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.

Friday, March 24, 2017

The Broken Window Redux: Part 3

Let's start all over from the beginning, only this time we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that John was telling the truth, and that he had indeed broken that window the previous summer. So now it's the morning after the assault, Patsy has called 911 and John, as he has testified, makes his way into the basement. As he enters the area with the broken window, it occurs to him that he himself must have broken it the previous summer, so maybe that break is irrelevant. But then he notices, according to his own testimony, that it is open. And for some reason he was never able to explain, he closes it.


He also notices a hard Samsonite suitcase placed flush against the wall just beneath the window. (And by the way, don't be misled by the photos that show the suitcase in a different position -- Fleet While also initially observed that the suitcase was flush against the wall, but according to his testimony he moved it while looking for pieces of glass.) He notices, also, what looks like a scuff mark on the wall just beneath the broken window. As he later (months later) testified, that suitcase did not belong there. And yes, it looked suspicious. It occurred to him that "the intruder" might have used it to boost himself out the window. And yet: he never reports any of this.

Now. How is that suitcase to be explained? What is it doing there? Who could have placed it there? And why? John suggested that "the intruder" placed it there, on his way out that window. But as we know, the police found no sign that anyone had passed through that window, either coming or going. As is clearly evident from crime scene photos, the thick layer of dust and dirt on the window sill was undisturbed. What is more, Lou Smit noticed, from careful examination of a photo, that a tiny shard of glass was sitting on top of the suitcase. If that window had been broken months earlier, how did that bit of glass get there?

Some have wondered aloud why John would have reported either the suitcase or the smudge on the wall if he were in the process of unstaging a previous staging. Similarly it's been argued that he would certainly have moved the suitcase at the very least, so it would not look so suspiciously like staging. These objections do seem reasonable yes, and I will return to them presently. However, regardless of how one might be able to explain why this and why that, all such questions pale before the fundamental question: what was the suitcase doing there in the first place, who put it there, and why.

Was it the intruder, as John claimed to have suspected and Lou Smit later argued? Well, as should by now be clear, based on a logical analysis of the case as a whole, no intruder theory makes sense. Besides, what purpose could it have served him? The state of the window sill tells us no one passed through that window, so it was clearly not used to boost anyone up and out. And obviously no one entered the window that way either, meaning any intruder would have needed a key. And an intruder with a key would have had no reason to bother squeezing himself through that narrow window. Enter via a door, exit via a door. If your intended exit point is locked, use your key to open it.

Could Patsy have placed it there, as part of an attempt to stage? Or Burke? Well, once again, what would be the point? Surely it wouldn't take the police very long to see through such obvious staging, given the clear evidence that no one passed through that window. So once again we are forced to ask: who placed that suitcase there and why?

And, for me, at this juncture, any possibility that John's story about breaking that window months earlier might be truthful simply collapses. Even if we want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding all the many dubious aspects of his story, as summarized above, the presence of the suitcase flush against the wall under a broken window that no one could have passed through can only be explained as part of an attempt at staging that was never completed. And the only reason why it would not have been completed was that something must have gone wrong. And for the life of me, the only thing I can think of that could have gone wrong for the person who did the staging was Patsy's 911 call, which unexpectedly brought the police to the door before the staging could be completed.

So. Now we are finally in a position to recreate what most likely happened on the night of the murder and the following day. John, for whatever reason, most likely to prevent her from exposing him as an incestuous child molester, wakes his daughter, possibly abuses her sexually, and then bludgeons her, rendering her unconscious and dying. Then, aside from writing a phony "ransom note" to stage a kidnapping, he decides to stage a likely point of entry and exit for the intruding kidnapper. He opens the basement window from the inside and, using a hammer or similar instrument, breaks it from the outside window face so the glass will fall inward, onto the basement floor. He then finds an old suitcase belonging to his elder son and places it flush against the wall just under the broken window, to suggest that the intruder used it to boost himself up and out. Then, lifting his foot, he creates a smudge on the wall to reinforce the staging of a window exit. As his foot is lifted, a small shard of glass caught in the sole falls onto the suitcase, where it will be discovered at some later date by Lou Smit, who will attribute it to the nonexistent "intruder."

