekeeper) when clearly it was NOT cleaned up. So the lake-locked-out-break-in story, quite true, does not hold water. But neither does the John-breaking-it-himself-that-morning and cleaning some of it up and then putting the glass back himself story.

    Which leads me to MY conclusion, that happening onto the window John thought Burke must have broken it and set about inventing a story that he broke it so that LE would not think Burke had any reason to be in the basement the night before, and therefore not be questioned about it, and twofold: he could confuse LE by shoving a suitcase under the window to make them think an intruder may have come in that way. I do not buy the stage, unstage, stage again scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes I find your posts extremely confusing, Inq. Where do you get that John put any of the shards back on the floor? And I see no reason to bring Burke into the picture. I thought you had been there and done that.

      Delete
    2. I think Inq. might be going with Van Der Leek's theory of connecting BR to the broken window. Did LE ever confirm whether the window was broken from the inside or the outside?

      Delete
    3. The glass shards fell inside, leading one to believe the pane was broken from outside. But the windows opened in, so the perp could have broken it from the exterior side while actually standing in the basement.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, CC. I do remember reading that on here; that someone on the inside could have opened the window and broken it from the outside in. What I was getting at is if Van Der Leek believes that the window was broken by BR while playing in the basement, knowing which way the window was broken could easily disprove his proposed theory.

      Delete
    5. No glass in exterior window well, iirc, so perhaps we can consider it disproved?

      I was surprised by your recent remark that you've done little or no reading of the case "bibles", PMPT, etc, given the acuity of your comments. I'll be very interested in your take after you've had time to get through some of them.

      Delete
    6. Now I think maybe I should take back what I said about your sleuthing capabilities, CC. Your sleuthworthy observation about the window glass certainly does put the "accidental" break to rest. If it had been broken from the inside by accident, the well would have been full of glass.

      Delete
    7. That just proves CC is right that it could have been an old break, one in which John may have climbed through there after being locked out.

      Or John could have had the foresight that morning to open the window and poke something through it from the other side, the window well side, standing on a chair or some such. Otherwise how could he have reached up that high? You would then have to consider that either the stool or the chair would have glass on them.

      Delete
    8. Thank you for the compliment, CC.

      Inq, my point was that Van Der Leek's theory (BR broke the window while playing in the basement) is shot to hell when one considers where the glass was found.

      Delete
    9. I'll drop it though that Burke broke it that night. UNKLE.

      Delete
    10. "Or John could have had the foresight that morning to open the window and poke something through it from the other side, the window well side, standing on a chair or some such. Otherwise how could he have reached up that high? You would then have to consider that either the stool or the chair would have glass on them."

      Or a Samsonite suitcase.....which *did* have a shard of glass on it.....*insert suspenseful "dun dun DUN" music here!*

      Delete
  2. Patsy knew, in plenty of time before they sat for their police interviews, that John was going with the locked out window breakage story. That Patsy embellished on the story bringing in Linda, is Patsy pageantry (and not very smart, I agree).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Then are *Patsy's* persistently vague and in some cases inconsistent statements about many elements of the case necessarily indicative of Patsy lying? And why does a completely innocent Patsy lie about anything? If John's lying about the window, then so is Patsy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my mind there is no question that Patsy testified to certain things that were not true. I've already pointed out the inconsistencies in her very different versions of what happened prior to the 911 call. And obviously I don't believe for one minute her story about cleaning up that glass. But people "lie" for different reasons and even if you want to insist that she was "lying" about the broken glass that does NOT tell us that she was necessarily involved in the kidnap staging.

      Her inclusion of Linda in the story is one reason I don't see it as incriminating, or even as a lie, but as an implanted memory. But my interpretation of both her actions and her words goes much deeper than that, and is based on my analysis of the case as a whole, which you have never even attempted to do, John. Yes everyone has "theories," but in most cases each is based only on a very selected set of details and that's just not good enough.

      Any theory that involves Patsy as an active participant in either the murder or the coverup leads, very clearly, to a dead end. Same with an intruder. Same with Burke. So when I see evidence that suggests that Patsy must be involved after all, that makes no sense to me and I look for some reason to account for it. Is that "bending the truth to preserve my theory"? Perhaps it is. So if anyone can come up with some other theory in which every single detail fits neatly with no problems, I'm all ears.

      Delete
    2. Inconsistencies aren't necessarily lies. In fact inconsistencies are *normal* in the retelling of memories. It's stories that are perfectly consistent that are suspicious. We'll have to disagree on PDI, IDI, and BDI leading to dead ends. I think your dead ends are based on assumptions that are not necessarily valid, like that there *had* to have been a plan to dump the body.

      Delete
  4. Since Patsy seems to not know really why there would be glass on the basement floor, and she wasn't anywhere near John when he says he broke it, she also has a faulty memory apparently when she says she cleaned it up and Linda helped, then I think we can at least eliminate her being in the basement PERIOD Dec. 25/26. So for the PDI's, don't you think she really wasn't down there at all? Can we possibly agree on that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom Trujillo: "Okay. Why don' you walk me through the rest of the 25th? What all did you guys do that day?"

    Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I continued to wrap some presents. I went back down to the basement on the washing machine area there and wrapped for taking the stuff to the lake..."

