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

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

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

Sunday, February 4, 2018

The Mysterious case of Max Shaknai and Rebecca Zahau - guest post by Lou

On July 11, 2011 6 year-old Max Shaknai, son of  wealthy pharmaceutical company CEO Jonah Shaknai, was found lying on the floor at the foot of the staircase with his Razor scooter resting on top of his leg, the shattered chandelier nearby.  Rebecca Zahau, Jonah's live-in 32 year old girlfriend found Max, rushed to his side and heard him say the word "Ocean" - the name of her dog, before he slipped into unconsciousness. Rebecca's 13 year old sister was visiting at the time, and Rebecca instructed her to dial 911 immediately. 
According to Jonah's ex-wife Dina, the doctors first suggested Max may have had a heart attack and fallen down the stairs.  Both she and Jonah were asked if they had ever had heart problems. 

July 13, 2011 Max Shacknai died.  Earlier in the day Jonah's brother Adam arrived at the Spreckle's mansion in Coronado where Max, Jonah and Rebecca resided.  Adam was a 42 year old tug boat operator and would-be writer from Memphis, Tennessee.  In a deposition Adam says he tried to comfort an understandably distraught Rebecca and offered her a shoulder to cry on.  

Jonah Shaknai says at approximately 12:30 p.m. July 13 he called Rebecca to inform her Max wasn't going to make it.  She sent and received several text messages and at 12:50 a.m. she listened to a message from her voicemail, a message that was subsequently deleted either by the police, investigators, or Rebecca.  By 3 a.m. she was dead, an apparent suicide.

Adam Shaknai, who was staying in the guest house, reports that he went to have coffee in the main house at around 6:30 a.m. and saw Rebecca's nude body hanging from the second floor balcony from a rope or cord.   He says he cut her down and tried to perform CPR while calling 911.  He ankles had been bound with a red cord and blue T-shirt had been stuffed in her mouth.  She also had duct tape residue on her ankles and a strange message was painted on the interior of her bedroom door in black paint.  Authorities deemed Rebecca's death a suicide. 

Another physician, discounting the heart attack angle in Max's death tells Jonah and Dina Shacknai Max could have been suffocated.  It is also believed Max may have been racing his scooter along the second floor corridor, tripped over the dog Ocean, and grabbed the chandelier as he fell.  

Not analyzed was a drop of blood in the shower by the master bedroom, a pair of panties found in the guesthouse trash, or a clear glass of liquid found near the scene.  Dr. Wecht asks why tape residue would be found on Rebecca's ankles if she was found with cord wrapped around her ankles.  Did she remove duct tape herself and then tie her self up instead?  There also were lacerations on her scalp and scratches other wounds on her body.  What happened - to Max, and to Rebecca?

Lou

259 comments:

  1. Thanks, Doc. I realize this case does not have the interest the JonBenet Ramsey case continues to have - primarily because once the police investigation closed the case it went dormant. JonBenet lives on with repeated anniversary attempts to revive it. Rebecca's family persisted however, and they will have their day in court at the end of February.

    This is what I always found strange about the Ramsey case. Why did none of the other Ramsey or Paugh family members persist in getting justice for JonBenet, especially if they all collectively bought the intruder theory? If just one sister thought it could be John, why not pursue it privately. Of course if it were Burke, then let it go.

    I see that Dr. Phil has had Max's mother on his show as well as Rebecca's sister. Max's mother is of the opinion that Rebecca had something to do with Max's fall, but that it was unintentional. Overcome by guilt she took her own life. However, watching Adam Shacknai on video take a lie detector test he's very strange. Rebecca's sisters think he may have sexually assaulted her the night she was hung from the balcony. Their wrongful death suit will now focus on just Adam Shacknai.

    Last, there's the note written in paint on the door. "She saved him can you save her." If Adam wrote it, what does it even mean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for contributing this very interesting post, Lou. There is no way this was a suicide, so I'm glad Rebecca's family is pursuing their lawsuit.

      As for the mysterious note, it becomes much less mysterious if we substitute "kill" for "save." As in: "She killed him can you kill her."

      Delete
    2. Interesting observation about the mysterious note. I wonder if Jonah enlisted Adam (with the promise of money) to kill Rebecca in revenge for what happened to his son. "Can you kill her" makes sense if coming from Jonah. As to why Adam would have left such a clue, though, is strange. I think if Adam is involved, so is Jonah. Just my gut feeling. Jonah's behavior is strange. He is way too accepting of the suicide conclusion. His email to the DA asking to revisit the case is just a smokescreen, IMHO. -LE

      Delete
    3. You are both very perceptive, Doc, LE. Jonah offered up some lame statement how Rebecca was a lovely woman, etc. But interestingly he didn't say he didn't think she had anything to do with Max's death. I'd like to know more about this case - too bad there isn't a Miss Marple case encyclopedia. Also would like to understand the relationship between Jonah and Adam. One brother, obviously the successful entrepreneur worth millions, with a beautiful girlfriend and custody of his son Max (he was living in the mansion) and the other brother maybe not as successful, a tug boat captain from Memphis.

      This would make for an excellent kindle book, coming from you Doc. Kill substituted for save, what an interesting observation.

      Delete
  2. This is going to be one of those unsolved mysteries, where once again, evidence wasn't tested as LE most likely thought it was a suicide before looking into it further.

    If it was murder, the question is why? Could Dina have wanted revenge? If so, did she do it? Was she at the hospital that entire day and night or did she leave once they got the news at 12:30PM that Max wasn't going to make it? Could Jonah or Dina have called Adam and told him to kill Rebecca?

    The note left on the door is interesting. To me, it means, she (Rebecca) saved Max (in the religious sense) and now can you save her (because she is going where Max went)??? That's how that note struck me.

    So many questions. You're right, Lou--too bad we don't have more information here.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your comments EG. Last night I looked up the contentious divorce proceedings Shacknai (why do I continue to see it spelled Shaknai, then Schacknai) vs. Shacknai (Jonah v Dina) and how really petty and mean that guy was. Dina claims physical abuse, Jonah counters she abused him (not in the divorce per se but other places). She says he had a vicious hyper sensitive dog that attacked her, showing bites and scratches she posted on the internet. He says she came at his throat. Amazing. That was Jonah's second marriage as well. Just what kind of a guy was he?

      Also listening to Adam's frantic call to 911 and the dunce of an operator who chastised him for not knowing the house address, he does sound like he is performing CPR after cutting Rebecca down. There is plenty of time lapsed during that call where you can hear him continuing to attempt to breathe life into her.

      The message could be viewed as having a religious component, yes, good observation. I did a search to see if there were any other Biblical phrases that sounded close. I noted, as you may have as well, that "Jonah" was a prophet, and of course Adam the first in the Bible. Could the Shacknai family have been a religious family?

      I think if Doc organized what we do know and poses some great questions as he does with his JonBenet threads we will have the makings of a good discussion here. It won't take long to develop our own theories.

      Delete
  3. Interesting case, Lou. I hadn't heard of it until you posted the link on the last thread.

    As far as the message on the door, my first thought was that maybe "She Saved Him" refers to Rebecca saving Jonah by covering up the true cause of Max's death. I'm not sure if the known evidence, timeline, alibis, etc. would support this idea, but it was the first thing that popped into my head.

    I read a couple of other articles on the case, in addition to the one you linked. One of the articles said that Jonah took Max to the airport with him when he dropped off his two older children. He then dropped Max off at home and went to the gym. The article you linked makes no mention of Max going to the airport, and has Jonah going straight from the airport to the gym. Do you know which account is correct? I'm assuming CCTV footage from the airport could confirm what time Jonah dropped the kids off, and either CCTV footage or a sign-in at the gym could confirm what time he arrived there. Basically, I'm wondering if it's feasible (time-wise) that something happened to Max at the hands of Jonah (accident or otherwise) after the run to the airport. Maybe his trip to the gym was to distance himself from the accident. If Rebecca knew the truth and agreed to let him go while she stayed to deal with the critically-injured Max, this could fit with the idea that "She Saved Him" (Jonah) by relieving him of any involvement in Max's accident. I know it's complete speculation, but I'm just wondering if it's possible.

    Another oddity in this case is the younger sister, Xena. She was at the house when the accident occurred. She was said to have just gotten out of the shower. I still wonder if she knows more than she's telling. I think it's strange that she flew home the same day of Max's accident. She had just gotten there the day before and was supposed to stay for two weeks. Although Max's death would obviously change the nature of her visit, why was she whisked away so quickly? Whose idea was it to send her home? I know Xena was young (13, I believe) but she was still old enough to comfort her sister in her time of need.

    I also read that Adam was reportedly watching Asian porn that night in the guesthouse (and admitted to it.) Is there any truth to that? If so, how would it not be a huge red flag when the pretty Asian girl in the main house ends up dead--naked, bound and gagged?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gosh, you have researched this well HKH. What I read from the Town and Country article was that Jonah told the police after taking his two other children from his first marriage to the airport he had gone to the gym where he said he received a hysterical phone call from Rebecca and that when he arrived back home Max was being loaded into an ambulance.

    Rebecca then states she had been in the downstairs bathroom when she heard either a crash OR the barking of her dog (how could those two sounds be confused? - she possibly heard both). Max was lying on the floor in the foyer beside the staircase, badly injured.

    Yes, Rebecca's 13-year old sister, Xena, was taking a shower on another floor the article said. Since she was in the house - did she see Max fall, did she have anything to do with the fall, would she be able to place Rebecca in another room at the time? Or was Rebecca reprimanding Max for racing his scooter in the house and accidentally shoved him over the banister? Or was Max playing daredevil and racing his own scooter down the banister? In some ways this seems more probable to me. His mother Dina would say he was not a daredevil type, but he's left in a big house with his dad's girlfriend to supervise him, what else might he be doing for fun.

