Finally, after months of (relative) silence, Steven Avery's new lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, has filed her motion for appeal. All mind-numbing 1,272 pages of it. The first 200 pages have been made available online for anyone with the patience to wade through it all.
Zellner's strategy seems obvious. As characterized by the well-known adage, she is tossing as much spaghetti as possible onto the wall in the hope that something might stick.
Several months ago, Zellner announced that a thoroughgoing series of "scientific" tests would provide proof positive that her client was innocent. The implication was that these tests were to be conducted by impartial investigators under the supervision of law enforcement officials. Well, those tests have apparently been completed, but according to what I've read so far from her appeal, there is no sign that any of these "experts" were impartial or that any of the tests were conducted under the supervision of any impartial authority. As is well known, it's possible for defense lawyers to find experts willing to testify to just about anything, and if you have the freedom to shop around until you find one to your liking, then you can make any case that suits you.
At least one key piece of evidence did not turn out as Zellner had hoped. The samples of Avery's blood found in the victim's car were not drawn from the vial stored as evidence dating from Avery's earlier, wrongful, conviction. Zellner downplays this finding, but as seems obvious, this is a devastating, if not fatal blow to Avery's defense. The contention of his original legal team was that the earlier test results, which arrived at the same conclusion, were flawed and needed to be redone -- because clearly they would have no case if the blood had been fresh. Well Zellner had the tests redone using more up-to-date technology, capable of actually dating the blood. And those tests simply confirmed the earlier ones. The blood stains were fresh. At that point one would think Zellner would simply throw up her hands and admit defeat. But no, she has managed to find an out, claiming that the blood could have been siphoned from Avery's bathroom sink, where, according to his testimony, some of his blood had dripped. To support this theory she has come up with a truly bizarre scenario in which "the killer" finds his way into Avery's trailer, notices the blood in his bathroom, siphons off some of it, and plants it in Halbach's vehicle.
The most disturbing aspect of Zellner's appeal is her identification of the "real killer" as Halbach's ex-boyfriend, Ryan Hillegas. From earlier statements, Zellner gave the impression that she knew who the "real killer" was, and could prove it. But as far as I can determine from what I've read so far, no proof is offered, only a series of speculations and assumptions suggesting that Hillegas might have had a motive and could have both committed the crime and, going to remarkably extreme lengths, framed Avery -- with the cooperation of the authorities, natch. I'm sorry but I find this sort of thing truly reprehensible. If there were any real evidence of Hillegas' guilt, I'm sure Zellner would have revealed that from the start. And as I've already argued, anyone attempting to frame Avery could have done that simply by planting some of the victim's blood in his bedroom. No need to burn a body, smuggle charred bones onto Avery's property, plant his blood in Halbach's car, hide the car on Avery's property, etc. Imo Hillegas would be well within his rights to sue Zellner, and I hope he does.
Will this motion succeed? I'd love to say it has no chance, because from what I've read so far I see nothing strong enough to contradict all the very clear evidence pointing unequivocally to Avery. But judging from the truly bizarre reaction to the Making A Murderer series, all sorts of people have managed to convince themselves of his innocence -- and the judge might well be among them. Zellner certainly provides all sorts of reasons for true believers to uncritically swallow her nutty theories. So, you never know.
If her entire Motion for Appeal relies on the premise that the trial court erred in not permitting a SODDIT argument, it's a loser, imo.
ReplyDeleteThe Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against what's known as a Denny defense in that state about thirty years ago, which is why Avery's defense attorneys couldn't use it at the original trial.
Does anyone know if JonBenet's funeral was an open casket? I know Burke said that he saw her in the coffin and that her right eye was drooping. During the autopsy, her entire skull was removed from the head. How were they able to put her face back together for an open casket funeral?
ReplyDeleteImo, the scalp only was peeled back to remove the top part of the skull (above the brow bone). Then the scalp would be pulled back over. No involvement of the face, except for the placement of the pieces that go under the eyelids.
Delete"How were they able to put her face back together for an open casket funeral?"
ReplyDeleteIt happens all the time, and often with victims who have suffered much more gruesome and disfiguring deaths than JB. They would have peeled back the skin during her autopsy, removed her skull, filled the cavity with cotton stuffing, or similar, then sutured the skin together on the back side of her head.
The "drooping" of her eye was more likely a result of the post mortem procedure, as no such injury or asymmetry was mentioned in the autopsy report.
DeleteZellner = epic fail.
ReplyDeleteBut it was always going to end up like that because Avery is guilty.
A good post from websleuths:
ReplyDelete- Zellner didn't use the cell tower data or cell phone pings she swore would prove Avery's alibi. Avery has no alibi.
- Zellner conceded it was fresh (2005) blood of her client in the SUV.
- Zellner said LE didn't plant the blood or the body, despite a year plus of Avery supporters claiming it to be so.
- Loof the tracking dog hit on SA's trailer and around towards the back.
- There were multiple 'hits' by different tracking canines -- one set of canines tracked TH's scent and another set of canines (including Brutus), were human remains detection dogs.
- The deer camp trailer was not where canine Loof was tracking or hitting -- the 'red trailer' was none other than SA's.
- The "mystery witness" Zellner tweeted about is none other than the lying murderer himself, whose lies have been well documented.
- The calls by Avery to AT claiming TH never showed are detailed in a document she included in her brief.
- TH's friend from AT claims that it was twice that SA met TH wearing only a towel. That statement is included in a document as part of the brief.
- After tweeting months ago about "mind reading not being evidence," in her brief she advances a type of mind-reading as evidence which is called "Brain Fingerprinting."
- And, in a massive stroke of irony where she railed against people accusing her client without evidence, Zellner herself, without any evidence whatsoever, floats a ridiculous story that the ex-boyfriend from half a decade back was TH's murderer and he somehow entered SA's trailer at the exact right time, without any detection, acquired Avery's freshly-dripped blood within a few mere minutes of Avery leaving that blood and then leaving the property, planted this blood in TH's SUV, then planted the SUV on the berm. How did RH get home? In her story she has him leaving the SUV behind. Did he walk the 30 miles? She never said. Must have been a magic carpet.
The eyerolling is just beginning.
Thanks Zed. Very interesting. My eyes have been rolling ever since I watched that totally irresponsible "documentary." It was riveting television for sure, but obviously biased -- and ultimately tedious, as we keep hearing the same self serving comments from family, lawyers and Avery himself, over and over again.
DeleteI believe Avery is guilty, without a doubt. However, isn't it odd that he was exonerated from a previous crime which he did not commit, only to get out and actually commit murder?
ReplyDeleteSo now, I am thinking, was he innocent of that prior crime? It just doesn't make sense that an innocent person would go out and kill someone after being exonerated. I suppose it's possible, but is it probable?
EG
I tend to be skeptical when it comes to any DNA evidence, unless the circumstances are crystal clear. Avery was exonerated on the basis of one single pubic hair. Who is to say that this hair didn't make its way into the evidence room by some devious means? When tens of millions of dollars are in play, an incentive certainly exists for the corruption of someone at some lab in a position to smuggle or even fake evidence.
DeleteI'm not saying that's what happened, but no, I'm not buying that sort of evidence as iron clad. As far as wee know, the "real" perp in this case has never been tried for it, and you have to wonder why.
We seldom disagree, Doc, but that's nuts. We argued a year and a half ago about the cops planting T's key AFTER MULTIPLE SEARCHES of a tiny trailer home, and now you want me to believe they planted DNA? In the what, 80s, early 90s? The best kind of evidence available?
DeleteMaybe I was being too vague, CC. No, I never suggested that the police planted DNA, in either the earlier case or the Halbach case. What I suggested, as a possibility only, was that someone working for Avery could have made some sort of deal with someone at the DNA testing lab to make sure that someone else's hair(s) would be added to the evidence, after it had been collected from the victim. Where many millions of dollars are at stake the possibility of tampering can't be ruled out, imo.
DeleteI'm not saying it happened that way. What I am saying is that DNA evidence, like any evidence, can never be regarded as 100% certain, unless the circumstances of its collection are totally transparent, with no possibility of tampering.
Doc,
DeleteI have to agree with you because I just don't buy that someone who was exonerated would then go out and murder someone. I guess there is always a first time, but it seems highly unlikely to me.
EG
EG, even if Avery was totally innocent of the crime he was exonerated of, he had previously committed other crimes, such as the abuse and torture of a cat, a burglary, and threatening a woman at gunpoint. He was found guilty of these crimes and part of the 18 years he spent in prison was due to these convictions. So no, the Halbach murder was not the first time he showed signs of criminal behavior.
DeleteAvery was definitely innocent first time round. He probably thought he was invincible after getting found innocent and a big fat pay day coming. He didn't dare think they would try and go after him again so he took a risk and murdered TH.
ReplyDeleteYou have a point, Zed. But imo you are giving Avery much too much credit for logical, systematic thinking. Seems pretty obvious to me that this guy is a psychopath, driven more by impulse than long-term planning. He saw an opportunity, he took it without thinking too much about the consequences, and then improvised a crude coverup that should have fooled no one.
DeleteYes I do agree.
DeleteI guess what I was saying is that he made this impulsive, psychopathic decision whilst thinking he was wrapped in bubble-wrap.
Given he answered the door to TH (on more than one occasion) in nothing but a towel, tells us he was sexually attracted to her and had probably thought of doing something for quite some time.
He then told obvious lies/changed his story, and tried to hide his mobile number when dialing her as well. With Brandon's confession to a friend (or was it his cousin?) and Zellner now admitting Avery's blood was not planted in her SUV, this (in my opinion) is a truly open and shut case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's that kind of methodical planning you mentioned above, Zed, that makes me think this isn't Avery's first time. The fact that he murdered Teresa Halbach proves he's a cold blooded, opportunistic killer, who knows what he's doing, therefore I just find it really unlikely he had no involvement in the first murder he was convicted of. To quote a handy cliche: "Where there's smoke, there's fire". This guy vehemently proclaimed his innocence *both* times, and we know he's a liar, so I just find the whole thing highly suspect. I'm with Doc on this one. I'm not asserting his guilt, but I sure as hell find it a little odd.....
DeleteEdited to add: he was convicted of the assault and rape of Penny Beernsten, not murder. That's how little I knew of the case! Upon further research, I concede that he probably is innocent of that crime, and you should record those words, Zed, because that is going to be the ONLY time I ever agree with you! :P
DeleteI'm going to screenshot this comment and make it my screensaver Ms D....HAHA!!!
DeleteIt will come back to bite me in the butt one day, I'm sure! :D
DeleteMs D, I agree with CC on this one.
ReplyDeleteThe victim (in the first rape) had a pubic hair of a known pedophile who matched the description who was in the area at the time.
To say Steven Avery did the first one is ridiculous in my honest opinion. Steven had performed some nasty stuff in the past and I honestly he took things to the next level because he felt he couldnt be touched at that point in time. Look at Avery on the news aftwr I honesty think Steven
Grrr on my phone and hit publish by mistake.
DeleteTo be fair, I have no more than a rudimentary knowledge of the case, so I really will have to look further into it. I don't usually dispute DNA evidence, but geez, you couldn't even write this stuff! It's a bizarre case all round!
