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.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Darlie Routier case on Court TV

I just saw this very informative review of the case as broadcast on Court TV back in 2013. Everyone concerned about this case should watch it -- all the way through.

Part 1:




Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:



167 comments:

  1. Read somewhere that the family dog, a Pomeranian, who apparently barked at every stranger, never barked that night. Probably because the dog knew the perp.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep, that's the one I've watched, twice!! I keep errouneously referring to "true crimes" but that's the one, with the two ex cops..But there's no mention of any dog, is there?


    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  3. . . . or the dog was locked in an upstairs bedroom.

    Not sure we learned anything new here, Doc, but it's good to know three well-credentialed people (I include Skip Hollandsworth) see Darin as a viable suspect. Interesting how the original Rowell investigators refused to engage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ..posted this on the previous blog in answer to CC's response to mine

    I agree CC, and I do believe there was at least one juror, who said if he had seen those pictures of her battered arms, etc. he wouldn't have voted guilty. That disturbs me.

    I would have needed a motive to find her guilty, even with all of the circumstantial evidence and even if I believed she was guilty I could not, in good conscience vote the death penalty without proof positive.

    Darlie had life insurance ($250k) which is a motive for Darin but then why didn't he kill her instead of killing the children? That doesn't make sense to me either. The boys were savagely and violently stabbed. She was slashed. If he wanted her dead to collect the life insurance, he knew that wouldn't work because he'd be the prime suspect and probably convicted. How would Darin benefit from all of this? What am I missing here?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're missing the fact that he could have assumed Darlie was either dead or dying, and if that had been the case he'd have had lots of time to stage an intruder breakin. Wash the knife carefully and return it to the kitchen counter. Leave a track of blood leading from the family room out through the garage and the window with the slashed screen. He would also have had time to wash any residue off the knife he used to slash the screen. And he'd have removed at least some of the jewelry and most likely dumped it down the storm drain along with his shirt.

      Delete
    2. I do get all of that Doc and agree that he'd have the time. However, with Darlie dead, he'd be the prime suspect and most likely would have been convicted and sitting where she is. No?

      EG

      Delete
    3. Well, EG, if John Ramsey taught us anything, it's that the "intruder" theory works wonders… so he could have done that and get away with it…

      Sam

      Delete
    4. Sam,

      Darin didn't have the resources and connections that JR had, therefore I don't think he would've gotten away with it. And if the insurance money was what he was after, he'd make damn sure she was dead, no? Why just slash her and run when he viciously stabbed two children to death?

      EG

      Delete
    5. EG, I agree, why not kill her? Let our minds wander a little:

      Because he thought he had! And once she came to, maybe he could not kill her face to face! It could be that simple. It must not be THAT easy to do! Maybe he didn't think it through.

      Frauding the insurance and killing your wife are two very different things.

      Did he kill the kids first so they dont witness their mother be killed? I do have a hard time with the timeline. Who did he stab (or slash) first?

      Darlie remembers Devon (I think it's him) touching her shoulder, so either he heard something, or he was already wounded.

      Another possibility: Darlie wanted to leave him, maybe he wanted to punish her (far fetched, I concede) by Killing the kids?

      The bruises bother me too: did they fight at some point? Why not slash her first? Did her sixth sense make her open her eyes right as he was above her, hence the defensive bruises?

      I know, all conjectures.

      But I am 100 percent sure he did it alone. He just did not pull it through (is that even an expression?)

      He had been with her since a very young age, was apparently a bit possessive and critical. And violent. (the gun, the wife, the head, this to me is extreme violence, please don't question that)

      Money problems can turn people crazy, especially when that money was made early in life, and almost easyly.

      Funny, btw, that Darin and John Ramsey both worked in computer related businesses. Just saying!


      Ok, rant over, and I would like some time to come back to the idea of a possible premeditation in the Ramsey case. I was never on board, but the more I think about the case…

      Maybe not a full-on conscious premeditation, but some chain of décisions that could only lead John to get rid of his daughter. I haven't rationalized the idea very well yet, but there's something there methinks!

      Some other time maybe! Im exhausted, 10 days from getting married at my home, on a small budget, so coming here is recess for my brain, sorry for oversharing!!


      Sam

      Delete
    6. I'm sure I'm but one of many here who wish you all the best on your upcoming nuptials, Sam.

      Delete
    7. You want to chat privately, any time, e-mail me by poking on my initials, which will bring up my e-mail address. I'm not the best correspondent, as EG will attest, but I always try.

      Delete
    8. I surely will CC, thank you for your well wishes!


      soon to be bridezilla-Sam

      Delete
  5. Where was the sock before the murders? Did that come from upstairs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It came from the rag basket in the utility room.

      Delete
    2. Thanks CC.

      The prosecution really rubs me the wrong way in this one. Also, not sure how Darlie being suicidal helps them. If she was suicidal and slit her own throat, why not just lay there and die instead of calling the cops? If that was strictly staging and it was a murder and not a murder-suicide, why call the cops while the boys are still alive?

      Plus Darin smiling as he denies the murders while the lie detector people accuse him set off my bs detector, as it did them.

      Not to mention murder is more of a guys thing, especially in this way rather than poison or something.

      Delete
    3. I agree, Unknown, though I'm a prosecutor in the way back. This shit rankles.

      Delete
  6. The sock bothers me as well. Not so much for where it was found, but for the little bit of blood found on it. I would think with a violent, repeated stabbing of that kind, the sock would have been soaked in blood. I also heard that the inside of the sock had Darlie's skin cells on it. Not sure how true that is.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting how we always manage to agree on so much while disagreeing, E. I always enjoy your posts and our private conversations.

      Zed's two bothersome things were the sock and a fingerprint. Mine are the sock and the bread knife with screen fibers, which had been returned to the knife block.

      The latter plagues me. It clearly indicates an insider cut the screen for staging purposes, but why not use just one knife for all facets of the crime?
      I can't see Darlie, in extremis, bothering to switch knives.

      Any ideas, anyone?

      Delete
  7. CC...I've thought about that too--even as far as the stabbings went. Was her throat slashed with the same knife that was used on the children? Why were they so viciously attacked and Darlie just slashed. Why wasn't the knife plunged into her neck as it was plunged into those two children.

    Did Darin want to make it look like there were two attackers? And how did one person pull it off. If he slashed Darlie first she would have awoken as she did and started screaming as he was attacking her children, no? If he attacked the children first, surely those powerful thrusts would have awoken Darlie, no? If he just wanted the insurance money, why not just attack Darlie with the knife, plunge it into her throat while she was sleeping and have the children "discover" her body in the morning.

    Also, and I know this is gruesome but one of the children was stabbed straight through to the floor. Could a woman of Darlie's stature have the strength to do that? That type of attack is indicative of rage and yet when it came to attacking Darlie, it was a single slash.

    One prosecutor called her a psychopath. Maybe she is?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darin loved and was proud of Darlie. It comes through clearly in every interview; she enhanced him. I guess it comes down to what enhanced him more, Darlie's double Ds, or 250K.

      But I want to talk about the bread knife. Whadda' ya' got, mon ami?

      Delete
    2. Are you saying midway through his rampage and after brutally stabbing his children, he softened when it came to hurting Darlie and couldn't bring himself to attack her in the same way he did his sons?

      The more I think about this, the more I think they may have done this together. I've read conflicting statements about their polygraph tests. Anyone know the truth?

      EG

      Delete
    3. At this time my thoughts are with you EG, I'm pondering on them both being guilty.

      Delete
    4. There were no exit wounds on the boys backs. That was false information about the knife going allthe way trough to the floor

      Delete
  8. Hmmm okay the bread knife. If, indeed, the bread knife was used to cut the screen from the inside (which is what it looks like as the opening was outward, rather than inward we have a case of premeditated murder.

    To bolster that theory, the knife was examined by Charles Linch (http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/statement-2/) who concluded that the knife was indeed used to cut that screen, although the defense team tried to say otherwise, but to no avail.

    As far as using different knives, could be that two different people worked together simultaneously. One murdering the kids (Darin) and one staging the scene - screen and sock placement (Darlie). That would account for Darlie's skin cells being on the sock and the use of two knives.

    EG



    ReplyDelete
  9. Another thing...where is the blood trail? Remember OJ - left a blood trail from her house to his after brutally stabbing two people. In this case, no bloody footprints leading out of the house, nothing in the garage, nothing on the fence outside..no disturbance found on the window sills in the garage.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Darin didn't get any blood on his shoes then there would have been no bloody footprints of his. The only bloody footprints found were Darlie's. If he's the guilty party then planting a trail of blood leading to the garage window would have been part of his plan, which would also have included cleaning up the knife and replacing it on the counter. But he never had a chance to do that since Darlie was on the phone to the police when he returned after ditching his bloody shirt.

      Delete
  10. It is very much possible they were in on this together. There is certainly a lot of unanswered questions regarding this case.

    CC - in regards to the bread knife, is it possible that this occurred after the children were killed? If so, a knife swap would make complete sense as Darlie would not want traces of blood on the screen (given this was the point of entry). So swapping to a clean knife, post-atttack, makes sense. Perhaps Darlie held this knife with a towel or shirt to prevent getting blood on it.

