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.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The Broken Window Redux

A child is found dead in a remote basement room in her own house. The parents have previously called the police, informing them that she'd been kidnapped and presenting a ransom note as evidence. When the body is found it becomes clear that no kidnapping had taken place.

Upon further inspection, a window in another area of the basement is found to be broken. Packing peanuts from the window well are strewn on the basement floor, a hard suitcase has been observed flush against the wall directly beneath that window, and a scuff mark is seen on the wall just beneath that same window. Would you say that looks suspicious? I would certainly think so. As seems obvious, the window was either broken during a forced entry by an intruder, or someone from inside the house staged it to look that way. Upon close examination it is determined that no one could have passed through that window the previous night, as there was no disturbance of the considerable layer of dust and dirt on the very narrow windowsill, and an intact spider web was found in the opening beside the sill. Looks like someone was trying to stage a window entry, and exit, by an intruder who stood on the suitcase to boost himself out. And since there was no sign that anyone actually passed through that window, the amateurish staging looks pretty obvious. Clearly, this is an inside job.


Unexpectedly, however, a third possibility is offered by the victim's father, who claims he himself broke that window months earlier after having been locked out of the house. Quite a coincidence, no? But the father is believed, because his story is consistent with the condition of the window sill, which shows no sign of anyone having recently passed through it -- and after all, if he staged a breakin why would he undercut his own staging by claiming he himself had broken the window at an earlier date?

John's story regarding that broken window has been analyzed at length in four consecutive posts on this blog, beginning with this one: Clear Evidence of Staging -- The Basement Window. I feel confident I made a strong case therein that this story is a fabrication, concocted to misdirect the authorities from the fact that John broke the window, not months before, but on the night of the crime, to stage a break in by a murderous would-be kidnapper. Recently, however, this interpretation has been questioned by some who seem willing to accept John's story at face value regardless of the many reasons I've presented for doubting it. Their skepticism seems reasonable at first glance, and is worthy of a systematic response, which I will attempt here.

First, let me summarize some of my principal reasons for discounting John's story:

1. In the Ramsey's book, Death of Innocence, John claims that "during a day back in the summer" he had "left [his] keys inside and was locked out of the house." During his 1997 police interview John is less sure: "for some reason I didn't have a key. I don't know why."  He then continues as follows:
But usually if I don't drive my car I take a cab or something to the airport and back, and I don't have a key and the house keys are on the key ring.
Not at all clear what he is trying to say here. Note that he does NOT actually state that he took a cab, only that "usually," if he didn't drive his own car, he'd have taken a cab. "But I think I took (INAUDIBLE) and it dropped me off." He THINKS he took a cab. This was only a few months ago, why can't he recall? Well, if he said he definitely recalled taking a cab he might be asked what cab company he used, and what the driver looked like. Better to keep things vague.

Now this bit of dialogue:
LOU SMIT: And then they dropped you off there at the house. 
JOHN RAMSEY: Right. 
LOU SMIT: So you don't have a garage door opener at that time, is that what you're saying? 
JOHN RAMSEY: Right.
Note that Lou is assuming John took a cab even though he never actually says he did, only that he THINKS he did. And he also assumes John couldn't get in because he wasn't in his car and therefore didn't have the garage door opener available. John gratefully accepts the prompt. But if he couldn't get in because he didn't have access to the garage door opener, then why didn't he say that in the first place, instead of wondering what he did with his keys?

Then, explaining how he would normally get in the house: "Probably the garage, in the garage through that door. And I think I had given my key to John Andrew or somebody." Interesting. According to his book he had left his keys inside the house. Then he couldn't recall what he did with them. Finally he "thinks" he gave them to John Andrew -- or somebody. (Just in case John Andrew is ever questioned on this matter.) But hey it doesn't really matter, because 98% of the time (yet another percentage figure, as in the note) he got in via the garage door opener. And IF he had taken a cab, that would not have been available.

When asked why he didn't call a locksmith, John says he didn't have any way to call. No phones available at the airport? No one thinks to ask him that. Or why he couldn't have taken a cab to the nearest motel and called a locksmith the next day.

Next we hear the story about John removing his clothing. I'll spare you the details on that one, but it's pretty fantastic. For more details on that and other aspects of John's story that either he can't recall, or are vague, or don't add up, I'll refer you to the blog posts linked above.