At this point his staging is incomplete, because clearly no one could have passed through a window encrusted with undisturbed dirt and dust. In order to complete his staging he will need to climb through that window himself. No point in trying that now, however, as Patsy would notice how messed up his clothing was and become suspicious. No matter, because, according to his plan, as outlined elsewhere on this blog, he would be able to complete the staging the following day, with Patsy and Burke out of the house. For now, however, he would have created a nice, convincing scene for Patsy's benefit, if, on the following morning, she might have some suspicions regarding whether or not her daughter had really been kidnapped. "Look what I found, Patsy. Come down here and see. A broken window with a suitcase under it. Looks like the kidnapper must have entered and left through this window, propping himself up with the suitcase."

Of course, this little scene never took place, because Patsy inadvertently foiled his plan by calling the police first thing in the morning. Caught off guard, John now realized that the police would soon see through his uncompleted staging. Once they inspected the window sill, noting the absence of any smearing or displacement of any dirt or dust, they would see both the broken window and the suitcase as a crude and amateurish attempt at staging by someone inside the house. Both he and Patsy would have been hauled to the police station and, in all likelihood, read their rights. The obviously staged scene at the window would probably have been sufficient evidence of guilt for them both to be indicted on the spot.

At this point, John's reason for concocting his little story about breaking in himself at an earlier date should be clear. Given the likelihood that the police weren't about to buy his incomplete staging, John decided to misdirect them by being "cooperative" and explaining away the broken window by claiming he himself broke it some time ago. There was only one problem: the broken window glass sitting on the floor of the basement. So, at the first opportunity he had, either before or after the police arrived, he would have rushed down to the basement, placed as much of the broken glass as he could quickly find into a paper or plastic bag, hide it in a corner of that crowded basement, and later, when he had more time, crush it with his foot and flush the tiny shards down the toilet.

Why didn't he also get rid of the suitcase or move it out of the way? No way to tell for sure, but we can certainly hazard a guess. My guess is that he must have been extremely rushed and in a panic. No time to think clearly. The most obvious thing was getting the glass out of sight and that he was able to do (though he missed some pieces). And don't forget, from all reports both a police officer and Fleet White were in that basement during roughly the same time frame, so John might have had to act very quickly and possibly never had a chance to deal with the suitcase. By the time he got around to answering some questions, months later, he would have learned that Fleet saw the suitcase sitting flush against that wall, directly under the window, so there would have been no point in denying that he saw it as well. But by concocting his own break-in story he successfully misdirected everyone away from the suitcase and everything else that looked suspicious by "helpfully" explaining it all away. "Now why would he tell a story like that if he'd been staging an intruder break-in at that window?" Why indeed!!!!

Now that my thinking regarding John's window story has been made as clear as I can probably ever make it, there remains the most puzzling issue of all: Patsy's testimony regarding her cleanup of the broken glass. If John's story is so clearly a fabrication, and she was totally innocent, then why would she have lied to support it?

(to be continued . . .)







53 comments:

  1. If John was savvy enough to realize that the police would see through his uncompleted staging, why did he not think Patsy would too? "Look what I found, Patsy. A broken window with a suitcase under it. Pay no attention to the cobwebs on the window sill and the dirt and dust. And by the way, while you're here don't go looking around the basement. Nothing to see here!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy was a mess that morning and wouldn't have noticed little details like that.

      Delete
    2. How would John have been able to *count* on that? If he had hidden JonBenet's body in the basement, there is no way he would have wanted Patsy anywhere *near* the basement. He's not going to bring her down there to show her the broken window that he supposedly already knows is not going to fool the police.

      Delete
  2. Doc just said John did not have time to have that conversation with Patsy. In any event a very vulnerable Patsy, wanting to believe a monster came through the basement window and took her baby away, would have believed anything John told her that didn't implicate anyone she knew, namely him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Inq. I think John would have counted on Patsy trusting him. Her primary emotions at the time would have been panic and desperation. I doubt she'd have been in any mood to suddenly switch gears and morph into a sleuth. I think John counted on that. Of course he also counted on Patsy being too frightened to call the police, and you can see where THAT got him. He would have had no choice but to take some risks and hope for the best, regardless.