DeleteZed,
DeleteThat Avery was innocent of the first crime, makes it that much harder for me to believe he'd go out and commit murder.
An innocent person does not commit murder, most especially after being exonerated for a prior crime. It makes no sense to me. Did he suddenly turn into a psychopath because he was wrongly accused and imprisoned for years?
What are the chances?
EG
I tend to agree with you, EG, however, it probably is more likely that the cops were more than familiar with what an evil, depraved, bastard he was due to his violent history, and that's why he was a suspect - his profile fit the crime. Which does make me wonder, even if he is genuinely innocent of the assault on Penny Beerntsen, was Teresa Halbach his first and only victim? Seems unlikely given his violent history. He may have been wrongfully convicted of that particular assault, but I wonder how many proverbial bullets he might have dodged in relation to other similar crimes? As far as I'm concerned, that guy was exactly where he should have been - he is a danger to society, guilty of the Beernsten assault or not.
DeleteI am on the same page as you EG, as usual. Although I have not followed the Steven Avery case just from what others have said there are usually no coincidences. Was the Netflix show about him trying to suggest his prison days "made" him a murderer? I suppose I never followed this case because junkyard dogs with low IQ's hold very little fascination for me. A La Michael Helgoth - who would have lacked the IQ to pull off the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
ReplyDeleteEG, a murderer is always a non-murderer at some stage. I don't see any relevance to the first case, besides Avery thinking the law wouldnt dare come after him. Avery had always been an evil person...he burnt a cat alive!
ReplyDeleteThe simple reality is both instances involving Avery are pretty much open and shut cases.
I remember thinking upon hearing he tortured and killed animals, "I don't care how many years this guy served in prison for a crime he didn't commit. He's an evil, murderous, bastard". In my book, harming animals is a crime that should always be punishable with a harsh prison sentence.....unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with me. Look at the history of almost every, single, serial killer and see where it started: the torture of animals.
DeleteThat was my thought too Ms D. I can't tell you how many animals I have rescued to attempted to and if I see it or hear it I am compelled to step in and do. Avery is evil, and this Zellner babe should see if he's found innocent, be allowed to live in her home.
DeleteMy daughter and I volunteer for a charity that rescues/fosters sick, abandoned or injured animals, Inquisitive, so it is unfathomable to me how anyone can willfully hurt a defenseless creature. I've lost a lot of faith in humanity over the years and don't have a lick of empathy for the Steven Averys of this world - he's not a victim. I hope he dies behind bars.
DeleteI wonder if Zellner still genuinely believes in his innocence? Did she ever?
Yes Zed, when I read what he did to the cat I said okay, don't want to read this.
ReplyDeleteZed,
ReplyDeleteYou're right in that there is always a first time. I had no idea that he tortured and killed a cat. I watched MOAM on Netflix, but other than that, I don't know much about the case at all.
I know MOAM leaned toward law enforcement planting evidence, because supposedly the police were out to get him since his exoneration.
EG
Yes the show was made to show he was innocent...otherwise there would have been no need for a show.
DeleteThere is many things pointing to Avery being guilty. I can list a bunch of things if you want me to. But I tend to just look at the big ticket items...his DNA, blood in her SUV (which Zellner confirmed was NOT planted), his constant lies/changing stories, his past behaviour towards TH, hiding his phone number when ringing TH and the fact that his nephew confessed to a friend without any LE interference or manipulation.
For those who believe he did not murder TH, one of their biggest pieces of evidence is the lack of blood in the garage.
DeleteWell firstly we don't know exactly how much she was bleeding. Secondly, there was bleach stains on Brendans jeans just like he said there would be. And finally, there wers steel eyelets found in the bonfire. Eyelets that look like they came off a tarp. It is very likely that after being raped she was murdered on the tarp and that's why there was a lack of blood. The tarp would have disintegrated in the fire but not the eyelets.
Lack of blood in the bedroom could be due to her not being stabbed there. Dassey reported that at one point, but later changed his story, so we have no way of knowing for sure.
DeleteLack of blood in the garage is certainly due to the very thorough cleanup they must have done. According to Dassey's court testimony (not just his interrogations), they cleaned the floor of the garage with three different chemicals, including bleach. Which explains the bleach stains on his jeans.
Yes I was referring to the blood in the garage (or the lack of). I think Avery laid a tarp down on the garage floor.
DeleteBut yes some heavy cleaning went into this as well.
I know that the evidence points to SA, but there are some nagging questions that I have.
ReplyDelete1. Why did SA leave TH's car on the Avery property at all? Supposedly it was found partially hidden, but why leave it there at all?
2. Why keep the key to TH's car in your bedroom? You go to all these lengths to burn the body, clean the garage, etc, and yet you leave the car and the key on your property and in your house?
I know he had a low IQ, but still. What do you make of those things? Anybody?
EG
They're good ones, EG, though the car bothers me less than the key. . . it was an auto salvage yard, with thousands of cars parked on acres of land.
ReplyDeleteBut the key sticks in my craw, particularly as LE had searched Avery's tiny trailer home several times. All I can come up with is that he ran out of time, intended to use the key to move the car at the first opportunity - or the key really was planted.
The other thing that puzzles me is his nephew. Why confide in and involve a mentally challenged teenager?
CC, the nephew thing bothers me the most, as the confession was coerced. They fed him the information, and it was obvious the kid had no clue as to what happened to TH. He claimed he stabbed her as she was tied to the bed, yet no blood was found anywhere. How can that be? They wanted him to say TH was shot in the head, and finally said it after they told him she was shot in the head.
DeleteAnd I agree, why involve his nephew? It makes no sense at all.
EG
EG, first of all, it was not simply a confession. It was an eye witness testimony. Dassey was identified as a witness by his cousin, to whom he described the rape and murder and his involvement with it, naming his uncle, Steven Avery as the primary culprit. The cousin reported this to her school counselor, who wrote it up and had her sign it. Since there was obviously no reason for her to lie, it was evident from that point that both Avery and Dassey were responsible for what happened to Teresa Halbach.
DeleteIt is for this reason that the two detectives decided to question Dassey. The notion that they simply needed someone to finger the person they were framing for this crime and chose Brendan because he was young, slow and easily manipulated, is absurd. Yet that ridiculous notion both was and is the basis for Avery's defense.
It amazes me that anyone with half a brain could believe these detectives somehow fed this whole complicated story to a young man who could barely read, and expected him to remember all those details while testifying in a court of law and responding to cross examination by aggressive defense lawyers. Please!
The kid could barely get his words out because he was seriously conflicted. He'd been assured of getting a light sentence if he "ratted out" his uncle, so he was willing to testify (at first), but at the same time he had to have been under intense pressure from both Avery and the entire family to deny that he or Steven had done anything wrong.
So his ambivalence when questioned is easily understandable. Every detail had to be pried out of him and from time to time he just made up stuff in the hope he could play both ends at the same time.
The detectives who questioned him were heavy handed and at times very patronizing, but they did not really lie to him, because the understanding, initially, was that he was going to tell the truth in return for a light sentence. That was arranged by his first lawyer, who was a far more effective council than the replacement found for him by the family. The new lawyer very clearly was not representing him, but Avery, and did everything he could to prevent Dassey's story from being heard. And as a result, Dassey, who was also Avery's victim and should have gotten a light sentence, is now in prison for life. The vilification of the first lawyer in MaM was unforgivable. He saw very clearly that Dassey's confession to his cousin made it futile for him to plead innocent and advised him to tell the truth and cooperate. It was the family that refused to accept such a tactic, so Dassey was also victimized by his own family. Truly disgusting.
CC, as I now understand it, the key was apparently dropped inadvertently by Avery, who may not have even realized he'd lost it. As you may know, a cellmate of Avery's has emerged, claiming that Avery confessed to him and as far as I can tell, his story does make sense and is probably true. As I recall (vaguely), according to this account, the key might have been in his shirt pocket and dropped out accidentally.
DeleteAlso, as I understand it, the first two or three searches of Avery's room were cursory. Most likely they were looking for traces of blood, and if someone happened to see a key out of the corner of his eye, I'd imagine he'd assume it was Avery's. No reason to assume a key found in that room belonged to the victim, so it may easily have been overlooked at first.
As I'm sure you know, a great many criminal cases are loaded with all sorts of odd things, pulled out of a hat by defense lawyers eager to find anything that might elicit reasonable doubt. Aka: red herrings. To me that key is nothing more than a red herring. So yes, it was initially overlooked and yes, it was eventually found, and traced to Halbach. Much has been made of the absence of Halbach's DNA on that object, as though the police would have had some nefarious reason to remove her DNA before placing Avery's on top of it.
Yes, a couple police officers might have had a motive to frame Avery, but there is NO evidence anything like that was even attempted. And nothing Zellner learned from her "scientific" testing has changed any of that.
As for his willingness to involve his nephew, everything we know about Avery tells us that he's not in the habit of thinking very far ahead. Dassey was easily intimidated, he obviously had a lot of control over him so he foolishly assumed he'd keep his mouth shut.
He did other things that attest to a lack of foresight. For example he initially denied he'd had a fire going that night, forgetting that there were witnesses who'd expose his obvious lie.
How cursory could they have been, really? As I recall, the probable cause LE presented a judge to get the search warrant for the trailer was the presence of the victim's car on Avery property, and the presence of blood in that car.
DeleteC'mon, Doc, you're way too savvy to try to sell that cellmate-said stuff: No reputable prosecutor relies on jailhouse confessions or any other "evidence" offered by an incarcerated snitch. They're selling something in exchange for a reduced sentence, and juries - properly - look at them askance.
As always, CC, it's the logic behind the evidence that I tend to focus on -- what the cellmate said might or might not be accurate, but it does present one possibility that could explain the presence of that key. More importantly, however, the logic (aka common sense) tells me that anyone out to frame Avery could simply have sprinkled some of the victim's blood in that room. No need to produce a key, or a bullet, or anything else. And if the idea was the plant the key, why wait? Why not "discover" it on the first day? I see nothing suspicious in the fact that it was found so late. Better late than never.
DeleteAs too often happens when it comes to Avery/Dassey, your application of logic is selective. Real logic, actual experience - or even a casual acquaintance with true crime television - dictates that one approach a snitch's offerings with extreme skepticism unto outright doubt, regardless how convenient it is or how it bolsters one's case.
DeleteReal logic, actual experience - or even a casual acquaintance with CSI or like television - dictates that a simple "sprinkling" of blood in the trailer in this era of sophisticated blood spatter and crime scene analysis would preclude LE from doing any such thing absent (at the time of the search) a body, a crime scene, a cause of death or a murder weapon. And where, by the way, were they to come by a handy vial of the victim's blood with which to do the sprinkling?
Here's my application of common sense and logic to the "late" discovery of the key: the search in which it was finally "discovered" was the only one in which Manitowoc cops participated; prior to that, they were conducted by the impartial out-of-towners.
