tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post5924350895586763968..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Why John?DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger254125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-68916142119633220972016-12-20T21:22:31.181-05:002016-12-20T21:22:31.181-05:00JR is guilty. All roads lead me back to him. I fin...JR is guilty. All roads lead me back to him. I finally was able to see a handwriting sample of his and I knew instantly that he had indeed wrote the ransom note. I truly do not know what PAtsy's involvement was or if she knew.....a part of me thinks she knew but how? I have always thought it was some kind of ritual of death. aliasapologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155546563767001836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-74844881650653455282016-11-18T19:54:05.693-05:002016-11-18T19:54:05.693-05:00I don't think there was actual irrefutable evi...I don't think there was actual irrefutable evidence of ongoing sexual abuse. It seems that this has been disputed by experts, and many believe that the only sexual abuse is what occurred on the night JonBenet was killed. That is, the use of the paintbrush. <br /><br />Nevertheless, it's possible for a man to sexually abuse a child without there being any signs of it at all. I have to say that prior to reading this blog, I'd never thought of John Ramsey as the killer of his daughter. I did always think that he came across as very odd in his interviews, but I put that down to his being disconnected from his emotions. <br /><br />Since reading this blog, I've gone back to look at John Ramsey's interviews again, and I see them in a whole new light. I think it's definitely possible that he is the killer. His own disposition now strikes me as one of avoidance. I understand that he is an (was) an Alpha male, and a CEO and that these types of men don't usually openly display emotion; but even given his type of personality, the lack of emotion in his eyes is astounding. It's almost as if he's talking about the rise and fall of the stock market, as opposed to the death of his child. On the other hand, Patsy seems emotionally connected at every point, even when she's drugged out. I mean, if this happened to my daughter and I had access to valium, I think I'd take a whole bottle. The overuse of sedatives makes sense when you consider what this poor women was going through. I don't see why that should discredit her in any way. And for most of Patsy's interviews, she is not drugged and often quite angry. Again, I find that a believable response to the entire situation. I'd be fuming if I was in her position. She clearly has nothing to do with the death of her child. <br /><br />I know that certain types of people can cut off from tragedy more easily than others, however, it's not usually the case when they're dealing with their own family. That is why surgeons are not allowed to operate on any family members; it causes them to lose that objectivity and calm. However, I've never seen John Ramsey lose his apparent objectivity and calm, and to me that is simply unbelievable for any human being. <br /><br />Of course one cannot convict another person according to their behaviour, so I'm not prepared to say that John is 100% guilty. However, I do think that the theories of DocG make more sense than just about anything I've read. It makes sense of the ransom note, the broken window; in fact the whole way the story panned out. I still have trouble seeing John Ramsey as a child molester, however. I wonder if it was a case where he lost control with JonBenet out of anger. After all, a character like his would have a lot of repressed anger, and I imagine children (with their liveliness and lack of control, regardless of how well behaved) would have been challenging for a control freak like John Ramsey. Maybe he just got very angry with JonBenet, and hit her over the head too hard with an object, and then the set out to cover for himself with the rest of the story as described by DocG. I do think this is another possible scenario. Then again, it's amazing just what type of men do turn out to be child molesters, so anything is possible. <br /><br />I think we do need to be careful not to 100% condemn John Ramsey as the perpetrator, without him going to trial and having the full benefit of a legal case. But I agree with DocG that there is enough reason to take John Ramsey to trial. Muriel from Downunderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07894333850118853586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-73929264390377430522016-10-04T02:16:24.032-04:002016-10-04T02:16:24.032-04:00Very smart thoughts above! Thanks!Very smart thoughts above! Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-71423596022155776402016-09-28T21:57:28.591-04:002016-09-28T21:57:28.591-04:00Could you please expand on your note: "Someon...Could you please expand on your note: "Someone attempting to frame Patsy or John would not have written the note in his own hand (disguised or not), but attempted a forgery." What do you mean, please, by "attempted a forgery". (I have reason to suspect a neighbor - after watching many shows on this case.