      Delete
  3. John's game was misdirection. The staging would have looked too obvious. The staging was what he came up with most likely soon after the murder. He had to go undo some of it. Since the basement toilet contained human excrement (sorry, hope no one is eating lunch) he could have used any number of toilets on different floors, if he flushed any glass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or he could have flushed it and then, later, gone to the toilet. With all that glass down there and God knows what other evidence he might have flushed, it might well have backed up.

      Delete
    2. Was it John's excrement that was found in the basement toilet - do we know that? Or don't we know who it belonged to? I'm curious because it's not an answer I can readily find on any website. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. And how would you even search for it? :)

      Delete
    4. Also do we know if the police ever checked the pipes? That would seem like an obvious thing to do.

      Delete
  4. "Doc just said John did not have time to have that conversation with Patsy"

    Right, but Doc surmised that the "partial staging" was done just in case he *did* have that conversation with Patsy. But why would he ever do a staging that he considered "too obvious" and then show it to Patsy?

    "a very vulnerable Patsy, wanting to believe a monster came through the basement window and took her baby away, would have believed anything John told her"

    Where are you getting this view of Patsy from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Would it have been "too obvious" to Patsy though. To a trained eye, like a police investigator, looking for a way an intruder would have come in it would have (it might have, and John couldn't run that risk) looked staged, what with a suitcase against the very wall with a broken window above it, glass scattered all around (glass that the Ramsey children could have gotten cut on) and a wide open window where the cold air would have come in and no one would have noticed any of it. That is why he then had to modify the scene. He also had to say that he thought he had broken the window that summer so an astute investigator wouldn't immediately question whether he may have broken it the night before. In the interim, however, between the first staging and the second, HAD Patsy gone downstairs and inspected for herself, the suitcase under the window, the broken glass and debris scattered around plus open window would have sufficed to convince Patsy that that must be where the kidnapper came in. Now why did she lie to support his story of the break in. I'm waiting! Let's see if we can figure it out before Doc tells us.

      Delete
    3. one more - oddly enough Burke supports John's break in theory too, although where in any transcript or on Dr. Phil does he say he actually saw him BREAK the window?

      Delete
    4. But this would have us believe that it was obvious to John (not a trained police investigator) after doing it that it looked staged, but he didn't think it would look that way to Patsy? What did he know about police investigation that she didn't? And yes, Burke corroborated the story too. Does that mean that both Patsy and Burke were gaslit into false memories? Or was the earlier break-in just true?

      Delete
    5. I feel that you are nitpicking John I. How do you think the window got broke, why do you think JR told a fib to LE, what do you have at stake here - do you want to solve it or pick at it. What's that old saying "you are either part of the solution or part of the problem."

      Delete
    6. This isn't nitpicking. It's a huge inconsistency in the theory. I think any viable theory has to account for contrary evidence. My opinion is that the most likely answer is that the summer break-in actually happened, and that if the window was re-broken later, it wasn't done by John for staging.

      Delete
    7. who broke it then. And if there were two breaks, who fixed the first one and when was it fixed - before the second one? No evidence of two breaks. Just one big hole on the 26th. Patsy said she and Linda picked up all of the chunks and vacuumed. Yet Linda said there was no break, and she didn't help Patsy clean up. What's your theory?

      Delete
    8. First of all Burke did NOT support John's break-in story, because John claimed he was alone when it happened. Burke was either trying to be helpful or else truthfully reporting on an earlier break-in. His testimony has no real bearing on the story John presented to the police.

      Delete
    9. Wouldn't Patsy have made Linda clean the window sill after cleaning up the glass?

      Delete
    10. I think Burke was truthfully reporting on an earlier break-in. So was Patsy. John still could be lying about or embellishing the details, but I think there had to have been some kind of earlier break-in.

      Delete
  5. Doc, is it inconceivable that Patsy did not think to disturb the windowsill and well while staging this scene? She may have been too rushed or stressed to consider that detail. You also do not think Burke would have left the window scene in that incomplete fashion. I would not be so quick to give Patsy or Burke the benefit of the doubt. I do not think it is a stretch to conclude that Patsy simply did not think about the dirt or grime.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is a huge stretch. The presence of the suitcase plus the condition of the windowsill contradict one another and that would have been obvious to anyone staging there. The only explanation I can think of is that the staging was left incomplete because the original plan could not be carried out.