    The autopsy reports of Max and Rebecca are online for viewing in pdf file format. Her wounds are strange for a suicide. Scrapes and scratches I can understand if when Adam cut her down she brushed against bushes or shrubs in the garden area, but it says she had "black marks ('apparently paint') on the left breast and right nipple" which is odd that she would pick paint to write a message on her own door and paint it in the nude. And that's just one oddity.

    When someone states they took an ambien and went to bed they want to give the impression they were out cold and didn't hear, see, or were involved in anything. It's a decoy ploy.


    ReplyDelete
  5. There were other shoe prints found on the balcony along with only a few of Rebecca's right toe prints. You might want to take a look at this:

    www.drmauricegodwin.com/shoeprintanalysis.html

    When this case first broke the police were insisting there were only Rebecca's toe prints on the dusty balcony floor, and one officer's boot print. Now they believe they have identified, thanks to the pressure put on them no doubt by Rebecca's family, an "Eva" flip flop type beach sandal prints.

    Also at this link: www.sdsheriff.net/coronado/ and

    www.sd.sheriff.net/coronado/faq.html

    same sight, different topic, you will find answers from the police and the autopsy reports.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Question about JonBenet case (you said to post it here):

    A neighbor said it was about 2 AM that she heard a child's loud, blood-curdling scream. Did Patsy sleep thru it or was it Patsy who screamed and the neighbor was mistaken in thinking the scream was from a child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The testimony of that neighbor is just one of many odd things about this case that remain inconclusive. At one point she decided she could not be sure if she actually heard a scream or imagined it, or if it was on some other night. In any case, the police did tests and apparently determined that a scream emanating from the basement could be heard outside but not necessarily on the upper floor where the Ramseys slept.

      Delete
  7. I must say when I heard this the first time, I knew it never added up. Mr. Shacknai was too willing to accept the suicide. I do not recall it exactly,but,it struck me as odd. Here he looses his son tragically and the next thing you know his girlfriend is murdered. Whomever did that wanted to humiliate her.
    I am glad that the family is being persistent.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am sorry, I meant I do not recall what Mr. Shacknai said exactly but I do recall he was satisfied with it being a suicide. I was just shaking my head.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes Anonymous. He even made some bizarre statement that Asian people fall on their own swords when they want to take themselves out and feel they have dishonored themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Lou, but didn't her own family say that the body bring nude was no way a trait of Rebecca's, that it would be shameful?

    (I was hoping to go back and read all the initial news links I once had on the forum I post on, but they are gone. Maybe I could find them on the wayback machine but too much else is going on)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lil, her family did say that. Or that she was a very modest person who didn't walk around nude, but that she may have slept in the nude. So that's a bit of a contradiction.

    By the way, the results of the polygraph given to Adam were inconclusive. And the link provided above on the beach sandals shoe prints found in the dust on top of her toe prints on the balcony do not mention size.

    The other little tidbit in the scenario of that night report that Dina Shacknai's twin sister was at the house.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Doc, back to JonBenet (otherwise this blog may die a slow death :)). The blue suitcase deserves a better look. When questioned by one of the investigators, John states he put the suitcase in the basement himself, as he just wanted to put a little order to the chaos of the house. So he removed it from an upper floor and took it down to the basement below. In a house full of spilled food from jars in the kitchen, clothes scattered and draped everywhere, he's decided the suitcase needs to be in the basement. Had he looked inside wouldn't he have found the contents to be a little mystifying? A comforter, and a pornographic Dr. Seuss book? Why didn't he look inside? Or did he gather up those items and stuff them into the suitcase himself, and if so, why.

    We were supposed to get new DNA testing LAST year. DNA-retesting. Was the comforter re-tested? I understand Stan Garnett is leaving office at the end of this month, does that mean he will be handing off the results of the new DNA test results to someone else? Come on Stan, give us something.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is it true the comforter contained JAR dna? Makes me think he could be the child molester.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The person who killed JonBenet sexually assaulted her, OK? That person could not have been John Jr., as his alibi was solid. That person could not have been an intruder, for reasons that have been presented over and over again, on this blog and much of the literature on this case. So if her murderer sexually assaulted her on the same occasion that he murdered her, it stands to reason that whoever murdered her was the same person who had been sexually abusing her previously. And it certainly was NOT JAR.

      Delete
  14. No, I agree, it was not JAR. But there are some peculiarities with John saying he moved that suitcase down to the basement himself - I'm not talking about over against the wall. And there are some sinister implications, to me, that an older sibling, a brother to two younger siblings, would bring such literature into the home, and masturbate into a comforter and have all of it end up in the very suitcase that was found flush against the basement wall. If there is no there there then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou, this case is full of all sorts of "evidence," all sorts of "clues," pointing in this direction or that, all inconclusive but all tantalizing in one way or another. You can pick and choose from among at least twenty possible suspects, depending on where you look, and if you look hard enough it's easy to conclude that this HAS to be the one.

      Which is why I decided to focus on the known, incontrovertible FACTS of the case, and the logic connecting them. The contents of that suitcase may suggest all sorts of things to you and many others, but logically they are in fact a dead end, as there is no way to connect JAR with this crime. Once a male hits puberty you're going to find traces of his semen in all sorts of places, so it's certainly not surprising to find JAR's semen on a blanket from the house he was raised in and so often visited. As for the very odd Dr. Seuss book, there are about a thousand reasons why John Jr. could have had that in his possession. And as far as John Sr. is concerned, I see no reason to believe anything he's said.

      Delete
    2. Then we come back full circle again. If we state, as a fact, that JonBenet was sexually molested, abused, interfered with, it has to have been John, otherwise there is no motive for John killing her. He has to have been the one, not because Patsy made the 911 call, not because he was ruled out having written the note, but because he was molesting his daughter and she was going to tell. Or, she was going to have an exam, or she was going to be around her older siblings and tell them then, or she was running to tell her mother that particular night. No evidence of that. Because it's hypothetical. So for me, I say there are other people who were around her that could have been playing with her in inappropriate ways, and that it was not a motive for murder. It was just another thing in that household that was not as it appeared - a normal, happy, well-adjusted, cohesive family unit. I do agree that John, and Patsy, presented to the police and to the world what they wanted us to see, before the crime, and after.

      Delete
    3. Yes, there are others who, hypothetically, could have been abusing her. But there are no others who could have been the murderer. No intruder theory makes sense. Only three people were in the house with JonBenet that night. Her murderer also sexually assaulted her. And Patsy would never have called 911 if she were involved in staging a kidnapping.

      Put all of the above together and you have a strong circumstantial case against John Ramsey. Certainly enough to establish probable cause. Since the most likely abuser in child abuse cases is an adult male family member, and since no other adult male family member was in the house the night of the murder, and since the person who killed her also sexually assaulted her, and since there is no evidence of an intruder, and no intruder theory makes sense, then it's not that difficult to surmise that John is the one who killed her, his motive being fear that his victim was going to expose him. When we put this together with Patsy's 911 call, which tells us she could not have been involved, the case against John becomes overwhelming.

      Your difficulty, Lou, seems to stem from an insistence on looking for a smoking gun. Unfortunately in this case, as in so many, many others, there is no smoking gun -- it's a circumstantial case. But, imo, a very strong one. And by the way, almost all murder trials are based on circumstantial evidence -- whenever a smoking gun exists, pointing clearly to the guilty party, the suspect almost always trys to make some sort of deal and pleads guilty.

      Delete
    4. There was no smoking gun in this case. Whatever went on in that family was well hidden. Patsy does not want to acknowledge that she called Dr. Beuf repeatedly after hours for we'll never know what but given the time frame - around 5 p.m. or so - who would be there and what happened that would prompt those calls. We just have to dig a little deeper to find our motive here. Because it's well hidden, and most likely an accidental killing, not intentional murder, that prompted both Patsy and John to make decisions to keep their family secrets hidden. What makes more sense - John murders his daughter Christmas night to protect his marriage, status in the community, his wealth and his job; or a jealous angry little boy who carried his resentment too far in a very unfortunate accident and a resultant coverup by his parents. The smoking gun, if any, was this family's dynamic.

      Delete
    5. Did you bother to read what I wrote just above?

      Delete
    6. I did. Perhaps I didn't interpret it the way you intended.

      Delete
  15. Question for people who think Burke killed JonBenet: How did John and/or Patsy know it was Burke? I mean, how did they know who they were staging for?

    ReplyDelete
  16. John Andrew seems to be the person most likely to have molested JonBenet, but apparently he can't be placed at the scene of the crime at the time it took place. However, he may have had access to a small private plane which can land in areas other than airports. (I had a friend once who landed his small plane in a pasture behind my house. He surprised me when he appeared unannounced at my back door). Also, I don't rule out an intruder because there is the possibility someone used a key or entered through a door that was unlocked. And then there's the ransom note that simply screams "Patsy did it!" Low on my list of possible suspects is Burke. Certainly he could have fatally injured JonBenet and then the parents did the staging. As for John Ramsey, the father, he was the one I first suspected. At the moment,though, I'm keeping an open mind and hoping that eventually the truth will be made known to the public.