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-30142942932113292192016-09-19T08:27:34.731-04:002016-09-19T08:27:34.731-04:00Has any one watched the dr Phil interviews with Bu...Has any one watched the dr Phil interviews with Burke? it seems interesting and I don't think he was involved but he saw something. For sure. I have absolutely no doubt of it. Also investigation ID aired a 3 part special and actual interrogation tapes are included. It would be interesting Any new conclusions that may have been drawn. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-36966906772336257422016-09-17T22:34:40.511-04:002016-09-17T22:34:40.511-04:00You raise a very interesting point that has not ye...You raise a very interesting point that has not yet to my knowledge been considered. Some intruder scenarios are so complicated and convoluted they can easily be dismissed out of hand. But the possibility you've raised, of someone stalking the family over time, lifting the pad from the kitchen, taking it home, and using it to concoct a phony ransom note just for kicks is not easily dismissed, no.<br /><br />I had roughly similar second thoughts myself at one point. As I wrote in a much earlier blog post (see http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-case-against-john-ramsey.html):<br /><br />"For some time after my epiphany, I was nevertheless troubled by the thought that some key piece of evidence could be missing, that, however unlikely, an intruder or intruders may have somehow entered the house after all, leaving no trace, possibly with a key, and left the note and the body for reasons of their own that I couldn't fathom. Despite my growing conviction that my theory explained all the strange "mysteries" of this case, there was always the possibility I could be wrong, and was pointing the finger of suspicion at an innocent man.<br /><br />However, with the release of the police files, containing transcripts of all the Ramsey interrogations, it became crystal clear John was either hedging or lying outright about many key aspects of the case in a manner that removed all doubts."<br /><br />Thus, while it might seem possible that some intruder with motives and methods never considered by anyone following this case could have committed this crime, when we look closely at John's testimony, revealing so many half truths, misdirections and outright lies, it becomes clear, to me at least, that John is the person we seek, and there could have been no intruder.<br /><br />For details see the remainder of that post, titled "The Case Against John Ramsey." DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-81566055898602628222016-09-17T18:56:47.833-04:002016-09-17T18:56:47.833-04:00Watching Dr. Phil and the other docudrama on this ...Watching Dr. Phil and the other docudrama on this week has me super confused about how I feel about certain family members in this saga. One thing I never waver on is the disgust I feel for the BDI theory. And to see him give his first public interview and to know how nervous he must have felt, only to have members of the public point fingers at him for smiling and acting creepy. As "they" put it!<br /><br />I do wonder about the possibility of someone making regular entry into the home and enjoying the thrill of being in the home and possibly taking items (perhaps paper and pen) only to become more bold with each entry. Theoretically, if there was an intruder, this person could have been jealous of JBR's relationship with her parents and their lack of a concrete relationship with the little girl. Some people enjoy toying around in homes that don't belong to them. For instance, men who sneak into women's homes and try on their underwear, each time growing more bold. Maybe it was never meant to be a kidnapping/murder to begin with but evolved over time as this person needed to raise the bar to increase the thrill with each entry to the home. This could help to explain some of the disjointed pieces of evidence. <br /><br />This could have been someone stalking the family by way of being in their home and then the attention was turned to JBR. Was there a statement around the house with the amount of JR's bonus? I would think there would be. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-78188066791081047532016-09-16T03:15:11.909-04:002016-09-16T03:15:11.909-04:00who was the woman from Greeley who called the Rams...who was the woman from Greeley who called the Ramseys, saying she knew the family of the housekeeper, and they would not leave him alone with a young female family member?