      Delete
    2. I can think of another explanation. The broken window wasn't staging at all, and it was just fortuitous for the stager that it happened to be broken. Assuming that *any* staging was done, of course.

      Delete
  6. It's easier for me to understand why Patsy would lie than it is to understand why she would believe her own lie. Does that make sense? Is it possible that it would be so painful and ugly to see John as the perpetrator that she went into denial and doubted her own memory? Not to mention the guilt she would feel if she had ever suspected him of abusing JonBenet in the past and did nothing. An innocent Patsy may have been vulnerable to believing anything that pointed away from John.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand perfectly, and think you're spot on, K, for whatever that may be worth.

      Delete
    2. Agreed, K. But there's another piece to it. Patsy involved the housekeeper in the story. That was verifiable, and as it turned out, Linda denied helping her clean up the glass and stated that there was no broken window.

      Delete
    3. Thanks CC..I wasn't sure I was being very clear. K

      Delete
    4. I think you are all on the right track. Patsy was extremely vulnerable and could easily have been manipulated by JOhn. I'll have more to say on this in my next post.

      Delete
  7. Re-read your above thread and what I see, and to give it back to you as my interpretation of what you said, is yes, his staging was interrupted, whatever went wrong, and he intended on re-doing it but was foiled when Patsy called 911. He put the suitcase against the wall as a temporary stop gap measure in case Patsy came looking downstairs. It wasn't sophisticated, but just in case she came down before he was finished the suitcase would have to do. Had she not called 911 would have staged a better intruder scenario effort but in the end he had to stick with the suitcase because officers were on their way. And yes John, he had no choice but to work with the suitcase, and go with it. And no John, had Patsy seen it it's not likely she would have viewed it as a shoddy staging job pointing to John. It's moot anyway, she didn't see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it not likely that Patsy would have viewed it as a shoddy staging job, but obvious to John that it was?

      What could have interrupted him before Patsy got up? John was in the shower when Patsy got up, which argues against him being interrupted. He was in the shower, so therefore finished with whatever it was he was going to do. So that would mean he intentionally did a staging job that he *knew* would be obvious staging, or he wouldn't have immediately taken responsibility for the broken window. This makes absolutely no sense.

      Delete
  8. Good point, Inq. I don't know why Patsy would involve the housekeeper. Did John "remind" her of a story that he knew was false, and she truly thought she had just forgotten? Or could there have been a window break in the past? I'm not even sure how reliable a witness Linda is. She certainly turned on Patsy after she was brought up as a suspect. I just don't know Inq, any ideas?

    K

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to every post. I appreciate everyone's participation and will make an effort to persist here as long as I dont get totally discouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please don't give up DocG. This is my first post. I have been reading since October, and have to admit that you have convinced me too look at John through a whole new lense... Each post, I become increasingly closer to being convienced he staged this... One question that keeps coming up in my mind is it is not typical for parents who are sexually abusing their children to kill them in fear of being caught.. so, I still need convincing it was him... but I guess as I'm writing this, I'm starting to believe it had to be him because there is no way Burke could've done it...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ramsey told someone in an interview, and I can't remember whether it was a law enforcement interview or television, probably the latter, that "well the first thing we wondered was how did the intruder get in the house, since the doors were locked?"

    Someone please tell me how that statement can be reconciled with a guy who on that same day told Fleet and also law enforcement that he himself had gained entry through a basement window in the past. Frankly, an innocent man who had successfully broken into his own home would have told Rick French upon arrival to check that window in the basement even if Ramsey hadn't already been down there and seen the window broken and left open that morning. Again, instead, incredibly to the contrary, his statement paraphrased from above was essentially "we were baffled as to how someone entered."

    The truth is he didn't want to direct attention to that window at all, because it would direct them to his unfinished amateurish staging. Yes, they were going to see it, but he would look all the more guilty if he directed them to it as the source of entry, much like leading the police toward Patsy instead by handing them her notepad. Instead, he had to be neutral and vague, and use misdirection. It was his only chance.