    If Darin was involved, I think he only became involved after discovering what Darlie had done. After the 911 call, he realised there was no point of entry for an intruder and grabbed a knife to perform the cutting of the screen. He loved Darlie dearly and despite what she had done, he was protecting her. He possibly also planted the sock, hence no blood found outside the house. Over time, Darin's protective nature and attitude towards what she did, no doubt would have changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Zed, I find it very likely that both Darin and Darlie were involved. Doc changed my thinking by making my claim seem crazy but I think there is a good chance in this case, just as I do the Ramsey case, that 2 people were involved. Doc just can not accept that this is possible, nor can a couple of other posters here.

      Delete
    2. I can think of no motive for the two of them to conspire to murder their own children. The insurance money was barely enough to cover their funeral expenses.

      Delete
    3. DocG,
      I agree with you, and the insurance money wasn’t even enough to cover the funeral. $10k insured, ~$13k expenses

      Zed,
      She allegedly appeared to attempt suicide a month prior with pills before Darin caught her and talked her down from the ledge I suppose. I find it highly unlikely one person would be willing to receive a nearly fatal cut to the throat while he walks away unscathed. Even a surgeon would have a hard time missing her carotid artery by that fraction with the slice of a chefs knife.

      CC,
      The bread knife is interesting, but the current defense discredited the claims by stating the fibers could have come from a fingerprint brush. It was confirmed that the block and knives were dusted for fingerprints prior to finding the fibers. There was also a blonde hair in the screen that allegedly belonged to an officer. Who do the finger prints belong to? I believe that is the biggest thing we’ve been waiting on since 2008.

      I still have several theories as the evidence is incomplete, but I think she was potentially knocked out with a chloroform sock, when she woke up, i think she chased after the attacker while he attempted to rape her. When she woke up, he made a stabbing motion as she covered her face and it went into her right arm. She got up to chase the intruder, in the kitchen he turned around and swiped the knife across her throat, waving most the blood off the knife, then threw it near the utility room and ran out the garage down the alley. As she stood there in shock with her throat slashed, it dripped in front of the sink. (I would love to see if there is any spatter on the wall or cabinets around the stove across from the sink, or on the counter for that matter) she then heard Darin running downstairs and met him at the bottom where she was hysterical, she called 911 while he tended to Devon, he didn’t see Damon because he went left down the stairs through the kitchen instead of right and then directly into the living room because he was following Darlie who came from the kitchen. The glass over top the dried blood was from paramedics and cops rushing in and out to safe Damon’s life before securing the crime scene. Darlie was rushed into emergency surgery with life threatening wounds. Surgery ended at 4:50am, she was sedated at 6am, cops questioned her at 6:11am.

      I know this theory isn’t totally sound yet as I’ve only been researching for the past couple of days, however, I’m pretty good at research and believe I have a good amount of most of the variations of facts. I wouldn’t completely remove Darin or Darlie as a suspect in the murders, however my current sequence of events is based on the possibility that Darin might have hired someone to rob them or maybe even scare her or something and things went south. It’s also possible it was completely random as those are the most difficult to explain, but at a bare minimum I can’t believe she hasn’t been granted a new trial.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, Eric, but your "theory" is indeed inchoate, for a number of reasons.

      I applaud research, but you need to cite sources for your information.

      Insofar as your remarks addressed to me: Fingerprint dusting brushes are single-use only. One used for a particular item or area is not then used for another, precisely to prevent any possible transfer of trace evidence.

      Delete
    5. CC,
      Yes, I wasn't intending it to be anything formal, I'm still going over a lot of the details and deciphering facts from fiction, solving crimes would be a lot easier if certain agencies would open-source some of their evidence. I work in cyber security so I'm always attempting to utilize AI resources and frameworks to generate theories and connections that could be overlooked. I don't know why defense attorneys are always so vague with the evidence in cases like this. Any type of formal theory that I would write up would definitely have references, or lack thereof. The main purpose of posting the theory is to get people to point me in the right direction of the resources that disprove the current version of my theory.

      Anyway, to add to your response to my remark, from what I understand there was only a single tiny fiber on the knife, and they are claiming the fiber came from the bristle of the fingerprint brush, not that there was cross-contamination, but that the brush bristles are made of a similar fiberglass material.

      Eric

      Delete
    6. I'm sure the window screen and the pertinent brush are both in evidence, and quite certain the forensic folk can easily distinguish between fibers from the two.

      In any event, good luck with your continuing research. Please come back and share any revelations.

      Delete
  11. Zed, what's your relationship with your mom and women in general? Just wondering.

    I know you probably won't answer but it is a genuine question. Been on this site for a while and you systematically see the woman as the hysterical crazy killer and the man as the knight in shining armor who only gets involved to protect his lunatic murderous wife. Why?

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know I love you, Sammy, but this is way off base. Zed is a good guy, with important things to say. Leave him be.

      Delete
    2. CC, you are absolutely right, Im just very curious and it was a genuine question, albeit maybe a bit intrusive! Zed, Im sorry if it was inappropriate! it's just that Im tired of seeing women be condemned so easily when there's nothing really solid against them! But I will stick to the facts, nothing but the facts, ma'am! ;)


      Sam (don't hold it against me, Im a bridezilla, remember!)

      Delete
  12. Sam, that is a ridiculous and out of line question to ask Zed. Most murders are done by males, that is a fact that we all know here.
    The Ramsey case and Routier case both show evidence of women's involvement. The Routier case, if you are paying any attention to the evidence at all, has Darlie being involved.
    Some people in here are only playing devil's advocate, if they had to lay their money down on the guilty party in this case, I know who it would be on and it would not be Darin ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remind me what pieces of evidence can be held against Patsy Ramsey and Darlie Routier? And I know these cases quite well, thank you very much. The Ramsey case inside out, and Im gettin there on the Routier one.

      Secondly, I've already apologized to Zed about my genuine but intrusive question.

      Finally, I don't need to be lectured. I will correct my wrongs when needed, and yes I would bet my right hand on Darin's guilt. And John Ramsey's for that matter.

      Waiting for the evidence.

      Sam


      Delete
  13. Darlie Routier
    https://youtu.be/gBa0x22Sq04

    ReplyDelete
  14. Darlie Routier and Darin Routier odd behavior -https://youtu.be/K668cTvX52A

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sam, you obviously haven't been on this site very long because I never, ever said Patsy did it. So when it comes to women being crazy psychotic killers, I'm 1 from 2....so not really sure what your point is. Like you, I also follow the facts and nothing but the facts.

    For the record, my mum is a peach and wife is a fox.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love you,Zedley mine. Cut the kid a break. She's new, eh? Won't let her take you down.

      Delete
    2. It's all good CC ;)

      PS. Does it feel strange that we actually communicate rationally now? Say something to piss me off :)

      I've even come to like the name "Zedley"....for heavens sakes haha.

      Delete
  16. First of all; Im not here to take anyone down, I really have other fish to fry! Sorry CC if it appeared this way, not my type.

    Zed, I've been reading this site for a few years, read all the entries and almost all the comments, so please don't undermine my experience!

    I have apologized, nothing more I can do!

    I really associated your name with multiple heated debates, and that's the memory I had from what I read. Again, my bad? I think Ive been reading this site long enough to remember your exchanges with Mrs D (Oh, she was great, where is she??)? I was there, dude.

    Finally, I think that being interested in crime stories is being interested in human beings in general and ourselves in particular. So yes, I think our experiences, trauma, repressed feelings come into consideration when dealing with murder cases. Isn't it what they call "bias"?

    And you guys cannot rule out some type of misogyny sometimes, especially in some states of the USA (ummm...Texas?)

    The word "hysteria" itself comes from the word "uterus" so yes, when I see women being accused of terrible terrible crimes without the trace of real proof, it gets to me.

    That's who I am and I will not apologize for it.

    What I will not do is ask a personal question ever again!!!!! It wasn't that bad, people!! Cultural difference maybe?


    1/2

    ReplyDelete
  17. 2/2
    Enfin, here are a few quotes from you, this is the ZED I remembered.:

    ZedSeptember 7, 2017 at 1:21 AM
    "Meh. The response I expected from Ms D. Accepts Johns fibres but ignores the fibres from Patsy. But oh that's right, Ms D is more skilled than those lab technicians (technicians that actually saw and handled evidence unlike any of you).

    Burke only thumped her over the head.

    Given there is none of Burke's fibers but plenty of Patsy's, this simply adds to the fact that Patsy's fibers were NOT from simply being in a "shared home".
    (isn't this hinting at some guilt from Patsy?)


    ZedSeptember 7, 2017 at 5:42 PM
    "Ralph the lab technician lol.

    Listen, I don't know which way to go for the fibres and it has little effect on my theory anyway.

    But, to me (the simpleton that I am), I think it is more logical that the tape brushed Patsy's jumper rather than secondary contact from fibres off JonBenet's face. I think John did all the staging of the body, but maybe Patsy got the tape and handed it to him."


    ZedSeptember 11, 2017 at 1:18 AM
    "You can google interviews and articles in regards to Ressler and this case.

    Never does Ressler say he believes Patsy was in on this alone. He always states John and Patsy. But I am prepared to give Hercule a chance, if he gives us something to chew on (which he has not). To be honest, it would not surprise me in the slightest if there was key evidence against one (or both) parents that only the GJ know of. Problem is they faced a stone, cold wall in the form of Alex Hunter. I still think this case would have progressed if it wasn't for that pesky (and irrelevant) DNA in 2008 that "apparently" exonerated all members of the Ramsey family.