2. Much of the skepticism concerning my interpretation of this story turns on Patsy's testimony, where she seems to be supporting John's version of what happened. Since I feel sure Patsy was not collaborating with John in either the crime or the coverup, that's probably the most difficult aspect of my theory to explain. So let's take a very careful look at what Patsy actually said:
. . . he told me to come back from out of town or whatever and he didn’t have a key and the only way he could get in was to break the window. 
Now pay careful attention to this statement. The implication is that John had lost his keys and therefore needed Patsy to return because he had no way of getting in or out without them. But recall what John wrote in "Death of Innocence": "during a day back in the summer" he had "left [his] keys inside and was locked out of the house." If his keys had been left inside, then they'd be there waiting for him after he'd broken in, so he wouldn't have needed Patsy to "come back from out of town" because "he didn't have a key." And if he gained access to the house "98% of the time" via the garage door opener in the car, then he didn't really need the house keys anyhow.

There's more:
TT: Okay. Any reason why that one wasn’t replaced or the pane wasn’t fixed or anything?
PR: No, I don’t know whether I fixed it or didn’t fix it. I can’t remember even trying to remember that . . . 
What a strange thing to say. She "can't remember even trying to remember that" --- ???? Why would she need to remember TRYING to remember whether or not the window had been fixed? Either she remembered it or she didn't.

But she does remember cleaning up all the glass:
PR: . . . when I got back, uh, in the fall, you know . . .
TT: Uh huh 
PR: Uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass. 
TT: Okay. 
PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum. I mean I picked up every chunk, I mean, because the kids played down there in that back area back there. 
TT: Um hum. 
PR: And I mean I scoured that place when, cause they were always down there. Burke particularly and the boys would go down there and play with cars and things and uh, there was just a ton of glass everywhere. 
TT: Okay. 
PR: And I cleaned all that up and then she, she vacuumed a couple of times down there. 
TT: To get all the glass. 
PR: In the fall yeah cause it was just little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.
Once again, let's pay careful attention to precisely what Patsy says. Note first of all how she twice reminds her interviewers that this took place "in the fall," as though to make sure they understood she was on the same page as John and not referring to any other incident. Secondly, note the emphasis she places on all the glass she had to clean up: "there was just a ton of glass everywhere." But that could not have been the case. We've all seen the video showing that broken window. The break was limited to the upper half of one pane out of four in a small window. It has been described as "baseball sized" and was hardly large enough for someone to fit his hand through. Only a small amount of glass would have been on the floor, not a "ton."

Note also her concern for the well being of the children who played down there, and how important it was for her to get every scrap of glass cleaned up. Yet some pieces of glass were found by Fleet White when he went down there. How could they have been missed? And take a look at the following still from the police video of that window:


Note the large shard of glass dangling from the edge, ready to fall to the floor at the slightest disturbance. How could Patsy have failed to collect any loose pieces like that, which could so easily have fallen off and possibly cut someone?

Finally, note the references to the housekeeper, Linda Hoffmann Pugh, who supposedly helped with the cleanup. Only, as we all know by now, Linda vociferously denied any knowledge of any broken window or any broken glass.

(All for now. To be continued . . .)




52 comments:

  1. Something that just popped into my head when reading this... I know some of you are not a fan of Van Der Leek, but he seems to feel that one of the baseball bats taken as evidence may have caused the head injury. Any chance that the baseball size hole in the window was caused by a baseball being hit through that window?

    Also you all were discussing the few minutes between the 911 call and officers showing up. Just because JR says he was in his underwear doesn't mean he actually was. You just can't believe anything that man says

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Patsy told her interrogators John came down in just his briefs when she screamed for him.

      Delete
  2. Let's be a little careful in the wording Mrs. B. I know you weren't suggesting that Van Der Leek said a baseball may have been hit through the window. We've already shot that down here previously. Van Der Leek has a different suggestion as to how that window got broken.

    It's a much bigger hole than what I remembered from looking at the crime scene photos. It would be helpful if it was photographed with a yard stick or ruler up against it of course, but it does look like most of the pane is gone. However I don't know what the measurements of the pane are. Bigger than a baseball however, and most of the pane is gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also the window grate would have stopped a baseball from going through the window from the outside.

      Delete
    2. You've cleared that up for me. Thanks.

      Delete
    3. I'm considering getting the third installment of Sequin Star Mrs. B., when he's finished with it. What I said earlier sounded critical. Didn't mean to be.