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52904678941866280852016-09-15T23:12:36.089-04:002016-09-15T23:12:36.089-04:00I think those marks could be bruises inflicted by ...I think those marks could be bruises inflicted by objects lying on the floor as she collapsed after having been clubbed. It's also possible there was a struggle prior to the clubbing. The stun gun is a fantasy concocted out of thin air by Lou Smit, desperate to find some intruder evidence where none existed.<br /><br />As for the tape and cord, it seems likely they were just items left in the house by workmen or found among Xmas gift detritus. All the tape and cord was probably used in the staging, which would explain why none remained.<br /><br />I can't imagine an intruder bothering to stuff rolls of tape and cord into his pants before leaving. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-9201878316564656062016-09-15T18:35:31.035-04:002016-09-15T18:35:31.035-04:00DocG, this is so amazing. Having done some intern...DocG, this is so amazing. Having done some internet investigative work for a few P.I.'s I believe in sticking to the facts as known go a long way in putting together scenarios when it all appears to be a mystery. I agree that it pretty much has to be JR who was the killer. There is something that bothers me however. What could have caused the unusual marks on her cheek and shoulder. The marks LS thinks were made by a stun gun? Also where would John have stashed some of the materials used in commission of the crime, a glove, roll of duct tape, etc.? Thank you Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-40187487865151229232016-08-23T11:45:04.962-04:002016-08-23T11:45:04.962-04:00I am of the belief that the crime was pre-meditate...I am of the belief that the crime was pre-meditated and one reason could be that John knew he wasn't in control of his urge to commit incest and the only way he felt he could stop was to take JB out of the picture. Part self-preservation and part disgust by his urge to molest his daughter. JB being dressed in those costumes was equivalent to a cat-call for JR. <br /><br />He had to stop JB so he could stop himself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-44395625594595719632016-08-22T23:05:46.825-04:002016-08-22T23:05:46.825-04:00I agree that nobody was out to get John bc if they...I agree that nobody was out to get John bc if they were, they wouldn't have pinned the ransom note on Patsy. What "foreign faction" could know intimate details of JR's bonus, phrases his wife has used in the past (grow a brain), as well as be able to mimic PR's handwriting? <br /><br />Foreign factions don't sneak into homes to enjoy tea and fruit with the children while the parents are asleep upstairs. <br /><br />The pineapple evidence is some of the best evidence in this case bc it was overlooked by the killer in his haste and is not in line with how a foreign faction ( in Boulder, of all places)would conduct a professional operation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-23870570293197192652016-08-22T22:39:24.932-04:002016-08-22T22:39:24.932-04:00I will never understand how anyone thinks it makes...I will never understand how anyone thinks it makes more sense that the Ramseys staged a sexual assault and murder to cover for a 9 year old. If people actually believe they could be capable of that then it is even more logical to think one of them could be capable of the actual murder. If this were some accident by Burke then a parent would, at the very least, attempt some type of CPR as a last ditch effort to save their child. I know of no saliva matching Patsy or John's profile to have been found around her mouth. And if you were going to try to do CPR, it makes sense to remove the ligature from around her neck first. This was NO cover up... <br /><br />I believe the pineapple was a chance for the perp to stall for more time with JB while working up the nerve to commit a nefarious act. What child wakes up in the middle of the night, especially on Christmas, to have a snack? Children are completely exhausted from the excitement of Christmas. She was never put to bed, imo.<br /><br />I choose to think she was lured to stay and eat a snack to allow the perp some extra time. A man would grab sterling silver flatware for her to eat with, not a woman. Women pay better attention to care for the finer items in the home and are less likely to leave a SS spoon in an acidic fruit to tarnish. <br /><br />I absolutely believe the perp intended to kill JB and that this crime was planned out of fear of being exposed by JB for what was really going on in the home.<br /><br />I simply cannot imagine family just accepting her death so easily and staging a sexual assault if they weren't also capable of being one of the perpetrators themselves.<br /><br />Non-pedophiles don't commit pedophilia, real or staged. It's a sickening thought. Something you couldn't fathom doing under any circumstance.<br /><br />The ransom note was penned to divert attention away from the family and towards someone who had a bone to pick with John. Patsy isn't going to write a ransom note in her own handwriting and call the police so she can become suspect number 1. The person who wrote that note likely felt that nobody would possibly suspect that Patsy assaulted and murdered her daughter so it was safe to pin the note on her.<br /><br />If there was no intruder then it only leaves one person, the person who knew he would be the likely suspect in the minds of others.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-14719357227408958832016-07-29T10:01:56.149-04:002016-07-29T10:01:56.149-04:00Here's what Thomas wrote:
"In the sunroo...Here's what Thomas wrote:<br /><br />"In the sunroom, Patsy Ramsey examined a second-generation photocopy of the ransom note, a smeary version that showed little more than the dark printed words. Rather than commenting on the words and content, she told one of her friends that the note was written on the same kind of paper she had in her kitchen. Police would wonder how she could tell, since they saw no similarities."<br /><br />Well, obviously she could tell because she had already seen the original, which was indeed printed on a notepad from the house. Thomas takes every opportunity he can to cast suspicion on Patsy, and this "observation" is typical. <br /><br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-67947017828687282752016-07-29T02:48:45.142-04:002016-07-29T02:48:45.142-04:00Doc,
I'm reading Steven Thomas's book fo...Doc, <br /><br />I'm reading Steven Thomas's book for the first time. I believe that you said that it was a rare finding by an investigator that the ransom note was written from Patsy's legal pad and it may very well have been overlooked. <br /><br />It says in the book, however, that Patsy told one of her friends that the note was written on the same paper she had in the kitchen. Police found this odd since they saw no similarities. <br /><br />So what story is true? Because this sure makes Patsy seem guilty and I believe JDI.Zachary Feinerman https://www.blogger.com/profile/11158832649910967301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-68766425474205895792016-07-29T00:56:34.790-04:002016-07-29T00:56:34.790-04:00That's an interesting theory. But as I see it,...That's an interesting theory. But as I see it, John's primary motive was self preservation. I'd say he was indifferent to how Patsy would feel rather than motivated to hurt her. But who knows what his motive was. Maybe some day he'll confess. Maybe he's innocent after all. We may never know for sure.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-66409162292120656082016-07-28T20:05:10.903-04:002016-07-28T20:05:10.903-04:00Except for John. I meant John. :) John was that ...Except for John. I meant John. :) John was that someone who had such a motive and ruined Christmas and hurt Patsy.<br /><br />-HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-72189421447908611842016-07-28T18:12:21.549-04:002016-07-28T18:12:21.549-04:00Someone with such a motive would have had no reaso...Someone with such a motive would have had no reason to write a ransom note, much less pen one while inside the house of his or her victim.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-54181354260605502682016-07-28T14:42:22.601-04:002016-07-28T14:42:22.601-04:00It is very obvious to me that someone wanted to hu...It is very obvious to me that someone wanted to hurt Patsy. All of the focus has been on John and John's focus, himself, has been on John. The narrative has always been that "someone wanted to get back at John" either, because of jealousy or a business-partner gone wrong scenario. The pushed, manufactured narrative is removed from the truth, which is precisely why this case is so confusing and chaotic. Nothing is as it seems. What's that old saying?...if there is chaos and confusion everywhere, a sociopath is at the helm. <br /><br />The reality is that Christmas was Patsy's favorite holiday. The reality is that JonBenet was Patsy's favorite person. The reality is that Patsy loved Christmas, and she loved her daughter, JonBenet. She went all-out for Christmas. It was her favorite thing. She went all-out for JonBenet. She was her favorite thing. There was nothing too expensive, nothing too elaborate. She loved the holidays. She received great joy from Christmas and her activities related to Christmas, and she received great joy from JonBenet and her activities related to JonBenet. <br /><br />Somebody wanted to break Patsy. That's what sociopaths and narcissists and psychopaths do. They hurt people. They can't receive the same joy from holidays and children and festivities, so they ruin the good time for everyone else. Somebody wanted to hurt Patsy. Nobody was "out to get John." He was a shallow, emotionally oblivious narcissist. <br /><br />-HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52695525361342598342016-07-12T18:50:29.652-04:002016-07-12T18:50:29.652-04:00Just thinking off the top of my head, here, and pr...Just thinking off the top of my head, here, and probably as I'm no special snowflake this has been discussed before...