    At the end of the day, I do agree with Ressler that this was an accidental death (no premeditation) and both parents were involved on the cover up."

    So when you say "both parents", is it that far fetched to remember you as a PDI?

    Look, I love a good, honest debate, I have no problem being called out on my s... as long as I respect my interlocutor. I will own up to my mistakes as long as we are all subjected to the same standards.

    No hard feelings I hope, we're all here cause we have a common interest, let's debate, not fight. Sorry again for the mommy question, I tend to say what I mean always and can be hurtful so désolée! (but I really think it's a valid question SOMETIMES!!)

    Sam (CC, thank you for calling me a "kid", you made my day!!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice sleuthing Sam...you obviously have much more time up your sleeve than I do. And for the record, I hold no grudges against you.

      Yes, I claimed Patsy was involved in the staging, wrote the RN and faked the 911 call. I never claimed she killed her daughter and was a psychotic murderer....those are two very different things!! I even said that I believed John was the mastermind when it came to the staging and performed the more "hands on" staging in regards to JB's body. And if you read my more recent posts, you would even see that I praised Doc on a good theory and I was starting to accept that he could be correct (I'm still very much on the fence).

      So, as I said, I never, ever claimed Patsy killed her daughter. Period.

      I do wish Ms D would pop in and say g'day though. Does anyone have her email address?

      Anyway, moving on...

      Delete
    2. That's nice you are thinking of Ms D, Zed. I think she would appreciate it and very much enjoyed kicking it around with you.

      Delete
    3. Who said I ever enjoyed sparring with Zed?
      Ha! Maybe just a little bit...(g'day Z) ;)

      I stopped by last week for the first time in months and was interested to read the topic had shifted to the Darlie Routier case. However, I'll keep my comments regarding that one to myself, as I don't plan to join any more discussions here any time soon! I just wanted to say "hello".

      Take care all.

      Delete
    4. Hi Ms D

      Glad you stopped by to say "hello". Hope all is well with you.

      This Ramsey/CBS lawsuit is taking forever no?

      Would enjoy hearing your thoughts on the Routier case.

      I'm on the fence on this one, which is why I haven't commented much.

      Hope you stop in again sometime. Take care.

      K

      Delete
    5. Jonbenet: We've had 4 DA's now who have been beyond reluctant to take on the case, possibly believing it will be a career disaster. By telling the public they are opening it up, rather not closing it, they try to pacify the public into thinking something is being done. Nothing is being done. Now I understand it might be difficult deciding where to begin - so I'll give offer a tip - why not begin with the Grand Jury indictments? 1. Permitted a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury - etc. and 2. Rendered assistance to a person - etc.

      Also the DNA results are in folks. And they were in before Garnett left office. Same non-results? If so, why not at least use that to debunk Lacy's erroneous exoneration. That would at least shut up Lin Wood.

      And, yes, miss you Ms D!

      Delete
    6. G'day Ms D :)

      It's good to hear from you. I hope 2018 is treating you well.

      Cheers
      Zed

      Delete
    7. Popping in to say hi to Ms D as well. (waving!) Hope things are going good for you doll. Have you purchased any of those giant avocados that your country is now growing?

      Delete
  18. Look, believe me if you will, but the comments I found were in the very first post I looked up, I really didn't dig at all!

    I just wanted to explain why I thought you were a PDI.

    Anyway, the sentence that triggered me in one your recent post was about Darin "covering up" for his wife etc. Imagining a woman killing her own kids should not be so matter of fact when there are no real facts supporting that, there really aren't imho!

    This is what I was aiming at: it's generally more accepted in our society that a woman got crazy, just like that, and killed her own kids, for no reason at all and no MOTIVE!


    As I said before, Darin had more of a motive than Darlie ever had.


    The facts point to him, not her!


    And as I said before, I do not have that much time on my hand as I am preparing my wedding, but I like coming here to pick my own brain and think about something else than ornaments, food, ceremony, music and what not! So dont be condescending ( "you have more time than I do etc" ) just because I brought some tiny receipts! I am as busy as you are, maybe more, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything!


    I appreciate you not harboring any bad feelings, it'd be a pity, I'd rather debate with you all and benefit from your points of view than doing this. Im moving on also and I'll leave you with the famous words of Voltaire:


    « Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire. »

    Loosely translated:

    "I do not agree with you but I will fight until I die so you can freely express your opinion"

    Until next time,

    Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My question is...Why was Darin allowed to leave the scene to wash off?

      Delete
  19. There was a documentary on ABC a few months ago called the Last Defense which highlighted this case, very informative. One of the things I took from that was that darlie was convicted largely on character assassination. She was judged by the way she looked. One juror actually said that that's why she convicted her because of her breast implants and the way she dressed. I couldn't believe what I was hearing but that's what she said. I mean this juror actually said what kind of person goes out and spends thousands of dollars on breast implants? Um lots of people?

    ReplyDelete
  20. also Darren and darlie divorced a few years ago. He said they were divorcing said that he could move on, she said they were divorcing because she felt she couldn't trust him anymore. Not sure if that just meant that he wasn't faithful while she was in prison or if it means something else. From my knowledge Darren was barely investigated

    Also the jury only was only shown a portion of the video taken at the grave site. They had actually held a prayer service for the boys before the birthday party silly string part of it. But the jury was only shown that part. Darlie's lawyer didn't object to the video or request that the rest of it be shown because he said he had no idea it would make such make such an impact on the jury.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Has anyone here watched "The Staircase" (13 episodes)? It follow the trial of Michael Peterson, a novelist who found his wife dead at the bottom of the staircase in their family home.

    I cannot remember if this has been discussed on here or not. To be, it is one of the most striaghtforward cases I've researched. Guilty as sin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never saw it discussed on here. I'm not sure I know much about the case.

      Delete
    2. Zed....Is that the one where they think an eagle may have swooped down and caused those markings on her scalp?

      If so, yes, I've watched that. Isn't he free now after years of trials, etc?

      EG

      Delete
    3. An owl - but yes, he's free. Free and poor. Kathleen's daughter sued him for her mother's money so he can't use it to live on. He's indigent.

      Delete
  22. That's the one. He pleaded guilty under the Alford Plea (while still maintaining his innocence).

    The whole owl theory is just absurd...that theory was established a neighbor and then got plastered around the internet. There was no owl haha.

    And yes, Caitlin's daughter sued MP for $25 million in a wrongful death suit. She will never see a penny of that. At least it ensures MP cannot profit from this entire saga...which I am sure is the reason he requested this documentary in the first place. I believe it's also the reason he killed back in 1985 in Germany, so he could become guardian of two young girls (yes, this son of a b**** was involved in two staircase murders!!).

    This really is an open and shut case in my opinion. Even his sister believes in his guilt....read her letter here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060205042751/http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Kathleen's daughter, Caitlin.

      (Sorry I type on a mobile and dont proof read my posts)

      Delete
    2. Oh right his first wife's best friend died by falling down the stairs as well. Forgot that part.
      I think they found an owl's feather in the wounds on her scalp if I'm not mistaken.
      That letter from his sister is pretty amazing and heartbreaking at the same time. I can't even imagine what that must feel like to come to the realization that your brother is a murderer.

      She's right though. The strangulation--how could an owl have done that? Is there any other reason for the cartilage on her neck to have been crushed. Could the defense argue that she hit her throat on something as she fell?

      EG

      Delete
  23. This was a very interesting case in other ways. He was living a lie. He says he was bisexual, perhaps he was homosexual, and whatever success he enjoyed as a published author, it was long before he met and married Kathleen, a successful executive.

    Since they unearthed the Ratcliff woman they ruled her death a suspicious death, I believe (I'm not searching at the moment so am not sure) but also had suspicions that Peterson may have murdered her husband as well - but didn't delve any further into that.

    What makes it so interesting, other than that, is the way he manipulated his two adopted daughters, the Ratcliff girls, into believing he was innocent of Kathleen's death. And to find out that he may have been guilty of bludgeoning their own mother to death as they lay sleeping in their cribs - and staging it to look like a fall down the stairs as he did with Kathleen, must have been terrifying for them to find out - yet he was so good at his manipulating they stuck by him.

    I didn't know Michael Peterson had a sister - I know Kathleen had two sisters, and one of them was an absolute champion for her in court and during her victim impact statement. It's always very scary when you find out the man you married isn't what you thought he was at all. And then it's too late (like Chris Watts).

    ReplyDelete
  24. His first wife has stuck by him to the point of financing his defense along with his father (brothers). Evidently she doesn't think he is capable of murdering anyone. And I am sure he was nasty to his sister, but is that enough to convict a person?

    Nagging questions-

    1. Why would he kill his wife in the same way he killed the German friend? Wouldn't he know that would raise major red flags?

    2. Not sure where I read or saw this but wasn't there a person attacked by an owl six months earlier in the same neighborhood?

    3. The crushed cartilage - how did that happen?

    4. And yes, he did live a lie, claimed his wife knew about it, but I doubt that. Not sure a woman would accept that her husband was carrying on with strangers on the internet. First off, it's cheating and a betrayal, and secondly the danger of infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease would have been a major concern of hers, I am sure. Any thoughts?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your questions EG:

      1. The question SHOULD be, why wouldn't he? The first death was 16 years earlier and at the time it had been ruled an accident. He knew how it worked and he knew he could get away with it. Plus if he attacked Kathleen in a fit of rage, he had to explain that. Either make up an intruder theory (which he knew would crumble due to DNA and a lot of other things), or use the staircase which he knew could work.