      Delete
    4. The hole took up roughly the upper half of one of the uppermost panes. Not that big. See the last portion of the video available here to see the hole: http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-basement-jonbenet-ramsey-murdered-9500924

      And for some perspective on the size of each pane, see this photo: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fIcY6xzmYQo/UEJZjB2Cw0I/AAAAAAAAAk0/dIO9i9rBK2U/s1600/CSSUIT~1.JPG

      If you compare the window panes with the suitcase that will give you an idea of how small they are.

      Delete
    5. "Van Der Leek has a different suggestion as to how that window got broken."

      Yes, I read about his theory in the teaser and I was very curious.....what does he suggest happened?

      Delete
    6. That JB and Burke were in the basement that night either after the parents were asleep or running around there around the time the parents were getting reading for bed. None of us can seem to nail down a real timeline, not even the ME. However one of the children broke the window. He suggests how but it's not really relevant and contains just as much speculation as John using his foot. However, it makes more sense to me that one of them broke it, and that is why John immediately says he thinks he broke it, and possibly why Patsy backs up his "locked out" story. But I'm in here, open to what makes sense.

      Delete
    7. How could one of the children break that window? The broken portion was at the top of one of the uppermost panes and that area was blocked by heat ducts. Even if they'd been tossing a ball around it would have been all but impossible for it to strike that particular pane.

      And if they had broken it, why on Earth would John have wanted to hide that fact by concocting his story about breaking it himself? And how did the suitcase get there? A meaningful theory has to take ALL the evidence into account. You can't just ignore certain things and make assumptions based on what you might want to believe.

      Delete
    8. Any kind of instrument with a long handle, a bat, a golf club could have taken a swing at that window pane. "why on Earth would John have wanted to hide that fact by concocting his theory about breaking it himself?" because either her 1)didn't know it was broken or when or how it may have been relevant to the crime; or 2) he knew it must have been Burke so he needed to invent a story to exclude Burke from the basement that night since they he said he walked Burke back upstairs and put him to bed.

      "how did the suitcase get there?" That was definitely John doing some staging, pushing it (not flush as you said) but end to wall in an attempt to make it look like a break-in.

      Delete
    9. few typos above but you get the point

      Delete
    10. I just finished reading the theory in The Day After Christmas book 1. It's explained in the chapter titled "Did Burke Break the Basement Window?" The bottom line for them is that it was broken on Christmas night, and that it was smashed with Patsy's black softball bat or hit with a ball with that bat. I'm still confused as to why they feel the 3 kids were playing down there that night. Hopefully the reasons are explained in one of their many narratives . No criticism felt Inq ;)

      Delete
    11. Okay, thank you Mrs. B. I'm nearing the end of Sequin Star book two and will most probably get book three. I don't believe it's completed yet but there will be a lot more of the back story, and how the other players influenced the outcome - the "officials." He has high praise for Charlie Brennan, I can see that. At the very least, and there was so much information - so many quotes and transcripts and links to videos, etc., John put together a rather masterful defense strategy. Plus the lies. No doubt about that, or embellishments or lies by omission. There is even one paragraph where Van De Leek admits that if he wasn't convinced Burke did it he could almost go with the JDI theory. I haven't read anything yet that includes Doug Stine, not directly, small hints. I've got more to share about it but we're concentrating on the window right now so don't want to muck things up.

      Delete
  3. I have to point out the obvious - what is the reason for the break in questioning by TT to PR? You typed the following:

    "PR: No, I don't know whether I fixed it or didn't fix it. I can't remember even trying to remember that.

    Then -

    PR: when I got back, uh, n the fall, you know...
    TT: uh huh
    PR: uh, went down there and cleaned up all the glass."

    Did her memory suddenly come back? And in such detail. She scoured it, she cleaned it, she vacuumed it - and Linda was there helping her. It was fall.

    But more importantly she's saying she got all of the glass up when clearly all of the glass was not gotten up. So that's not one, but two inconsistencies to the truth. Why is SHE lying?

    I think what she can't remember even trying to remember is what John said about the window.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What fascinates me about the broken window is that Burke claimed he was there when John broke it. Are we to believe that John broke this same window more than once to gain entry into his home?

    Gumshoe, P.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose so, since John testified he was alone at the time he broke in the previous summer. Unless Burke was trying to be "helpful" and thought he was corroborating John's story.

      Delete
    2. That again leaves you with the question, why would an uninvolved person corroborate a false story?