<br /><br />Just starting to read up on this case in detail, and I'm wondering if:<br /><br />Ramsay parents have nothing to do with the murder;<br />Son has nothing to do with the murder:<br />Parents assume son HAS done something and perpetrates a cover-up to protect their son.<br /><br />Murderer was an intruder and murder location is not in the basement.<br />Father/Mother discovers JonBenet in a different location (her bedroom?), assume son is involved (perhaps a history of inappropriate interaction between son and daughter), move JonBenet to the basement, write the ransom note, call 911, case progresses as a kidnapping then a homicide. Location of JonBenet etc. is now a red herring. Son is moved to relatives and protected as parents think son is guilty (but he isn't). Unidentified intruder is the murderer.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-54304261102717009152016-07-10T23:35:50.605-04:002016-07-10T23:35:50.605-04:00“Had PR ever suspected John of molesting JBR prior...“Had PR ever suspected John of molesting JBR prior to her demise that would have sent very clear and obvious bells off to PR and there is no way she would have let JR off the hook and slept next to him for the next 10 years.”<br /><br />There are wives who stay:<br /><br />Marilyn VanDerbur Atler’s mother<br />Dottie Sandusky<br />Laurie Fine – wife of coach Bernie Fine<br /><br />Patsy Ramsey? - A woman who thought she’d die of cancer and leave a child who would need support. Who knows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-50697496557664859622016-07-09T17:51:59.742-04:002016-07-09T17:51:59.742-04:00From anonymous above:
Couldn't Burke have ove...From anonymous above:<br /><br />Couldn't Burke have overheard them discussing having found a note, and said "what did you find?" And isn't it possible that a distraught parent might say "we are not talking to you?" Rude, yes. But John could have already been agitated. Possibly, he was agitated that Patsy had already called 911. So, assuming Burke was awake, and they sent him back to his room and made him be quiet, I still don't see how that adds up to definite proof that both Patsy and John were involved, and further, involved in a coverup of something Burke did. <br />"<br /><br />Excellent point! IF Burke is, indeed, on that 911 recording, this is a good explanation of what he said and what the Ramseys said to him. Even if he is on the tape, it doesn't convince me for a second that he was involved in this crime. If he were responsible for the death of his sister and his parents were covering up for him, why on earth would they send him off with friends that morning where he could talk to others without the supervision of one or both of his parents by his side at all times?? And why on earth would they have sent him back to school so quickly?? If he had something to do with this crime, wouldn't you think they'd keep a very tight rein on him? After all, he was only 9 years old and could easily have had a meltdown and spilled the beans. Actually, because he was only 9 is another reason I believe he had no part in any of this. He simply was too young and frail to do those things to JonBenet. This is not to say that all 9-years olds are angels. But there is no history of previous behavior that makes Burke a psycho kid with very aggressive, sadistic tendencies. He was just a normal kid that liked to play with his legos.<br /><br />Burke is innocent. Now he may have witnessed some odd things between JonBenet and his dad, but whether he remembers those things or ever speaks of them, is yet to be known.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-22296762626469799262016-07-09T09:40:05.572-04:002016-07-09T09:40:05.572-04:00You make some excellent points. But I find it diff...You make some excellent points. But I find it difficult to believe John would have taken the huge risk of threatening Patsy, which would have been tantamount to a confession of guilt.<br /><br />The dynamic you invoke makes sense to me only if it works on a subconscious level. In other words, John could have found it especially easy to "brainwash" Patsy into going along with his story because deep down she knew how much she depended on him and his legal team defending her, not to mention the "fact" of his having been "ruled out." This in itself would have worked against any lingering suspicions she might have had. It would have been easier for her to convince herself that she actually did clean up that glass than to risk a confrontation with him over it.<br /><br />I agree that intimidation was involved, but it's much easier to understand if it operated on a subconscious level. Which is what gaslighting is all about.<br /><br />I'll repeat what I've said earlier: if Patsy were consciously lying, she would not have included Linda in her story. So the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she believed she had actually cleaned up that glass, and since Linda would have helped her, she included her in the story.