      2. Possibly, I can't remember. The whole owl thing is simply ridiculous. An owl expert claimed attacks can leave nasty wounds on a head but nothing like what was seen in that house. And it was a microscopic owl feather. Heck, you just needed to walk outside and you could have one of those on you. You could argue if there was an owl there would be more feathers. It's a ridiculous theory.

      3. The only reasonable conclusion is strangulation. There was no explanation from then defence and they hardly mentioned this in the doco as a result.

      4. See my other post....Kathleen divorced her ex husband because he was unfaithful. He deleted emails whilst LE were in the house immediately after 911 call!! Kathleen used his computer that night for a work email as well. He lied about Kathleen's knowledge of this. MP is a liar, simple as that.

      There is so much more I could go on about. Another big one is the blood footprints to the laundry, sink and front door. All cleaned up :)

      As I said, this was an open and shut case and only became so big because of the documentary.

      I can't believe his daughters cant see through him though...he killed both their mums!!! Definitely some gaslighting in play there.

      Delete
  25. Zed(ley), it's always been meant affectionately, even when we were at odds. Sam, you're welcome here, and have nothing for which to apologize, certainly not to me. Ms. D...sorry I missed your drop-in, sorrier still you missed my profound aplogy. EG, as always I find much in your post with which I agree.

    Hope I haven't overlooked anyone; I took a bit of a vacation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. He killed the German friend so long ago, and got away with it, (the girls were just babies and they appear to be in their 20's in the Staircase special)so with no investigation he must have thought it would be forgotten. If he got away with a murder in that fashion, why not use it as a blueprint for another one. I think they mentioned that in the Staircase series.

    The head wounds were oddly shaped. Like the end of the blowpoke. Peterson would want to come up with something that could have caused them (other than himself using the blowpoke on her) so why not the talons of an owl. His story was they had been drinking out by the pool (in 50 degree weather at night) and she had taken valium, so she must have fallen going up the stairs. He later said it must have been an owl attack.

    They think Kathleen came to, tried to get up, slipped on her own blood (she had bloody feet) so he strangled her to finish her off.

    As you know Dr. Henry Lee was brought in by the defense who said some of the blood spray (including all the way up on the wall near the ceiling) was caused by Kathleen coughing up blood after her fall. Really preposterous but I think he has no shame when the paycheck is high enough.

    As for Peterson's first wife didn't she look like a battered wife to you? Not physically, but mentally. Or to use one of Doc's favorite terms - gaslit. And it seems to fit. Or she was still in love with him, would do anything for him, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  27. (For EG above). Zed may have followed this case closely too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry haven't got much time to reply right now. But he is 100% guilty....never been so sure of anything in my life. It is a travesty he only did 8 years in prison.

      And I was extremely disappointed with Henry Lee in this case....he was an embarrassment. Basically a well known figure hired paid big money to make a fool of himself in court. Werner Spitz was also involved as well, although did not testify in court.

      Also, MP continued to state that Kathleen knew he slept with men during their marriage. Yet, Kathleen left her previous husband because he was unfaithful. And in the last episode MP states how he wondered how Kathleen would have reacted if they spoke about his sexual exploits/homosexuality. Basically have him lieing on camera. He's just a vile human being.

      Delete
    2. Ps. As an example, Henry Lee spent AGES talking about her coughing up blood and that's why there was splatter on the walls (from her coughing blood). He even did a ridiculous re-enactment with ketchup. He spent ages talking about it and the documentary focused on it for half an episode. The prosecution nipped that in the bud in a matter of seconds....there was no blood found in her mouth. Zilch. The documentary conveniently left that out.

      Delete
  28. I did think about the fact that he got away with it once, why not try it again. However, that's a stretch for me. It would be like Drew Peterson drowning Stacy in the bathtub, as he did with his first wife. But maybe you're right in him thinking he had gotten away with it once why not again.

    As far as the weapon used, they said it was the blow poke, but then found it later on full of dust with no trace of blood on it. So where is and what was the weapon used? The marks on your head were proven to be lacerations but nothing that fractured the skull, am I correct?

    I do agree with you that he looks guilty as sin and has a strange way about him. I don't like that he had a double life with his internet sexcapades. I also don't like that his German friend was found dead on a staircase. I'd also like to see a weapon that could've made those markings on her scalp. And I want to know about the crushed cartilage. Is it something seen in strangulation or could it have happened another way?

    EG

    PS - Good to see you back, CC!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't remember if it was the Staircase or a youtube video of the second trial where he took the Alford Plea but the blowpoke Kathleen's sister gave her was kept by the fireplace but it was absent from pictures from the crime scene. Later on Peterson's son finds it in the garage covered in cobwebs and calls the lawyers. However Kathleen's sister says the blowpoke they brought into court was missing the TIP. Remember that? The tip of the blowpoke, brought down forcefully on someone's head, would have caused the "pronged" head wounds. There was just too much blood to be caused by a tumble down a flight of stairs. Did you notice how Peterson stumbled with the 911 operator when she said "how many stairs did she fall down?" Wow he didn't think of that. Most of the blood was concentrated and splattered as she would have headed up the stairs, not from any place further up. Same with the Ratcliff woman. If you are being hit over the head forcefully I imagine you would slip and fall on stairs.

    But beyond the horror of the brutal beating of two women the question is why. In particular why the Ratcliff woman? So that he could adopt her two children and raise them as his own? Was there any kind of insurance policy for which he would benefit? Or could it be that the Ratcliff woman found out something about Peterson and he flew into a rage. And since her husband was dead, Peterson stepped in as the logical father to raise the girls.

    ReplyDelete
  30. EG - I dont see it as a stretch. What other alternative could he come up with? As I said, once he attacked her, it was either stairs or intruder. Intruder was more risky. I dont believe this was premeditated....this occurred after Kathleen used the computer that night (a fact) and stumbled across his dark secret. I believe once he attacked her, he had to finish her off. There was also the $1.75 million insurance policy and they were struggling financially. She wasn't "intoxicated" like the defence claim, and the wine bottle mysmysteriously disappeared. There was evidence of wine being poured down the sink though....

    Anonymous - MP never adopted the two girls. He became their legal guardian. The difference? With the latter, a lot of money was involved.

    A lot of people think Margaret is MP's daughter as well. I mean, she looks exactly like him. Maybe Liz (the poor German woman) was going to tell MP's first wife about that?

    LE tried to get Margaret to take a DNA test and she flat out refused...which was strange. So they found a letter of hers and did a test on the stamp. It was negative. But they are not sure it was even her DNA they were testing.

    Back to EG....the blowpoke was probably not the weapon. The weapon was never found. There has been a lot of suggestions on what it could have been, but it's all speculation and to be honest, wasn't important to prove he did it. This was pretty much an open and shut case even without the weapon. Some people think Todd, the youngest son, came over before LE and took the weapon away though. It's also a large property on a lot of land....plenty of space to bury/hide a weapon. There was also blood found on the front porch and smeared on the front door...

    And of course there was evidence of someone cleaning up blood and bloody footprints were also cleaned up. Would an owl or intruder do that haha?

    The best part of the documentary is watching Kathleen's sister deliver her speech during the Alford plea. It was powerful and you could literally see MP die inside. Everyone in that room knew he was guilty, including his own defense team. And MP knew they knew.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You're right Zed. The German woman may have been arguing with Peterson about a secret they shared, one he didn't want known. Same with Kathleen. After finding his emails to "Brad" and a file of nasty pictures taken with male prostitutes she might have said more than I want a divorce.

    They were already in massive credit card debt, her company was not doing well, company stock prices had plummeted, she had wanted to sell the house previously but he wouldn't hear of it. She was becoming no longer useful to him in providing him with the livelihood he was enjoying. Would divorce have mattered that much to him? Maybe it mattered more to him that she would have told everyone what a fraud he was.

    I'll take a closer look at Margaret! Thanks for that tip.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Okay am playing devil's advocate here.

    Would a psychopathic murderer, take on the responsibility of two children that were not his own and raise them after killing their mother? There might have been "A lot of money" involved as Zed said, but there isn't enough money in the world for someone to take on that responsibility. It would require someone with a very big heart to do something like that AND that they loved him to the point of not even considering him a suspect speaks volumes.


    The blow poke was fairly heavy and I think they had proven that if used to bash someone in the head, would have fractured their skull. No? The weapon used caused lacerations but didn't fracture the skull. So what was it? And even if the tip was missing, wouldn't there have been traces of blood on the blow poke itself?

    As far as bloody footprints, MP did find her on the staircase, probably touched her to see if he could help her, gotten some towels, etc. So bloody footprints at the scene would be normal, no? If you found your wife bleeding on the staircase am sure you'd rush to help, no?

    I hadn't read about blood being cleaned up so will read further on that one.