      Delete
  5. Thank goodness, you are back Gumshoe P.I. Please say more about this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If charges were ever filed against John, would Patsy's statements previously made under oath be admissible? Or does the prosecution have to be able to cross-examine? Sorry, if this is a dumb question, but no legal background here.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either your instincts are good or you know more about the law than you realize, K. You were right yesterday about a developing conflict of interest and you're right tonight - both sides have the right to cross each other's witnesses.

      The only exception is if both sides stipulate to the admission of a prior deposition or statement when a witness is unavailable.

      Delete
    2. Thank you CC. Appreciate your willingness to share your legal knowledge here.

      K

      Delete
    3. CC:

      So what happens when the facts presented by the same witness, regarding the same event, differ or conflict with each other, from deposition to deposition? Suppose Counselor Wood wants Deposition A, but not B, for Patsy's testimony regarding the window, and Deposition B, but not A, for her statements surrounding the decision to call 911. And further suppose Counselors DocG and CC insist on Deposition A only for both sets of facts. Is Wood forced to decide between A or no deposition whatsoever? I would imagine, once a deposition is admitted, it's admitted in its entirety, no? Suppose Wood says to you and Doc, I'll forgo Deposition B, and accept A, but only if you accept Deposition C. Can you and Doc raise the ante even further by requiring D for C, and so on and so forth? Is this how it works?

      Mike G

      Delete
    4. A deposition is a formal response to questions taken in a sit-down conference in front of a videographer, court reporter, and counsel for plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff and defendant may attend. Depositions have two purposes: to gather information that may be helpful at trial, and to get the witness on the record - should he get on the witness stand at trial and tell a different story, he can be impeached from the transcript of his deposition, and his testimony thrown out.

      For the purposes of impeachment, only the portion of the deposition transcript dealing with the false statement is read in open court; otherwise, if a deposition is used in lieu of a witness who cannot appear, the whole shebang must be introduced and read into the record.

      Attorneys can stipulate to anything they want, provided the judge agrees. In practice, they seldom agree on anything, particularly in a suit that's highly adversarial and acrimonious, or one with a lot of money on the line.

      Patsy was only deposed once, to my knowledge, in re the Chris Wolf lawsuit. The only other official record we have of her is the three LE interviews from 1997, 1998 and 2000. I've never seen an interrogation/interview introduced in court for any purpose other than impeachment, but should both parties, counsel and the judge agree, they're probably admissible. Again, in practice, in the real world, counsel is unlikely to agree to any such thing.
      CC

      Delete
  7. Was Patsy present when John made his statement to the police about the window? If she was, she'd obviously want to support his story. And we now know that Burke supports his story and he wasn't actually there. Clearly Lin Wood has made it a point that the stories have to somehow match up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John first told the window story to Fleet White in the basement the morning of the 26th. The Ramseys were not interviewed by LE for four months after the murder, and they were interviewed separately. This was back before Lin Wood and the defamation suits, when John and Patsy were represented by Hal Haddon and Pat Burke, respectively, both criminal lawyers.

      They had four months to get their stories straight between them, independent of attorney coaching. Or so I devoutly hope.

      Delete
    2. "Was Patsy present when John made his statement to the police about the window? If she was, she'd obviously want to support his story."

      It's not at all obvious what she would have done or wanted to do. Therein lies the difficulty, controversy, and mystery surrounding this case.

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. I 100% think Mike G is the one to solve this case. I wake up every day on the edge of my chair just waiting for his post. You brilliantly stated that this case is a true mystery. great job Mike!

      -J

      Delete
    4. Thanks J. I'll try to solve it just as quickly as I can so you can go back to sleeping on a mattress...

      Mike G.

      Delete
    5. And when "Mike solves the case", J, you'll have to swallow an awful lot of humble pie.....are you up for it?! ;)