    ReplyDelete
  6. That day she was in the basement, but not the night after they returned home from the White's and gift giving - or in the wee hours of Dec. 26. Not at the crime scene, otherwise wouldn't she have seen the broken window?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The basement had several little rooms sectioned off so according to the floorplan, if you walked down the stairs to the laundry area you would not see the broken window unless you specifically walked into the hobby/storage area and turned right. The broken window was in the 'storage' area of the basement which explains to me why the room had stuff strewn and looked junky. It wasn't visible--out of sight and all.
    Kat

    ReplyDelete
  8. So you are saying that John did break the window and just didn't clean up the glass, and Patsy cleaned up the glass but glass was still there. She would have had to have seen a broken window in order to have claimed she cleaned up the glass from it, yet we know she didn't clean up the glass, nor did she and Linda Hoffman clean up the glass. So either she made up that there was a broken window in the first place, or she never knew the window was broken because she never did clean up the glass.

    It's a conundrum. However it makes sense if Burke broke it that night, that John would want to take credit for breaking it himself, and all Patsy knows is that John has told her he broke it himself. She couldn't have seen it "broken" after 9 p.m. Dec. 25 or the morning of the 26th.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're more confused than Patsy, Inq. I have no idea what you're trying to say. I'm saying John broke the window, yes, but NOT the previous summer, NO. And yes he did clean up the glass -- but only after Patsy called 911, foiling his plan. And no he didn't "restage" by scattering more glass, where do you get that? Fleet found a couple of pieces that John had failed to clean up, that's all.

      And no, it makes NO sense that Burke broke it, there's no reason to include him at all. I thought you'd been all through that theory and dropped it. You're spinning like a top Inq., settle down.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Inq, how do we "know" that Patsy didn't clean up glass?

      Doc, when could John have cleaned up any glass after the 911 call? Fleet White saw the broken window around 6:20. Wouldn't he have noticed if there was less glass there when he went there later with John?

      Delete
    5. "Around 6:20" doesn't cut it, John. The whole scene at that house would have been chaos. There is no way Fleet or anyone else could have been anywhere near that accurate as far as the timing is concerned. If Fleet didn't see much glass when he entered that area, then as far as I'm concerned, John must have preceded him down there and cleaned it up before he arrived. Possibly just before. John said he found the window open and closed it, and Fleet reported that the window was closed, so this too is consistent with John having gotten there first.

      Unless, of course, you are prepared to buy John's story, which I've just gone to a lot of trouble to refute. If I'm wrong, then nothing makes sense and we might as well buy into the intruder theory.

      Delete
    6. I'm just asking for a plausible time he could have done this cleanup after the 911 call and before Officer French went down to the basement (which was even earlier than Fleet, IIRC). Just saying "he must have" is begging the question. We don't know that he did.

      Delete
    7. No, once we realize that his story about breaking the window earlier is a lie, then we have no choice but to explain that missing glass. Someone cleaned it up. And no, it wasn't Patsy. That much should be clear by now.

      We have no way to recreate the exact timing of what happened that morning and who was where when. It's also possible (and possibly more likely) that the officer never noticed either the broken window or the broken glass. The upper part of that window was shielded by a heating duct, and the floor was a hopeless mess, as can be seen on the video.

      Delete
    8. I *don't* think his story about breaking the window earlier is a lie, regardless of whether or not it was fixed and broken again. Patsy and Burke both corroborated the story, and it makes no sense for John to *ever* admit breaking the window unless he actually had at some time.

      Delete
  9. And, this one is easier. Upon seeing the broken window, John seized on it as an opportunity to point to an intruder, so moved the Samsonite over under it, I can maybe go along with scattered packing peanuts and leaves all around it, and put a scuff on the wall or the scuff was already there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that's exactly what he didn't do. He made up a story about breaking that window months earlier. And if his story is a fabrication, as I feel sure it is, then the only reasonable explanation is that he himself broke that window the night of the crime, to stage an intruder. I see no reason to bring Burke into it, especially since there is no evidence linking him to that window whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. if as you say "the only reasonable explanation is that he himself broke that window the night of the crime to stage an intruder" then why did he tell LE that he broke it earlier when he got locked out of the house the summer before and had to crawl in. So much for an intruder. Do you see how THAT makes no sense to me? And didn't you say a few pages ago that he may have flushed glass down the toilet because he changed his mind and thought a broken window with glass all around looked too obvious as a staged break-in and he and Patsy would have been arrested on the spot?

      Delete
    3. Sometimes you come up with some very insightful and reasonable comments, Inq. And sometimes I get the feeling you're hopelessly confused. According to my analysis of the window scene, as presented both in these new blog posts and many other times in the past, John's original plan involved breaking the window to stage an intruder break in on the night of the crime. But when Patsy called 911, John realized that his incomplete staging would not fool the police because the window sill was covered with undisturbed dirt and dust. So fearing that they would see through his incomplete staging, he decided to concoct an innocent reason for the window being broken. Which is why he came up with the story about breaking in the previous summer. He flushed the glass down the toilet because all that broken glass, if found on the floor, would be inconsistent with that story.

      Delete
    4. In my opinion that window was not the point of entry J originally had in mind for the "intruder". Of all the doors and windows of the house, that window was the most unlikely to be used, either by an intruder or by himself trying to gain entry after discovering he had been locked out (if that story was true, which is also unlikely).
      If we are to follow the ransom note as a blueprint for his actions, he was supposed to have a full day ahead to stage the break in a piacere .
      All the staging he needed to accomplish was the point of entry and/or exit for the intruder. And I think he had a better idea than that window. If he killed her in the basement -which I believe is the case- he probably didn't want any kind of attention there. So, no, that window was not the original idea. As for staging a crime scene, he didn't need to do that, not even touch the body after the strangulation. The plan was to dispose of it in a remote area. The ransom note suggests that the body could be even denied for proper burial, if instructions were not followed. So, there's no point for staging any crime scene. He just needed to hide the body in a place where Patsy would not find it, left the RN for her to find and really...take a shower.
      The 911 call is a true game changer and that is why us, JDI believers, see it as a hinge in the whole case. It RUINED IT ALL for him -at least at that point. (Therefore Patsy was not involved).
      The 911 call made staging necessary and urgent. Urgency made it confusing and sloppy. The window point of entry ? or maybe not?, the suitcase (or not?) the over sized panties, the white blanket, (with the night gown attached to it) the garrote, the paint brush and the cord. I bet the words in the note resonated in him as he was staging. It was those improvised and desperate actions that he never planned to do and that took place after the call that confused it all for LE and most people.