    J.F.J.B

    ReplyDelete
  17. J.F.J.B. (justice for JonBenet?), which I appreciate - I simply wanted to point to the possibility that any number of people in and out of that house could have molested JonBenet, but only 3 could have caused her to bleed Christmas night. I am more of the opinion now that it was not a "staging" scenario. She may have actually been penetrated digitally or with some implement that night as "wrongful play", or "interference" or whatever you may want to call it. As for previous abuse it could be the same culprit, or another. Yes, John Andrew was no where near the house and was alibied - but do we rule out Joe Barnhill's witness account of seeing someone who looked to be John Andrew's height, who Barnhill thought was John Andrew, going up the side yard and into the Ramsey house? I don't know. Might have just been some strange coincidence or not. Not likely such an eye witness account would stand up at trial and would not be used by either the defense or the prosecution but for sleuths like us, it's intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, Lou, it's an intriguing case, and a very sad one. And it seems there's never going to be justice for the innocent victim.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Off topic, happy Valentine's Day to everyone near and far, happy Winter Olympics, and peace to those celebrating Ash Wednesday.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I've always been suspicious of the JAR thing too. Barnhill said he saw him, and if it wasn't him then it was someone just like him. I would think he'd know the kid after seeing him many times before. Why did he recant what he saw? To me, that's very strange.

    It was also odd that after the incident, the Ramseys never spoke to the Barnhills again. They claimed to have been close to them in that PR shopped for them at times and they babysat JBR's dog when they were away.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  21. Morning EG. Many times eye and ear witness accounts are deemed irrelevant if the police have their focus elsewhere. The neighbor in the alley who heard an African American older male arguing with a younger male during the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman; the neighbors who heard arguing in the early morning hours just before Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend. It seems as though the Barnhills were unceremoniously dumped by the Ramseys after the crime and not another word was said about keeping or not keeping the dog. If you did have a situation in the home of a troubled boy, I wonder what really happened to the first dog? And why the second dog was shuttled off to the Barnhill's.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was just curious if John's motive was to cover for Jars ongoing abuse. But, if so.. How could a father sacrifice one child for another. That doesn't make since.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John's motive, in my opinion, was to cover for himself. JB was outgoing and very comfortable speaking with adults. The only person who could convince her that sexually abusive behavior was normal(until she learned otherwise) was her father whom she loved very much.

    If Burke had engaged in behavior that damaged her internally, I think it would have been painful and she would have told her mom and dad. She wouldn't have wanted to keep sleeping in his room.

    Doc, I think the gateless gate you referred to in an earlier entry is John Ramsey himself. He somehow remains this "non suspect" of the murder in many people's eyes. He's lied, cheated, tried to flee, and, in my opinion, fooled countless professionals. If anyone else committed this crime, I would be very, very surprised.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  24. Surely though K, Patsy could not go along with John being the perpetrator either before the murder, or in her painfully short rest of her life after the murder. She would have put two and two together. She was not medicated with valium indefinitely after the crime, she sounds quite lucid to me in interviews with investigators, during the Wolf deposition and on Larry King. She's also provided the police with some very odd explanations or non explanations and selective memory by pretending to not remember why she called Dr. Beuf repeatedly, and cleaning up the broken window glass. Also Dr. Beuf was a trained pediatrician, would have spotted child sexual abuse and reported it. However if JB participated in some way by allowing her brother to experiment on her and it likely hurt, she might have told her mother. And so I suspect Patsy did know, and knew exactly what prompted her frantic calls to Dr. Beuf, and covered it up as she did everything else. Patsy's cryptic comment after the crime (to a friend, I don't remember who) "we didn't mean for this to happen" says it all. She knew there was something not right but didn't know it would go as far as it did. That little girl was tortured, scrapes on the back of her leg, bruises on the shoulder, abrasions on her back and cheek.

    Anonymous (1:19 p.m.) I don't believe John knew everything that was going on between his children. He was focused on work.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree that some of Patsy's answers to investigators are odd and evasive. We know that John was "eliminated" as the writer of the note. Patsy then became the prime suspect.
    I would think that if her answers differed from her husband's, the police would have believed John. I'm sure she knew that, and was reminded by John and her lawyer to present a united front. Otherwise, she may have been arrested.

    Did she really believe it was an intruder? I don't know, but it makes sense that she would want to believe that.

    John, by the way, threw Patsy under the bus when he told the police the "old girlfriend at the apartment" story. Basically, he told them what a good liar Patsy was. If John was being truthful in proclaiming Patsy's innocence, why did he tell that unnecessary story? Patsy was their prime suspect at the time and John knew that. I think he was planting a seed, which was a method he used over and over to point away from himself.

    My guess is that Burke went on Dr. Phil with much encouragement from John. He knew Burke wouldn't do well.
    He knew Burke would look odd, and that he, cordial John, would continue to fool people.

    Just my opinions Lou. I certainly respect yours.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  26. I respect yours as well K. I don't think I have heard of the "old girlfriend at the apartment" story? What was that?

    ReplyDelete
  27. John tells the story of Gloria Williams(the woman he had an affair with during his first marriage) during his 1998 police interview. He recounts two lies Patsy tells GW when she shows up at John and Patsy's apartment complex in Atlanta after they first met. If I recall, he referred to her lies as smooth as silk or something like that. He was impressed, he added. It's too long to reprint here, but I hope you read it...says a lot about John.

    I think you can find the full interview on acandyrose. The GW questions are quite far into the interview. There's a lot of good information in that interview, if you've never read it.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  28. All right, I will try and find it and read it, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Just read the synopsis on acandyrose. What's odd is John calls her Gloria Williams, but later on that same site an excerpt from Steve Thomas's book calls her Jodi Roberts.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting that Steve Thomas referred to her as Jodi Roberts. The real Jody Roberts(Jody with a "y")is a very interesting true story of an amnesia victim. Part of her story happened in the state of Colorado during the 1980's and 1990's.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  31. My take away from the article/transcript/acandyrose is John started an extramarital affair that went on for years. He even brought her in and gave her a desk at the company. His already troubled marriage went over the edge with that affair and it was only after he met Patsy that he was able to end the relationship. It sounds to me like he's not a guy who gets out in front of things when it comes to relationships. Work would be a different story. He also hid when Gloria/Judi came to the door while he was entertaining Patsy, and admires how she handled the situation. He sounds a bit cowardly, wouldn't you say? But Patsy sounds pretty confident and stereotypical of southern women - iron fist in a velvet glove. I still have no problem seeing a parental coverup in the death of their youngest.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Greetings people. Trying to find info regarding the Rebecca Zahau wrongful death suit and did find something, as it likely goes to trial end of February. There are a few eerie parallels to the JB Ramsey case. In a deposition given by Dr. Cyril Wecht he believes she was more likely than not dead or in the process of dying, what is called the perimortem period, when the body was "hurled off the balcony." Also an attorney for the Zahau family said the knots from the cords used were consistent with someone in the nautical industry - and that Adam Shacknai was a tugboat operator. He is the prime suspect in the case, having eliminated Dina and her sister from the lawsuit.

    They apparently hired a handwriting expert who testified (Feb. 1) the hand painted message on the door is similar to Adam's, and not Rebecca's.

    Graphic Warning: They also found blood on a knife handle at the scene (Rebecca's) and suspect she was raped with the knife handle - which would be consistent with blood found on her inner thighs. They believe she was accosted when she got out of the shower (a towel was found dropped by the shower) and that an awkward confrontation got out of hand.

    Door knobs in and out of the rooms were wiped of all prints.

    I just have to wonder if Adam said anything to Jonah about this and how he could just cover for his brother and say nothing. Didn't he have so much as an ounce of love for her? He put her in charge of watching his children and young Max, but she doesn't deserve his compassion and consideration? And the police. How in the world could they rule her death a suicide? He also had several wounds to the head.

    Attorneys believe she was manually strangled, then in the perimortem stage the cord was wrapped around her, she was carried to the balcony, and dropped over.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Found this. If I can post it right. I heard John say, referring to the media, something to the fact that their treatment of the family was the real crush and blow. It gave me the weirdest feeling.. considering her head was crushed in by a blow. https://youtu.be/0GbCh3f4UdE

    ReplyDelete
  34. John seems to like to draw a parallel between himself and Jesus. But he's gotten through the other side of his suffering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou, with all due respect (and I am in the JDI camp), I did not hear John Ramsey draw a parallel between himself and Jesus. He said that all people are going to encounter suffering life. Who could argue with that statement? Is he a fake Christian or a real believer? We don’t know. Because I believe he is guilty in the murder of JBR, then as a believer he should confess, seek foregiveness, and submit to the consequences for what he did. Because he has not done this, my best guess is that he’s a fake Christian. Only God knows that. We can’t judge his beliefs.

      Delete
    2. I haven't read The Other Side of Suffering since it first came out six years ago, but it's my distinct memory that he does indeed draw parallels between himself and Jesus in that book.

      Delete
    3. Jesus, can we end the talk about Jesus? If John calls himself Jesus, that is one thing (and considered blasphemous by Christians). I agree that John’s references to suffering sound very narcissistic. I also have my doubts about him being sincere in his religious beliefs. Beyond that, what is the point?

      Delete
  35. I should have added the quip" because he was crucified by the Media", so he thinks. So, I was being sarcastic. He's hard to read - he seems genuine, but it's his behavior after the fact, not talking to police, going on television instead, suing everyone in sight who voices an opinion, it just doesn't add up. It's rather obvious I'm sure here, that I lean toward a coverup with Burke as culprit, but I would rather not put myself in one particular camp, as many things others have said here make sense, and John still has blood on his hands even if I don't think he twisted the cord. And of course Anonymous, always with respect. Hope you know that. Thanks for the youtube.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lou, IIRC John may have said he was like Job and his suffering. I believe it was something along those lines when he and Patsy were guests on a pastor's program in Hawaii. I had posted that interview link sometime last year. (Just tonight I happened upon both John and Patsy's DoI book and Shiller's
      PMPT at a thrift store and bought them. It's been years since I've read either.)