<br /><br />The threat to my theory, of course, is the implication that the two of them were in it from the start, so she backed up his story as part of their mutual plot. But that's completely inconsistent with everything else we know about this case, especially what we know about the 911 call made while the body of the "kidnap" victim is lying in the basement. That call would not have been made if the two of them were plotting together to stage a kidnapping, for reasons I've made crystal clear several times on this blog. <br /><br />So once again I'm forced to repeat myself: every element of the case must be considered in the light of the case as a whole. If we focus too strongly on inconclusive details it's all too easy to be led astray.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-37205555262903804632016-07-09T09:14:49.532-04:002016-07-09T09:14:49.532-04:00My long experience with this case has taught me to...My long experience with this case has taught me to be skeptical regarding any report that's not fully documented. And, in the light of what we've learned from the Aisenberg case, that goes double for the recording of the 911 call. Even if the enhanced version reveals something more than simply cross-talk, that doesn't mean the interpretation promulgated by Steve Thomas and James Kolar is accurate. Read the link I provided to the article on the Aisenberg case and you'll see why.<br /><br />In any case, whatever might be on that tape has nothing to do with my theory. If John lied about Burke being present during the call, it would be consistent with my suspicion that he (Burke) knows more than what he's testified to and that his father has intimidated him into silence. No threat there to my theory at all. My skepticism has nothing to do with my theory, it's based on my awareness of how easily people can be seduced into seeing that they want to see and, in this case, hearing what they want to hear.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-9289397908558994712016-07-09T08:12:15.454-04:002016-07-09T08:12:15.454-04:00Exactly right, we don't know how many weeks el...Exactly right, we don't know how many weeks elapsed before Patsy's return. I probably wasn't the next day as that detail would likely have found it's way into the story. But let's include that possibility. The glass supposedly lay on the floor anywhere from one day to several weeks waiting to be cleaned up by Patsy upon her return. This is what they'd have the police believe. The problem isn't the vagueness of the time line, the problem is that no matter how long the glass has been on the floor, why didn't the housekeeper clean it up? Why would it be left for Patsy? The story becomes less credible with Patsy's involvement. <br /><br />IMO JR didn't need his story backed up as much as he needed it not to be contradicted. If Patsy genuinely didn't know about the window, one way or the other, then she is simply going along out of ignorance. That's enough. A false memory of him telling her that HE cleaned up the glass after he broke the window, while she and the kids were in Charlevoix, is all that is needed. Trying to make her remember cleaning up glass creates a story that doesn't make a lot of sense given they have a housekeeper. Of course he can't say Linda cleaned up the glass because she'll deny it. His most believable story is that he cleaned up the glass. No one can deny that story. <br /><br />I see no basis for concluding PR was confused. What tells you it's implanted memory is that you badly want it to be implanted memory since your original theory on why Patsy supported JR's story fell apart. This is what you've come up with to replace it. But this theory is falling apart too as the story doesn't make any sense. If JR is the master manipulator you make him out to be he surely knows it's easier to implant a false memory of an event (that never happened) in which Patsy was not personally involved.<br /><br />Patsy probably includes LHP simply because she knows LHP will deny any knowledge of a broken window (How could LHP do otherwise?) It becomes "The R's" word against LHP's inability to recall an even that never happened. <br /><br />I believe you should give more thought to the notion that Patsy may have been coerced into supporting the window story. By coerced I mean basically threatened - you play ball or I let you go down for this murder. Patsy was the focus of the investigation what with JR being ruled out as author of the RN. Your take on the case generally makes sense, but your reason for PR supporting JR's window story, not so much. Rather than insisting on Patsy being naive and believing an intruder did it, Patsy could simply have been between a rock and a hard place. She could have known JR was the murderer, but at the same time be unable to do anything about it w/o risking her own neck. JR can simply deny any charge PR could make, and he's been ruled out, so it would appear Patsy is simply trying to blame him for a murder she committed. That's a pretty powerful reason to support JR's story. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com