      Delete
    5. Thank you, Marcela......your version of events are exactly as I've held to all long (albeit more succinct and eloquent than mine, as I do have a tendency to "waffle" on a little)
      Staging was clearly never a part of John's initial plan, as LE weren't supposed to be at the house until the next day, when the body had been disposed of (as per ransom note threat - "body denied for proper burial" - as you pointed out) so the staging was frantic, haphazard, sloppy, incomplete. *BUT* the very fact John was doing any staging at all whilst LE were in the house should leave no doubts in anyone's mind that he - and he alone - was the perpetrator of the crime, because if he and Patsy were in cahoots, both of them would have made sure to complete this staging BEFORE making the 911 call. It is really rather simple: a call to 911 was made whilst critical elements still had not been taken care of, thus the person who dialed 911 COULDN'T have known that the kidnapping wasn't genuine.

      Delete
    6. Marcele and Ms. D., we are all very close to being on the same page -- but with all respect, the notion that John did no staging on the night of the crime doesn't work. Also I'm not really sure what you both are claiming. Are you saying John didn't break that window on the night of the crime, but waited until after the 911 call to break it? If that was the case, then why on earth would have wanted to clean up the glass? Or maybe I'm not understanding either of you.

      Delete
    7. The only staging he would have needed to do the night of the murder would be to fool Patsy. Which would really only consist of the note, wouldn't it? Everything else he would have taken care of the next day when he had the advantage of a clearer mind, daylight and - hopefully - an empty house. Breaking the basement window in order to have Patsy believe an intruder entered/exited this way wouldn't have been such a great idea, as Patsy would have no doubt then investigated the basement and possibly stumbled upon JB's body.....unless, of course, John had her body stashed somewhere else at that point. And, if he didn't break the window for Patsy's benefit, but to fool LE instead, then why not wait until he had the entire day to stage it to his satisfaction?

      Delete
    8. I agree. There's no advantage to breaking the window before the 911 call. And it's also a bad idea to break the window after the 911 call to fool law enforcement and then concoct a story to explain it because you know it won't fool law enforcement. Ergo, John didn't break the window that night or morning.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, the window story is very confusing. Because he says he broke it trying to get into the house over the summer, yet Patsy says she cleaned up all of the glass. The glass is not all cleaned up, nor did she clean it up with Linda. IF John wanted to use the window break as an opportunity to make it look like an intruder came in there, complete with suitcase against the wall, scuff mark and peanuts and leaves, why does he tell the police that HE broke it then?

    Why can you not consider that Burke broke it, and that is why John made up a story that he broke it to cover for Burke. Burke was not supposed to be downstairs late Christmas night, he was supposedly putting together a toy and being walked back up to bed. Not playing in the basement with himself or JB. I thought you said before John had removed glass, then put the glass back - which is where I got that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you are either confused or you are confusing me, Inq. You ask why he told the police he broke it himself, as though I haven't gone over that time and again, including this latest set of blog posts. Please reread, OK?

      And I assumed you were all over BDI, so why bring it up again. I don't consider Burke because there is no reason to consider him. No shred of evidence linking him to that window scene. Sure, anything is possible. Maybe one of Burke's friends broke the window. Maybe one of their house guests had broken it. Maybe Linda broke it. Why complicate things unnecessarily? All the evidence points to John, he was the one who closed the window without telling anyone, he was the one who made up the phony story about breaking in earlier, he was the one who claimed to be investigating the case and yet didn't bother to determine whether that window had ever been repaired.

      There are very good reasons for rejecting BDI, which I and others have made very clear and I thought you had agreed to. So why bring all that up again, you're making me dizzy.

      Delete
    2. Inq - I can envision the window very well could have been accidentally broken by Burke or other children prior to the murder. There was the party with Santa and the gingerbread house assembly with several kids. Some of the children may have gone to the basement to play that day.
      More likely that children would be using the basement due to the train layout or other toys or games, than adult houseguests heading to the basement or choosing to use a basement toilet than a more convenient one.

      I just am not on board with all these absolutes Doc keeps on about, and his Burke 'could never' 'it would be impossible for a child to-' 'Patsy would never'

      We have no idea if Burke was ever questioned about the window as a child. And neither does Doc. Unless he has an inside LE/DA/direct family member confidant.

      Delete
    3. Yes, thanks Lil - I'm obviously not communicating very well. On the issue of the window it is a conundrum to me and making me dizzy as well so probably best to drop it, and although I see lies all around in that family I"m not proof positive BDI or that Burke for lack of a better word, may not have been gaslit himself when sent back to bed that night. He doesn't seem to really know what happened, yet he most probably was right there . And you are right Lil, Burke was not questioned about the window, at least not in 1998 by Schuler. The knife, yes. He knows every implement on his knife I can tell you that. I could make a better case for the window if not for Patsy's crazy story that involved Linda, which I can't see contributed much of anything and seems very disconnected from John's own story. All three of them have confused, lied and covered up. An intruder wouldn't stand a chance breaking into their home, they would probably all kill him and get away with it.