      Delete
  8. Doc, isn't Charlie Brennan one of your heroes in this case? Sequin Star 2 says how he petitioned as many of the Grand Jurors as would talk to him regarding the unsatisfactory verdict the public was left with and he also pushed for having the findings released. In Sequin Star 3 the author will go into more depth how Charlie Brennan "took on Goliath" as he puts it - to try and get justice for JB. I'm looking forward to it. Sometimes the back story is necessary to know front story.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a pretty good memory but it seems like none of the Ramsey's have a good memory. They usually don't give much detail and cant recall events which is smart in their case to protect themselves.
    Having 2 children both not even 10 years old who often play in the basement, it wouldn't be smart to have broken glass exposed to them. If it was John that broke it, it would seem odd to break the glass and just leave it there assuming he broke it in the summer.
    I have never believed anyone fully did this crime but it would make sense that John had some drinks that night for Xmas and was feeling good and he then brought Jonbenet down to the basement to continue to sexually abuse her. Maybe he heard Burke coming down the stairs and in panic he struck Jonbenet over the head, still drunk from the wine he then strangled her and wrote the ransom note.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How any law enforcement believed John's bullshit window story is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If a few people believed John broke the window Zach, that was the point. If one person thought the intruder came in that way (Lou) that was an added bonus. Neither story is accurate (imo) but put both of them together and you have confusion. Which was the name of John's game. That, was the point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The note took time. That took up the majority of the time that night. There were four pages missing from the white lined pad of paper. Of course they could have been pages of notes written some other time, torn out and disposed of, but no notes were found in the trash. This could suggest that there was a much longer first note, then a re-write. Whatever time was left over after that was used to wrap the body, move it from it's first location around the train room to it's possibly third resting place, get rid of panties, wipe -down cloth, errant pieces of tape and or cord, virtually any incriminating evidence. Another quick look around the basement would tell John that it still wasn't complete - he needed a way for an intruder to have entered. Some of his staging was done when the others were upstairs. Note composition would have taken the most amount of time. Or you can go with pre-meditation, that's your perrogative but the crime scene was sloppy and haphazard. The note was not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Doc,

    Thank you for posting more evidence pointing to Patsy’s involvement in this case. Patsy would not have gone along and told the window story that she did unless it a) happened or b) was a cover for John. Why would she go along with such an elaborate story of glass cleanup which implicates her if it isn’t true? She wouldn’t

    -J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would she include LHP in her story if she was telling a bold faced lie, knowing LE would ask Linda about it? She wouldn't.

      Delete
    2. Liars don't care. Just keep lying and lie upon another lie. Her word versus her housekeepers word.

      -J

      Delete
    3. OR Patsy's telling the truth, but not remembering the details accurately, OR LHP is lying or mistaken. Lots of possibilities. John broke some basement window at some time or he has some kind of superpower to implant false memories in multiple totally innocent people.

      Delete
    4. LHP was hired "in the fall" of 1995. It is possible John and Patsy's stories are both true. Patsy said she "had" LHP "vacuum behind her"; she didn't say she "told" LHP to "clean up the broken glass". Just prior to LHP's first day of work, Patsy or John may have already had the window repaired. The floor had been "scoured" clean; LHP may not have seen the tiny pieces her vacuum was picking up, in which case she would no reason to even suspect the window had been broken.

      Here is LHP's testimony on the window:

      "Another thing that made me think Patsy had staged the whole crime was the broken window in the basement. I used to clean their house three times a week. If something was broken, Patsy had me clean it up. On the morning of the murder, police found a broken window in the basement, just a few feet from the room where JonBenet's body was found. John Ramsey told the police that he had broken the window to get into the house months before when he was accidentally locked out. But I think that is a lie. If there had been broken glass in the basement, Patsy would have told me to clean it up. Another thing didn't make sense. John claimed he was locked out on that day when he supposedly broke the window. But he never used a key to come in the front or side door of the house. He always opened the garage door from his car with his remote and came in through the garage entrance. I think Patsy broke that window herself on the night she killed JonBenet to make the police think there had been an intruder, and John concocted the story about breaking the window.

      When was LHP told what John said? Was she told a redacted version of his story, or did John, in reaction to LHP's accusations against he and Patsy, expand upon an earlier version of his story to eliminate the weaknesses in it LHP exposed? Hopefully, part 2 of Doc's above commentary will answer these questions.

      Mike G




      Delete
    5. Poor misguided angry LHP. Wouldn't you know she puts the onus of the broken window on Patsy.

      Delete
    6. Yes. Once Linda learned that Patsy had named her as a likely suspect she turned on her with a vengeance. Originally she'd been praising her to the skies, telling the police what a great mother and wonderful person she was. But afterwards she became transformed into a witch in Linda's eyes. John was totally off her radar. All she thought about was Patsy and all sorts of old resentments resurfaced. So naturally her very reasonable suspicions about the window focused on Patsy and Patsy alone. She'd rarely interacted with John, so he was simply ignored.