      Delete
  36. John wrote a book called "The Other Side of Suffering".

    ReplyDelete
  37. It was there that he said he was like Job - had it all, then lost it all.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I can't recall reading that one offhand. I think that interview had Patsy wearing a wig by then.

    (I myself have thought of Job when I've been in physical pain)

    o/t - for those familiar with the disappearance of little Erica Parsons, her step parents were finally charged with her murder.

    ReplyDelete
  39. One can read "Other Side of Suffering" by John Ramsey and another writer in pdf file format. He's recounting Christmas day, and the day after. He paints his family like one would a Norman Rockwell family Christmas portrait. Patsy cozies up to John on Christmas day underneath the tree in her warm fuzzy bathrobe and says "Oh John, you make all of this possible." He goes on to say how when they arrived home - now it's 9 p.m. practically on the dot - he carries JB up to her bed, smooths her hair off her forehead and then stays up with Burke a little longer putting together a Lego toy (he said long ago it was a complicated toy with ramps, etc.) but then tells Burke it's time for bed with a warning that 5:30 a.m. will come pretty quickly. "Oh dad, do I have to?" That kind of talk, but finally Burke is nestled all snug as a bug in a rug in his bed and John goes up to bed and hits the hay, this time no mention of reading one of his books by the number, he just goes right to sleep as soon as his head hits the pillow. No mention of where Patsy is.

    It's as if the telling of the tale changes with each recount - which is why I posted an Andy Warhol quote on my profile "isn't life a series of images that change as they repeat themselves?"

    ReplyDelete
  40. I just stumbled upon this article:
    https://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/chilling-evidence-points-crazed-killer-murdered-jonbenet-ramsey/

    Any opinions?
    I personally don't think it was Glenn Meyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There has never been a shortage of "likely" intruder suspects in this case. Problem with all of them is that none of it makes sense. If Meyer's intention was to sexually assault his victim, why would he have wanted to write a carefully crafted 2 1/2 page ransom note? While in the house? And if the motive was kidnapping, why not prepare his note in advance. Oh and by the way, there was no kidnapping.

      Delete
    2. Meyer’s hypothetical plan would’ve been to hide the body because he had nowhere else to put it. He didn’t have his own place or property at the time. What he did have was an excellent view from across the street to see how the drama was unfolding. This would give him a great sense of power and control. The ransom note was simply a tactic to keep the Ramseys or anyone else from doing a comprehensive search of the house. From Meyer’s viewpoint his front row seat to the excitement might have functioned like a sick, arousing game.

      Delete
    3. Yes, possibly. But someone that sick, like a psychopath, would have set off multiple red flags to investigators, and he was cleared.

      Delete
  41. By the way there were several little statements in John's book "The Other Side of Suffering" that don't add up to what he originally said, and possibly to what he said in his book he co-wrote with Patsy, DOI. For example his recount of going down to the basement (when Arnt instructed he and Fleet to take another look around) Arnt specifically said do a "top to bottom" search of the house. In John's book he says "Right. Basement first." Maybe a minor little thing, but he then says "I show my friend the broken window, which is still open." I thought he closed it much much earlier and didn't tell anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a feeling this was you, Inquisitive. Changing your name and pretending to be a newcomer is dishonest and diminishes your credibility.

      Delete
  42. In both police interviews, John described closing the window when he went down to the basement alone. He told Lou Smit that he latched it shut.

    I don't know why he would change his story when writing his book. No one really challenged it.

    Of course, this is the same John Ramsey who told the police he didn't get a bike for Burke that year ( even told them why), took a break during the interview, came back and said Burke DID get a bike. No one seemed to challenge that either.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. K,

      The bike thing has always bothered me. I believe in one interview with Lou Smith and it may even be on acandyrose, JR went from 1 bike to 2, then to 3 saying BR got a new bike too, after saying he didn't. Weird, indeed.

      EG

      Delete
    2. Thank you EG. Doesn't really matter "who" I am anyway, does it? The only people who have any credibility at all are people intimately connected to the case in the first place. So having said that, yes, it isn't just what John said about Burke's new bike or lack of one, Burke changed is own story and said he got one, after saying he didn't. That tells me it was an "issue.," among other issues. It all played into motive - not simply over a bike, but his jealousy and resentment that escalated that night, which we'll never know just how or who else was involved.

      Delete
    3. Inq/Castor/Lou: think about what you’re saying. If jealously over a bike was a big issue and a factor in JBR’s death, most people would not lie and say oh no, Burke got a bike. They would say “hey there was no issue...Burke got a lot of nice gifts including a Nintendo 64. Heck, he didn’t even have a bike on his list.” For Pete’s sake, Inq, the Ramsey’s could afford to get their kids whatever they wanted and probably did. I cannot make the stretch of fibbing about a bike to murder. Let’s stick to just the facts, ma’am.

      Delete
    4. I agree, Lou..and no, it doesn't matter to me who you are. To be honest, I knew all along it was you, as I, too clicked on an old post of yours as Inq when you first appeared. I felt it wasn't my place to say anything. You have your reasons for changing your name, and have never caused any problems when doing so, therefore I don't see it as being an issue. Other's feel differently, I guess and that's their choice.

      As far as the bikes, something isn't right there. Why would they lie about something that is so simple to answer. How many bikes did you purchase that Christmas. Was it 1..was it 2..or was it 3?!. I mean, geez..but then again, they couldn't recall lots of things, which is why they'll always be under a cloud of suspicion.

      EG

      Delete
  43. In the Christmas pictures there were only two bikes, Patsy's and JonBenet's. She was the one riding the bike on Christmas day. JonBenet's bike was stored at the Barnhill's before Christmas morning. John says they were going to get Burke a bike next Christmas. This is part of the reason I think things escalated for Burke. JonBenet got most of the attention in that family and she got better presents, which at this time in Burke's life was all that mattered to him.

    And no, I'm not Inquisitive whoever that is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BR received a Nintendo 64 for Christmas that year. Nintendo 64 had just been released a few months earlier, and was one of the hottest toys for Christmas of '96. I doubt he felt slighted. Not every child dreams of getting a new bicycle.

      You are Inq. Your spelling of "Arnt" is a dead giveaway. Not only that, but I clicked on Inquisitive's name on a post from last year and it took me to your profile--Lou's profile. Give it up.

      Delete
    2. Well done, as always H. I shared your suspicions, but you found proof, demonstrating once again you're the best sleuth here.

      Delete
    3. PS - I took a page from your book and clicked on Castor's name - it too went right to Lou's.

      Certainly dishonest, though I question that s/he had much credibility in any incarnation.

      Delete
    4. The Gumshoe thing was strange but this Inq/Castor/Lou thing is really REALLY wierd.

      Delete
  44. The bicycle gift is irrelevant. Anyone with children knows that if the kids have a say so they want to new bike every Christmas. Burke already had a bike. He might have wanted a new one and they told him maybe after your growth spurt later this year we will get you one in a bigger size. That is what parents do! Geez I’m glad my son didn’t kill my daughter when he got jealous that she got a bike, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Burke wasn't normal, like your son. We're talking about a few years of being afraid his mother would die of cancer, a father preoccupied with business, a sister who monopolized all of his mother's attention and had scatological issues as well as asberger's syndrome.

      Delete
    2. Latter two allegations are unproven. Shit-smearing was a singular occurrence, while Patsy was being treated for cancer. Asperger's has never been clinically diagnosed.

      Unless you can provide proof orherwise, Inq-Castor-Lou?

      Delete
    3. How do you know if my son is normal??? Haha Inq. Define normal? And since when was jealousy a trait of aspergers?

      Delete
  45. Docg, I have been searching for the UK version of the documentary where Patsy said it was her idea to call Police. In the uk it had a different title and was shown on channel 4. I sent an email to the producer asking why the documentary isn't available anywhere and below is the reply I received. Also I am trying to recall the name of the pathologist on the documentary The killing of Jonbenet a father speaks. Bald guy, his surname was kelly. He suggested JBR was clawing at her neck and the head blow came after. He said nowhere in the Autopsy does it suggest previous sexual abuse.

    Thank you for your email.

     

    I do not know why you have been unable to find the documentary.    It seems though that some have become adept at removing - or even switching - shows on You Tube which they dislike.    This might explain it.

     

    Having known Patsy - and knowing John - very well, I have no doubt that both knew that they had to call the police so there is no incongruity.   

     

    Hope this helps.

     

    Regads,

     

     

    David Mills

     

    Mills Productions Ltd.,

    45, Loftus Road,

    London W12 7EH

    Tel:   +44-208-743-2544

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing this info, eve. I did manage to find a version of the A&E doc that contained the first portion of Patsy's comment. I was able to do a screen capture, and included it in the following blog post: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-gospel-according-to-michael-tracey.html#more

      The second part, where she most obviously contradicts their "official" version, was omitted, however. This is the part where she says (according to the transcript): "And I think he ran to check on Burke. And I ran downstairs and, you know, dialed 911." Nothing about John on his hands and knees right next to her.

      I too wrote to David Mills, requesting a copy of the complete documentary or at least the full clip of her response to the question. This was his response:

      "I am afraid I am not minded to help you.

      I have now re-read the transcript of our full 1998 interview - not the short sections we used. It is quite clear that there is no discrepancy between what John and Patsy Ramsey told us and what you say they later wrote in their book. It is, I am afraid, just another example of how a case has been manufactured, out of nothing, against them.