      Delete
    4. Lil, if the window had been broken accidentally by one of the children there'd have been no need for John to concoct an elaborate story explaining it. Also, if you study the police video of that room you'll see 1. it was a complete mess with all sorts of junk on the floor. NOT the sort of place kids would be playing ball. 2. the break is in the uppermost half of one of the uppermost panes, not easily reached by a child. 3. that portion of the window was obscured, and protected, by heating ducts, which would have made it very difficult for anyone to break by accident.

      Delete
    5. Doc,
      I don't believe he broke the window the night before. The ransom note gave him plenty of time to work on the staging the following day. Also, I don't believe the initial plan was to stage point of entry through that window, so close to crime scene. I believe he could have ran downstairs and broke it while Patsy was waiting for LE at the front door. He desperately needed some kind of entry in case the house was searched and the body was found by LE. He didn't have a way to know what LE would do upon arrival. It was later, when he could breathe and have a few moments to think clearly that he decided that staging was not going to work so he went downstairs and corrected the mistake by picking up the glasses etc. It makes sense either way, though. He could have initiated staging on the night of the crime and ran out of time to complete it or he could have done the window breaking in the spare of the moment out of desperation before LE arrived to realize afterwards it was not a good idea. I'm more inclined to believe he didn't do any staging on the night of the crime otherwise the point of entry would hav been a different one.
      If Ms D agrees with this, maybe she can help me explain it...;)

      Delete
    6. Officer French said he arrived at the house five minutes after the 911 call. Both John and Patsy told BPD they were on the first floor when the call was made, and Patsy said he was wearing only his briefs.

      So, Marcela and Ms D, please explain to me how John had time to run down to the basement to clean up, pulverize and flush glass and run up to the third floor and dress in the five minutes it took French to arrive and see him standing, fully dressed, in the hallway behind Patsy.

      Delete
    7. He ran down to the basement to break the glass and put the suitcase beneath the window. Just that. At that moment the shards of glasses didn't need to be pulverized or flushed. The fragments of glass on the floor were proof that the window had been broken that night. The clean up and staging was completed when he went AWOL for one hour plus at 11 am. I don't think opening the window and breaking the panel took more than 2 minutes. We don't know for sure if JR was completely dressed or not after he took the shower. I don't believe what they say.

      Delete
    8. That doesn't work. Officer French searched the house, including the basement, when he arrived, though he was unable to open the door to the wine cellar, he surely would have noticed broken glass on the floor.

      Delete
    9. I agree, Marcela, and you explained it perfectly.
      John was in a panic after Patsy called 911 and possibly reacted immediately by staging an entry/exit point for the non existent intruder, then thought better of it as the morning progressed and decided not to run with it.

      Delete
    10. Exactly, CC. Officer French didn't notice the latch on the door. Enough said about him.

      Delete
    11. Thank you, Miss D. I'm glad I'm not alone in this idea.

      Delete
    12. You get that it was small, obscure, and above the eye level of an adult, while French was looking for a child, or some evidence of her, and therefore looking down, right?

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. My point is that he didn't conduct a thorough search on the basement (reports state it was a quick search) otherwise after being unable to open the door, he could have asked John or Patsy to open it. In the same token, he could have missed seeing the glass on the floor. After all, it was before daylight,the place was a mess, and he was looking for a child, like you said.

      Delete
    15. Still doesn't work. Fleet White went down there before John went M.I.A. and didn't see it either.

      Delete
    16. You are seriously confused, Marcela. If John had broken the window just after the 911 call, officer French would have seen the glass on the floor and so would Fleet White. Also I see no reason why John would have been so foolish as to stage and then unstage within a few hours on the same day.

      Some of you are going way off the deep end trying to overthink and overcomplicate what can be explained very simply.

      And CC, you are being pedantic. It matters not whether John would have had time to do his unstaging before or after the police arrived. The situation was obviously confusing, and John could certainly have snuck down to the basement in all that confusion even if the police were present. The timelines we've seen are all different and the reporting of what happened when is bound to be vague and may well be inaccurate.

      Delete
    17. "Lil, if the window had been broken accidentally by one of the children there'd have been no need for John to concoct an elaborate story explaining it."

      Doc, you really have tunnel vision sometimes. If the window was broken by one of the children, how would John have automatically known that? He goes down to the basement, sees a broken window, remembers breaking a window himself months earlier, and doesn't know for sure if it was that break or not. He wouldn't even have to be covering for Burke either, Inq

      Delete
    18. Marcela, if John desperately needed some kind of entry, he didn't have to frantically break a window in the basement. He could have just . . . I don't know . . . gone over and unlocked the butler door.

      Delete
    19. My oh my, John. You really need to hone your nit picking skills. If it had been broken accidentally by one of the children, then someone would have reported that by now, no?

      And as you ought to know there have been many cases where break-ins have been staged by guilty insiders, very often by breaking a window or door lock. It makes for a more dramatic and convincing piece of intruder evidence. If John's original plan had succeeded it would have been totally convincing. Whereas a door left open could have been an oversight.

      Delete
    20. Why would you assume that someone would have reported that by now?

      And yes, I'm sure there have been many cases of staged window break-ins. Staged window break-ins where the perpetrator tells everybody that *he* actually broke the window? Not so much.

      Delete
    21. And if John had a totally convincing staging plan, why didn't he just do that before Patsy got up?