    Very interesting case! So many ups and down, twists and turns.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes, blood was smeared with either paper towels or towels, along the bottom of the stairwell, so there was an attempt to minimize and clean up. During the first assault. He knew his son was coming home at a certain time so he would have had his help in disposing of the weapon used. I agree, it probably was not the blowpoke as more than the tip would have had traces of blood on it, although the tip was not found. I think Peterson removed his shoes for some reason. The tipping point if you will, is blood found on the inside of Peterson's shorts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. A wood-metal chip was found in Kathleen's scalp at autopsy. I had not heard about an owl feather. Also the paramedics reported that the blood all around her and on her had no "sheen" and was mostly dried. And there was a bloody sneaker print from Peterson's shoe on her back. Peterson's military record had also been rewritten by Peterson, the paperback writer. When it was discovered he had not won medals during the Viet Nam war his bid for local government official was quashed, much to the embarrassment of Kathleen who had supported him in his endeavors and thrown parties, etc., with her connections to help him win. One of many indications he was not what he seemed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. OFF TOPIC- BACK TO THE JONBENET CASE:
    I found this on Reddit and it is a great read- I totally agree with everything except the prior sexual molestation (author says there was none). What do you guys think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/95s2u1/zero_objectivity_in_the_jonbenet_ramsey_homicide/

      Delete
    2. I agree totally with the logic that is played out.

      Delete
    3. Of course you do. But then, you also propounded a cockamamie theory that included a RN left on the stairs by a mysterious intruder days before the murder, and his exit during a party through the front door . . . in the basement.

      Delete
  36. https://www.reddit.com/r/JonBenetRamsey/comments/95s2u1/zero_objectivity_in_the_jonbenet_ramsey_homicide/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link. Very interesting. Up to a point, the writer reveals some impressive insights with which I agree. JonBenet was NOT brutally assaulted, there were no defensive wounds on her body, no nailmarks on her neck (they were identified by the medical examiner as "petechial hemorrhages), and she was not strangled by a "garotte." Nor was there an intruder. So far so good.

      After a certain point, however, the writer veers off into completely unfounded speculations, the sort of thing that's already been discussed in great detail on this blog. He refuses to even consider the very strong evidence of prior molestation, preferring to go along with the highly unlikely scenario offered by the so-called "experts" from the highly controversial and fiercely contested CBS special. In a nutshell, while Burke might have had a motive (sibling rivalry) for assaulting his sister, it's impossible to see a motive for the parents covering for him in such a bizarre and disgusting manner.

      He goes wrong, as I see it, in the same way just about everyone else following this case goes wrong, in failing to critically examine the claim that John could not possibly have written the "ransom note." As I've argued so many times, here and elsewhere, once John is "ruled in," the case takes on a completely different cast and, imo, becomes almost ridiculously easy to solve.

      Delete
  37. New video of the Ramsey house!
    Disregard nonsensical story but the video was interesting- too bad its so blury!

    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2018/09/jonbenet-ramsey-ransom-note-holds-coded-clues-to-murder-mastermind/?jwsource=cl

    ReplyDelete
  38. That door frame looks like Burke took his "whittling" knife and poked holes in it

    ReplyDelete
  39. Re: JonBenet

    New wiki crime page, posted 9/24/18

    https://crimeola.com/jonbenet-ramsey-wiki-murder/

    there is also one for Burke

    nothing new, but does add current news, ie lawsuits

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. July 2018 entry on Burke

      https://crimeola.com/burke-ramsey-wiki-brother-jonbenet/

      Delete
    2. Thanks Lil. Besides the obvious there are a few things I'd forgotten. It seems that Burke is still sticking to his story he and his sister both received bikes for Christmas. That isn't true - JonBenet got a bike, Burke did not. Some say that was one of many resentments eating at Burke that day. Also he tells the therapist he thought his mother was "overreacting" when he hears her the morning of the 26th. Odd choice of words - his sister is missing (dead) and his mother is "overreacting"? Also didn't John say Burke was asleep? And last, later in life as an adult, he works out of home so he can "avoid being around other people." Why does he want to avoid being around other people? Because he's famous and doesn't want the hassle, or because he had and still has a social disorder despite two years of therapy as a child. Possibly more.

      Delete
    3. If Burke killed his sister in a jealous fit of rage because she received a bike and he didn't, why would he still be falsely insisting that he got a bike when all that does is point directly to his motive for killing her? If he indeed killed JonBenet because he didn't receive a bike, I imagine his lawyer would have advised him NOT to keep reiterating the bike story, and to never bring it up again. If anyone is lying about Burke receiving/not receiving a bike that Christmas, my guess is that person is John, for reasons yet unknown.
      Why do you consider the term "overreacting" to be an odd choice of words? It seems like the most obvious term for a nine year old boy - who, at the moment he heard his mother frantically looking for his sister in his room was completely oblivious to the circumstances - to use. He used that term to describe his thoughts in retrospect, thus it seems completely reasonable to me.
      John said Burke was asleep, but, as we now know, Burke admits he was merely *pretending* to be asleep, which is not an indication of guilt - again, he was only nine years old, and whenever I heard my parents arguing (which, incidentally, was a very rare occurrence in my house) I made sure not to interject myself into the discussion, and would stay as far away from the drama as possible. Burke, being relatively anti-social, appears to be the type of child who would have went out of his way to avoid conflict with others.
      Burke "avoids being around other people" because he is, quite clearly, socially awkward, perhaps even suffering from a mild form of Aspergers (which has only been speculated, but suffering from very mild Aspergers myself which was not diagnosed until quite late in life, I'm leaning towards this possibly being the case. I deliberately make choices that allow me to work alone - not because I am afraid of any skeletons in my closet being exposed - I simply do not perform terribly well in social situations, which I'm guessing is the case with Burke).

      Not one single thing you mentioned above is remotely suspicious, so I felt the need to respond. This kind of groundless speculation is what perpetuates the myths regarding the case, which only further complicates - otherwise uncomplicated - matters.

      Delete
    4. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, although you love to call it logical deductions. Being one month shy of 10 is he more 9 or 10? Yes, he was a child, but not a normal child. He was spreading feces on his bathroom walls as a much younger child, then later on his sister's candy box and in her bed.

      He did not, I speculate, kill his sister in a jealous rage. But there was no love lost between the two, mostly reinforced by an obsessive pageant mother who neglected her son in favor of her daughter and a neglectful father who put work ahead of family.

      He got his tales very mixed up on Dr. Phil. But the social worker's observations were more spot on than anything Burke might wish to tell us 20 years later on Dr. Phil.

      Delete
    5. Nine, ten...what does it really matter?! A child of that age would not have the smarts, or the life experience, to be able to successfully pull the wool over the eyes of trained homicide detectives, along with the child psychologists who were assigned to interview him, neither of which detected deception.

      Not a normal child? Who says he wasn't, and what qualifies as "normal"? Unless you can cite specific sources that directly link the smearing of feces with murderous behaviour in children, I'm inclined to believe it may actually not be all that uncommon (my brother did it as a kid, as did my nephew, both of whom never exhibited any psychopathic tendencies and grew to be completely normal, functioning members of society), especially for a child who is missing his sick mother who has been absent much of the past year enduring aggressive cancer treatment.

      As far as the feces on the candy box, no tests were ever conducted, therefore we cannot even ascertain it was feces to begin with, let alone assign it's origin to a specific donor.

      "Obsessive pageant mother who neglected her son in favour of her daughter"? Who says an "obsessive" Patsy neglected Burke - the tabloids? The amount of pageants Patsy had placed JonBenet in can be counted on two hands - hardly what I would consider a pageant "obsessive" mother, and there is no indication (other than hearsay) that the time Patsy spent on the pageants was ever at the expense of time spent with Burke.

      Again - you're just regurgitating more unsubstantiated claims.

      Delete
    6. And you are regurgitating what you want to believe, all of which is predicated on a false premise: that JR was molesting his daughter and then murdered her. I believe the Grand Jury got it right, that she was placed in a dangerous situation, and that both parents were neglectful. I don't have the true bill in front of me, but it's stated repeatedly elsewhere.

      He, Burke, had two parents to cover the crime for him. I sincerely doubt he knew of any note that they wrote and in fact I believe he was mostly kept in the dark as to what he had unintentionally done for a period of time, possibly so that he wouldn't and couldn't admit that he caused her death, for if he did then his parents would have been thrown under the bus for covering it up, altering the scene and "processing" a dead body.

      I don't see him as a psychopath, but a child that was disturbed all the same. Jealous, and was angered sufficiently on the night in question.

      Delete
    7. You seem to be suggesting, as many have, that Burke struck the head blow, and JBR's parents staged a failed kidnapping and strangled her in some sort of lame-brained coverup.

      It strains credulity. Two parents faced with an unconscious child with no visible wounds decide to kill her to "protect" their son? From what?

      How were they to know she had a head wound that was not survivable with prompt medical care? She was still breathing, still apparently viable. Why not call 911?

      And why stage an elaborate failed kidnapping and KILL THEIR CHILD, thereby risking the death penalty themselves? If for some idiotic reason they opted for a cover-up, why not do the obvious, and arrange her body at the foot of the stairs, then call for help?

      Leave the prior molestation aside, if that offends your sensibilities; regardless, this BDI theory still, again (and again), defies logic and common sense.

      Delete
    8. We don't know what kind of a scene the parents saw, or when. I would think if you saw your daughter with a cord around her neck and a blue tinge to her skin you might feel for a pulse and not finding one would want to know what happened before calling the police.

      Delete
    9. CC I agree that if Burke only hit JBR on the head the parents could have called 911 and claimed it was an accident etc. However, Burke also strangled and digitally penetrated JBR so how were they supposed to explain that? Hence the coverup.