    Leaving the suitcase under the window was just a pressure valve release (or maybe he simply didn't want to touch it without gloves on, frankly) which he could either later not mention at all, or call attention to as either a puzzlement to imply an intruder came in through that window, or simply say he "doesn't know if that suitcase had ever been stored there." The suitcase was secondary in other words, and not incriminating of him as part of the obvious window staging at that first point, yet in fact as we now know was used by him later to support the intruder theory once law enforcement choked on seeing through the broken window ruse, helped along by guys like Smit who acted out the window break-in for him.

    Remember, please, as DocG says so eloquently and in such great logical detail, that once Patsy called 911, Ramsey was in "Hail Mary Pass" mode so there obviously were going to be inconsistencies and questions, but as it has turned out for twenty-plus years, the more questions the better for Ramsey. All he had to do along the way was supply "reasonable doubt" while staying out of jail. That first phone call on December 26th to his pilot at 1:40PM to try and flee was his White Bronco moment, and he should have been questioned as to "what meeting" and with whom and police should have trapped him on that, as nobody would have corroborated a supposed meeting in Atlanta the next day. Seriously? (DocG did police ever question Ramsey more about that meeting, which could only have been planned with the other participants, if true, on the same morning as the "kidnapping" since the pilot was never told about a need to get to Atlanta instead of Charlevoix, Michigan). OMG no wonder Ramsey got bolder by the minute as he got away with more and more things. Arndt had him in her sights that morning as they stood over the victim's body. That was ground zero.

    Regarding Hoffman's later contradictory testimony about the basement window and "clean-up of the glass" being part of this absurd saga: Ramsey knew that Linda Hoffman was going to be interviewed by the police in the investigation at some point, especially, for pete's sake, since the Ramseys had pointed a finger at her the first day, and therefore he knew she would be asked about the basement window, and he knew exactly what she would say about it, which is indeed what she did in fact truthfully say, which is that the window had never been broken to her knowledge. So rather than be trapped by that he got aggressive and had Patsy include Hoffman in the story as though they wanted Hoffman to corroborate their story. That was simply another defensive tactic, just like the unstaging of the window.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Since the phone records for Dec. 25 and 26 and probably 27th were not seized by LE and analyzed, it has been suspected that John's call to Atlanta and meeting he had to not miss was a damage control meeting with Lockheed Martin. Not to flee Boulder with his family or leave the scene of a crime and investigation, although it would have served that purpose as well. He had to massage Lockheed Martin that the investigation into his daughter's death would not damage the company.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calls were eventually seized, just not made public and are still not made public.

      Delete
    2. (cont.) Where do you come up with this stuff Inq? And seriously, even if "it has been suspected (who with any credibility has proffered that excuse?) that John's call to Atlanta and meeting he had to not miss was a damage control meeting with Lockheed Martin," then when was that set up and with whom at Lockheed or Access Graphics that morning, and who initiated the meeting, that is, who ever corroborated that "suspicion?"

      And really, would that have been the first thing on your bucket list if your daughter were lying dead on the floor under the Christmas tree even if the president of the parent company urged that meeting? Really? And do you really think someone at either company would have been so callous as to ask for such a meeting from a devastated father of a murdered child?

      Delete
    3. We all know John found the body alot earlier than 1 p.m. As he sat there brooding about when Arnt and her nonexistent team of fellow investigators were going to perform a search, he had to wait her out in order to be told to search the house one more time, and ultimately "find" her. Once he brought her up what kind of grief did he show? By his own admission he couldn't even scream, or cry. Fleet was more distressed than John.

      We also have several months of cell phone records, by Thomas's admission, that were curiously absent from record. September-December 1996. If he had a pressing meeting in Atlanta for which he wished to make it out of Boulder, it surely was not scheduled. They were to go to Michigan.

      He may have wanted to secure representation, immediately. With Atlanta attorneys. He possibly called his financial planner Westmoreland, who curiously showed up in Boulder on the 27th, which is written like a "surprise" visit in Death of Innocence. Or, the emergency meeting may have had to do with executives from Lockheed Martin, as once the news got out that one of their own was part of a murder investigation in the death of their daughter, he may have felt a little nervous over the prospect of being cut from Access Graphics/Lockheed - which is exactly what ultimately happened when they sold six months. later.