EG, as I've said I have not followed this case so I am just going to answer to another issue regarding criminal behavior. Stupid people do stupid things. The brighter the bulb the better the coverup. Sometimes the perpetrator gets lucky. O.J. Simpson got lucky because a jury was predisposed to find him not guilty. In the court of public opinion he was seen as a hero - a football hero. A star. In the face of overwhelming DNA evidence, his money was able to buy attorneys extremely skilled at manipulating the jury and turning the case into a race issue - due to previous LAPD brutality and misconduct. In the Ramsey case John's ability to hire an expert legal team but also his own ability to foresee a strategy and misdirect, point to police incompetence while at the same time stall the police in their investigations into the family and then getting relatively lucky when the D.A. brought in Lou Smit who handed him a theory, turned what could have been a solvable murder into an unsolved mystery. I'm guessing Avery's "ace" is he was made a star by virtue of a misguided and false narrative documentary, such that he is now able to get better legal defense who wants to be a star herself. He himself, is no brilliant tactician. He simply didn't think of everything, and wasn't able to. Notice how the Zodiac's letters to the editor sound stupid, but Zodiac was anything but.
ReplyDeleteInq,
DeleteI do see your point, and I know SA's IQ was below average, but he was smart enough to clean up etc. There are so many inconsistencies here, it just doesn't make sense to me.
EG
Then I guess this makes it an interesting enough case to have so many of you here intrigued.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCheck this out:
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Making-A-Murderer-Federal-court-affirms-ruling-overturning-Brendan-Dassey-conviction-430192773.html
BD's conviction overturned. Now what? If he was the one who said he and SA did it together, and his conviction is overturned, can SA's second exoneration be far behind?
EG
Brendan Dassey did not testify at his uncle's trial, nor was his improperly obtained confession used as evidence against Avery, so this is likely to have no impact on SA.
DeleteDassey will walk out of prison for now, EG, but the State has 90 days (where I live) in which to file charges again and re-try him.
Doc and I do not agree about Brendan Dassey. I think the "confession" was entirely and shamelessly coerced - the kid was 16, had an IQ of 76. His mother was discouraged from being in the room, yet no guardian ad litem or attorney was brought in to protect him. The detectives made false promises, and regardless what Doc says, Kachinsky, Dassey's first attorney, was terrible, an embarrassment to the profession, and was, properly, censured by the Bar.
The whole Brendan Dassey was a travesty, start to finish.
CC..
DeleteIt's nice to be in agreement with you, and I am 100% with you on this one. What a disgrace, how they took advantage of that kid. Anyone who watched that video and couldn't see how they coerced him is deaf, dumb and blind. To even suggest that BD could work both sides of the fence aren't seeing the BD I saw in that video or in any of his court appearances. He had no clue as to what he was saying or doing there and was concerned about getting back to class for a test. That's how mentally challenged this kid was, and those detectives knew that and took advantage of it. Total travesty is right, and a complete disgrace.
EG
Do you think they will re-try him, CC?
Most prosecutors would, but as I say, there's no physical evidence at all and his confession was just thrown out, leaving only hearsay testimony from his cousin. In addition to which, the kid has served 9 or 10 years. I'm inclined to think they'll let it go.
DeleteI agree with you 100% on Dassey, CC. And it looks like a judge does, too. He's a victim of Steve Avery in more ways than one.
DeleteDassey's case was probably tossed out because his interrogators overstepped certain bounds, put words in his mouth at times and to some extent manipulated him, yes. But please don't tell me these detectives concocted a scenario out of thin air and then coerced him into learning it by heart and feeding it back to them. As part of some huge conspiracy on the part of law enforcement? C'mon, you know that's totally absurd. The kid told essentially the same story to his cousin, for crying out loud.
DeleteAs I see it, he's getting out on what is basically a technicality, NOT because the story he told was somehow planted in his mind by evil brainwashers, please.
CC is right about the legal aspect pertaining to Avery's trial, as Dassey's "confession" was not used in that trial. But in the public mind this will be interpreted as a win for Avery as well and there will be tremendous pressure to free him as a result. What a huge break for Zellner, who up to this point had nothing.
I am actually pleased to see Dassey released, not because I believe him to be innocent, but because he was obviously being controlled, intimidated and manipulated by Avery. If he had listened to his original lawyer, and cooperated in his uncle's prosecution he would most likely have gotten off with just a few years or even a suspended sentence. He did not initiate this event, played only a minor role, had no intent to kill and probably no real intent to rape the girl either. I hope they don't decide to retry him. And I don't think he'd be a danger to anyone.
Avery on the other hand is guilty as Hell and I certainly hope the judges will not be swayed by the Dassey decision. THAT would be a travesty of justice for sure.
When did I ever say this was a huge conspiracy on the part of law enforcement? I believe Steven Avery is guilty, but I don't believe he got a fair trial, and I've argued before on this blog that if one citizen doesn't deserve fair treatment, then no one does. That's all.
DeleteYou and I agree on Brendan Dassey, Doc. When I said Brendan was a victim of Avery in more ways than one, I meant Avery's molestation of Brendan and then his coercion of Brendan into helping him attempt to cover up the murder he had committed. I think Brendan has done his time and then some for his limited role in what happened to Theresa Halbach. I agree that he wouldn't be a danger to anyone if they let him out for good.
I'm with Doc on this one. I would be gobsmacked if he wasn't involved.
ReplyDeleteSaying that, due to his low IQ/demeanour I think he felt like he basically had to go ahead with what Avery told him to do.
Unlike with SA there was no, NO physical evidence against Dassey at all. None.
DeleteWho's to say Avery didn't just brag to BD about what he'd done, and BD in turn related the story to his cousin, embellishing it to include himself as a participant? 16 years old, IQ of 76, no experience with girls or sex...it may have seemed more titillating than wrong - with a kid that limited it's impossible to say.
C'mon, CC. He was seen at the bonfire with Avery that night. He said, even at his trial, that the two of them cleaned up a "red substance" with three different chemicals. He came home with bleach stains all over his jeans. And he confessed not only to his cousin but his mother as well. That's not hearsay, the conversation was recorded.
DeleteNeither his presence at the bonfire nor his participation in a clean-up, both possibly at his uncle's invitation, or even behest, are evidence of his engagement in rape or murder.
DeleteHis cousin's testimony of his confession is meaningless hearsay. And I outright reject the notion that his words to his mother immediately after his interrogation or in the infamous phone call from the jail were a confession; I thought them further evidence of how confused and truly intellectually challenged he was.
The cousin recanted her testimony when on the stand. She said she made the entire thing up.
DeleteThere are too many unanswered questions here, that need to be addressed. They found TH's bloody hair in the SUV. Why transport her if you were going to throw her in the bonfire behind your house? The clean up of blood doesn't jive either. According to BD they stabbed her in the bedroom, yet no blood anywhere? Even a forensic crime scene specialist couldn't have gotten rid of that amount of blood, yet these two could?
I think SA is a lowlife and no boy scout, and probably did it. However before you put someone away for life, you better have a good case against them and be able to prove it.
EG
CC, the cousin's report was not rejected by the judge as hearsay. It was in fact read at Dassey's trial. And as I see it, it was totally convincing. There is no way this young girl made it up and no reason for her to do such a thing.
DeleteYes, she recanted. And if you saw the documentary that was very moving, as she was in tears and obviously under extreme stress. She claimed she had lied, but could offer no reason for doing so. It was obvious to me that she was under pressure from her family to recant. I can see no other reason for her doing so. Technically her story could not be used in the trial due to her recantation, but as I see it, any reasonable person could easily infer that she had not been lying and that her version of what Dassey told her was accurate.
If you insist on the letter of the law, then it's possible to dismiss her report, yes. But if you evaluate the situation on a human level, asking yourself why this young person would want to lie about such a serious matter, then the story she initially told must be taken very seriously indeed. I see no reason to doubt it.
"There are too many unanswered questions here, that need to be addressed."
DeleteThere are always unanswered questions in just about any case. These are the sorts of things defense lawyers latch onto in an effort to establish reasonable doubt. The filmmakers naively bought into these red herrings and millions of equally naive viewers followed suit.
Readers familiar with the Ramsey case know all about that sort of thing, as similar questions have been raised (for example by Lou Smit) to bolster the intruder theory.
Yes, they found blood from the victim in her SUV, implying that her body must have been placed there before it was burned. So what? Avery must have planned on leaving it in the vehicle and then had second thoughts, deciding to burn it instead.
And yes, Dassey initially claimed she'd been stabbed in the bedroom. But he later denied that, testifying that the stabbing had taken place in the garage. While imo the overall drift of his testimony is reasonably accurate, he was obviously playing games with his interrogators and told many lies before coming up with a story that does seem (to me) more or less believable.
If the authorities were out to frame Avery, they could easily have taken some of the blood from the SUV and sprinkled it in the bedroom. No need to burn a body, transport the remains surreptitiously to Avery's property, plant Avery's DNA and blood, etc., etc.
The last ditch defense of just about every suspect caught with his pants down is to claim "I was framed by the cops." Avery's lawyers decided to go with that absurd defense because, as seems obvious to me, they were on a crusade to "expose the corruption" of the legal system, and this was their big opportunity. The jury didn't buy it, for very good reasons, and as a result Avery was put away for life. If they had truly been representing their client instead of their pet project they'd have advised him to plead guilty in return for a reduced sentence. Since he'd already been unjustly imprisoned for 18 years, he might be a free man today.
An IQ of 76 is considered borderline mental retardation, with the functional intelligence of an 8-9 year old, AT BEST. You think this poor, impaired kid was lying to and "playing games" with two adult authority figures yet suggest I consider your ill-advised arguments from a "human" rather than a legal standpoint.
DeleteHypocrisy, thy name is DocG.
So what, exactly, is your point, CC? Do you think these guys were in cahoots with the Manitowoc County cops as part of some grand conspiracy to frame both Avery and Dassey, that they concocted a story and somehow convinced this poor retarded kid to go along with it because he didn't know any better?
DeleteSorry, I'm not buying that scenario, and I'd be surprised if you did. In fact I'd be flabbergasted, as I have more respect for you than that.
Avery and Dassey both guilty. Its already been proven and this is a very simple case and only made complicated because of a one sided documentary.
DeleteYes Dassey may get out on technicalities and I have no problem with that. Hes served 10 years and has done his time, especially since he was no doubt pressured into doing the things he did. Avery, on the other hand, throw away the key for good.
No, Doc, I don't think anything of the kind. I think the cousin told her teacher the heavily embroidered tale that BD told her, teacher made a police report, Manitowoc detectives followed up. I don't think you can argue that they smelled an opportunity to get the goods on Avery, and led and coerced their interviewee mercilessly. They wanted to take Avery down for this, no question, but a grand conspiracy? Nah.
DeleteAnd I'm sorry, but if your civil rights were violated as egregiously as that child's were I very much doubt you'd be calling it a technicality.
DeleteAnd there we go, everything that is wrong with the law in one paragraph
DeletePS. pretty sure he forfeited his civil rights when he assisted in the rape/murder of TH...regardless of what the law states
DeleteThere is no physical or forensic evidence proving he did anything of the kind, merely recanted hearsay testimony from his cousin. He was his uncle's addle-pated dupe from the get-go.