      Delete
    10. Right on other Anonymous. Also her panties might have been around her ankles. Not exactly a purely silent murder. But for two neglectful parents, they wouldn't have heard a thing.

      Delete
    11. You're now suggesting that Burke not only hit her on the head, but strangled her as well? With a mock garrote? Seriously, this makes sense to you?

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

      Delete
  40. Steven Avery Update:
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6207487/Making-Murderer-2-Release-date-trailer-details-revealed.html
    Minnesota Linda

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_32171686/jonbenet-ramsey-case-files-subject-boulder-court-battle

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both CBS, et al. and Burke Ramsey have subpoenaed BPD investigative reports, though CBS has asked for 100,000 times more - smells like desperation on their part.

      There's little or no chance they'll get anything, as this is an open case and an ongoing investigation; the present DA has even formed a cold case squad, and JBR is on their list.

      Thanks, Anonymous.

      Delete

  42. JR did it alone is just as irrational as anything else and it is based on "probably molested." Right from the start it is based on no proof or evidence whatsoever and is quite a reach. In order to logically inference something it has to be based on fact to begin with. Basing it on PR making the 911 call is not a viable fact in which to point molestation, or logical for that matter.
    Its pretty obvious to most of us that PR told many lies and helped cover up this murder. You also have to explain away her fibers being everywhere and only her fibers. While they surely could have been transferable, we also have to take into account what is most likely. That answer is obvious. So while they can not be used as any sort of solid evidence in this case, they surely can used be in a case of COMMON SENSE.
    Her fibers and only her fibers are highly unlikely to transfer unto where they were without direct contact. Now if you uninvolve PR from having any part of this crime, thus including the lies, the fibers and a slew of other "circumstantial evidence" then you are not using the most likely, obvious, logical choice in theories. Does it mean that you are wrong ? No, it surely does not. What it does mean is that if you are trying to regurgitate and force the JR theory as if it is some type of solid, concrete, most likely theory, based on what you like to call "logical inferencing" then you are bat shit crazy.
    I can come up with 10 theories in this case that I can make completely plausible using what you call "logical inferencing" and I can make any suspect there ever was in this case look guilty.
    Claimimg the calls to Dr Beuf were the trigger to this murder seems to me to lack any common sense. PR made those calls and if she was suspicious of JBR being molested as you are claiming, then she had a good idea that it was going on and who it is, as she knows there are only a limited amount of ppl with that kind of access to JBR. It would become very obvious to PR after the murder, the motivation for it. You say she isnt dumb but a 6th grade dropout would piece this together. If YOU can piece it together, than PR, as insider has much more knowledge than you do, yet she just has no clue whatsoever? Ridiculous and impossible. Choice B, PR covers up and ignores a molester and child murderer who brutally killed her daughter and leaves and her son and her life in danger, sleeps and lives with this pyschopathic child murderer. The second of which is unheard of and completely impossible. There goes both of those theories right out the window....Next question ...

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

      Delete
  43. Secondly, the 911 call that all this inferencing comes from, there is very clearly something wrong with it and I picked up on it the first time I heard it. PR is clearly distancing herself from her daughter during that call. I dont need an expert to tell me that, however, experts that listen to these calls as a job are familiar with the proper wording that is used and they say the same.
    It may not be able to be used as evidence, but again it can be used as common sense.
    Certain people argue that it sounds legit and real enough.
    The same people argue the exact same thing about Darlie Routier's 911 call and I cant help but find you humorous. If you think it is normal to sit on the phone with your children stabbed and bleeding to death in the next room and alibi set about touching the knife used to do it with the 911 operator, while this is going on then something is clearly very very wrong. The ones here who think that call "sounds believable" and dont find anything wrong with it need to find something else to do other than play detective because they arent very good at it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Take a breath. Better, take a clear view of the facts. The child was sexually abused. So say many experts. I've no use for rationalizations about Patsy or Burke, or John for that matter. Bring me facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps most recall this small tidbit from the July ’97 issue of the Daily Camera – “Police noticed navy blue pillings - or fuzzy balls from cloth - on JonBenet's lower body, sources said. Investigators later found John Ramsey's dark-colored bathrobe on the floor of his home office next to a desk, sources said. Some of the police thought the pillings could have come from the robe, a source said.”

      I wonder whether they ever compared the fuzzy balls to JR’s bathrobe. I’ve never heard. JR’s story was that he carried JB upstairs, took her shoes off and left the rest to Patsy. At times it seems there are actually more details which the BPD has not shared. I didn’t catch a nexus to another fact until recently. Someone on another forum shared old DNA reports this year. Within those reports it was revealed that CBI did check JR’s robe for evidence, but all they found was his semen sample. I would have disregarded any import to this, and guess this can't be considered evidence of anything. But at a minimum if the pillings matched his bathrobe it does diminish his story of how he placed a "zonked" JB on the bed and went to help BR with a toy before retiring himself. -T

      Ms. D, good to see you. :)

      Delete
    2. Of course there are details the BPD has not shared. This surprises you?

      What's your point about the bathrobe?

      The only significant fibers were those from John's Israeli made shirt, found in his daughter's underwear.

      Delete
    3. A year after the 2000 interviews (when the black fibers were brought to our attention), Beckner is subpoenaed to testify in the Carnes case about hair and fibers. What ensues is interesting in that LW is cleverly linking a blue cotton sweater belonging to CW, to a possibility of consistency with the blue fibers found at the crime scene. (A bathrobe is never brought up.) Beckner is asked about blue cotton fibers and seems to initially respond with a little uncertainty but LW gets him to admit that to the best of his recollection the blue and brown fibers had not been sourced. (Of course, not that BPD had had them tested.)

      Beckner said in his AMA in 2015 that all the evidence had been made public, short of some non-essential material. I realize that speculating about evidence not yet released doesn’t move the needle. My point in bringing up the bathrobe is looking at altered behaviors. Such changes in patterns included that the older kids had spent a portion of their holidays previously at the Boulder home and that JR chose to spend 3 hours away from the home on Christmas day and also chose to not shoot any videos and only a couple of photos on Christmas morning. One can also see in the 1998 interview LE was interested in his behavior of handling his clothing.

      I’m not staking any “Aha” moment to the bathrobe, but I've noted that JR's clothing habits were documented by Patsy and by LHP. He hung up his clothes. The bathrobe was tossed into the corner on the floor near his desk upstairs, and the police questioned Patsy about it. I don't believe JR was surprised and dropped his bathrobe the morning of the 26th when Patsy called out. That's Patsy's story about the bathrobe, and I don't buy it. You know better than I do that cops notice when people alter their customary behavior.

      Delete
    4. Beckner also said, in that same AMA, that JBR had been chronically sexually abused, as did Thomas and Kolar in their books, yet many still do not believe it happened. It would strike me as highly unusual if the BPD did not hold something, some little tidbit, back.

      The bathrobe appears to me to be evidence of nothing, as neither John nor Patsy mentioned him wearing it the morning of the 26th. Christmas night, however, he was by all accounts wearing an Israeli-made shirt, and was fully dressed when he carried JBR upstairs from the car.

      When Kane attempted to question John about that shirt at the third interview, held in Atlanta, Wood cut him off by demanding that Kane produce the fiber analysis, and Kane could not . . . as it was in the BPD files in Boulder and not in his briefcase. Wood therefore would not permit his client to answer questions about it.

      There was a laundry chute from the third floor to the basement washer/dryer; maybe John just missed with the bathrobe. Sorry, I just don't see any forensic significance of anything here, not even a break in "customary behavior".

      Delete
    5. OK. You asked why I was interested in the bathrobe. I replied because it seemed to be out of his behavior pattern, according to PR and LHP. But I accept it may be insignificant. JR said in that interview from 2000 sometimes he would just toss laundry on the floor and not put it in the laundry chute. Who knows whether this is true or not. One of the things Doc has brought up before is that JR begins his “nattering” when he feels a point needs to be diminished with confusing alternative explanations.

      (Small point here - the chute went from the 3rd floor to the second floor, based on photos and diagrams of the home.)

      Delete
    6. Beckner did not say in his Q&A JB had been "chronically sexually abused." This term was used by Cyril Wecht. The term "chronic." What Bechner said in his Q&A was "we could not prove who was responsible for the prior abuse. Could it have come from someone outside the family who later returned to kill her?" Bechner was still leaving his options open apparently. Also leaving it open as to whether it was a one time occurrence or repeated.

      Delete
    7. "Chronic" was also used by the six medicos who found prior sexual abuse. Her hymen was eroded; erosion happens over time, with repetition. These are members of the panel engaged by the BPD in 1997, leaving no doubt Beckner was privy to their findings. Perhaps he chose to use shorthand in what he thought were remarks to a small group of laypersons.

      Beckner also said, as did the then-DA, that he knew who killed JBR, casting doubt on the idea that it was a faceless intruder.

      Delete
  45. In the interview where they bring up John's fibers in JBR's underwear, his lawyer asks for proof and the investigator backs off so it may not be true. Also if it is true the fibers could be there due to John redressing JBR when he and Patsy were staging the crime scene in the case of BDI.
    FY

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

      Delete
    2. The "investigator" was Mike Kane, a highly respected former prosecutor.
      Lawyers are not allowed to lie to elicit information.

      Delete
    3. Cops are, by the way. Prosecutors are not.