      Delete
    22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Doc, please dont use these two sentences together ever again:

    "Why complicate things unnecessarily? All the evidence points to John."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  14. Inq - I have no idea what to make of that window. John is definitely lying 100% but for what reason/motive could be anything.

    All I know is that all the evidence points to Burke. And the experts on this case who know more than all of us combined, agree. Thats why I will never complicate things unnecessarily by even remotely considering JDI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  15. If all evidence points to Burke, I would like to hear the theory explained in the same way Doc explained the JDI theory. It shouldn't be that hard because it's not complicated as JDI and the evidence will back it up.
    Not pun intended. Honest request.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Zed wants to tackle that, my only request is if he/she would do it under 500,000+ words. TIA

      Delete
    2. Dear ol' Zed won't do it. He gives brash, two line retorts in response to why JDI can't work, yet never offers his own BDI scenario - even though it's "uncomplicated", by his own admission - which doesn't pose many more questions than it does answers. I do hope he takes you up on your challenge though, and offers a comprehensive BDI scenario in the same manner Doc has outlined his own JDI theory.....one that accounts for all the loose ends that BDI inevitably leaves, no matter which way you spin it.

      Delete
    3. Diamond:

      Zed's theory can be written in seven words.

      "Burke did it because I said so."

      Delete
  16. John has a missing 6 yr old daughter. He goes to the basement to determine how someone got in the house. There are no doors down there..only windows. He finds one broken and slightly open. Whether it was from a previous break or not, it's still a way into the house. So, why didn't he run back upstairs immediately. John saying he was looking for glass, and trying to determine if it was a fresh break is just a way of avoiding the bigger question. Why didn't he report it immediately? His answers to that question ranged from I don't know, I vaguely remember, I think I said something...etc,etc.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, K.
      Whether the breeze opened the unlatched window, or the glass on the floor was from a fresh break, or a previous break - none of that confusing web John wove for LE should have mattered, because WHAT parent of an abducted child goes searching for evidence of an intruder, stumbles upon an open, broken window and fails to report it to the police immediately?! It beggars belief that the events surrounding this broken window, John's reaction to coming across it that morning, along with his ridiculous story, wasn't pursued in more depth.....this could have been the "smoking gun" that nailed him, had investigators not been so eager to nail Patsy.

      Delete
    2. John is masterful Ms D, is he not? He an play dumbfounded, confounded, stupefied and helpful all at once. Reminds me of the note. Sounds smart, yet the dumb ole foreign faction can't spell. And they don't know enough to ask for a big ransom. So technically astute as to be able to put a family under surveillance, but they don't remove the body in order to hold it for ransom.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm not sure what to think about the window, but I totally agree with what you say, K.

      Delete
    4. That's a good point, Ms D. Unless he was really certain that this was his break from last summer. But even then, you would think he would have told them anyway and said "this may have been something I did". But then it makes no sense at all for a guilty John to break a window in the basement and thus call attention to the basement.

      Delete
    5. "But then it makes no sense at all for a guilty John to break a window in the basement and thus call attention to the basement."

      Right... a guilty John drawing attention to a kidnapper turned murderer/pedophile, living in the house, and practicing reverse psychology, makes better sense.

      Mike G

      Delete
  17. We spend a lot of time teasing out motives for this and that, from a starting point of 'if he was guilty then why would he do such and such?' I often find it refreshing to start a question assuming innocence.

    K and Ms D have it exactly right. If your daughter is missing, presumed abducted, and you the distressed father are looking for evidence, and you find in the basement a broken window ajar, some debris, a scuff mark on the wall and a suitcase out of place beneath it, it is literally inconceivable that you don't immediately, without hesitation, without equivocation, and with great urgency, tell LE what you've found. Utterly inconceivable. That fact alone nails John as the guilty party in my mind. As a father his actions re the window - even before the absurdity of his concocted explanation for the breakage - constitute proof of his guilt. Not legal proof, certainly, but proof enough for me as a reasoning human being and father of a little girl.

    You don't mope around for hours thinking, "Oh gee, I can't remember whether that's the window I broke last summer or whether or not we repaired it, so I won't bother telling the cops for a few hours..." Absolutely no way. Even if it's a window you KNOW you broke earlier that year, it's still a possible point of entry, especially given the suitcase. John is guilty. Doc's theory on the window explains every aspect of it - with the possible exception of Patsy's making herself complicit in the lie, which must trouble him slightly. Doc, one day I'd love to see you do a complete analysis of Patsy's errors and/or lies, to see honestly whether sedatives and gaslighting really do explain them satisfactorily.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Exactly right, K, D and M. That's the crux, the bottom line, and the source of my disagreement with Doc about his JDI/window analysis.

    Going on and on about dubious, unprovable staging/unstaging weakens his case, and may cause some thoughtful readers to question his entire thesis - particularly when coupled with that pejorative "gaslighting".

    Better, perhaps,to lift your first paragraph in its entirety, MHN (well written, and good to see you back, btw), with regard to JDI and the window, and in lieu of "gaslighting" to illustrate by example that while Patsy was no Stepford Wife, she followed John's lead in most things and was easily influenced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, should be "lift your second paragraph", MHN, your summation.

      Delete
    2. CC, you may for all I know be a great lawyer, but imo, and with all respect, you don't seem to be much of a sleuth. While it's true my long winded analysis of John's window story might put a jury to sleep, and maybe a prosecutor could make a better case against John without getting into it, as I see it, understanding his window story is an essential ingredient to solving the mystery of this case. And a perfect example of the misdirection tactics that helped get him off.