DeleteHe couldn't - consistently - describe where she'd been killed, or by what means. He had no clear sense of time. When asked to describe the rape he couldn't do that either.
You have any real evidence that this kid committed those crimes, Zed? Bring it. And in the meantime stop slandering our legal system unless you can suggest a better one to put in its place.
Once again, CC right on! There is no way that kid played any games with LE. He wasn't mentally capable and those officers took advantage of that fact. They fed him the information. It was obvious to me, that he didn't have a clue, and only when they TOLD him what happened, did he know what happened.
DeleteAnd I am not saying LE framed Avery. What I am saying is someone else might have killed that girl and KNEW they'd look to Avery first, so planted the evidence in and around his house and the salvage yard.
The school bus driver said she saw TH at 3:30-3;40PM which contradicted the Dassey brother who said he saw her at 2:30-2:45PM. She knew her schedule, and had no reason to lie, but maybe that Dassey brother did have a reason to lie. I am not saying he did it, but at least be open to the inconsistencies and don't dismiss them so easily, therefore locking someone away for life.
We should all be scared after seeing what went on in this case and hope it never happens to a loved one. As I said, SA was a lowlife, but was he a murderer? From where I stand, and if I was putting someone away for life, I'd like to see some proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
EG
EG, there is not a single piece of evidence that proves Avery didnt do it. Nothing. Yet, there is so much hard evidence and circumstantial evidence which proves he did. Thank god the jury agreed.
DeleteZed....the jury actually started out with 7 not guilty and 5 guilty. One juror was dismissed due to an emergency, and he spoke afterwards. He said that the guilty jurors were more aggressive and were able to convince the overtired, less aggressive non guilty jurors. They had been sequestered for days and wanted to go home, according to him.
DeleteAs I said, SA is no angel, and is a lowlife...BUT too many inconsistencies here.. I'd need to take it all into consideration including the behavior of LE. What they did to BD is a crime in and of itself.
EG
I agree with CC as far as Dassey's own personal involvement is concerned. Aside from his "confession," which he later recanted, there is no evidence he actually did any of the things he said he did. And even if we can believe the story that finally emerged from those interrogations, he was clearly being intimidated and controlled by Avery at the time. I certainly don't believe he was guilty of murder one or possibly even rape. That does NOT mean, however, that one should simply dismiss the sordid tale that emerges from his testimony and what it says about Avery's depravity.
DeleteAs far as Avery himself is concerned, there is considerable evidence of his guilt, as we all know. The myth that there is no evidence stems exclusively from the desperate attempt of his inept lawyers to claim that there was some sort of conspiracy afoot to frame him. So yes, there is a great deal of evidence proving conclusively that Avery committed this horrific crime -- and NO evidence whatsoever that any evidence was planted or that there was any sort of conspiracy to frame him.
Zellner assured us for months that her "scientific" tests would prove that beyond a doubt, but as far as I can tell from reading the first 200 pages of her appeal, she has come up empty. After all this effort and all the expense, all she has are just more unfounded assumptions, speculations, groundless accusations, and a convoluted theory for which she has not one shred of proof.
Is this anything new?
ReplyDeletehttp://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/jonbenet-ramsey-killer-identity/
I haven't seen precisely this scenario before, though similar ones have emerged. It's easy to single out some likely pedophile, psychopath, rapist, etc. who seems good for it, especially when you stress certain details and omit everything else. But for those of us familiar with the case it's clear that no intruder theory makes sense.
DeleteThe article states:
Delete"They suspect the killers broke a basement window"
The grate above the basement window hadn't been disturbed.
"...crept into the house, slipped up to the bedroom where the girl was sleeping and knocked her out with a stun gun."
None of the stun guns tested matched the marks on her back, and the stun gun theory was pretty much debunked.
"She was carried to the basement....."
Carried down two flights of stairs in pitch blackness?
"...bound, silenced with duct tape, molested, strangled with a garrote and smashed in the head with a baseball bat."
1. The wrist bindings were too loose to have been effective. They were used purely for staging purposes.
2. The duct tape was placed on her mouth POST mortem, therefore, as with the wrist bindings, served no function during her murder and was also used for staging.
3. A pedophile does not go to the trouble of breaking into a house full of people, remove his victim from her bedroom, only to then penetrate her - either digitally, or with a foreign object - he would rape his victim almost certainly. There would be semen present.
4. An intruder who has just committed murder would get the hell out of there - not navigate his way back to the kitchen in the dark to gather materials to write a three page ransom note for a kidnapping he didn't plan to commit.
Honestly, Radar Online are utter pulp.
Radar Online can put out that tripe but still no word on DNA testing. We are now six months into 2017 and it does not take six months to get DNA results back, especially since they aren't sending it out, they are using a new DNA facility in the Boulder area. If the results are already in, and a complete profile was extracted, why the silence.
Delete"If the results are already in, and a complete profile was extracted, why the silence."
DeleteAnd why the silence from all the media outlets who seemed so interested in this case six months ago? Instead of the White House holding daily press conferences for the "media", perhaps it's time for the "media" to hold daily press conferences for---"the people".
Agreed Anonymous! Once upon a time the people had Charlie Brennan. If it weren't for him we might never had heard the Grand Jury verdict.
DeleteI also read a similar article about this "new suspect" last week. Apparently, his ex-wife is now saying she can't offer a solid alibi for him the night of JB's murder. She also claims that he used to wear her gold cross necklace (similar to the one found on JB) and the necklace disappeared sometime between '96 and '98.
DeleteJB's necklace was a gift from Aunt Pam. Pretty poor investigative journalism.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/23/man-named-as-potential-new-suspect-in-jonbenet-murder-investigation-6730722/
Any word on the 6/28 motion hearing in Ramsey vs. CBS, HKH? I tried a search of the Detroit Free Press online this morning, with no luck. You have better sources - will you give it a try when you have a minute? Thanks.
DeleteDid TH's family consider suing Auto Trader magazine for requesting T photograph Avery's auto yard one more time in spite of her telling them she did not wish to return?
ReplyDeleteAn update...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.grandforksherald.com/news/4287896-appeals-court-overturns-conviction-making-murderer-inmate
Minnesota Linda
IMHO, the person who murdered JonBenet Ramsey was surely not a sane person at the time he or she committed the crime. Whether crazed by drugs and/or alchohol or simply phychotic, there's no way to tell until the perpetrator of the crime is identified and confesses. Therefore, it is impossible to know what he or she would or wouldn't do. To be able to assault the child and murder her in her own home while her parents slept upstairs may have given the intruder a titillating sense of power. Also, the killer may have thought it great fun to write a fake ransom note after the fact in order to toy with the emotions of JonBenet's family by giving them false hope that she was still alive. As for the fear of being apprehended while writing the ransom note, that could have been an added thrill. Without real proof that John, Patsy, or Burke Ramsey caused the death of JonBenet, an intruder is the most viable suspect and law enforcement should be actively searching for him or her.
ReplyDelete-Miss Kitty
Miss kitty, if there was an intruder, how do you explain the parent's behavior in the months after the murder? They were completely uncooperative with law enforcement; not exactly the type of behavior of innocent parents looking for the killer of their six year old daughter.
DeleteA temporarily insane or psychopathic "intruder" is incapable of devising, let alone executing, with malice aforethought, a crime as complex as JonBenet's murder. If "he or she" were, in addition, "titillated" by a sense of power, they would have sought "credit" for their crime when investigators were completely focused on the Ramseys' all those months and years following the murder. Furthermore, psychopathic pedophiles are not patient people; they are not titillated by a fear of getting caught, writing three page ransom notes, and creating "false hope". They need serial sex with children for that.
DeleteNo profile exists for an "intruder" required to fit your narrative of this consistent with the facts in evidence. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there still "titillated" by the possible real existence of Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, and Amanda Blake's role on Gunsmoke.
....your narrative of this "case".....
DeleteI did think that for a while Miss Kitty. It is such an odd case - to think that a "kidnapper" would also be a pedophile at the same time. That any family member would stage a fake kidnap for ransom and write a long winded note seemed incomprehensible. But if you begin to sift through any intruder scenario it just seems implausible. The "intruder" would have had to have had an extremely intimate knowledge of this family, to have known things about them including their whereabouts that night, that they would have been able to sleep through such a possibly noisy scenario, that no one would rise in the middle of the night, and no DNA left anywhere(unless the touch DNA finally yields a solid profile, which is doubtful), anyone that close to the family, that intimate with them, was investigated. If an intruder was psychologically impaired or high I don't think the note would have looked so carefully constructed.
ReplyDelete"JonBenet Ramsey's murder case is so knotted by tainted evidence, faulty police work and conflicting suspect theories that the Boulder County district attorney recently warned it would be difficult to solve EVEN IF an upcoming third round of DNA testing does generate a match in the FBI's national offender database."
ReplyDelete"I suppose it's possible, but it's not very likely," DA Stan Garnett said Thursday. "The problems in the Ramsey case are unlimited."
kmitchell@denverpost.com
So there you have it. So why try. He's certainly given up, if he ever was interested. But hey, he said he was just waiting for a theory of prosecution back in 2011.
More misrepresentations from the usual suspect. The Denver Post printed that last year, and the emphasis on even if was added by Inquisitive.
DeleteGarnett made that statement on 12/23/16, the same day aunews.com reported that when asked if he knows who did it, Garnett replied "I do. And if I can ever bring a case in open court, I'll tell the world."
Not only is it old news, it's classic lawyerly double speak; all he's really saying is that it's not a DNA case.
I don't know what your problem is with Stan Garnett, Inq. He's successfully prosecuted two dozen cold cases, an astonishing number, since taking office in 2009, and has said he'll bring this one if the evidence comes together. Just what is it you expect him to do?
Yes, I knew it was from December 2016, but he has essentially said there is no hope, before we have even gotten new DNA results, if any. In 2011 he asked for anyone to bring him a theory of prosecution. I know you think little of Kolar, but he submitted one, for which he got no reply. Maybe Kolar was off base, but he at least was brought in by Lacy, then went against her intruder theories.
ReplyDeleteIt's just clear to me that the Boulder officials gave up long ago, and 3 for 3. It is said that there are two part time investigators on this case, why even have them?
I believe he can convene a new Grand Jury, I believe that is in his power. And if he knows who did it promises to tell the world are empty - sounds good, but so what. I'm glad he has prosecuted two dozen cold cases, but I am interested in this one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe DA whose name is on the door is always credited with the wins of himself and his deputies, as he's an elected official, re-elected based on his office's record under his leadership, while his deputies are all appointed.
DeleteUnsurprisingly, Boulder County residents disagree with your assessment of Stan Garnett, as they voted last year to permit their DA,to serve three terms rather than just two, specifically to keep him on.
Garnett has said many times he would love to prosecute the Ramsey case, if the evidence is there. Clearly it ain't.
By the way the two dozen prosecuted cold cases were from the DA's office since 2004. Stan was sworn in Jan. 2009. The office is responsible for the prosecuted cases, not specifically Stan G.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of ironic, but people hoping there's ever a successful prosecution of this case need to be intruder did it people. It's the only way this case gets prosecuted. Any case against the Ramseys died with Patsy and her tesitmony.