      Delete
  46. Hey, Pops, I just beat and strangled my sister after diddling her, for no rational reason whatever. A bike?
    Already had one. Pineapple? There's more in the fridge. Y'now, taking a break from my flying videos and Christmas online games. You'll like, fix it, right? You and Mummy?

    ReplyDelete
  47. No, I don't think anyone thinks that's how it went down. Things were escalating though. Three calls to Dr. Beuf in 30 minutes and she doesn't remember making them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. To those that are JRDIA two questions.
    1- How was John going to get the odor of decomposition out of his car and the basement after he got rid of the body the evening of the 26th?
    2- If JBR's body was found in the woods with Patsy's fibers and paintbrush in her wouldn't that point back to the family?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no presumptive test for the odor of decomposition (remember the Casey Anthony trial?). Cadaver dog evidence is not admissible in all courts.

      Regardless, it takes 8-12 hours for the odor of decomposition to be perceptible, one of the reasons the BPD thought time of death to be about 1:00 AM. Had John been successful in his plan to get Patsy and Burke out of the house early in the morning, that and a black plastic yard bag as a shroud would likely have been sufficient protection.

      Since the putative intruder used a family notepad and pen for the RN, perhaps John hoped the paintbrush handle would be seen as a similar tool of opportunity, or perhaps he would have removed it before dumping the body in the mountains.

      Fibers from family members in a shared home are meaningless.

      Delete
    2. And no, I do not omit John's shirt fibers from that description; though I find their location highly suggestive.

      Delete
    3. It was a single shirt fiber and it never existed as anything other than LE trying to get JR to admit to something, when he didnt it disappeared and is not listed in evidence nor was it ever sourced or tested, probably bc it never existed.
      Get youre facts straight CC.

      Delete
    4. Read the transcript of the third LE interview conducted by Mike Kane in Atlanta in 2000. Note that Kane offered to send Wood a copy of the fiber evidence analysis when he returned to Boulder, so apparently the shirt fiber was indeed tested.
      Again, while cops may lie about evidence to elicit information, prosectors may not.

      Delete
    5. And by the by,"not listed in evidence" - to what evidence list are you referring? I'd like to see such a thing, but unlike John's shirt fiber, it doesn't exist, at least not in any form made available to the general public.

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

      Delete
  49. I don't think we should start omitting anything. There were over 600 files collected pertaining to this case, they had everything they needed to take it to the Grand Jury, they reached a verdict, and Alex Hunter chose not to go forward. That's the travesty of this case. The ineptitude of town officials and state bureaucrats to present a case in court. They spent so much money tracking down false leads and false suspects no official since has wanted to spend the money and time to re-investigate. That's why this case is a "mystery." It's really not. They didn't need a handwriting "expert", they needed to separate these parents immediately and question them separately. Linda Arnt likes to think she did everything she could and has her "intuitions and perceptions" but did she? She let the suspects roam freely through out the house, handle the body, move the body, she moved it herself, she allowed the suspects to contaminate evidence and she yelled for someone else to call the police after the body was found. Unreal, the incompetence that just continued on and on for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is suggesting we omit anything; you misunderstand, Lou/Castor/Inq/Anonymous (your misspellings, syntax and ramblings are unmistakable).

      I was stating that I do not omit John's shirt fibers from my statement that forensic evidence found in a shared home is meaningless.

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

      Delete
  50. When you've a few free minutes, Inqy Dink, you can explain to me the following:

    How "state bureaucrats" had any involvement in "presenting a case" in Boulder County Circuit Court;

    How the BPD could NOT "spen[d] so much time and money tracking down false leads and false suspects" when (a) that was their responsibility, and (b) failure to do so would create a prima facie case of reasonable doubt had the case ever gone to trial;

    Your proof that "no official since" has investigated, though the case has remained open for 22 years; and

    Why you fault Linda "Arnt", the only officer on the scene after 1030 AM, for her inability to corral 7 people, and her choice to remain with the body, thereby following LE protocol.

    You can morph into all the identities you please, but you're still the same old uninformed Inq.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm under no obligation to answer you anything, you are insulting and condescending and think you know everything there is to know about this case. You've said before you would like to help teach people about the law, but you aren't teaching, you're using it to make others wrong and yourself right. The arrogant prosecutor. Look at this site. It's lost participants steadily for the last year, because you appointed yourself the guard dog of any theories that don't match up with your own. And just so you know, certified, trained cadaver dog evidence is most certainly used in court. And have been since 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  52. So . . . that means you have no explanations, right? I thought not.

    You give me too much credit. The available evidence and prevalent theories of this case have been discussed here, at great length, for six years. What's left to say, absent new information on Burke's defamation suit? You certainly raise nothing new.

    Cadaver dog evidence has been admissible for years, but like handwriting analysis and other non-science "evidence", it's admissibility in any particular case is utterly within the discretion of the individual trier of fact, hence my use of the term "not admissible in ALL (emphasis added) courts.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It is my opinion Inq that if you did not post wrong information CC would not jump all over you, as she has said before.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Waddup with all the names anyhow? Thats some sneaky shit.

    ReplyDelete
  55. http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_32225578/former-ramsey-case-da-cites-hawaii-trip-bid

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

      Delete
    2. Thanks, evie. I hadn't seen this. Seems to me to be still more evidence that CBS, et al. is flailing...and failing, since Hunter's contemporaneous public statements completely exonerated Burke as a suspect.

      How's it look from your side of the pond?

      Delete
    3. Hi CC, I'm still none the wiser, although it's clear John played some part in this. I just go back and forth.

      Delete
  56. Good morning, fellow sleuths!

    I hope everyone is doing well. I just finished watching Making a Murderer Part II and came away with a couple of thoughts I wanted to share.

    1. How does anyone look at the taped confession of Brendan Dassey and NOT think it was coerced?
    2. Zellner has come up with new evidence and is awaiting an "evidentiary hearing", I believe it's called? CC knows the lingo better than I.
    3. I can't help but think the 36.5 million dollar lawsuit has something to do with why these two are sitting in prison.

    Any thoughts? Care to discuss, debate, argue?

    EG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) I agree; Doc does not.

      2) An evidentiary hearing may include witness or other substantive information/testimony that supports the moving party's motion. I seriously doubt Zellner has "new evidence". She's a showboat, and a grandstander, looking for a (nother) cause.

      3) Possibly true, E. Courts do not like to be reversed, particularly when it involves big bucks.

      Doc and I went round and round about this case on this site years ago,and agreed to disagree. His comments will no doubt be more relevant than mine, as I have not kept up.

      HOW'S YOUR SON, E???

      Delete
  57. Hey CC,

    He is doing well and we are ever hopeful that a donor will come along in the near future so he can be done with the dialysis. In the meantime, he is leading a full and productive life and I am thankful for that. Thank you SO much for asking.

    Re: Avery case - There is just SO much to chew on here. Zellner has brought up, what I think anyway, is some significant evidence. In addition to that evidence, she has also claimed that his defense team didn't receive full disclosure of certain evidence.
    If that isn't enough, she shows where there easily could have been three other men that could've done it, casting doubt.
    Also, numerous other points that should get Avery an appeal and a retrial.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  58. I'm aware this is not a political site, but a group of people interested in justice. As such, it would be remiss of us not to take note of the hate, long-fostered, and the hate crimes arising therefrom perpetuated in the past seven days in this country, particularly as our host is a resident of Pittsburgh.

    Words matter, people. Let's use them judiciciously, and with heightened awareness (and I do not except myself).

    God bless all those who're suffering from their ill effects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you CC. I wanted to say it but did not have the right words.

      Delete
  59. Amen to that, CC!

    Way too much hate in this world today! Prayers to the family and friends of those touched by these tragic events.

    EG

    ReplyDelete
  60. One of my city's temples, Temple Beth - El will be having a memorial service tonight for the victims in Pittsburgh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's great, Lil. I hope you had a chance to attend. If not, and for anyone interested in actually turning out against hate, there's another chance, nationally, this Friday-Saturday. Check out #ShowUpForShabbat.

      I was especially moved by the Muslim group in Squirrel Hill which has raised hundreds of thousands for the victims' families in the last few days.

      Now there's a lesson in faith and love.

      Delete
  61. Doc - have you had the chance to watch Making a Murderer Part 2?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zed,

      Have you watched it? I recently did and found it pretty interesting. What do you think?

      EG

      Delete
    2. I found it intolerably boring to watch all the way through, so I just skimmed it. It's essentially Kathleen Zellner practically from start to finish, so the pro-Avery bias is pretty obvious. In the first installment they at least made some effort to represent the prosecution viewpoint, but in the sequel they let their bias completely take over and gave Zellner her head. She appears throughout with various "experts" who, of course, reinforce her own extremely distorted view of the evidence. It's not difficult for lawyers to find such "experts" to blow smoke and dredge up red herrings, we see this time after time in even the most open and shut case. Zellner is a pro when it comes to this sort of nonsense. I didn't notice any attempt on the part of the filmmakers to find other "experts" who could offer second opinions but maybe I missed something. Especially telling is the switcheroo she manages to perform, first claiming the killer was Halbach's boyfriend, then settling on two of Avery's relatives.

      It's all very sad, because if there has ever been a more open and shut case than this one I've never heard of it. A good lawyer would have advised Avery to cop a plea from the start, and since he'd already done time as an innocent man, that time would probably have been subtracted from his sentence. Instead he's in for life.