      Delete
  14. Kane, who I know many of you respect, said he following:

    "When I met with them (J and P) I never felt they were genuine. I always felt like their answers were very careful and, in some cases, scripted. And that caused me a lot of concern."

    ReplyDelete
  15. If John was guilty of initially staging that an intruder exited through the basement window, why would he (after Patsy's 911 call) leave the suitcase directly below the window in his attempt to unstage the scene? All he needed to do was slide the suitcase a few feet along the wall to remove that possibility.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, Hercule, if John admits to breaking the window himself then what would be the purpose of sliding a suitcase under the window? Getting locked out and having to climb in does not equal having to boost yourself back out again with a suitcase.

      Delete
    2. Then, perhaps, the suitcase wasn't part of the staging, which I've suggested all along. It was there in order to transport JB's body.

      Delete
    3. If it was there to transport her body, then what was it doing sitting flush against the wall, just under the broken window, with no body in it? Also as seems clear, the suitcase would have been too small for JB to fit. If someone wanted to smuggle her out of the house, a large garbage bag would have been a much better choice.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Doc, but John needed to use some sort of case to transport JB's body, in the event he was spotted near the location she might later be found. If he was seen hauling a large garbage bag near where her body was recovered - that wouldn't look so good for him. However (as per your theory), if he was spotted with an "adequate sized attache", he would claim to be merely delivering the ransom money in the manner the RN instructed him to do so. The suitcase gave him an alibi...not so if he were seen lugging a heavy, bulging, garbage bag.
      As far as her body not fitting, John may not have known JB's body wasn't going to fit into the suitcase until he tried putting her in there. Or - and I know this will be a controversial subject, because the idea was toyed with once or twice here before and it's not a nice thought, frankly - perhaps, like everything else contained in the ransom note, the beheading was mentioned for a very specific purpose.
      Think about all of the other details contained in the note - they were all included for a reason, they weren't just "filler", as you pointed out years ago in your break down of the ransom note.
      Imagine this: John realized he'd need to dismember JonBenet in order for her to be transported in a suitcase, and - before you balk at the idea - it really isn't so far fetched when you consider how often murderers dissect their victims before dumping them, it makes disposal that much easier. Maybe the garrote that was tied so tightly around her neck was stage one of this process.....could John have felt he'd get an easier, cleaner cut by tying a "tourniquet" of sorts around JB's neck first? It really isn't too much of a stretch when we consider a. the specific details in the RN and b. he'd already clubbed his daughter to death then strangled the life out of her - anything he had to do to her post-mortem would be a relative cake walk for him, I'd imagine.

      Or am I over analyzing the details way too much???

      Delete
    5. You are over analyzing way WAY too much. First of all a Samsonite suitcase isn't anything remotely like an attache case. Secondly, she could not have fit in the suitcase. Thirdly, if the intent was to place her in that suitcase then why was it found flush against the wall just under the window, WITHOUT any body in it? Fourthly, beheading her would have produced a tremendous amount of blood which would probably have gotten all over him as well as all over the basement.

      Delete
    6. Her body wasn't in the suitcase because, obviously, he wouldn't have tried to tackle dismembering her until after he had sent Burke and Patsy away for the day. As for the blood, wasn't there a shower in the basement? He could have dismembered her body in there, washing away any blood.
      I concede it is a very remote possibility, but it really isn't too far fetched when you consider how often killers do dissect their victims for easier disposal, and to make identification more difficult. You believe John was going to dump JB's body later that day if everything had gone according to plan, so is it really such a leap to believe he may have dismembered her first? I mean, we're talking about a man who bludgeoned his daughter with such force, it cracked her skull open. He then fashioned a garrote-like device whilst she lie unconscious, twisted it around her neck so tightly, it embedded itself deeply in her flesh. He then calmly wrote a three page ransom note with threats of death by beheading.....this man clearly has no conscience, if he had no concern for his child in life, why would he in death?

      Delete
  16. Both of the R's lied and changed their stories. Both R's couldn't recall much of anything.

    And you're right Doc, JR can't remember taking a cab, or whether the keys were locked inside the house or whether or not he gave them to someone else. This is a man who owns/operates a multi million dollar company and yet he can't remember anything??!

    What's even worse is the way LE let them both off with their NON answers. However, I do believe the police were told to stand down and treat them with kid gloves. The usual story--money talks and BS walks.

    EG

    ReplyDelete