      Yes, that would be the first thing on my bucket list if I was serially molesting my daughter, responsible for her death, had been attempting to cover it up since early the morning before and wanted to keep my job, status, and money.

      Delete
    4. John called Rod Westmoreland, his financial planner, to arrange for a $118K line of credit on his Visa card, which John Fernie then took to a bank and used to get the cash.

      Makes no sense that John would want Georgia attorneys for representation and advice on a Colorado criminal matter.

      You're not getting it, Inq. John invented the important meeting as a face-saving attempt to the cop who overheard him talking on the phone to Mike Archuleta about flying them to Atlanta - fight or flight, and John's first instinct was the latter.

      Delete
    5. And Patsy told LE in her second interview that John had lost his cell phone and didn't replace it until Christmas, when she received one as well, which probably explains the gap in the cell phone records.

      Delete
    6. Although I cannot know the details of why John called his pilot to arrange a flight to Atlanta (since I do not have his cell phone records to know who he called prior to that particular call) or his landline records CC, how else would you explain the sudden arrival in Boulder on Dec. 27 of Rod Westmoreland, his Atlanta-based advisor and VP at Merrill Lynch. John, in D O I, explains the unusual timed visit from Westmoreland as that of "my good friend who helped raise the ransom money" - but wasn't it John Fernie and his bank manager who did that alot earlier Dec. 26, before he "found" the body? Why would Westmoreland need to show up in person if the ransom amount was simply arranged over the phone that morning with a line of credit? And where did you get that that is what Westmoreland did? Even if he did why would he need to appear in person the next day.

      What is popularly believed, is that J called his pilot to arrange a trip to Atlanta for an urgent meeting because he wanted a get out of town free card, that the "urgent meeting" ploy was because Mason overheard him.

      It's quite a gap in cell phone records as well too CC. Thomas says he tried to get Sept - Dec. and there were none.

      Besides the Ramseys being with Westmoreland the day after the murder in Boulder, as soon as they got the green light the Ramseys zipped off to Atlanta and back to Westmoreland.

      Given that John really knew the body was lying down in the wine cellar room long before 1 p.m., he may have been cotemplating the necessity of getting to Atlanta for many reasons, moving his money around would be one guess, or conferring with executives in the Lockheed Martin group. But I'm not going to pursue it, as I do not have anything to back it up. We just all assume things that are written into the text of this drama that may not be true -that John invented his "meeting" because Mason overheard him and that he was planning on fleeing. He may have urgently wanted to get to Atlanta for business reasons.

      Delete
    7. (continued and to tag onto the last sentence) for business reasons related to his MONEY and how to hold onto it once the S storm hit the fan.

      Delete
    8. Patsy told the cops in her second interview that John had lost his cell phone and didn't replace it until Christmas: fact. There were no cell phone records for that period of time: fact. John Ramsey related the Westmoreland-Fernie-Visa card story in DOI, and said warm, flattering things about his close friend Rod leaving his parents home in Tupelo at Christmas to fly to Boulder to offer support: facts.

      I don't understand why you insist on complicating things and confusing yourself even further.

      Delete
    9. I don't know why you would believe what warm things John had to say about Westmoreland and the reason he was there, to offer support only. Isn't it more believable that John would need to get financial ducks in a row for the onslaught that was about to commence? And how convenient that John lost his cell phone during the timeline where it might be advantageous to have it.

      But I'm dropping the Westmoreland-call thing. My bigger case would be that now that the murder was finished, wouldn't John logically want things to go back to pre-normal - his former status, his big bankroll, and to hold on to the company that was doing so well and that had taken years to build to that point. I'm not confused about that one iota.

      Delete
  13. (cont.) I should have said "Arndt had him in her sights that first afternoon, as they stood over the victim's body." Ramsey brought the victim upstairs as we all know at about 1:10PM.

    And the 1:40PM call to the pilot was not the "first" call he had made to the pilot, as he had called his pilot earlier that morning, but it wasn't to hightail it to Atlanta.