      Regards,

      David Mills"

      It looks to me as though that portion was deliberate cut specifically because of the contradiction. Mills simply does not want to go there, for obvious reasons, as his intention from the start was to produce a whitewash of the Ramseys.

      Delete
    2. Maybe, it was a fear that part of the events would put the Ramseys in a bad light.

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

    ReplyDelete
  47. I didnt know you had also contacted him Doc, I was surprised by his alliance of the Ramsey's, wasn't expecting that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IIRC, evie, Mills was a cohort of Michael Tracey, the CU prof intent on proving the Rs innocent - with or without evidence.

      Delete
  48. Yes CC, they worked together on the Documentary, I don't know why i thought they would be more neutral.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because, as a fellow Brit, you thought Mills might bring a less-jaundiced eye to the topic, evie. Not a bad assumption - he could have done.

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

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I want to apologize, publicly: To Ms D and Doc in particular, but to the rest of you as well.

    I also want to thank Heather, K, Elise, Zed, MichaelHN, evie, Miss Marple, and all who, along with my friends and family, expressed concern about my physical and mental health late last month. You were not wrong.

    A year ago I lost, suddenly and unexpectedly, a much-loved spouse. My doctor put me on antidepressants, which I believe worsened rather than improved my mental state. I couldn't sleep, and began knocking back a couple glasses of wine every night. My father died during Hurricane Irma, the doc added more antidepressants - and I got worse. In December I had some emergency surgery and was hospitalized for ten days. Healing has been problematic, and I've had two surgical revisions.

    This is set forth not as a bushel of excuses, but as an explanation to those who, justifiably, expressed concern... or disdain. You got through to me, guys. I took a month off from here (and from everything else as well), quit the wine and the antidepressants, and began talking with a professional about coping with loss. I'm not all the way there, but I can see a little light.

    I dislike talking about personal matters, and this is not the place, but I felt I owe you all an explanation.

    I'd like your forgiveness, Ms D, but failing that, I hope you'll consider returning to Doc's blog in spite of me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a feeling something was seriously amiss with you, CC, but didn't want to say anything. I'm so sorry to learn that you've been through such loss, pain and confusion. Your explanation and apology are very welcome. I hope you'll continue to post here as your contribution to our discussions has been immense.

      Delete
  52. Welcome back, CC!

    I lost my husband 15 years ago and can relate to everything you've just written. I have been where you are. Feel free to contact me anytime if you ever want to talk. You have my email address, and I'd be more than happy to speak to you via phone, if you thought it might help. You WILL get through this. Speaking from my own experience, the first three years are the hardest. Give yourself time, be kind to yourself, one day at a time at this point.

    Find yourself a local support group, start one, if you have to. (I did in my area) Just being with others who've walked the walk, is a major help.

    Hang in there, better days are coming.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi CC, I'm so sorry to hear of your loss and the rough time you've been having both physically and mentally. Thankyou for sharing with us, I wish you all the best for recovery. I hope Ms D is reading and comes back along with Zed and J you are missed.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi CC

    I believe sharing comes from a place of courage, as do apologies. I'm so sorry for what you've been through this past year. I hope to see your input again on this blog whenever the times are right for you. Wishing you the best.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  55. Thank you all. Very, very much. Your support and encouragement is much needed, and even more appreciated.

    You, our blog community, our cause, and Doc are dear to me, and I'd be honored to continue to participate. May I do so now by changing the subject?

    First, having had some time on my hands, I re-read PMPT, Thomas, Kolar and everything on acandyrose. Is there other material out there that would be worthwhile?

    Second, I've seen this allegation posted here a number of times, but can find no source:

    The blue suitcase contained a duvet cover, pillow sham, and - according to Lou and others - a "pornographic" Dr Seuss book. Miss Marple's JBR Encyclopedia references the Wood v. Ramsey trial on this subject, wherein a SMF (Stipulated Material Facts, a list of matters agreed on by both sides) lists a "Dr Seuss book", no further description. It goes on to say the materials in the blue suitcase were acknowledged by the Rs as belonging to them, but did not belong where they were found.

    When/how did the book morph into being "pornographic"? Was it? Is it likely the Rs would have claimed ownership, had it been so? Or is it possible BlueCrab or other JAR-did it proponents are merely trying to paint John Andrew as a sexual deviant?

    Sorry; I know it's meaningless trivia, but I still sleep poorly, and am desperate to change the subject from my dubious mental health :).

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am happy to see you here.

      Investigators did not disclose the name of the book, but in a captured screen shot of an investigator’s report it was called an adult Dr. Seuss book. Since “The Seven Lady Godivas” was the only book Seuss allegedly wrote for an adult audience, it’s been assumed it was the book found inside the suitcase. It did have John Andrew’s name inscribed on the inside.

      Imo, by today's standards it would not be called pornographic. I have reviewed the book at the library, and the nudes are not graphic, but cartoonish. The Atlantic wrote this - The book is "oddly unerotic despite the nudity, the illustrations are a treat, perhaps in that so-bad-it's-good kind of way, or perhaps because they offer endearing reassurance that even genius can falter."

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I'm happy to be here, though not necessarily at this hour, but you get my drift.

      You're the most articulate and informed of our Anonymii, and I still wish you'd post a simple moniker, even if it's just an initial at the end of your posts. You can always change it!

      Was it a Ramsey investigator? Are there other investigative reports available? Where could I find such things?

      Delete
    3. The report about the adult Dr. Seuss book was a screen capture from the 2006 Court TV documentary which involved Lawrence Schiller and utilized some of the material in his possession. It’s known that Hunter shared a lot of information with Schiller, so I would not be surprised if this report isn’t an example of material he received from the DA’s office.

      Regards other reports, tmk only Paula Woodward has provided a few alleged BPD reports in her book. Unfortunately, I don’t know how these reports came into her possession. Did they come through the R attorneys with whom she was friendly, were they altered by anyone, etc. She pointedly does not reveal who provided the report on the fruit cocktail, e.g. The one noteworthy counter to the fruit cocktail report is that the CU botanists who compared the duodenum contents to the pineapple on the table said it was consistent ‘down to the rind’. That’s in Steve Thomas’s book. Though I haven’t eaten fruit cocktail in some time, iirc, usually there’s no rind on the pineapple.

      I’m not on this blog much, but have high respect for you, so here’s an identifying initial. -T

      Delete
    4. Thank you, T. You deserve to be separated from the herd. Hope to hear more from you.

      Delete
  56. Sorry to keep gabbing, but at least this one is interesting:

    Governor Hickenlooper has appointed a new Boulder County DA. His name is Michael Dougherty, and he appears uniquely qualified for the JBR case.

    A graduate of Cornell and BU law, he was a Manhattan DA for 13 years, specializing in homicide and sex crimes. After moving to Colorado he joined the AG's office, prosecuting cold cases and writing a judicial review on DNA and a study for the AG on child sex crimes.

    It's almost as though Hickenlooper appointed him with an eye to resolving the Ramsey case, and this may be just the guy to do it. One can only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hey CC, I have poked my head in here from time to time but refrained from posting.

    Firstly, thanks for apologising to Ms D. If she gets around to reading it I am sure she will be very happy.

    Secondly, I am so sorry for your loss. It's unfortunately something most people will experience but that doesn't make it any easier. I know words from a random stranger from the land of Oz may not mean much, but please stay strong and try to keep smiling!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It means a great deal, Zed. Always been oddly fond of you and your Aussie stubbornness. Wish there was a way to contact Ms D.

      Delete
    2. CC, I’m very sorry to hear what you’ve been going through. I’m glad you are back and are starting to feel a bit better. I will keep you in my prayers as I know this will take time.

      I always enjoy reading what you and Ms. D have to say. I hope she will come back!

      Take care, LE

      Delete
    3. I hope she will, too.

      Thanks, Lady Engineer. I've enjoyed your thoughtful posts for years, and wish we saw more of them.

      Delete
    4. I wish I had more to contribute, but I am so sold on Doc's theory that I can't add much more. When I ruminate on this case, the one thing that I can't resolve is why Patsy didn't finally figure out what really happened. Assuming that she did, I have concluded that she was almost as afraid of JR as Linda Arndt was. That, and she needed his money for her medical care, knowing that the ovarian cancer was likely to come back. John himself has said that Patsy dedicated her life to raising Burke, implying she was hyper-focused on her one living child. I don't believe, based on what local Atlantans observed, that the marriage was anything more than an alliance to protect the family, especially Burke.

      People talk about Patsy being a good actress. Knowing people who have been in pageants as young women, including one who was in the Miss America pageant, I don't see them as any better actors than I could be, if I wanted or needed to put on an act. The truth is, John Ramsey is a master of deception. He tries to portray this nice Christian man persona, but nothing in the way he conducted himself in his first marriage, or even his 2nd marriage, demonstrates that. Going to church does not make one a nice Christian man. What I see is a narcissistic person who wanted to make a name for himself in business. Patsy was his trophy wife.

      I have wondered how much time his older children even spend with him. You never hear him speak lovingly of his grandchildren - he's all about that pretty, sweet new wife who is clueless about his wiley ways.

      Finally, no one will ever convince me that Burke did this. I feel sorry for that kid!

      LE

      Delete
    5. As do I, LE. He's been tarred with many an undeserving brush, simply because he looks, acts, and speaks outside the norm. Who wouldn't, given his childhood?

      Delete
    6. Speak up, Lou/Castor/Inq . Post your sources about "asbergers'[sic].