      If he is ever brought to trial I'd be willing to leave such decisions to the prosecutor and not interfere. After all, as I see it, the case against him would be strong even without exposing that particular lie. However: once it became clear to a jury that John WAS lying about that window, any attempt to concoct a reasonable doubt defense based on the possibility of an intruder would certainly fail. And yes, I do believe I can prove beyond doubt that he was lying. Stay tuned.

      Delete
    3. Never claimed to be a sleuth, or even a particularly gifted attorney, for that matter.

      But I do lay claim to a certain amount of reason, logic and intelligence, and my only point has been that you lose a degree of credibility by indulging in speculation about the window staging/unstaging - and stubbornly sticking to it absent any proof, and by your use of the g-word rather than a more balanced interpretation of John's influence and his wife's susceptibility thereto.

      But everybody's a critic, eh? Nothing takes away from the fact that you've solved the case through the deceptively simple expedient of re-including John.

      I look forward to seeing your proof.

      Delete
  19. MD and K,

    JR's reaction to finding the broken window is just one of MANY examples in this case where BOTH parents' actions were suspect.

    You can start with the window, then move on to the changing story about the RN, reading it, not reading it, touching it, not touching it...then move to the parents allowing their other child to leave their sight without police protection, then move to the phone call to the pilot making arrangements to leave the scene of your murdered child, then to blocking every attempt LE made to interview them. And on and on and on. I think you get my drift.

    That's the frustration with this case. Lots of could've's and should've's, lots of maybe's and might've's....but no hard evidence.

    And we can sit here and talk all day long about how parents should have acted, BUT we all know that's not enough to get them arrested. If it was, these two would've been locked up long ago.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  20. I appreciate everyone's interest in tackling this case, piece by piece, window shard by window shard because as we all know there were no arrests, and even though some of them did a good job and were committed, they were bootstrapped by their elected officials to solve this case and allowed Mr. Ramsey to amass a task force that they became unequal to. Your second paragraph MHN is as good an explanation regarding that broken window pointing to guilt as I have read. Same for you EG, a trail of lies from changing stories and timelines to phony note to staged window. I was more accepting of CC's theory that he did break in (John) and just didn't have the opportunity to elaborate on his broken window theme. That made sense. Perhaps the bigger picture is this whole case makes no sense. Why didn't these parents even pretend to try and find their daughter's killer? They even apparently have given up (Patsy literally). Burke didn't seem to care, he just wanted to "move on." You got it EG.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Unless this is old news to most in here, this past Monday 3/20 "CBS has formally asked a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Burke Ramsey over a 2016 docuseries in which a team of analysts concluded that he'd murdered his sister, JonBenet Ramsey, in their Boulder home on Christmas Day 1996."

    www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-murder-claim-lawsuit-burke-ramseys-lawyer-rips-cbs-call-to-dismiss

    As for Spitz:
    "The lawsuit isn't targeting Spitz for his comments on the CBS production but rather the interview he gave to CBS Detroit in 9/16 during which he made similar statements."

    (Also Spitz failed to produce a CD of that radio interview to the court thus far).

    Here's something interesting:

    Other claims flagged in the lawsuit by Lin Wood are that "He's (Spitz) said to have made 'false and defamatory' statements that Burke Ramsey had smeared JonBenet's room with feces, that 'claw marks around JonBenet's neck predated her murder' rather than resulting from her struggles to free herself from the garrote" around her neck."

    That's interesting. Lin Wood is suggesting she was conscious and struggling to free herself from the garrotte and that there were claw marks around her neck, which the ME said otherwise. AND, that Spitz says the claw marks predated her murder and were not from clawing at the cord. Interesting. We'll have to stay on top of this to see where it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Lawsuits and trials proceed in proscribed, choreographed steps, Inq. The Plaintiff files a Complaint, Defendant files an Answer and shortly thereafter a Motion to Dismiss. There's a hearing on the Motion, and they're very seldom granted; most judges allow the parties to have their day in court, and let the case be heard on its merits.

    Next comes discovery - written Interrogatories and depositions of prospective witnesses - and this part will be interesting, as Notices of Taking Deposition are filed with the Court, so while we won't see transcripts of the depos (unless they're leaked), we will get a look at who's being deposed, and thus a glimpse of both sides' strategies.

    I think it's likely CBS will file suit to get the rest of the GJ findings; I would, though since the case remains open and unsolved there's a good chance they'll remain under seal. Still be fun to watch, as that will no doubt make John squirm, and, imo, hasten to settle.

    All the while discovery goes on there will be settlement negotiations happening in the background, of which we'll remain unaware, but be assured they'll be happening.

    Some time soon there'll be a pre-trial conference to set a trial date, probably 9-12 months out, depending on the judge's docket.

    It'll be fun to watch unfold, no question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My attorney tried to spare me all of the back room details in our lawsuit, even though I wanted them. I just hope we can get the news when it happens and not weeks later. I'm hoping Lil can put her electronic research skills to use and keep us posted.

    ReplyDelete
  24. After reading some of the wild speculation being offered here lately, I wonder why I've bothered to explain myself at all. While I'm trying to carefully and even meticulously work my way through all the complicated threads of evidence some of you are proposing fantastic ideas off the top of your heads, with no attempt at self-criticism, balance or restraint. Not to mention a willingness to go off on huge tangents without even bothering to check the evidence.

    No, Burke could not have broken the window by accident. No, it makes no sense to assume John would have broken that window after the police arrived, that's totally pointless and absurd. No, it's not possible that John was planning to stuff his daughter's body into that suitcase because it resembles an "attache," which it certainly does not. And no, it's not possible to recreate what happened that morning, minute by minute, because no one was keeping track of the time and so many different versions of what happened after the police arrived are inconsistent.