DeleteJohn Ramsey would win a bench trial in about 5 minutes.
It's really so simple:
DeleteNo intruder theory makes sense.
If Patsy had been involved she would not have called 911.
Leaving: John.
Motive: To silence the only witness to the incestuous sexual abuse of his daughter.
Corroborating evidence:
Strong resemblance of the writing on the note to the legal document penned by John.
Strong evidence of prior sexual abuse.
John's stonewalling of the police while Patsy was heavily sedated and unable to function effectively.
John's failure to immediately report the open basement window, which he shut. John's failure to immediately report the presence of the suitcase, which he later claimed looked suspicious.
John's clearly fabricated story about breaking the basement window months earlier.
John's shirt fibers found inside the victim's panties.
In the words of Sherlock Holmes (actually Conan Doyle): "When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
Matt is right. If you put this argument in front of a jury, they would acquit in about 5 minutes. And that's even if you *could* prove that John's shirt fibers were found inside the victim's panties.
DeleteHow many intruders investigated yet cleared does it take to conclude "no intruder theory makes sense"? Intruder theories, like quantum particle wave functions, "collapse", the moment they are observed. That leaves only Ramsey theories as viable. Patsy? No. She wouldn't have called 911 had she read the entire ransom note or if she had written it. Burke? No. Nine year prepubescent geeks don't sexually abuse six year old sisters, write ransom notes, or go to jail for murder.
Delete"When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
If there is a REASONABLE CONNECTION between the fact presumed and the fact ultimately proven from such fact, an exception to the Constitutional presumption of innocence can be made. John Ramsey should be arrested tonight. There's five hours left in Utah before it's tomorrow. That gives LE in Colorado and Utah nearly five hours to work out the details. That's plenty of time, don't you think?
Mike G
I would wish that you give Stan G. another letter, Doc. I know you feel very passionately about this case and I don't think it's impossible. I do believe he's going to finish out his term, not wanting to open this can of worms and "taint" his tenure as DA, but there are some of us out here who want answers, who are not content to let this little girl's death go unsolved, and for no one to be held accountable. It must be left to the fact finders, a jury, not us.
ReplyDeleteWhen the people of Boulder demand this case solved, and resolved, it will be. And whatever DA they pick will represent that demand.
ReplyDeleteYou need to get a grip - and take a reality check. It's been 20 years and the "people of Boulder" don't give a good goddamn, and never did. The Ramseys were out-of-towners, interlopers, their money nouveau, and gauche. Patsy and her over the top style never fit in with the denim-clad Birkenstock and Granola Boulderites, who viewed the murder as an aberration and an inconvenience, hated the media attention, were thrilled when the family left town.
DeleteI lived there for six years in the 70s, have close friends who practice law there to this day, and I promise you, they love Stan Garnett, admire what he's achieved, and could not care less about the Ramsey case.
Boulder is and always has been a world unto itself. Not for nothin' did we used to call it "The Magic Kingdom" and " Eighteen Square Miles Surrounded by Reality".
Yes, I can see that. Thank you for the reality check. What made this case different from the commitment to solve the two dozen other cold cases? Still, the Ramsey's had enough clout to have them treated with kid gloves by Hunter and then again by Lacy. The Ramsey's were also responsible for turning the town against them by compiling a list of possible suspects including the friends that they did have. Contributing to their own lingering suspicions to this day.
ReplyDeleteIn my state, where I have been for over 41 years give or take, it's appalling to see what has devolved since our last great Governor, Pete Wilson. To see what has happened when liberal progressiveness has run unchecked and unchallenged. But it is true what is said about California. It's a state of mind.
The difference is the quality of the evidence. In our case it points incontrovertibly to the family, but as you know from the various theories propounded here, not to one theory to the exclusion of all others.
DeleteIt wasn't Ramsey influence that bought them a pass - it was Hal Haddon's. He was a famous heavy hitter, big in the Democratic Party in a Democratic state, with a highly respected practice in Denver, and he was hired on the 27th. He immediately hired media consultants and investigators and his very own FBI profiler, cowed Hunter and Koby, and took control from the jump. The case never recovered.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy take on the problem is very different. Neither Hal Haddon nor Alex Hunter nor Mary Lacy nor Stanley Garnett nor anyone else involved with the case is or was responsible for this fiasco. As I see it, the problem is the widely held assumption (or should I say "certainty") that either it was an intruder OR it was that mythical creature known as "the Ramseys." Neither pathway actually leads anywhere and if the authorities continue to insist on that alternative the case will never be solved.
Delete"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain
I'd give that more credence were it not for Beckner's Reddit AMA, wherein he acknowledges the prior sexual abuse and claims to know whodunnit, and Garnett's bald statement that he too knows who did it, and would indict if he had the evidence.
DeleteBurke can't be charged, Patsy's beyond reach. John did it because of the sexual abuse, I think both men know it, but they're stymied by the lack of evidence worthy of a courtroom.
What you say makes sense, CC. But so long as they so firmly believe that both Patsy and John were in on the coverup, there is no way to prove beyond doubt who actually committed the crime. Once it becomes evident that Patsy's phone call would not have been made if she'd been involved, then the only other possibility is John. A circumstantial case could imo be built with that as the basis, and I do think it could stick.
DeleteBut I see no sign that Beckner, Garnett or anyone else in a position to make a difference is prepared to bridge that crucial gap and draw the obvious conclusion. Patsy's involvement has been burned so deeply into the psyche of all these people -- I see little hope any of them will ever get it.
John was a smart man. If pre-planned, he had a deadline to remove the body. If not pre-planned he had a deadline to remove the body - before Patsy was to wake up that morning and they were to leave on their trip. I would think he would have had to make sure he could meet that deadline and not leave it to chance - that Patsy would read the note and call 911.
DeleteI don't see how he could have planned on removing the body before Patsy woke up. For one thing she could have awakened while he was gone, and if she noticed that both he and JonBenet were gone she'd have called the police at once and his game would have been up. Also, if his car had been spotted on the street on the same morning that his daughter had been "kidnapped" he'd have had a lot of explaining to do -- while under lock and key.
DeleteNo, that could not have been his plan. If you read the first few posts on this blog you'll see what I think he had in mind.
We've had this conversation several times: All the assumptions/inferences on your list are entirely subjective, open to other interpretation; none rise to the level of real circumstantial evidence, and they do not form a chain of circumstances leading to just one conclusion.
DeleteI think this is one of just many reasons the case is so, to me, mysterious. No one has really been able to nail down an accurate timeline, when JB was put to bed, when Patsy retired for the night, what time Burke "snuck downstairs" which he added later, when the pineapple was consumed, a more exact time frame between head blow and last breath, and time of death. I agree, leaving the house in the dead of night with the body in the trunk of one's car could have given him away. Risky no matter which option was to be chosen, night or day. I wonder too, why bring the body up at 1:00 when Arnt asked for one more search of the house. Eventually the house would have been cleared, everyone sent home, and just possibly the Ramsey's would have been questioned, separately. A thorough search of an empty house emptied of all actors would have revealed the body as it was intended to be found, duct tape intact, carefully and lovingly wrapped, by the one who who wanted her to be found that way.
DeleteI see your point Doc. Continuing to consider so many alternative scenarios throws the thinking deeper into the morass. Even the thinking that Patsy accidentally injured JB no one thought she could go on and strangle her child and write a note - hence, it had to be "Ramsey's", plural.
ReplyDelete"All the assumptions/inferences on your list are entirely subjective, open to other interpretation"
ReplyDeleteWhat other interpretation would you suggest, CC? Can you come up with some reason why these two college-educated, non-drugged out parents would want to team up in the first place in order to hide the truth about their own daughter's murder? If one of them killed her, why would the other want to cover that up?
Can you come up with some reason for writing a 2 1/2 page "ransom note" other than to stage a kidnapping?
Can you come up with some reason why Patsy and John would have wanted to call 911, knowing full well that the body of their victim would eventually be found in their own home? Thus totally cancelling the effect of their carefully composed note?
Can you come up with some reason why Patsy would have wanted to hand the police a phony note printed in her own hand, knowing at the same time that, as soon as the body was found, that note would be revealed as staging, and might well be used as evidence against her?
Sorry, but the reasoning behind my analysis of this case is not based simply on assumptions and inferences, but facts and logic. The problem is not that this theory cannot be proven, but that the misdirection has been so complete that no on is any longer able to see the simple truth standing right there in the open.
You misunderstand. I agree that JDI and agree with many of your inferences. I'm merely pointing out that they are not facts from which one can draw inferences (which is a pretty good definition of circumstantial evidence). Rather, they are inferences from which you have created a damned good theory, albeit one unsupported by undisputed facts or admissible evidence.
DeleteWell as I see it, my theory IS based on undisputed facts. Aside from those facts that rule out an intruder, we have:
DeleteThe fact that Patsy is the one who called the police, not John.
The fact that her version of whose idea it was to make that call (as stated in the A&E documentary) is in direct contradiction to his.
The fact that strong evidence of prior molestation was found.
The fact that John went missing for a considerable length of time on the morning of the 26th.
The fact that John, by his own admission, neglected, until months later, to report either the open window he found or the suitcase he saw propped up underneath it.
The fact that John's story about breaking in earlier has been contradicted by an eye witness, the housekeeper. If that story is a fabrication, then we can only conclude that John broke that window on the night of the crime to stage a home intrusion.
And by the way, we can rest assured that the defense would NOT make any attempt to argue that both Patsy and John collaborated on that note and mutually agreed to make that call, which removes the issue that most divides so many on this blog.
John's only hope, if put on trial, would be the intruder theory, which imo, and I imagine yours as well, CC, would not hold up under the assault of a competent prosecutor. And if you want to argue that a jury would buy a reasonable doubt defense based on an intruder theory, ask yourself how many people following this case have bought it.
For a long time I avoided shows like 20-20 or 48 Hours, but in recent years I've become an avid follower. And I must say that judging from what I've seen on these shows, lots of people have been convicted on the basis of far less evidence than we see in the Ramsey case.
Believe what you want. The fact remains that it's not evidence, it's a collection of assumptions, easily confused to the point of reasonable doubt by other assumptions, and impossible to prove.
Delete"We've had this conversation several times: All the assumptions/inferences on your list are entirely subjective, open to other interpretation; none rise to the level of real circumstantial evidence, and they do not form a chain of circumstances leading to just one conclusion." ---CC
ReplyDeleteA. I disagree CC. Let's flip things around and see what you think.
Non-subjective "facts" presented by DocG
1) John's shirt fibers found inside the victim's panties.
2) John's clearly fabricated story about breaking the basement window months earlier.
3) John's failure to immediately report the open basement window, which he shut. John's failure to immediately report the presence of the suitcase, which he later claimed looked suspicious.
4) John's stonewalling of the police while Patsy was heavily sedated and unable to function effectively.
5) Strong evidence of prior sexual abuse.