      I find your dishonesty abhorrent, but utterly typical.

      Delete
  58. CC, I too extend my condolences in the loss of your spouse as well as your father. I'm glad that you are seeing someone to help you process what you are dealing with.

    For anyone reading that is going thru a rough patch, please do consider seeing a therapist. I've been seeing one since last March due to utter frustration. It was the first time in what seemed like forever where I did not feel diminished. And that was just my first session.

    With the help of that and a low dose of medicine (I was told it helps one have a longer fuse) things are much better than last year. As that saying goes, hurt people hurt people. That's not a good place to be.

    Don't let others steal your joy, or deny yourself the joy in every day things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lil.

      Miss Marple, of JBR Encyclopedia fame and a very wise woman in all things, well beyond Jonbenet, sent me a link to some very helpful podcasts. If you like, contact me privately and I'll forward the link.

      Best wishes.

      Delete
    2. Thanks CC, appreciate that.
      This estate thing is frustrating, met with attorney Thu to sign more papers to try to get the judge to ok selling personal property. Sigh, I thought what I turned in, in Jan was for that. And, my attorney plans to run for judge this year.

      Delete
  59. I was asked to do some pro bono legal work for the Parkland kids, which is giving me great joy. A smarter, more articulate bunch you'd be hard pressed to find.

    Join us, guys, we need your kind of dedication. #Never Again, or e-mail me personally .

    ReplyDelete
  60. Thanks for getting involved CC.

    My grandchildren attend public school in Hillsborough County. I've been so concerned for their safety and have shed many tears listening to the Parkland students, parents and teachers.

    I realized the problem is complex and we all have differing viewpoints. I personally plan on attending the March in D.C. to voice mine. I urge others to do the same in Washington or at one of the many local marches across the country.

    We need to work together to find solutions that will help.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's make plans to meet in DC, K!

      Delete
    2. EG, can you come down from the city? I want to collect that cup of coffee!

      Delete
    3. And you, Doc, can you take the train in from Pittsburgh? We can relive our childhoods. I haven't marched on Washington since I protested Vietnam...much good that did anyone. Join us. Maybe this new crop of starry-eyed kids can make a difference. Their odds are better with a few experienced grown ups standing squarely behind them.

      Delete
    4. LE, I know it's a trek, know how busy you are, but I'd love to see your gorgeous face, shake your hand
      .

      Delete
    5. My plans aren't finalized at this point. Probably driving in on the 24th, parking at one of the metro lots, and taking the train in. I'll let you know. Evidently, the March has been moved to Penn. Avenue between 3rd and 12th.

      K

      Delete
    6. We'll end up at the Capitol, regardless. Meet me at The Wall at 7, if you can. Can't wait to put a face to the K.

      Delete
    7. CC

      I'd gladly join you all as you're right. We ALL must get together and do something about what's happening in our schools. Unfortunately, right now my plate is full, (check your email) but I WILL be there in spirit marching alongside all of you.

      EG

      Delete
    8. CC, I’m in Fla now for a vacation (its my home state but I like to play tourist!). Then I’m headed to Texas for work. I would love to meet you, even though I’m not much of an activist!

      I agree with Doc about mass shooters and the press and infamy they are seeking. I’m thinking about how the Rolling Stone put the Boston shooter on their cover. I’m not a gun owner either but there are times when I’m glad my neighbor has one and knows how to use it. A friend in the Tampa area was recently the victim of a home invasion. Her husband came home while it was in progress. He didn’t have a gun but tried to fend them off and was beaten to a pulp. That said, we don’t really need assault rifles for home security. A pistol might have come in handy for him. These bad guys were mean and and have no regard for human life - will kill just to score another hit of meth.

      This problem has to be solved. I think the solution is multi-faceted. I’m not real confident in the government solving it on their own. They seem to fail at protecting children on so many levels.

      Have a great trip to DC; maybe we’ll see some results! LE

      Delete
  61. Could we maybe make a new post to talk about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a bad idea, 101. Doc is an educator, beyond his other accomplishments. No doubt he'll have much to say about gun violence in our schools.

      Delete
    2. Well, CC, now that you mention it, I do have some things to say. First of all, I simply could not believe it when assault weapons were legalized and then made freely available to just about anyone who didn't have a prison record (which didn't matter anyhow since you could get a friend to buy one for you -- or just steal one). IMO the NRA is pure evil, as is anyone who supports their insane agenda, bordering on sheer paranoia. I had always admired Charlton Heston until he became director of this essentially fascist institution and started equating freedom with the right to own literally any firearm ever made.

      Don't get me wrong, "some of my best friends" own guns and while I would not own one myself I can understand why that might make them feel more secure. But assault rifles? For what purpose? If I were ever attacked, my weapon of choice would be a small but sharp jack knife, like the one Micky Messer stashed in his pocket, "out of sight."

      Unfortunately, however, it would seem too late to do anything about assault rifles at this point. The cat has long been out of the bag and even if they are outlawed it will always be possible for criminals and crazies to find one - or more.

      In any case, as I see it, the real problem lies not so much with the availability of weapons as with all the publicity generated in each and every case by literally all the major media outlets. If you are suicidal but want to be remembered and even go down in history, what more effective way to do that then commit mass murder? -- the more the better. I'm continually flabbergasted when venues such as the NY Times, the Washinton Post and all the major networks latch on to each and every mass murder, savoring every detail and turning every nutcase killer into a celebrity, if not -- to some at least -- a hero.

      If it were up to me I would pass a law forbidding the publication of the name of any such murderer and totally censoring any attempt to learn any details of how he obtained his weapon(s) and why he did what he did. Such "inquiries" are worthless in any case, as the motivation of such people is invariably vague, often complicated and ultimately unknowable -- with the exception of the need for attention and celebrity, which is evident in just about every instance. Once it becomes clear that one cannot be transformed into a celebrity by committing mass murder I can guarantee that the rate of such incidents will go way way down.

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

      Delete
    4. Assault rifles are weapons of war. They're uniquely designed to kill large numbers of people in seconds. They're not for hunting, not for defense...they're for killing. Let's get 'em banned, again.

      Delete
    5. In fact, let's take a leaf from Zed and our other friends Down Under. They put in place rigid gun control after a massacre in Tasmania 22 years ago, and gun killing has since dropped to zero. Zero.

      Delete
    6. I read an article this week on Australia's gun buy back. They had over 56,000 guns turned in recently, including assault rifles and even a rocket launcher. These were ones that had been held onto after the ban, so not everyone turned things in back then.

      Also in their news this week, creepy female killer that garotted a special needs young man, and then stabbed him numerous times.

      Delete
    7. To compare Australia's gun control (and gun confiscation) policies to America's as an example of what could be done here, is simple-minded. Australia has far less population density than America, we have more guns here already in distribution and ownership and we have something called the Constitution. Australia does not have a bill of rights.

      Every time there is a shooting the collective left defers to the same playbook: Do something. And take away all the guns. It is a mentality that lacks any sort of insight whatsoever. If they advocate taking away guns, a military armed police force (with guns) would have to do it - something they would be adamantly opposed to. Not to mention it would start a civil war.

      As for blaming the NRA, again, irrational thinking. The NRA is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, who in the 1960's, if I may remind you, trained and supplied black Americans to fight against the Ku Klux Klan. The NRA defend our 2nd Amendment Rights and are composed of millions of law abiding citizens across the country.

      But at the very least, and just possibly one of a few thinkers in here, Doc has come up with an idea to stop sensationalizing the shooters. Shootings have to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Apparently the FBI was notified twice about the Parkland school shooter - "if you see something, say something" and someone did. It was ignored. Apparently one of the few things the FBI are good at is colluding with the Clinton campaign. In addition social workers were called to the home at least 30 times. Nothing was done.

      Go on to your rallies and protests. The truth is you will have to think more comprehensively to put a stop to the problem of gun violence in America. And one that does not take away our 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

      Delete
    8. You're now going to post anonymoysly as your what, grandson, Inqy Dink?

      Don't dare attempt to lecture me on the Bill of Rights. We have no need of a standing militia, and the framers certainly did not envision assault rifles.

      Delete
    9. Thank you, CC. Folks do not read this blog in order to hear an NRA commercial.
      -T

      Delete
    10. Inq struggles to be relevant, in all her many guises.

      Delete
    11. But they do read it to hear about ineffectual liberal left wing progressive politics I guess. Now CC is back - how long will it take before she slams someone again. She's all yours.

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

      Delete
    13. As long as you lie about your identity and post uncorrorborated information like "asbergers", smart money's on me.

      Delete
    14. With all due apologies to DocG in light of the reason for this blog, I want to chime in here.

      Lou, not everyone in support of any reasonable gun control regulations are" left wing progressives". I certainly wouldn't categorize myself that way.

      My background is in neurodiagnostic testing. The teenage brain is not fully developed physiologically until the mid twenties. The frontal area is the last to develop. This area of the brain is concerned with regulating emotions and impulses. This is also the decision-making area. Without complete development, one does not always have the awareness to see the long term consequences of his behavior.

      My support of the march in Washington is not because I support left wing politics. It is to support raising age limits.

      Teens are often dramatic, impulsive, "up" one day and "down" the next. I think entrusting them with assault weapons is crazy.

      K

      Delete
  62. I'm flying in on the redye on the 24th, staying with friends at Senate Square on I Street. Meet me at panel 168 at The Wall, or find me at the Lincoln or Jefferson...ny version of stations of the cross.