      Both documentaries focus on the admittedly heavy-handed police interviews of Brendan Dassey, but the really damning testimony came prior to those interviews, when he confessed to his cousin, who reported this info to her school counselor and then provided her with a signed affidavit. She later recanted, but her about face was clearly under extreme duress, as she'd obviously been influenced by family pressure. She had no explanation for why she would have "lied" and it should be obvious to any objective observer that her initial report was accurate. That in itself should have been enough to convince any jury of Avery's guilt -- but I didn't notice any reference to it in the new series -- maybe I missed that too.

      Dassey's confession to his cousin was the reason why he was brought into the case in the first place. I've never seen anyone provide a reason why the police would even try to involve Brendan in such an elaborate testimony if they had nothing on him at all.

      The whole case is very very sad, but also very troubling when one realizes how easy it is to convince so many people that black is white and 2 plus 2 don't equal four. And also how easy it is for charlatan's like Zellner to find so many ways to blow smoke with the aid of hired "experts."

      Delete
    3. Hi EG/Doc

      Sorry for the late reply.

      I will keep this short and sweet. I echo Doc's statements completely.

      Zellner enjoyed being on camera way too much.

      Some of the new evidence was laughable. She has people sneaking into Avery's house to get blood from the sink that he just happened to leave in there after shaving. I mean, come on.

      Such an open and shut case.

      Guilty.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, just got back here to read this.

      Doc/Zed - I don't think I am easily convinced of anything. In fact, just the opposite which is why I have trouble finding someone guilty without having been presented with all of the evidence. If I served on a jury and put away someone for life and then later found out that evidence was either hidden or withheld, I'd be very pissed off.

      I watched it awhile ago now, but there were several points that Zellner brought up that I found to be valid and should be given a second look, at the very least.

      A major point that I remember was that she was cuffed to the bed and attacked there. Yet there was no blood anywhere? How is that possible? How is it possible that a room was searched thoroughly by police and yet no keys were found and then voila'! They're found on what--the third or fourth search?

      Anyone watching that taped confession can see it was coerced. They fed that kid the answers. I have trouble with that and it doesn't sit well with me.

      We all know that Avery is a shady character along with his cousins and their perverted and deviant sexual fantasies however, when putting a person away for life there needs to be a full and thorough investigation and all of the evidence needs to be put forth.

      And lastly, you both are probably right and they are probably as guilty as sin. Admittedly, I do tend to over analyze and believe in leaving no stone unturned and get caught up in the minutia of things. But geez...life sentences, death sentences. Those decisions weigh heavily and we better get them right.

      EG



      Delete
  62. I hope it is o.k. to ask a JonBenet question.

    John was described as a loving father by Melinda Ramsey who denied that he had ever sexually abused her. How does that fit with the theory that John sexually abused and killed Jonbenet?

    ReplyDelete
  63. DOC,
    Can we start a new topic/thread about the Jonbenet case? I know there is not much happening except for the lawsuit but I am sure people still have alot to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is still room here on this thread. What is it you want to discuss.

      Delete
  64. The case has been made here that John's abuse of JBR was situational. Doc has a search bar on the blog home screen - you might try it to see past discussions, quoted studies.

    I'm with latest Anon. There's plenty of space on this thread. If you have a new, interesting topic or insights on an old one, by all means, let's discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Has Doc ever reached out to Linda Arndt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does it matter, Inq/Castor/Lou/Anon? Her interviews and deposition transcripts are available, and unenlightening. You've been harping on Arndt for quite some time - to what end?

      Please stick to facts, rather than opinions - yours or hers - in your reply.

      Delete
    2. Sorry if it's a touchy subject or whoever those people are have beaten it to death. Just was reading PMPT again and it stinks that she felt she got a raw deal with the police, and her ABC interview is the one thing in the normiesphere pointing to John as the perp.

      Delete
    3. ". . . her ABC interview is the one thing . . . pointing to John as the perp."

      Arndt's "nonverbal exchange" with John while crouched over JBR's body is not a pillar upon which Doc's theory is based, as you seem to imply.

      Before you waste too much sympathy on Arndt's "raw deal with the police", bear in mind that she also refused to file police reports, hid her case notes from her superiors, avowed she had no recollection of the events of the 26th, had improper contact with the Rs while still a police officer, and claimed Barbara Fernie was stalking her.

      I assure you, Linda Arndt does not enter into the JDI conclusion.

      Delete
  66. CC, Can you share your legal opinion on something mentioned in the GJ Indictments. There are two mentions of Child Abuse, once in True Bill Count IV (a) and once in Count VII. It’s Count VII which some Colorado attorneys have analyzed that one or both of the Rs were covering up for the person who was suspected of committing Murder in the First Degree and Child Abuse resulting in Death.

    By the language in Count VII, it’s further interpreted that BR was responsible. However, I’ve always had a problem with the Child Abuse part of that Count VII and its linkage to BR. If the GJ was insinuating an assault on the part of a minor, wouldn’t they have used the term assault vs. Child Abuse? I’m confused. And I realize Colorado law seems to indicate that although an Infant (a child under 10) lacks intent for committing a crime and cannot be convicted of such, it doesn’t mean that the Infant might not have been the responsible party. I’ve always thought that the charge of Child Abuse inferred someone in a position of responsibility toward the child. I’d like to hear your explanation.

    We will be subjected to more analyses of the crime and the True Bills this fall, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good, insightful questions, Anon. In order to answer equally thoughtfully, I'll need to get on Lexis/Nexis at the office, research Colorado law. Though I went to CU School of Law back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I never took that state's bar exam.

      I can tell you that a child of 9 cannot be charged with a crime and tried in criminal court. Rather, he would be charged with a "delinquency", and be subject to something called "adjudication", and likely be remanded for rehabilitation.

      This has always seemed to me to suggest that the very language of the true bills makes it clear the jurors were not referring to Burke.

      Delete
  67. Wasn't saying she did factor into Doc's theory. You left out "in the normiesphere" which changes what I said completely. I mean among the usual books and mainstream media concerning the Ramsey case, where it's usually between the absurd intruder, the absurd Patsy did it, or the absurd Burke did it, the one exception in favor of JDI seems to be Arndt's GMA interview.

    Also, I'm sure you know better than I do, but in the interest of truth if others new to the case read this, she says she realized John was the perp when he came up the stairs with JonBenet, not just during the "nonverbal exchange". She seems to say that just solidified it, and that she feared he was contemplating whether to reach for her gun. Indeed, it is a travesty how most get so lost in the note (yet aside from Doc, none of them give a reason for its existence) that they don't realize that Patsy called police and John knew where the body was hidden.

    And yes, as you say, there is a lot about her which seems a bit odd - PMPT mentions her telling Steve Thomas she forgot everything about the 26th, and in her deposition she says Barbara Fernie was stalking her, though the above has me inclined to forget that. I have never really had a convincing picture in my mind's eye of what was going on in that house such that John could get lost for an hour, or whatever it was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for clearing up "normiesphere". I'm pretty ancient, don't tweet or do social media, so a lot of the current jargon is lost on me.

      I hate to support John in even the smallest way, but Arndt may have overreacted to how he carried his daughter up those stairs. Full rigor renders a body, quite literally, as stiff and rigid as a board - even had he wanted, I don't see how he could have cradled her, or handled her in any kind of tender way.

      I think we've all struggled to grasp what went on in that house that morning...welcome to the club.

      Delete
  68. After years of reading this blog with its sub-topics and commenters' divergent opinions, I recently went back and simply re-read the first two posts as recommended by DocG at the beginning of this site.

    In doing so it hit me more starkly than ever before how simple the answer to this case really is.

    Like the deceiving calm in the eye of the hurricane, the center of this storm lives out his remaining days within the chaos he created, weirdly protected by it.

    Sometimes I stop and feel very sorry for Patsy whose brain endured a supernova-like explosion upon her discovery of those three pieces of paper cleverly placed at the foot of the stairs that one person knew she would descend that morning. The magnitude of all that happened before and after, including the lack of justice for the killer, is overwhelming.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete
  69. Not only did the killer know that Patsy would descend those stairs to the kitchen that morning, he knew that she would do that before going into the children's rooms to get them up. (Though Patsy reportedly may have briefly looked into JonBenet's room on the way down to the kitchen that morning).

    He wanted the earliest possible discovery of JonBenet's "kidnapping" so as to get her body out of the house, in the dark, that morning of the 26th.

    Leaving the phony ransom note on the stairs instead of in JonBenet's bed (as a real kidnapper would have done with a real ransom note) dovetails with the passage in the phony ransom note in which John's leaving the house with the plenty-sized "attache" (a foreign word chosen to avoid using the word "suitcase" or "briefcase" or any other derivative of the word "case", which precipitated the necessary "foreign faction" doing the kidnapping) while "being monitored" by the kidnappers, would achieve the proffered earliest "pick-up" of his daughter from the hands of the kidnappers (notice the revelatory thoughtful crossing out of the word "delivery" in favor of "pick-up" to leave no doubt that John was being instructed to go somewhere away from the house to retrieve his daughter as opposed to awaiting any delivery of her back to or near the house).

    "I'll call and get [blank] to let me into the bank early"...or..."I'll find someone with the cash, whatever it takes..."

    Whatever was the conversation before the 911 call that morning, it didn't work.

    Black Sheep

    ReplyDelete