6) Strong resemblance of the writing on the note to the legal document penned by John.
Doc's statements (plus one) with prima facia validity:
("Prima facie: Latin for 'at first sight.' Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning 'sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;' e.g., prima facie evidence. It may also be used as an adverb meaning 'on first appearance but subject to further evidence or information;' e.g., the agreement is prima facie valid." Wex Legal Dictionary)
1) No intruder theory makes sense.
2) If Patsy had been involved she would not have called 911. (Maybe if Patsy had READ the whole ransom note, she wouldn't have?)
3) No Burke did-it scenario makes sense.
Doc's prima facia case justifying an arrest of John Ramsey for the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
("A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. It is generally understood as a flexible evidentiary standard that measures the effect of evidence as meeting, or tending to meet, the proponent's burden of proof on a given issue. In that sense, a prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.") Ibid
1) "When you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains (John Ramsey murdered JonBenet), no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
...continued on next post Mike G
....continued from last post
ReplyDeleteB. First, please read the following:
https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-committee-and-historians-win-bid-unseal-grand-jury-transcripts-historic-1942-leak-investig
Note in particular:
"In June, 2015, in an opinion by Chief Judge Ruben Castillo, the district court ordered release of the Tribune transcripts, concluding that disclosure “will not only result in a more complete public record of this historic event, but will ‘in the long run build confidence in our government by affirming that it is open, in all respects, to scrutiny by the people'"....The government appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.... the Court of Appeals further concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion in ordering that the 1942 Tribune grand jury transcripts be released. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that Mr. Carlson and the other petitioners lacked standing to seek access to the grand jury transcripts, holding that the fact that Mr. Carlson 'is a member of the public is sufficient for him to assert his general right to inspect and copy ... judicial records[,]’ which include grand jury records.'"
Question: Might this "Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press", on behalf of the law firm of G,G & C, be enlisted to direct the Boulder District Court to unseal the Ramsey Grand Jury transcripts in their entirety? Of course, if the answer is yes, you would have to write the letter, since only you would know the legal parallels, or lack thereof, justifying the attempt. ( I read Rule 6(e)3(E), but it was a bit over my head.) I'm sure you could navigate all the landmine "exceptions" better than Doc or I could, even the "this is still an open case" argument the court would probably use as the backbone for its position.
Mike G
No responsible prosecutor would take Doc's theory into court and attempt to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You and Doc knock yourselves out dreaming otherwise.
DeleteYeah, we've heard that from you before. But then G, G, & C was your idea, not ours CC. Have a nice evening.
DeleteMike
I agree there is enough evidence to prosecute John. There is enough evidence to rule out an intruder and then enough evidence to prove he played some part in what happened on that horrific night.
ReplyDeleteBut for me Patsy was definitely involved also. That 911 call had to be made (I feel strongly about this just as some of you feel strongly that the call proves her innocence) and Patsy was the best candidate for that. I also believe Patsy wrote the RN with help from John.
But surely they can get John on something, even it was a lesser charge of tampering with a body. At this point 20+ years later, I would take anything over nothing.
The statutes of limitation have run on everything except murder.
Delete. . .and child sexual abuse, even harder to prove at this late remove.
DeleteLying and fibers isn't enough to prosecute John. John's blood, semen or saliva on her body would be headed in the right direction as there would be no reasonable explanation for it.
ReplyDeleteHappy Independence Day tomorrow everyone.
ReplyDeleteZed, I imagined John and Patsy collaborating on that note for a very long time. But what Doc said in his earlier post makes sense. There couldn't be any scenario where John would murder his daughter, then direct Patsy to write a note, giving her movie quotes, etc. Conversely I don't see Patsy murdering her daughter, waking up John and asking for help writing a note. He would not have gone along with it. In fact he tells an investigator, that he would not have written a note. I think whichever one did this was up all night alone, and did not want the other one to know.
I politely disagree. I think this case seems much more rationale when there are at least two parties involved. And I believe the evidence (circumstantial as it may be) reflects both Patsy and John were involved.
DeleteMy opinion and I realise Doc, CC, Ms D and many others on this blog disagree.
If that's the case, then it will never be solved, because there is no way to tell who actually killed JonBenet.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"If that's the case, then it will never be solved..."
ReplyDeleteBe careful and hold your ground Doc. You've "solved" the case, but it may never get "prosecuted". These are hairs worth splitting, lack of CC's prosecutorial support notwithstanding.
Mike G
Doc has known my position on this and we've had the same argument for, literally, years now. Doesn't keep me from believing in (most of) his theory, enhancing it with a viable motive, making a (I believe) convincing argument for premeditation, and supporting and respecting him, and he me.
DeleteMike, I was referring to Zed's insistence that "both Patsy and John were involved." If THAT is the case, then all is hopeless. But as I see it, that is NOT the case. So there will always, imo, be hope.
DeleteAnd yet you don't give Beckner and Garnett credit for being able to arrive at the very same conclusion, insist on believing they are somehow lesser mortals, unable to arrive at what I believe is an obvious conclusion, given the sexual abuse? Abuse that you, yourself didn't believe in until I graphically illustrated it for you last September?
DeleteYou admitted to arrogance a while ago, but that sort of thinking is merely hubris.
Further, I've turned down an offer to participate in a more mainstream site out of affection for and loyalty to Doc and his theory, one which he urged me to accept. I've never failed to encourage you, Mike, in your forays into the law, despite some pretty rude remarks to me personally and some very misguided "legal" opinions.
ReplyDeleteA better topic, and one of more interest to the rest of the group, might be, "So, CC, only 'most of' Doc's theory? What troubles you?"
And FYI, with regard to GG&C, I e-mailed you with Doc's reservations and mine the same day you did me a couple months ago but never heard back.
CC:
DeleteI thought my earlier remarks, which I apologized for, were water under the bridge. But by the terse response with which you dismissed my last post, apparently bridges burned can't be rebuilt in your book.
I appreciate the support you've given me regarding my forays, into the law, as you put it. But while my opinions from a legal standpoint may on balance be incorrect, that they are "misguided" is an unfair characterization. I have been careful to "guide" others to you for your legal takes on matters, even when I've been confident in mine, having learned from the mistakes I made earlier with you and trying to rectify them---mistakes I do not believe were present in my most recent post. Or am I being thin-skinned to infer from:
"No responsible prosecutor would take Doc's theory into court and attempt to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You and Doc knock yourselves out dreaming otherwise..."
that A) subscribing to Doc's theory and believing it can be taken into court makes one "irresponsible", whether one is a prosecutor or not, and B) that to "knock myself out dreaming" isn't a rude thing to say? What did I say to merit THAT? Or are you still collecting on a past debt?
Mike G
If this was premeditated, John sure did pick an awfully convoluted way to pull it off. Couldn't he have easily picked a quicker and more humane way to kill his precious daughter without the use of a "garrote", blow to the head, and then ridiculous ransom note? All of which hinders on Patsy not calling the police; something just about anyone would do in those circumstances?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I could be wrong, but wouldn't John's alleged sexual abuse of his 6 year old daughter be viewed as a form of mental illness? If so, did he just somehow manage to cure himself of this in the years to follow?
I've made my case for premeditation many times, in great detail, at least once since you've been hanging around here usurping the real Gumshoe's handle. Look it up, forget it, whatever.
DeleteAnd no, sexual abuse of a child is a felony, not a "form of mental illness".
Felonies and mental illnesses are not mutually exclusive. People commit felonies because of mental illness all the time.
DeleteAnd for heavens sake, stop whining about a random "alias" I use to post.
I never whine. The real Gumshoe was erudite and worthwhile. You are not.
DeleteFelonies and true mental illness are often mutually exclusive, and properly so.
And, PS, you're still posting under her name. Get another: you're not deserving. You do no reading or true research, post no worthwhile opinions based thereon. You ask questions that have been answered many, many times,and espouse ideas and theories that have been raised innumerable tunes, and much better.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the moniker either.....why would a poster decide to use a name already taken? For starters, it's confusing for the rest of the members here. Secondly, as you failed to inform anyone upon joining this blog that you were not actually the Gumshoe who had been posting here previously, your comments made it appear as though "Gumshoe" had undergone some sort of lobotomy. Then, even after the real Gumshoe showed up (making the discussion as confusing as hell), you still kept your alias, leaving GUMSHOE no choice but to change his/her name! That was your job - this person has been using that name here for years.
DeleteI can definitely see why CC has an issue with you using another poster's name, it's just not kosher.
For what it's worth Ms D I'm not a fan of so many "Anonymous" monikers. Some hide behind it to troll and post nasty comments. Then there's no discerning whether another Anonymous can be taken seriously or not. Trolling, however, can be traced to an IP address which is something a troll may not know can be done. Even that does little good as they can always sign up somewhere else with a new IP address.
DeleteNo, I'm definitely not a fan of anyone using the "Anonymous" label - if one wishes to join a discussion, they should identify themselves (I mean, we're still all anonymous anyway, it's not as though we have access to one another's email addresses, and we don't have to post photos of ourselves), but taking someone else's name isn't necessary either. When one considers the infinite amount of names anyone can sign off with, I just can't understand why anyone would even want to take a moniker that is already being used by someone on the blog, if for no other reason that they can't be sure whom we're referring to if we simply mention them by name. Besides, it's a little inconsiderate, don't you think? Wouldn't you be a tad miffed if someone adopted the "Inquisitive" moniker and started posting here regularly with opinions that were nothing like your own? No doubt you'd feel the need to constantly defend yourself, making certain it is known that the comments weren't left by you - which is exactly why the original Gumshoe was left with no choice but to alter his/her name.
DeleteAt any rate, in response to your original comment, Gumshoe:
Delete"Couldn't he have easily picked a quicker and more humane way to kill his precious daughter without the use of a "garrote", blow to the head, and then ridiculous ransom note? All of which hinders on Patsy not calling the police; something just about anyone would do in those circumstances?"
It all depends on what one considers to be "quicker" and "more humane". Drowning? (Out of the question if you're staging an abduction). Electrocution? (Also unlikely in the event of a kidnapping). Gunshot? (Too loud, too messy. Gun can be easily traced back to John). Stabbing? (Same problem as a gunshot wound - too messy, too noisy).
What do you suggest?
Honestly, I think a massive blow to the head IS the most "humane" way to get rid of his daughter. She probably never knew what hit her, and the strangulation occurred when she was deeply unconscious, already in the process of dying. I think that is a major factor as to why John opted to whack her on the head before strangulation (not withstanding the most obvious reason - not having to deal with a struggling victim certainly makes the job a lot easier), he wanted to minimize her suffering. If you're going to commit murder, delivering unconsciousness in one, fell, swoop is probably the "kindest" way to do it.
As far as the ransom note is concerned, well we know why it was so integral to John's plan and why it couldn't work without it.....which it didn't. An epic fail. Instead of it's true purpose - to make it appear to all (especially Patsy) as a genuine kidnapping, with a ransom to be delivered by John, and JB's body never being recovered - it looked exactly like what it actually was: a murder committed by a parent. Most unfortunate for Patsy, though, because once she dialed 911 that morning, she unwittingly sealed her own fate.