    ReplyDelete
  63. We'll toss a penny in the pond and then cross the street to stand up for our brave children. Later, I plan to stroll down Pennsylvania and give the middle finger to the asshole living in that formerly sacred house. But that's just me, guys, all on my own.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I greatly miss MsD. Please come back. Let's talk about Jon Benet.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a great idea! How 'bout you lead off, post something interesting to get us started again?

      Delete
  65. I'll post something...

    As most of you are aware, one of my last posts on this blog was around me "entertaining" the idea that Jon (and no one else) was responsible for this crime.

    For that to be true, it is highly likely that Jon would have been sexually abusing his daughter. However, as we know, there is zero other facts or stories that indicate Jon being a pedophile. Neither is there anything which suggests he has ever sexually abused anyone else, ever. His oldest daughter has vehermently denied that her father is capable of such a thing. Plus Jon had already lost a previous daughter in a car crash. And, by all reports, him and JB had a great rapport and she adored her father.

    So, for you JDIers, do you think Jon had eyes for JB and no one else?
    Was it her pageantry and looks which intrigued him?
    Do you think he would have still had that lust without her doing pageantry?
    Do you think he was attracted to other young girls or only JB?
    If he was attracted to other young girls, did he only abuse his daughter because of easy access?

    And does anyone have any facts/numbers/figures/information around fathers who have been found guilty of sexually abusing their daughters (without abusing anyone else?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For myself, as follows:

      Yes;
      Yes;
      No;
      Only JBR;
      Access and pageants and Patsy's loss of interest in sex.

      Someone posted statistics here a couple years ago - Doc himself, possibly. It's not unusual for fathers to abuse just their daughter(s), not at all, and incest has nothing to do with pedophilia.

      HKH can probably put her finger on some statistical studies.

      Delete
    2. Or not much to do with classic pedophilia, wherein the man has a taste for pre-adolescents in general, though they can sometimes graduate to that when their own children become adults... insofar as I recall. Someone will know or remember better than I.

      Delete
    3. For Zed: I’ve found that the studies which claim sibling abuse is the most prominent type of molestation usually place all siblings of various ages into the statistical mix. But I think most people will acknowledge that a 9/10 year old and a teenager are different in their drives. Unfortunately, the statistics about children as young as BR are very unreliable. If the adults in the family know of the molestation of a child by another child in the household, they usually don’t report it.

      One book I read disputed that sibling abuse is more common than adult familial abuse. Consequently, because of my inability to find cohesive statistics, I investigated the psychology of the incidence of molestation. After Kolar’s book and the list of traits of the young abuser (based on Sharon Araji’s documentation) I looked for information on the situational molester. The most complete understanding I found which profiled pedophiles and situational molesters was in the following book by Lynn Daugherty titled: “Child Molesters, Child Rapists, and Child Sexual Abuse Why and How Sex Offenders Abuse: Child Molestation, Rape, and Incest Stories, Studies, and Models”

      Just as an interesting piece from the book, Daugherty mentions that situational molesters are often controlling and may feel that their life is out of control. The stress of their life frequently triggers this behavior. It has also been reported that troubling relationships with adults (a spouse, e.g.) contribute to a situational molester turning to a child.
      -T

      Delete
    4. Thanks T, good post.

      I don't necessarily think Burke was abusing his sister (sibling abuse as you call it), but he was definitely at the age where he and JBR coudld have been experimenting? (playing doctors, just examining and touching the private region etc.) It's possible that the parents caught Burke and his sister doing this and that's when they forced Burke to change rooms?

      But I really don't know what to think of the prior trauma on JBR. I really wish we knew why Patsy made those out of office hour phone calls to the doctor. The reasoning behind those phone calls could be the key to this entire case.

      Delete
  66. Something I have not seen brought up here was when JR's house in Atlanta was supposedly broke into and he was robbed. I have seen very little about this and I do not think it has even been brought up im this forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never seen it discussed here either, but this is the event that convinced me John Ramsey was guilty as hell - when he said to an interviewer, "This has happened to us twice now."
      I understand the logic of DocG's case, and consider it valid, but reading those words of John's generated such a strong reaction in me - less logical, more emotional convincement. Who would equate the rape and murder of their daughter with a mere break-in??
      Re. CC's Dr Seuss question, he actually wrote 2 books for adults, the "pornographic" Lady Godiva story and, You're Only Old Once! A Book for Obsolete Children, which is about an elderly man and his endless medical appointments and tests, and not at all pornographic.
      Thirdly,  I want to extend well wishes to CC. I'm a frequent lurker on these boards and don't want to embarrass you further, but wish you courage and Godspeed.
      - another Aussie, in the forest

      Delete
    2. When John said "this has happened to us twice" he was probably referring to the deaths of daughters rather than break-ins.

      Thank you, Aussie in the forest. Go forth and lurk no more!

      Delete
    3. The support of you all is invaluable, Aussie. Please know you're supported as well - yours was an innocent mistake. Please continue to post. We need fresh blood, new input. Welcome aboard.

      Cheers, as my friend Zed says

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the encouragement, CC!
      I've exaggerated the punch of John's statement a bit, and I can't find the news website I read the article on, but it is reproduced on ACandyRose: http://acandyrose.com/s-atlanta-burglar2001.htm
      John actually said, "It just reiterates what we said about JonBenet when that happened. To people, that you need to be aware that there's evil in the world. While it's not likely that your paths will cross with someone like this, it does happen. To us, it's happened twice. You have to be aware that the world has alot of evil people. And alot of good people. That there is evil out there and it's not just in the big city, it's in your own neighborhood."
      That is still a sticking point for me - the idea that the sort of evil involved in stealing some KMart jewellery is equivalent to that of raping and murdering a little girl. But I realise it's not actually evidence of guilt. Just evidence of having a very different perspective to me on what evil is.
      - AF

      Delete
  67. My condolences to you, CC, on the passing of your spouse.

    Hercule

    ReplyDelete
  68. Do you think Mary Lacy or Lou Smit thinks it was an inside job but say they think John and Patsy were innocent victims because they feel compassion for or a connection to The Ramseys?

    I'm asking because I've noticed that on forums where the case is being discussed, when the question of what consequence should or should have been imposed on the perpetrator(s) comes up, RDI people will often say that nothing good could come of prosecuting or punishing anyone today. That what happened was tragic but that imposing a criminal penalty on anyone for this is pointless.

    So I had the thought that maybe more people than let on know who did it but believe the moral thing to do is to let it go.

    ReplyDelete
  69. CC, what do review hearings mean in the cases of the three lawsuits of BR and JR? Judge Groner has scheduled review hearings for all of the R lawsuits on Thursday, March 8, 2018. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Review hearings are held post-sentencing in criminal cases to give the judge an opportunity to determine that the convicted miscreant is in compliance with his sentence - probation, counselling, whatever was adjudicated at trial.

      I personally have not run across one in a civil matter, but extrapolating out from the way it works in criminal cases, I'm assuming Judge Groner has directed someone to do some particular something, and wants proof under oath that whatever was directed is being done.

      Very interesting, Anon. I wonder what Hizzoner demanded be done, and by whom?

      Delete
    2. I went looking online for the results of the 3/8 hearing, Anon, and found on Dan Abrams' legal website a reference to a review hearing this past January and a settlement conference on March 8.

      This suggests to me that "review hearing" was used colloquially to mean "where we at?" rather than in it's strict legal sense.

      A settlement conference is big stuff when it involves the judge, but we're not likely to hear more about its results unless and until an actual settlement is reached, and the case dismissed.

      Delete
  70. http://www.dailycamera.com/opinion/conversations/ci_31707075/conversation-stan-garnett-litigator-moves

    Stan Garnett speaks about the Ramsey case during this interview. Again, he's not too hopeful about solving the case. He states that he still receives letters with different theories, but that the real need is for evidence that points to a particular person for a particular crime. No mention of new testing results.

    K



    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the other hand, Garnett damned near names the Rs in his parting remarks - that's encouraging.

      Did you read my post a few days ago about the new DA, Michael Dougherty, K?

      It strikes me that a guy who prosecuted homicide and sex crimes for 13 years in Manhattan may be sufficiently fearless to take a circumstantial case to court, even without sufficient evidence pointing to one particular R.

      Crossed fingers.

      Delete
    2. Yes CC, I did read your post about the new DA. I'm always hopeful.

      I'd love to know what the grand jury learned. It seems they were not convinced of the PDI alone theory, which never made much sense to me.

      Just curious, when you did the re-reading you mentioned, were you more convinced of your own theory regarding John? Was there anything that didn't seem to fit?

      I, personally, can't get past his non-action when he "found" the broken basement window. If he didn't remember if they'd gotten it repaired(which is irrelevant as far as an entry point anyway), he certainly could have gone upstairs and asked Patsy.
      I try to take a fresh look at this case sometimes, but I always get stuck right there..at the basement window story. It's just not a normal reaction from a father with a missing little girl.

      K

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

      Delete
    4. Governor Hickenlooper is reportedly eyeing a run for the US Senate and beyond, touting his accomplishments and the progressiveness ofColorado under his leadership, all of which leads me to believe that the choice of Michael Dougherty, with his particular background, is not a coincidence, and that he has the Governor's mandate to prosecute the Ramsey case.

      What better way to prove his decisive leadership on a national stage?

      I'll have to give your question about any insights from my re-reading a little more thought, K.

      Delete
    5. I hope Michael Dougherty looks very seriously into this case, which I assume he will given his background.

      I'm wondering why these lawsuit reviews keep getting rescheduled. Is that unusual? The new date appears to be later this month.