    I've been trying to inject a modicum of discipline into our mutual discussion of this case but my efforts have clearly been in vain. I'm tempted to drop the whole matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get it now Doc, oh I get it. John broke the window that night/morning, by the time he had gone upstairs to take his shower he thought everything was done that needed to be done, but there were still loose ends, which explains all of his keeping himself separate from the group, and his awol trips to the basement. He knew the window breakage was obvious and would be obvious to LE so thought of an "earlier previous" break in story to be sure that French, and whoever else may arrive on the scene would think that it was not broken that night. And of course Burke could not have broken it as the glass (thank you CC) was on the inside of the window well, not out. No errant baseball either, or gardener's rake or anything from outside as the window grate would have stopped it.

      So it came down to staging his own break at the morning time. Don't know what he broke the window with, certainly not a body part, there would have been blood, so perhaps we can figure that out another time but for now I'm satisfied why he told the story he did and I reckon "why" was what I was after.

      Delete
    2. Your efforts were not in vain. Please, continue on.

      Delete
    3. Not to be petty, but...OK, I'm going to be petty. Inq., I proposed the idea that Van Der Leek could not be correct about the window.

      Delete
    4. Who is this guy, H? What are his qualifications?

      Delete
    5. okay HKH , then thank you :)

      Delete
    6. I apologize for the cringeworthy attempt to pat myself on the back.

      CC, he is in his 40s, from South Africa; a (self-proclaimed) investigative photojournalist. I've read that he has a background in law, economics and marketing. Looks like he may have obtained an economics degree from a university and a brand management diploma from an advertising school. His claim of a background in law is pretty vague. Funny he lists that one first. I guess it sounds good to say you've studied law when you're writing true crime narratives. I took a few theater courses in college to meet general education requirements. Doesn't mean I have a background in theater.

      He and his co-author boast about publishing 18 books in 2016 alone. All of which cover high-profile cases.

      Delete
  25. I've searched the past posts here trying to find the answer to this: What is the opinion here about the 'broken glass from wine cellar" collected as evidence? The writers of Sequin Star book 1 feel that the broken window glass was collected and hidden in the wine cellar. I wonder exactly where and how it was concealed when the technicians found it. Or could it have been glass from something else? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What glass from the wine cellar?

      Delete
    2. According to them it was listed on the search warrant dated Dec 26, 1996 on page 9, item 13KKY. I was able to find it searching google images.

      Delete
    3. There are four pieces of broken window glass listed on page 9 of the search warrant return for 12/26, available on acandyrose, but it does NOT say where they were collected. They're on a page that lists the bowl, spoon and glass - also collected by "KKY", but not their source. Barring better information it sounds to me like van der whomever is taking a large leap.

      Delete
  26. This is off the window topic, but I just saw a piece announcing the upcoming Netflix documentary "Casting JonBenet" airing on April 28th. I admit I don't know what to think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankfully Netflix is something I get and I will be watching. It has a very good review, it's eerie, and focuses on what the town thought during all of the case.

      Delete
    2. Well, if it supports an intruder or paints poor John as a victim I don't think I have the stomach to watch. You'll have to let me know what you thought ;)

      Delete
    3. What I gather is it's kind of like a movie within a movie, like Shakespeare's play within a play. They are auditioning girls for the role of JonBenet, and boys for the role of Burke. One scene is a very cryptic and eerie Burke reciting lines of what he actually has said. I got a flashback of the movie "The Omen." Then there are the John actors, and the Patsy actors. There are the costumes, and other characters in her short life. I don't think it will paint John as victim and I don't think it will be a fluff piece. I was waivering, I'll admit it, and I think I"m back on track now. He acted alone he acted alone he acted alone he acted alone he.......

      Delete
  27. re:Patsy being influenced/controlled by others

    From DOI:(Patsy).."I pulled into the corner 7-eleven, where JonBenet had often walked with twenty-five cents in her pocket to buy gum or candy, and I went inside to buy a pack of cigarettes"....

    "...Now I said defiantly to myself, I'm going to smoke until they find the killer. I knew it was pure rebellion. I felt so out of control. People were telling me what to do, where to go, whom to talk to, whom not to talk to. They meant well, but I felt less and less like an adult who could manage her own life."

    Sounds like quite a bit of influence to me.

    K



    ReplyDelete
  28. CC.... I'll try to post the link.... http://www.acandyrose.com/12261996warrant09.gif

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right. That's the page to which I referred. Please note that it does not say it was collected from the wine cellar or the train room, or even from the basement at all.

      But I'm being pedantic.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Page 11 shows broken window glass. Also the sheets from JBR's bed, the bowl, glass and spoon, evergreen needles. Clearly the CSI searchers were bringing collected evidence to a centrally located scribe. There is no way whatsoever to determine from whence anything came - unless van der whomever has some triple secret source?

      Delete
    5. I see the pieces of glass you mentioned on ACR's page 11, their page 9 starts with the body :( as the first item; "broken glass from wine cellar" is 3 items below the crossed out line.

      Delete
    6. Also the "crime scene" pictures were not necessarily as they found things. Things had been hopelessly moved around due to all of the people in the house that morning. Had French cleared the house of it's occupants and sealed off the house the pictures would have been more accurate. But of course they had to wiretap the phone and have John wait for the call during the kidnap phase. I don't, however, think Mrs. B is quoting Van Der Leek, there's nothing in anything I've read about glass in the wine cellar - broken ornament perhaps

      Delete
    7. So it does, Mrs B. I would just point out that there were no windows in the wine cellar, and that page 11 clearly specifies broken window glass. Not necessarily same glass from same source, is it?