    And in speaking of "Hoffman" I'm obviously talking about Linda Hoffman-Pugh the housekeeper, not Darnay Hoffman the lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have a different perspective now on the Patsy lie/break-in/LHP/glass cleanup memory. That either or both memories were false memories. Think about your self. How frequently when combing the past, have you been convinced of something, even right down to what you were wearing or where you were standing or who you talked to. And, when another person is involved they have a completely different account of events. I say Patsy was told of John's earlier break-in, either because he was legitimately locked out (and didn't break a window) and she also has a memory of she and Linda cleaning up glass a different time, a different event. Patsy then put the two together. We've all done it. Linked together two separate memories and associated them together as being related to one. The stakes would have been very high for her to make that association too, and in her vulnerable position just after her daughter has been murdered, she supplanted two false memories and rolled them into one. Not a lie, as she believed it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. (cont.) "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of Our Lives."

    As to one ubiquitous commenter's comments in particular: "Like flies on parchment paper, they don't ever stick."

    And they are exhausting. I bid you all adieu.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well props to the Von Trapp family! I have always been fond of The Lonely Goatherd.
    https://youtu.be/9vtq9t08ktU

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to admit, I'm confounded too.

    "Look what I found, Patsy. Come down here and see. A broken window with a suitcase under it. Looks like the kidnapper must have entered and left through this window, propping himself up with the suitcase." Doc

    ---"Yes, John, I saw that window yesterday and it wasn't broken. But how come there's no glass on the floor?" Mike G

    How could John have responded to such a question? I have no idea.

    The following potential conversation with Patsy makes better sense to me.

    " Patsy...come down here..."(Patsy comes down to the basement and sees John pointing at the broken window.)

    "Damn it John, I meant to get that damn thing replaced. Do you think this is how the kidnapper got in and out?"

    (John pauses and pretends to further investigate) "No...it doesn't make sense...there's still cobwebs in the window frame and the glass has been cleaned up. They must have had a key or got in some other way. Look, Patsy, this stuff matters, but not now. Let's get our daughter back, but in the meantime we should all stay completely out of the house until we get JonBenet back or are forced to call the police...if there's evidence left behind identifying these bastards, I don't want any of us contaminating it. I'm checking us all into a hotel, and you and Burke are staying locked in the room, while I get the money...if the kidnapper is monitoring our every move like he says he is, he'll see us check in and know where to call later today or tomorrow. Or he might intercept me coming out of the bank, if he sees that I'm alone, which is fine with me...I wouldn't want you and Burke there anyway. The bastard didn't tell us he'd hurt JonBenet if we preserved the scene of the crime by getting out of the house...besides, if it's rest he wants me to get, that'll happen better in a hotel than staying here tonight. Tomorrow, you'll stay by the phone in the hotel, while I come back here and wait for the call. I'm going to get some tape recorders for each of us so we can tape our conversations for the police to hear later on. I want these guys caught."

    John drops off Patsy and Burke at the hotel, then drives to the bank. Like the ransom note said, he gets "contacted" coming out of the bank, finding a note on his windshield. In it, he is told to follow the SUV with dark tinted windows parked just across the street to the place they will be making the exchange.

    Or perhaps John planned to dump the body later that night during a trip to get some take-out for the family. He may have even planned to convince Patsy of the wisdom to get separate, yet side-by-side rooms, one for her and Burke, the other for him. Ostensibly, Burke would not have to be privy to a frightening call in the middle of the night, or the next morning. In reality, it gives John more autonomous mobility. Whatever...the point is, John's plan to dump the body had a high element of risk regardless of where he spent the night.


    Mike G




























    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have quite an imagination, Mike. But of course we have no way of even speculating regarding all those details.

      As far as what John might have told Patsy when he showed her the window, the response you've concocted is strange indeed:

      "---"Yes, John, I saw that window yesterday and it wasn't broken. But how come there's no glass on the floor?" Mike G

      How could John have responded to such a question? I have no idea."

      If you'd followed my argument you'd realize that glass WOULD have been on the floor. It was cleaned up only AFTER the police were called. You're just as confused as the investigation team. Maybe you should apply for a job with the BPD. :-)

      Delete