But I tend to agree that it probably wasn't premeditated. I don't think John would have chosen that particular night, or that he would have used materials from the house had it been. Also - to me - the RN reads like the author is in a mad panic, it doesn't strike me as something that was written in advance; it's sloppy and ill conceived. But who knows? I could be completely wrong on that one.....CC thinks she could make a case for premeditation, so what do I know?! :)
Thought of a few things - maybe you can answer Ms D.
DeleteHow long was John at the airplane hangar that day? Why didn't he take JAR and Melinda's presents and other bagged up bric a brac Patsy had in the house and load up the plane then, when he said he was cleaning the plane? Wouldn't that have saved time the next morning, get that out of the way? Could he instead have been writing a note as the original Gumshoe suggested?
I think it's confusing that a distinction isn't drawn (at least in the press) between the missing four pages from Patsy's pad as being the "practice note" and the separate sheet that starts "Mr. and Mrs. (vertical line)" as the "practice note." Because if the practice note was the four missing pages, then the note doesn't read as the author was in a mad panic, but rather dispensed with the first draft in favor of a better final product. Your thoughts? So I suppose I disagree that the RN reads like the author is panicked. I think the author counted on having time for a perfected note.
If that's the case, and the author leisurely wrote the ransom note, your "Burke Did It" theory sure flies out the window!
DeleteThere were errors in the RN, and the word "earlier" was used four times in quick succession, which may not be indicative of anything, but to me, reads as though this was the first, and only, draft.
Is there anyone to corroborate John's story of being at the airplane hangar on Christmas day? Is it possible he was actually somewhere else?
Not leisurely, but the note was obviously important, integral. And no collaborating. If you believe John wrote the note, as I know you do, then given his business-like organized mindset why would he construct a sloppy and ill-conceived note?
DeleteYou can have the thought "this person needs to go" and have it fit the definition of premeditated. Then the person would also have to have the thought that a note would best cover their crime, down to and including a few misspelled words and dissimilar "a's" here and there. That's calculated to confound. Why go to all that work just for Patsy when the one or two lines most important in that note, not to call the police, went unheeded?
Delete"If you believe John wrote the note, as I know you do, then given his business-like organized mindset why would he construct a sloppy and ill-conceived note?"
DeletePrecisely for the reason he is organized and succinct!
The sloppiness of the RN is typical, John Ramsey, misdirection.....we see him do it time and time again. Whatever would be normal for John to do, he made sure the mythological killer he invented did exactly the opposite:
*The killer wrote a ransom note; John Ramsey tells the police *he* would not have written a ransom note at all.
*Parents don't garrote their children; John Ramsey used a crudely fashioned "garrote" to do exactly that.
*A guilty person doesn't willingly hand over what might possibly be incriminating evidence to the police; John Ramsey hands over Patsy's legal pad used to write the RN over to the police.
*And, of course, everyone's favourite: If John broke the window as part of his staging, there's no way he'd ever admit to having been the one who broke it!
"Ill conceived" was probably an unfortunate choice of words I decided to use regarding the ransom note. The note was certainly necessary, there was no convincing manner in which he could pull off the murder of his child without it (had it all gone according to plan, of course....as it was, the RN became the thorn in his side). But I believe that had some degree of thought been put into it days in advance, I think it would have been structured very differently - it would have been efficient enough to have succeeded in it's primary function, which was, of course, to scare Patsy into abstaining from calling LE, because had there been days to dream up the contents of note, I believe John would have been sure to include the diabolical warnings within the first couple of lines. There are also several sentences in the note which sound juvenile and not terribly well thought out - lines that would have likely been scrapped on subsequent drafts and not made it to the final copy.
Of course, the argument can be made that the length of the note alone is evidence enough that the author had all the time in the world to write it, making premeditation the only likely option....
CC, with no disrespect towards Doc intended, if I may ask what troubles you in the theory?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anon, for picking up on my not-so-subtle cue. And Doc will certainly not see it as disrespect.
DeleteThe broken window troubles me. Doc maintains John unstaged after Patsy's 911 call by cleaning up the glass, in order that LE not realize it was an inside job. I totally disagree. It was the RN that led them to that conclusion that it was an inside job. Glass on the inside of the basement floor could only have helped further an IDI. No point whatsoever in unstaging.
Thank you. I don't see the rationale for unstaging either. But then he was a wizard at devising more than one red herring.
Delete"Glass on the inside of the basement floor could only have helped further an IDI. No point whatsoever in unstaging."
DeleteWith all respect, CC (and you know I have great respect for you), you have forgotten an essential point. Close examination of the window sill revealed an undisturbed layer of dust and grime. There was also an intact spider web in the well just in front of the window. And an undisturbed spider web connecting the window grate to the lawn. The authorities justifiably concluded that no one could have passed through that window on the night of the crime.
If John had not come up with his story, AND gotten rid of the broken glass, the staging would have been obvious and he would certainly have been arrested on the spot.
"And yet you don't give Beckner and Garnett credit for being able to arrive at the very same conclusion, insist on believing they are somehow lesser mortals, unable to arrive at what I believe is an obvious conclusion, given the sexual abuse?"
I've never seen the slightest sign that either Beckner or Garnett see the case as I (or we) do. If they did, I feel sure I'd have heard from them by now, as this blog and/or my book should certainly be known to them at this late date.
"Abuse that you, yourself didn't believe in until I graphically illustrated it for you last September?"
Excuse me. Where is this coming from? Of course I believe it extremely likely that John had been abusing his daughter. And I also believe it possible that your theory of premeditation could be true. Only we don't have sufficient evidence to confirm or refute it, obviously.
The key words in your first paragraph are "close examination". John did not have time in your scenario to make same from his vantage point in the basement, and would have had to rely on his personal experience of breaking in that way months before, noticing the filth and taking off his suit before slithering through in his tighty whities - an incident you disavow. Can't have it both ways, Doc.
DeleteAnd then Patsy went along with that elaborate lie? I just don't see any logical explanation for her doing that; regardless of the mental state she was in.
DeleteI have no idea what you are getting at, CC. Perhaps you could be more specific? Why would he have had to rely on personal experience? For what purpose? I don't get it.
DeleteGumshoe, we've been all through that issue already, it's been hashed over many times, as I'm sure you know. Imo Patsy could not have "gone along" with John's lie. If so, she would not have brought Linda into it, knowing full well that Linda would not confirm her story.
There is a contradiction there that needs to be resolved, and the only solution I can think of is an implanted memory. You can call it "gaslighting," or simply manipulation, as you wish.
And if John's story were true, as you seem to imply, Gumshoe, then why would Linda have denied any knowledge of any broken glass in the basement? And why wouldn't the Ramseys have had that window repaired? Workmen were working in the basement prior to Xmas and could easily have fixed it, or at least inserted a piece of wood or cardboard to prevent the cold or insects getting in.
DeleteDoc, I know you're fully convinced that John did it but if you had to pick one aspect of this case that makes you second guess that theory, what would it be?
DeleteAnd Doc, to answer your question above, I don't necessarily believe John's story about breaking it earlier that summer. I just struggle with why Patsy would go along with it. It's one of thing if she says she vaguely remembers it happening but it's another to give specific details such as cleaning up the glass.
DeleteThat first question is a good one, Gumshoe, and I had to think a bit before responding. However, after giving it some thought, I must say that there is in fact NO aspect of this case that makes me second guess my theory. For me, PDI makes no sense and neither does BDI. Both lead very clearly to dead ends. Same with IDI. It's only when we consider John as the sole perpetrator that we find a clear path through the whole complicated mess.
DeleteWhich doesn't mean that, if John were brought to trial, his lawyers could not argue reasonable doubt on the basis of some improbable intruder with motives no one has yet been able to imagine. But then they would have to account for John's many lies, half-truths and obfuscations and also for contradictions such as the two stories regarding whose idea it was to make the 911 call.
Also, as I have already acknowledged, Patsy's story about cleaning up that window glass does constitute a weak point in my argument, the only one as far as I can tell. I do have an explanation but I have to admit that, for many people it might seem far fetched.
I think there is a problem with most people's expectations in cases such as this, that every single odd element has to be fully and clearly accounted for before a case can be considered solved. We see that syndrome very clearly in the Steven Avery case, where Zellner has managed to find a long, long list of things that apparently can't be accounted for if we assume Avery to be guilty. Never mind all the very clear evidence proving his guilt beyond doubt, she's found reasons to think otherwise, and has a large contingent of (very naive) followers convinced that she must be right. Because otherwise how do you explain this or how do you account for that?
The fact is that there are always going to be loose ends, and unless the guilty party provides a full and detailed confession, the full truth may never be known.
"Can't have it both ways, Doc."
DeleteActually, CC, he can. John's tasks after Patsy called 911 were enormous, even for someone as cool under pressure as he was (and still is probably). The police were on their way on the day after Christmas, meaning little to no traffic at all. To handle the messiness of completely "staging" the grate and window ledge (or "unstaging" the broken pieces of glass), repositioning the body, checking in on Burke, and finishing getting dressed...all these things in a matter of what turned out to be seven minutes...something had to give; some "narrative" had to be sacrificed.
Police knowing it was an inside job would come by virtue of the ransom note COMBINED with John's discovery of the body inside a little known, and not oftenly used, room in the basement in the house. John knew SOME evidence of an intruder HAD to be left behind, but not so much as to seem staged. Better to appear "cooperative" by making things difficult (but not "impossible") for an "intruder", than to appear "suspicious" by making things "easy" for a highly intelligent (albeit "unlikely" sexually abusive) father. "Cooperation" generates self-esteem, confidence, and maneuvering on the fly ; "suspicion" generates self-loathing, doubt, and proneness to make mistakes. John followed his instincts wisely and navigated vicissitudinal circumstances ingeniously. Too much blame has been given to police, and too much credit has been given John's lawyers.
Mike G
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just disturb the spider web and wipe down the grime on the windowsill than to spend all that time unstaging and cleaning up glass?
DeleteProbably took no time at all. Once he figured out that it needed to be removed he could have done it quickly on any number of his forays into the basement.
DeleteHe had no way of knowing about the spider web on the grate. As for the rest, he was probably planning on dealing with that the following day, assuming Patsy wouldn't call the police. Once she called, he would have been in a panic, with a thousand things on his mind, so it's not surprising that he didn't have time to pick up every stitch.
DeleteYou're not seriously suggesting that his summer breakin story is for real???? If that's what you think then by all means defend yourself.
DeleteI think Patsy would have gone along with the lie, and was probably remembering another time when she and Linda cleaned up a mess in the basement. She would have deferred to John, who she perceived as being the one in charge and if he said the broken window happened the way he said it, then that's how it happened. He also tells Lou Smit a rather elaborate story where he gets to tie in the moving of the suitcase with the broken glass when he says:
ReplyDeleteSMIT: Was the suitcase, when you came back, in the same spot it was where you had been?
JOHN: I think I moved it to see or to look for glass then. But I think it was where I left it, where it was when I was down there before.
later..
SMIT: You said you moved it? Did you remember that?