      K

      Delete
    6. Do they? Or are they just ongoing, to take the temperature of the settlement negotiations - which is not unusual in a big bucks civil case.

      Delete
  71. Did anyone else see the OJ Simpson thing last night? I caught it this morning on on Comcast On Demand. Whoa. Utterly appalling.

    ReplyDelete
  72. CC..

    I did watch it, and it was creepy as hell. He basically described how he killed them both with the help of "Charlie". Amazing how he breezed over the documented abuse as if it was nothing. I wondered if his first wife reported any type of abuse during their marriage or was he just obsessed with Nicole.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the first wife was abused, she doesn't seem to have reported it, E.

      His smirk when he delivered the line ". . . blood and stuff" gave me chills.

      Delete
  73. People who claim Burke killed JonBenet, respond to it being pointed out that there is no hard evidence (hair, fibers, DNA ect.) by making the assertion that the Boulder Police Department and District Attorney are or might be withholding that evidence from the public to protect Burke because of his age. Could this be possible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if it's really Burke they would really like to protect.

      Delete
  74. If Burke had hit his sister on the head, what evidence do you imagine would be found by CSIs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There might be her blood or hair on him, his clothes, or his room.

      Delete
  75. cc why don't you answer polkadottie s legal question ???

    ReplyDelete
  76. Not a legal question. Based on speculation. What possible motive could the BPD or DA have for a cover-up?

    101: the head blow did not break the scalp... no blood. Hair and fiber evidence in a shared home are meaningless.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. So, he was not who did this.

      Delete
  77. I am always amused by the narrow minded theories, self-conceit and smugness of some of the highly educated, professional people on this blog. Me thinks a little dose of what my dad used to call "good old common horse sense" is called for. An intruder could not have entered the Ramsey home? How can anyone be sure of that? Ever hear of opening a door with a key, then locking it on your way out? Ever hear of children opening a door for whatever reason and failing to close it properly? If Patsy killed JonBenet, she would not have called 911 with the child's dead body in the house? She would not have used her own paper for the ransom note? She would not have used her own paint brush handle for the garrote? Perhaps that is just what she hoped law enforcement (and everyone) would think. Also, an intruder could have framed the Ramseys. This case is far from being solved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got anything substantive to back up an IDI? Or a motive for PDI?

      Delete
    2. Is it possible to commit and be put up for a murder if you're not at the scene?

      Delete
  78. But if Burke had done this, wouldn't he have left some trace of himself on the body, I mean, unless he was wearing gloves and a raincoat or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I'm absolutely convinced Burke did not do this, I agree.

      Delete
  79. The other argument I've heard BDI folks make is that the police aren't perfect and couldn't find everything. Could they really have found John and Patsy's fibers but not Burke's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, regardless, fibers in a shared home are meaningless, as is DNA and fingerprints.

      Delete
    2. Y'know what, Dottie? You seem to want to make a case for BDI, while quoting unnamed "folks". Ya' got something to say, why not just step up?

      Delete
  80. I don't think Burke did it because none of his fibers or evidence linking him are on the body but in conversations about this people say that either the police just didn't find them or they aren't telling us.

    Cut me some slack. My brother who's a bit of a true crime buff asked me just out of the clear-blue-sky the other day who I thought killed JonBenet and I've been looking up info because I just moved in with him and I'm trying to find some conversation points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deal. You get all the slack you need as a newbie. Read PMPT, Thomas, Kolar, and as much as you can in the JBR Encyclopedia and acandyrose.

      Best.

      Delete
    2. "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" by Lawrence Schiller, most balanced of JBR books - has no agenda, sets forth no suspect.

      Delete
  81. Just read The Stranger beside me, by Ann Rule. Terrifying... He is thought to have killed his first victim around age 14, a little girl. He bashed his victims heads in with objects, strangled them, and shoved foreign objects up them. True evil!! But, similar to the awful evil that was done to Jonbenet. Of course, minus the ransom note.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Ted Bundy is another fascinating case. To his credit, at the end before being executed, he spoke about the role that pornography played in his life and how it had influenced him early on. I know that doesn't really mean anything because not everyone who is into porn, turns out to be a serial killer, but still it can't be left out of the equation.

    Also, if I remember reading this correctly, he worked on a suicide prevention hotline alongside Ann Rule and used to walk her to her car so she'd get home safe. Go figure.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too have read Ann Rule's book. Odd coincidence that this woman, who's turned out to be a leading true crime writer, was close friends with Bundy for years and initially defended him. They worked side by side at that suicide prevention hotline and she saw only his good side, which totally blinded her to his real nature. Psychopaths can be especially dangerous because they very often show two completely different sides of their personalities in different situations. I think he may have had a personality disorder, almost like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type thing.

      Delete
    2. So true, Doc. That's what makes them so scary. The ability to charm people and to hide that dark side of themselves is truly fascinating. They do lead double lives and many of the people he worked with and knew in life came out to defend him saying it was impossible and couldn't possibly be him.

      Similar to the Craigslist killer who was a medical student. His professors, friends, fiance, couldn't believe it was him. He actually hid women's panties under the mattress where he and his fiance slept. It's mind boggling.

      EG

      Delete
  83. CC..so sorry I missed you. I had very last minute change of plans. Unable to go to DC. Attended the March in Cleveland instead. Very inspiring and hopeful group. People of all ages in attendance. I have a renewed sense that sensible gun control will happen.

    K

    ReplyDelete
  84. Brief update on the Rebecca Zahau wrongful death civil suit - handwriting expert testifies with a "degree of certainty" that the hand painted lettering on the door belonged to Adam Shacknai. Mr. Shacknai's attorney countered with claims that a resolution was used on the lettering to determine authorship as well as the lettering altered with Photoshop techniques to which the handwriting expert claimed it would not change his opinion that Adam Shacknai wrote the note on the door. Jonah Shacknai testified at the end of last week that Rebecca was having problems with his older daughter, and had gone boating with him several times and may have known how to tie knots. Also that she did not embrace her mother's religion, countering the theory that she would not have committed suicide for religious reasons. Dina Shacknai, Jonah's former wife, admitted on the stand she did not think Rebecca's death a suicide.

    One could possibly infer the family dynamic if we had more facts about it, but just a superficial look into it one might determine that Jonah Shacknai could possibly be used to defending his brother, maybe on other occasions, and that there is no love lost between Dina and Jonah.

    The real villains here however (in addition to Adam Shacknai) might be the police, and the sheriff's department, who ruled her death a suicide and closed the case too quickly. Trial resumes today March 26.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Police are sometimes negligent.

      Delete
    2. For sure Blogger101. I admire Rebecca's family for not letting her death go unpunished, and seeking justice for her.

      Delete
  85. The cryptic note painted on the door of Rebecca Zahau's room makes sense in a creepy way now if you understand that the parents of 6-year-old Max initially believed Rebecca saved Max by giving him CPR right after his fall. In light of that read the note: "She saved him can you save her" makes sense. However if Adam Shaknai wrote the note it's a very sick mind that would kill her and throw her off the balcony as a suicide by hanging staged scene knowing that no one could save her at that point. The note reflects the self interest of a killer, not the parting words of a woman taking her own life. Her family believes he entered her room as she was coming out of the shower, made an advance toward her which was rebuffed, assaulted her sexually, stunned her with blows to the head and stab wounds and tied her up and then threw her over the balcony. Killers are cowards, and overly preoccupied with self.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You get that anyone can sue anyone in civil court, right Inqy Dink, that there's no prerequisite standard of proof like probable cause or BARD?

      The San Diego Sheriff and DA couldn't find any evidence upon which to base a case against Adam Shaknai, so what makes you so certain he killed Zahau?

      This looks to me like another of your baseless accusations, like "asbergers".

      Delete
  86. It's not what I think - it's what her family thinks. They feel they have enough evidence to bring Adam to trial. CC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Zahaus' civil suit originally included two other defendants, who proved to have alibis and have since been dismissed from the lawsuit. Clearly the family is not basing their case on facts.

      On 3/26 your post called Adam one of ". . . the real villains", so your facts are, as usual, a little skewed as well.

      Delete
  87. Here's what I gleaned from 30 minutes of internet research, Dink:

    Zahau was not a well woman. She shoplifted $1,000 worth of jewelry from a Macy's in Arizona. She told a former boyfriend she'd been kidnapped when she disappeared for a few days. She had problems with Gabby, Jonah's oldest daughter, and with Dina, his ex-wife. Jonah discouraged her from coming to the hospital because of Dina, and Zahau felt rejected, as she and Jonah had been having problems, as reflected in her cell phone ruminations. Jonah testified that he "may have" said it was over between them, and he "wanted her out" in his 12:50 AM call on the 13th, when he told her Max was likely to be brain-damaged, paralyzed and incapable of speech or thought...she died 2 hours later.

    She put her sister on a plane home, despite the fact Xena had planned to stay for 3 weeks. She boarded her dog the same morning.

    Nina, Adam, and the kennel owner all described her as "quiet" and "subdued" and "sad".

    The only DNA, fingerprints and footprints found in the guest room, the rope, the knots, the balcony, belonged to Zahau. Adam's were nowhere to be found, and Adam had no motive, as
    Max lived 3 days after Zahau's death, eliminating revenge as a motive.

    That's what I've got. You?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try to control the sarcasm, CC. We're all friends here.

      Delete
  88. And P.S. - pursuant to both autopsies, Zahau had not been sexually assaulted. Further, the search on her password-protected laptop for Asian porn was hers, done the day before Adam arrived in San Diego.

    It's obvious to me she'd been unhappy for a long time, and had been planning her garish suicide for days.

    ReplyDelete