      Delete
    8. it could have been window glass tracked in there from the other room, no?

      Delete
    9. Agreed... it could have been from anywhere. It would be interesting to find out what testing if any was done on it to determine where it came from. I'm thinking it must have raised some suspicion to be collected in the first place. That basement was a mess.

      Delete
    10. "There is no way whatsoever to determine from whence anything came - unless van der whomever has some triple secret source?"

      Even then, CC, his triple secret source might be on double secret probation!

      Mike G

      Delete
  29. Will go back and read everyone's comments but the LIGHTBULB WENT ON so to speak, Doc. Here I was trying to tie in John's story with an intruder - that's really convoluted. Here it is, and it's what you have been saying Doc but I just got it.

    John said he broke the window (earlier, last summer, whatever) so they (LE) wouldn't think he broke it that night. I get it now! Nevermind what else they may have supposed, he must have figured out that if they thought he broke it that morning he would be in deep doo doo. I got it. Now we must figure out why Patsy lied to support his story which was a lie. Oh Hallelujah, the fog lifted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why did he break the window to begin with? That's what I can't get past.

      Delete
    2. Yes, you got it Inq. Good! At least someone got it.

      Delete
    3. "So why did he break the window to begin with?"

      Well, John, he broke it to stage an intruder. How's that for a simple straightforward answer?

      You seem to think an open door would have done just as well, and maybe it would. But he, like a great many other insiders who've attempted to pin their own crimes on some outside "intruder," decided to take the more dramatic route, probably because it would look more convincing. Anyone can leave a door open. But a broken window is a sure sign of an intruder breaking and entering. And if you do a good enough job, the police would never be able to prove that you yourself staged it. If all had gone according to plan, John would have completed his staging and there'd be no way to prove he did it.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Yes, but you're saying that he did a staging job that he *knew* was not good enough before he got in the shower, before Patsy got up. He would have either done a staging job that he thought was good enough, or he wouldn't have broken the window at all. It's the admitting that he broke the window that doesn't fit in with all this.

      Delete
  30. DocG: I just read your comment above and want you to know how much I(as a fairly new "poster") appreciate your time and dedication to this site. I can't imagine how much patience it takes. I think your theory is well thought out and I also appreciate your writing style and humor! Please don't give up on us...we all want the same thing..the killer of that innocent little girl to be brought to justice. Even if we squabble like relatives around the Thanksgiving table.

    Your site is the most intelligent site dedicated to this case in my opinion.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too! Doc please don't leave us! I lived in Ft. Collins for a couple of years, and have visited Boulder as well. I always believed what the Ramseys said. I was sucked in by other sites and some ridiculous theories for awhile that just didn't add up for me, and was so relieved to find yours. I personally am still trying to figure some things out, but have thankfully found many answers here. You are thoughtful,intelligent, respectful and so patient. I'm sure it's exhausting to have to continually counter what is still erroneously put out there, like that ridiculous Dr. Oz show awhile back. That poor sweet girl's face is in my mind every night before I go to sleep.Keep up the good fight.

      Delete
    2. Thanks everyone, for the encouraging words. It's not dedication so much that drives me, however, as sheer obsession. That's how it is with all my projects. If I can't get obsessed I can't summon up the energy to pursue it.

      Delete
    3. Doc, it's pure obsession that drives me also, and that is the case with absolutely everything I pursue - I often get to the point where I don't even want to do it anymore (not specifically this blog - everything I obsess about) but I feel driven to, and it becomes exhausting. That is why I am perhaps over analyzing the details - I'm looking for the couple of the puzzle pieces that will tie this whole thing together, yet you've probably already done that, and admittedly, I am very content with almost all of the elements of your theory, so I'm not quite sure why I am still unsatisfied. Probably simply because the case remains unsolved and no one has been charged, and no one ever will be. You're doing a great job, and I don't want my comments to be the ones that cause you to have second thoughts about maintaining the blog, so - just for a week or two - I'm going to take a back seat. Cheers everyone! :)

      Delete
    4. Hey Ms D, we all need a rest from obsessions. I understand. It doesn't all fit for me either. And that's because there isn't a nice summary at the end of the ten series tv special for instance in Broadchurch, where you are strung along with clues the whole way and then they show you what REALLY happened and it all makes sense. This case is open ended. Even in criminal court cases the prosecution has to come up with a theory that isn't perfect but one that will convince a jury and the jury might not even buy it (Casey Anthony). Having said all that it wouldn't be the same in here with out you.

      Delete
    5. "If I can't get obsessed I can't summon up the energy to pursue it."

      Doc:
      Talk about lights suddenly going on, that explains PERFECTLY why I never became the ladies man I fancied myself to be! Have you thought of starting an Ann Landers-like blog and charging participants? You could make millions!

      Mike G

      Delete
  31. I agree with your theory to the smallest details, Doc. I respect and found everything you share very logic and fact based. Don't give up on us...please. So sorry if I sounded confusing...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Inq - yep, obsessing over anything can be a great energy waster. I was pretty caught up with the tv series LOST, and what a complete let down with how that ended.
    I had to back off playing some computer games when I found myself actually dreaming chess moves in my sleep, or searching for things like in Redneck Rampage or Half-Life. When anything becomes more frustrating than fun, I tend to have to let it go. But when a mystery isn't solved, or in this case, no arrests, it's unfinished and that has me revisiting it.

    ReplyDelete