JOHN: I moved it a bit just to see if there was glass. It's funny how you remember things. I swear that window opened from the other side.
He only "moved it a bit", implying it was already near the wall so that an intruder could step on it on the way out.
He also in that statement has brought in the open window so that Lou can tie all three in together (suitcase, glass, and open window) to an intruder scenario Lou was by now, predisposed to believe.
In addition, from John's statements about the window THE MORNING OF THE MURDER, his discernment that he had broken the window months earlier was instantaneous, which he later used to explain why he didn't bother to tell Arndt he found it open, but then closed it. So why bother to move things around and look for glass at all John? Hmmm?
DeleteMike G
He brought Fleet into it as well, pointing it out to him and having him look around for more glass, not necessarily giving himself an alibi, but to corroborate his story that the scene looked suspicious.
ReplyDeleteInteresting article
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd/index.html
MNLizzieB
The point as I see it, is what theory do you most ardently believe in. If it is that JDI, BDI, PDI or combinations therein, there is a tendency to want to make the evidence fit the theory. It is, as Doc says, impossible to pick up every stitch - to do so would be to make the evidence try and fit the theory. But isn't that what is done when we try and assign motive? (sex abuse)
ReplyDeleteFor the purposes of argument, there are those, here, who can agree John was a successful businessman, and all that would go along with that - calculating, organized, strategic, (with a military background) accomplished in all matters pertaining to business. Yet, on the other hand, Ms. D, you believe the note to be haphazard and ill-conceived. How would that jive with, as you believe John wrote the note, a well-organized successful businessman? Why throw in several styles of "a", shaky handwriting and a few misspelled words issued with a dire warning to not call LE but bury it a little further down in the text, and have it be unheeded. Additionally, John tells Kane he wouldn't have hand written the note, he would have done it on a word processor or "maybe I wouldn't have left at note at all" (when asked by Kane if anyone in the last year and a half came to mind who was trying to frame him for the crime).
And the window. While I do agree that staging and unstaging could have occurred, and more importantly the motive for doing so, there is another possibility who could have broken it - Patsy. Patsy agrees with John's breakin story even though she was not present at the home when he would have done the breakin to know for sure if he broke it then or not. There is also the statement, from her, that she and Linda cleaned up the glass. Now interesting. I'd like to suggest that she took a gamble that Linda would back her up on this, underestimating the rancor that developed when she cast aspersions on Linda suggesting Linda may have had a motive for harming JB. In any event there is a perception held by the wealthy that the servants will remain loyal, or don't count, either way. Glass was taken from the wine cellar in the search warrant, but we don't know if it was window glass. If Patsy broke the window she could have put the glass there, and missed a shard. Broken window glass in the junkiest of junk rooms would not be suspicious. In any event she would know that the mythical intruder did not sweep up the glass.
Which takes us back to the note. Why would Patsy have written such a note, including references to not call the police, waiting for a ransom call, house being under surveillance, talking to a stray dog and she will be beheaded, and THEN call the police.
Isn't that the kind of language one would expect in a kidnap-for-ransom note? Couldn't the note have been written in the first place to send LE off to look for an intruder. Or wait for a call and delay looking for an intruder. And if she ran upstairs in a panic and John actually was the one who did suggest that she call the police she would have to, there being no other way to deal with JB's absence other than to call for help under those circumstances and finding a sinister note. To leave no note at all and have the parents search and find a dead child (especially one wrapped in a blanket hidden away in their very own basement/wine cellar room) would have caused immediate suspicion to fall on the parents and both of them hauled down to the station for questioning.
All of the events of that night likely did not happen in an organized manner. Each "scene" if you will called the guilty to have to construct an staged explanation for the one preceding it. Not well thought out, actually ill-conceived, and random and haphazard - and so, not John.
What rot. It was premeditated, probably 8 days in advance, carefully planned, and with the exception of the 911 call and the window, well executed. He chose Christmas night and Boxing Day deliberately, over-scheduling and exhausting Patsy with parties, dinners, the holiday itself and a last-minute trip to Michigan, to ensure she'd sleep soundly. CU was deserted for the holiday, there was only a skeleton staff on duty at all the public services, including LE.
DeleteChapter one of "Mindhunter" sets forth Douglas's premise that a murder reflects the personality of the killer; John was careful to suggest a foreign faction in the RN and by using a mock garrote which served no true purpose. Chapter sixteen details the case of a young girl who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted (which I believe he hoped would obscure the prior abuse) and suffocated with duct tape. Douglas's perp began the ransom call to the victim's mother with the words "Listen carefully". The $118k could suggest a jealous colleague. Use of Patsy's paintbrush and the added "hats" on A's in the RN might, in a pinch, even suggest Patsy.
He hit her over the head with the flashlight, probably in the kitchen while the child was eating pineapple, as an act of mercy to both of them: no struggling child for John, no lingering, painful death for JBR.
Every line of the RN served a purpose for John's planned acts the next day (with thanks as always to the real Gumshoe) - it served Patsy not at all. He began the original note "Mr and Mrs l" and changed it to "Mr Ramsey" to make it clear who was to be in charge, seriously underestimating his wife and making his biggest mistake.
Imo, he should have spent some of his seven minutes before the cops arrived further staging rather than unstaging that damned window, but he did, at least, manage to confuse the scene.
Nothing random or haphazard about it.
I thank you for the response. You have stated your case for premeditation (as well as the original Gumshoe) back in August 2015, and I understand your reasoning and your conclusions. I also agree with some of the finer points that Patsy was likely over-scheduled and exhausted - wanting to do everything in a perfect way as well as having to go on the second Christmas celebration, not of her choosing. But the rest of it is conjecture. However, it's an open discussion so let's see how others respond.
ReplyDeleteEveryone will respond just as they always do, and it's all of it conjecture. Mine just happens to cover all of the salient points; yours does not.
DeleteHere, I can even work the mysterious pillow in: John carried it downstairs with the child and her blanket, deliberately, to ensure that the flashlight blow did not break the scalp.
The blanket was used just as he intended, as a shroud that might, at a cursory glance, look like a pile of rags in a windowless room used to store, among other things, paint cans. He chose that room because of the lack of exit and the latch above the door: No one, as French and Fleet proved, seriously scrutinized it as a point of egress for a kidnapper or a hiding place for a child who could not reach the latch
DeleteWhere do I buy a crystal ball to see back in the past CC? I would like one just like yours.
ReplyDeleteYou THINK yours covers all the salient points...many disagree. Including me.
You and the other BDIers all stumble when asked to explain why two intelligent, law-abiding adults would choose to cover up an accident with premeditated murder, thereby risking the death penalty, and the fact that had they been co-conspirators their window stories would have been perfectly aligned, and not included Linda.
DeleteCC...
DeleteYou've asked a question of us, that we could ask you. Use you own words and ask why ONE intelligent, law abiding citizen (JR) would risk the death penalty and commit a premeditated murder to begin with?
You will say to cover up the sexual abuse of his own daughter, and we say they both did it to protect their son.
Same question, different answers.
EG
Protect their son from what, exactly? The psycho-medical help he so clearly would need had he done what you suppose?
DeleteJohn, or any incestuous father, on the other hand, might take any risk to cover up a sexual relationship with his daughter - for his money, his position, his hubris, and to maintain the one thing he valued above all else - control.
And what of my second question, which you so obviously ignored?
CC...
DeleteI've discussed the window issue in prior posts somewhere on this blog. I believe JR covered himself either way by saying he could have broken it at an earlier time. When the glass was tested (and I am assuming it was) the results would have indicated if it was an old break or a new one. So, either way, he was covered. If he did it that morning to stage the murder, then it would've been a fresh break and the glass edges would've proven that (Therefore, IDI). (BTW, I still don't know if that evidence was conclusive or not) If it was proven that the break was old, then he covered himself by saying he broke it at an earlier time. NOW, I surely don't believe they wouldn't have had that broken window fixed, BUT they might not have. It doesn't prove murder, it just proves they were negligent when it came to home repairs, in addition to allowing an intruder to enter their home with two children living there.
Protecting their son from the very same things you claim JR was protecting himself from which we've covered ad nauseum. Everything their son would have suffered through, JR and PR would've shared in as well. They would've been looked upon as exactly what the GJ said in the indictment. negligent parents. By covering it up, they became the victims, not the perpetrators.
EG
I doubt they are "victims" in anyone's mind but desperate BDIers flailing about for some sort of justification. Certainly the grand jury didn't find them so.
DeleteI dont give a damn about your window theory. You're still not answering my question. If John and Patsy colluded, why weren't their stories in synch?
Nope, the GJ didn't think they were victims, but that didn't get them anywhere, did it? And not everyone believes the RDI, some actually believing an IDI, therefore looking at the R's as victims of a crazed, murdering pedophile intruder.
DeleteAnd I don't give a damn what you give a damn about, btw because there is NOTHING that jives as far as the R's stories go. From what time they went to bed, to what happened before, during and after PR "found" the RN. They used words like "might have, could have, maybe, I don't recall, I don't remember". For two "intelligent, law abiding" citizens, they both had cases of amnesia when it came to pinning down either of them with definitive answers. PR was drugged and JR hired lawyers to block any questioning.
EG
Still not answering my second question. Bobbing and weaving, but no answer. Telling.
DeleteI have answered it, but it's not the one you want. Had their stories been perfectly synched, it would've been looked upon as scripted. Using, "i don't recall, and I don't remember and maybe, or perhaps" left them a wide girth and therefore unable to be pinpointed to any one answer.
DeleteThese weren't two mastermind murderers. These were two parents caught in a maelstrom after witnessing something their son (and possibly a friend) did. I believe that house was in complete chaos sometime in the wee hours of that morning. What is TELLING, is their behavior AFTER the murder.
EG
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh bullshit. Patsy had sufficient poise, and according to you people, guile, to stammer and yammer, but finally provide an answer in perfect synch with John's.
DeleteThe simple and obvious answer is that they were not in collusion.
You're seriously (still) suggesting the involvement of poor little Doug Stine? I'd be happy to represent Glen and Susan in a defamation lawsuit against you. There is no evidence whatever that he was there that night, and you should be mightily ashamed. Joe Barnhill testified he saw Burke riding a bike up and down the Ramsey lawn Christmas morning, putting paid to that crackpot theory.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor god's sake...you cover up a murder with a staged accident, not the other way around. You don't risk the death penalty to protect a child not at risk of criminal prosecution. If you're rich, you move back to Atlanta, or to Charlevoix, or to Utah, leave the gossip behind.
ReplyDeleteAll it would have taken was one late night/early morning call to John's dear attorney friend Mike Bynum to confirm that fact.
What's wrong with you people?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's low, desperate, personal and hopelessly inadequate. I'm smart, vastly qualified, and make sensible arguments. You're barely coherent, ungrammatical, and often at a loss for words or logic. How 'bout you take a swing at my two questions instead?
DeleteAdd insecure to that list. But I'm sure you've been told that many a time.
DeleteYou ask why their stories weren't in synch. I wouldn't expect two liars to have their stories in synch. I would expect people telling the truth to have their stories in synch.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete