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, July 10, 2017

Onward and Upward (or sideways?)

Please calm down, everyone. I know it's frustrating, as we see no sign of resolution on the Ramsey case. Since that case is going nowhere, I thought it might be more interesting to focus on the Avery case, which does seem to be going somewhere (but who knows where?). In any case (forgive the pun), please try to be civil and concentrate on the issues, not the advocates, OK?

146 comments:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYac4hcQ7QQ&t=75s

    You might find this interesting ! Consistent with the assertions in your articles ..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They lost me at "Alex Jones".

      Delete
    2. No, that theory is NOT consistent with anything I've written, nor much of anything hardly anyone else writing here has written. Someone did write a book claiming such a conspiracy, which is where this person probably got the idea.

      I wonder what stage of Alzheimer's the author of this "death bed confession" was in. Of course, if you are dead set in favor of satanic conspiracies, feel free to take it seriously.

      But if you do, then please explain:

      Why JonBenet's body was not removed from the house before the police were called. If anyone from outside were involved it would have been little trouble for that person to take the body with him and dump it elsewhere.

      Why the fake ransom note was written on paper from the house rather than brought in from elsewhere.

      Why NO conclusive intruder evidence was ever found. The conspirators could easily have brought some things with them to leave in the house as evidence of a kidnapper's presence.

      How a conspiracy of this scope could have remained a secret for over 20 years.

      Delete
  2. "But one psychological issue only touched on by MWMM some time back is that he has been diagnosed by some psychologists as manifesting many of the traits of a narcissist. Why I believe that’s important to understand is because of what has transpired with his son and the lawsuits." Anon

    That's the first time I've ever heard posited narcissism corroborated by diagnoses of "some psychologists". Certainly these "psychologists" weren't actually John's own hired therapists, for that would mean they would be abusing John's doctor/patient privilege.

    So who are these psychologists, Anon? When were their diagnoses determined, and where can they be found and read? I think the answers to these questions are incredibly important.

    Mike G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. What does MWMM stand for?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. Midwest Mama, a longtime contributor here.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Mike. I would think stating diagnoses of some psychologists would need to be sourced. Otherwise it's just gossip.

      Delete
  3. I'm curious and maybe CC can answer this. What would it take to have JonBenet's body exhumed? Court order or parental permission, or both? I think there may be additional evidence on her body that could possibly give additional clues . . . at least more than it did 20 years ago.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Either/or. I know she was embalmed, but I thought that had a limited shelf life of just a couple few years, though I confess I know little about it. Tell me more. What would you expect to find after 20 years?

      Welcome back. Good to see you and Canuck and Anon again. All we need is Gumshoe and Lady Engineer and we could have a proper reunion.

      Delete
    2. Sorry...and you too, evej. Can't forget our Brit.

      Delete
    3. Ah thanks cc. I'm still here reading ;)

      Delete
    4. CC, I'm still here reading, too, when time allows! I haven't posted much but have been trying to talk an investigative reporter who I know from college and reports for a station in ATL into presenting Doc's case. LE

      Delete
    5. Good on you, LE. Miss your contributions, but get how busy you are. Drop in when you can, willya please?

      Delete
  4. Could Burke be called to testify if John were ever brought to trial? Or is there some kind of parent-child privilege?

    Burke gave conflicting answers about last seeing JB alive. If he now claims the last place he saw her alive was in the car, why did he originally say she walked up the stairs slowly? How would he explain saying that?

    I often wonder what Burke would say if he were under oath.

    What would he say about the basement window? Would he agree that it had been broken for months, letting the cold air and bugs in, and never getting repaired?

    Maybe he would also agree with John's stories about the bicycles, but which story would he pick? The one where JB and Patsy get bikes? Or JB, Burke and Patsy? Or would he agree that maybe Dad got a bike, too? Who knows??


    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no parent/child privilege, but no prosecutor who saw that interview with Dr Phil or read a transcript thereof would subpoena Burke. He's a defense witness all the way, and I agree with Anon - regardless of whether he's the son of a narcissist or not - he'd say anything to support the last surviving member of his nuclear family.

      Delete
    2. appreciate your questions K. Kolar suggested a special grand jury inquiry with Burke only, or it was former Chief Beckner who suggested it some time ago. He was questioned once when his parents were but none that focused specifically on him. And if Burke keeps adding details like sneaking downstairs that night and his dad handling the flashlight then by all means, let's find out much much more, like starting at the Stine house all the way home until bed.We could even get some window answers since Burke says he was present on one of the occasions when John had to break into the house.

      Delete
    3. A special grand jury investigates RICO and and other organized crime activities.

      Delete
    4. CC: Could Burke be subpoenaed,deposed, and required to sign an affidavit accounting for the inconsistencies in his various testimonies through the years? The ones he made as a child were all videotaped. Could not his statements made as an adult in some way be used against him, or can one invoke ones fifth amendment right to remain silent whether inside or outside the courtroom?

      Mike G

      Delete
    5. You can take the Fifth in deposition as well as at trial. Deposition is a discovery tool only used in a civil proceeding (in most states), though prosecutors in a criminal matter may interview or attempt to interview, anyone appearing on the defense's witness list - one reason the defendant is always added at the last possible moment if they testify at all.

      If there really are inconsistencies in Burke's stories. Bryan Morgan would never let him take the stand.

      I know of no means by which Burke can be compelled to, essentially, incriminate himself, in or out of a courtroom.

      Delete
  5. Thanks CC. I agree he does appear to be supporting his Dad. I've always hoped that he or someone else who knows something would step up and do the right thing for JB. Maybe that's naïve, but I haven't lost hope yet.

    Inq-I would also like to know more about Burke being taken to bed with the flashlight. I thought John said he took melatonin and went to sleep. Too many conflicting statements.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only did he say it, and John did not deny it, but both Burke's assertion and John's non-denial are on videotape that either suddenly disappeared or are being kept from the public on grounds that have not been disclosed. That in and of itself smells illegal to me, but it's CC's nose, not mine, that counts.

      Mike

      Delete
    2. correction: "is" being kept

      Mike

      Delete
    3. Are you referring to the Dr Phil interviews? Transcripts are available on Reddit. The LE interviews are part of an open case and an ongoing investigation, and LE is not obligated to release any of 'em.

      Delete
    4. K - it is Chief Bechner in his reddit interview who said he did not believe the family wanted her dead. (Accident then?). Also that two detectives flew out to attempt to interview Burke during the last twenty years, and were turned away by Burke and Lin Wood who said there would be no questions put to Burke, to which Bechner said this was a typical Ramsey response.

      It was Kolar who pleaded with Stan Garnett in his letter dated 1/3/2011 to release the rest of the eighteen pages he turned over to the court (from the grand jury proceedings?) "something he claims he can't do on his own because of the Lowenbach's order." That there may be nothing earth-shattering there, but he goes on to say "when it comes to this dismal, failed investigation, how can we know what else has been hidden away under a veil of secrecy."

      Delete
    5. Inq,
      Just for accuracy sake, the quote you furnished is from Alan Prendergast, respected Boulder journalist, not from a letter from Kolar. It’s in the last paragraph.

      http://www.westword.com/news/jonbenet-ramsey-investigation-distorted-dna-part-of-ongoing-coverup-8451794

      Delete
    6. I congratulated you too soon, Inq.

      Now you're just making things up. Kolar's name doesn't appear at all in Prendergast's article.

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

      Delete
    8. Yes, Anonymous you are correct. My notes were incorrect - and appeared at the end of the open letter but are in fact, from the Prendergast article. My apologies, and I stand corrected, it was not from Kolar's open letter.

      Delete
  6. I fear that if you stray too far from the Jonbenet Ramsey case, you'll love your audience. I'm still here, but straying from the topic for too long isn't a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean "lose" your audience' Zach?
      A comment left by Zed recently did have me remembering an awesome Styx song -Crystal Ball. :)

      Delete
    2. Why not Zach? I've not heard one person complain about anyone, most of all Doc, trying to change the topic. And as for the current size of the audience relative to its size at any time in the past, please share with us your statistics.

      Rather than Crystal Ball, I'm suddenly reminded of the song Land of Hope and Dreams by the Boss.

      Mike G

      Delete
    3. I do "love" my audience, Zach. :-)

      But I get what you really meant. The problem for me is that I'm, very frankly, getting bored with all the hashing and rehashing of the same old same old Ramsey case issues. I'm hoping new evidence will emerge as Burke's lawsuits progress, but that process is slow as molasses and in the meantime all we have is what's already been discussed here ad nauseum. I happen to be very interested in the Avery case, so was hoping we could generate an interesting debate on that topic. Only everyone here seems to agree with me about Avery, which is nice, but doesn't lead to much in the way of intellectual heat.

      I don't want to shut off discussion of the Ramsey case, and all thoughts on that are welcome, but I don't see much hope of making progress until the lawsuit process perks up.

      Delete
    4. I suppose I could bone up on the Steven Avery case, if the tide here turned that way. Is there anything happening in that case? I do have a question here for Doc or Zed, those who are well versed in the case. What little I read Theresa Halbach expressed misgivings about returning to Avery's auto yard, to Auto Trader magazine, her employer. She was afraid of him essentially. He had come to the door with only a towel on and made inappropriate remarks? However Auto Trader magazine asked her to return one more time (and it was her last). Do they accept any responsibility at all for what happened to her? Thanks.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  7. Here is Bechner's direct quote from his reddit interview:

    "I don't believe the theory they wanted her dead. If you believe someone in the family killed JonBenet, the most likely scenario is that it was accidental in a fit of anger and then they tried to cover it up by making it look like something it wasn't. There are many books out there you can read, including several by the Ramseys that provide plenty of theories, but I have not seen any focused on the family that believe it was a planned situation." (before yours Doc, however).

    In any event he also says that if from the time you were 9 years old and told that you should be suspicious of LE questioning you on the death of your sister, that they were out to get your parents, (even though Beckner adds they were treated with kid gloves from the beginning) you would continue to be wary of answering any questions whatsoever that might have you be the one that trips up your parent's story, as an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CC: Regarding exhuming JonBenet's body . . . . no I don't have any specific suspicions on what, if anything, they might find, but I know JR was anxious to get her buried . . . . " a proper burial" remember? Now, that could be an innocent request coming from grieving parents, or it could be coming from a nervous, guilty parent wanting to bury any incriminating evidence as soon as possible. Traces of semen, missed during the autopsy, comes to mind.

    bb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they looked hard for traces of semen -- and found none. They could use touch DNA methods on the body, but finding John's DNA wouldn't mean anything since he carried it upstairs after "discovering" it. And apparently carried JonBenet from the car to the house earlier that evening.

      Delete
    2. bb..

      Had they exhumed the body, they may have been able to tell if those markings on her body did indeed come from a stun gun. The entire IDI theory is based on a stun gun being used. I never understood why an exhumation wasn't done.

      EG

      Delete
    3. Inq...

      I tend to agree with Bechner that it was an accident. I do not believe that her murder was premeditated.

      As far as the Avery case, that's interesting and I hadn't heard that she didn't like him and requested not to be sent there again.

      EG

      Delete
    4. Hello EG

      Afraid of him the article said. Did not want to return to the auto salvage yard for any more pictures taking. Poor girl. Women should trust their instincts more often and not just hope that nothing bad will happen to them. Nicole Brown Simpson kept a diary and told a friend if O.J. kills me he will get away with it - yet she stayed right there in Brentwood, didn't sue for custody of her children, or move away.


      Delete
    5. Hello Inq..

      I read that he requested her specifically but not sure how true that is. And yep, we should trust our instincts more and learn to say "NO" more often, without feeling guilty about it.

      Not sure if the family has any recourse if that's factual. They may argue that she could've said no, and refused to go.

      EG

      Delete
    6. EG, I needed to source that article - I detest long addresses, I wonder if one's own search shows up in an address tag line but here it is - and is complete with a video.

      people.com/crime/teresa-halbach-magazine-asked-her-to-go-to-steven-averys-house-one-last-time/

      from People Crime by K.C. Baker posted Jan. 14, 2016

      Maybe the family wants to see how Avery's trial will pan out before taking other measures to find someone liable. Isn't the only controversy in here whether the nephew was really involved or not?

      Much like Burke! Both with 9 year old minds.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the link, Inq! :)

      Too bad she didn't stick to her guns and instead agreed to go there that one last time. I think Avery is definitely guilty. As far as Dassey, I believe his confession was coerced and apparently so did the courts, as his conviction was overturned.

      EG

      Delete
    8. In regards to exhumation and what it might reveal, I am more concerned with the silk scarf John put in JB's coffin.....
      The scarf was new, so it had no sentimental meaning to JonBenet, or John, presumably. Why then did he choose to bury her with this particular item? Of course, such a detail would not have piqued my curiosity had she not been strangled to death (although I would still question why a father chooses a silk scarf to bury with his six year old who would have preferred dolls and stuffed animals in life).....and what better a way to get rid of incriminating evidence than to bury it six feet beneath the earth along with the victim?

      Delete
    9. You have a very dark, twisted, suspicious mind. I like that in a person.

      Delete
    10. Reading the Grand Jury Counts against the Ramseys. Count IV, Count VII. Both of them vague. Read that the D.A. (Hunter) presented multiple charges to the grand jury - likely including murder - but that these two counts were the only ones the GJ could agree on. Does anyone know what other counts Hunter may have presented? (or is this way old news and it's somewhere on a thread here).

      As to Count IV what would be the "reckless, felonious, unlawful, unreasonable situation which posed a threat of injury"? John not setting the alarm? An incestuous child predator? (That would mean since they were both indicted, one knew and did nothing), a drunk mother with anger and domination issues? What was the situation? Makes no sense to me as the situation was not spelled out. And the Ramseys did not appear before the GJ.

      Count VII is more understandable as it refers to an intent to "hinder, delay and prevent the discovery and punishment" of a person who was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death. But it's a weak charge isn't it?

      I really think Hunter had no choice but to not press charges. What were the other counts the Grand Jury could have considered?

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

      Delete
    12. Hehehe, oh, you have no idea just how twisted and dark it really is, CC.....thanks for the compliment. ;)

      Not turning one's security alarm on is hardly a crime, and anything even remotely in that vein (say, an unlocked door to her bedroom balcony, for example, which led to a fatal fall) would be considered negligence, at best, wouldn't it? I believe the count of "reckless, felonious, unlawful, unreasonable situation etc." specifically refers to JB being knowingly exposed to the ongoing sexual abuse by her father, but the GJ couldn't determine just where Patsy's knowledge of the abuse began or ended, just as they couldn't determine how much - if at all, perhaps - she participated in the subsequent cover up ("hinder, delay and prevent the discovery and punishment of a person who was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death.") My guess is the GJ knew John murdered JonBenet, believed that Patsy protected him after the fact, and were hoping she'd throw him under the bus when push came to shove and she was faced with being charged with a murder she didn't commit.
      Thanks to Alex Hunter, we'll never know.
      I've no doubt John would have thrown Patsy under the bus from the very first day of the investigation had she been the one who murdered her daughter.

      Delete
    13. Ok, thanks for your reply. Do you know what other charges Alex Hunter/Mike Kane asked the GJ to consider? I do think that the only two(Count IVa and Count VII)the GJ could agree on were not enough for the DA to go forward.

      Delete
  9. I hope this isn't too far off topic, but we've had an amazing cold case blown open by a journalist here in Melbourne just recently (Have you been following this Ms D??).

    Maria James was killed 37 years ago. Investigative reporter Rachael Brown has been doing her own investigation for the last year or so, and made a series of podcasts that were broadcast on Radio National (our national public broadcaster). After the third podcast was aired the police made a public announcement that they'll be re-examining the investigation. And there's a chance there will be another Coronial inquest into the death.

    It's a fantastic podcast for people who are interested in true crime. And there is interesting stuff in the final episode about DNA evidence, and BUNGLING of evidence. I'm not sure if people can access the podcasts from outside Australia, but here's the link:-

    http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/trace/episodes/

    Good to remember what a dedicated journalist can achieve in striving for justice. I'll always hope you've sowed the seed that leads to justice for Jonbenet here, Doc G.

    - B&B

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just a reminder to all JDI's to stay united.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomIOTN9UiQ&list=
    at the 4-5 minute mark

    "What happened that morning....take us through it."

    Patsy hedges and hesitates....John angers and misdirects..."we don't remember everything; it was three years ago...all I know is it hit me like....blah,blah,blah....."

    Yeah right John. Your spell on Patsy was wearing off, and King let you off easy, you lying bastard son-of-a-bitch.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John speaking utter bullshit, as usual.....when he was asked to submit to a polygraph, he said "no", flat out. He said that he "was offended", for crying out loud. Of course, John assures the audience on LKL just how "unreliable" lie detector tests are (but if he happened to pass one with flying colours, he'd be proclaiming this test was infallible proof of his innocence, you betcha) and how useless they are because they're inadmissible in court anyway.
      LK: "Did the police search the house?"
      JR: "Not very well!"
      Yes, and how lucky for you, huh, John? You got to contaminate the crime scene beautifully, you get to continually moan about LE's ineptitude, and you get to blame them for your daughter's murder going unsolved, every chance you get. John never lets you forget who the victim is here....."Jonbenet WHO"???

      Delete
    2. I agree with you there. His insufferable dry-mouth lip pursing is off-putting as well.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the link. It really is extraordinary footage, the way Patsy can't bring herself to lie and say she told John before calling the police. Larry King does well here, asking a couple of times about the minute or two after Patsy got the note and John is seriously pissed about King's persistence. There's just a glimpse of the controlling man who finds himself not in full control.

      Delete
  11. Couple of things - O.J. Simpson will likely get parole July 20. He will be a free man again.

    Second thing - if you tire of waiting for progress reports regarding Burke's case from the media, you can visit the 3rd Judicial Circuit of Michigan court website
    https.//www.3rdcc.org/odyssey-public-access-(opa)
    3rd Circuit Court Wayne County case number 16-012792-CZ
    Burke Ramsey v. Werner Spitz or CBS and see the history

    Search court case, "accept" terms, and "non-criminal" (you can walk yourself through the terms. Not much happening of course, 7/17 there was a review hearing, 1/22 there will be a case evaluation general civil and 3/5/18 a settlement conference. Transcripts would be nice, no dice. But you can keep yourself updated without waiting for media interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the link, Inq! :)

      Delete
    2. Always happy to help an animal lover Ms D.

      Delete
    3. You calling me an animal??????!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. cats, dogs, the male animal, we love them all :)

      Delete
    5. Thanks, Inq.....I'm just waxing lyrical about my menagerie as I type! ;)
      The male species? Meh.....not so much.....though, if they're housebroken, it sure helps! ;)

      Delete
  12. Of course that link didn't work. Try this one:

    https://www.3rdcc.org/odyssey-public-access-(opa)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not familiar with the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure, Inq, but I'll hazard a guess based on my state's:

    1. Murder One
    2. Murder Two
    3. Conspiracy to Commit
    4. Child Abuse Resulting in Death*
    5. Child Sexual Abuse
    6. Accessory before the fact
    7. Accessory after the fact*

    *charged

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting CC, thanks. I faulted Hunter all these years, but I can see now that on the two counts the GJ agreed on, he couldn't have prosecuted a case.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe I read somewhere that the vote was 9-3. Not overwhelming, when you only need probable cause rather than BARD, but strong enough, imo.

    Hunter could and should have signed the indictments and gone to trial. One doesn't convene a grand jury and then refuse to follow its findings, for one thing, and for another trying them separately may have caused Patsy to turn on John, particularly when she learned of the prior sexual abuse. It's what I would have done, what I think any responsible prosecutor would do.

    Both charges can carry heavy prison terms, up to 30 years in my state, nothing for a cancer survivor and mother of a still-young son to sneer at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was there a differing of opinion between Hunter and Kane?

      Delete
    2. "One doesn't convene a grand jury and then refuse to follow its findings..."

      So why did Alex Hunter?

      Delete
    3. He was pressured into it by the national media, which was extremely critical of his preference for plea bargaining the few murders that occurred in Boulder down to probation, house arrest, weekends in jail - insane, unheard-of deals.

      Hunter had no experience with grand juries and very little trial experience, hence Mike Kane, a former prosecutor in Denver who had a reputation as a grand jury wizard.

      I'm sure they disagreed, Inq - Kane was a hang 'em high type, and Hunter believed in rehabilitation.

      Delete
    4. A “hang ‘em high” type for killers of children? I like that in a person.

      Delete
  16. Mike Kane's resume is very impressive. I read that he made a name for himself in 1984 by securing the conviction of a Denver man who murdered his girlfriend's 9-year-old daughter. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime and the murder weapon was never found. In 1991 he convinced a Pennsylvania grand jury to indict a mother for the murder of her child, a killing that initially had been ruled an accident. The woman later pleaded guilty to third-degree murder. One can see early on his commitment to getting justice for murdered children and so it must have killed him that he couldn't do the same for JonBenet. Does anyone know who he suspected killed her - John, Patsy, or both involved? Seems like in his investigative questioning it could have been John, given his ability to trip John up on a few occasions. He really was a sharp cookie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's obvious to me that he thought John the perp because of the prior sexual abuse and Count IV. Yeah, yeah, I know it can't be proved that it was John that abused her, but he was far and away the most obvious suspect.

      Prosecutors see it all, many times over, one reason we burn out in 2-3 years on average, and I promise you, the simplest explanation is often the best. Think horses, not zebras. The odds of it being her father are, from what I've read, 12 to 1 in favor.

      Delete
  17. If anyone still cares (and I do, moderately, since it's the only justice Brown and Goldman will ever get) OJ's parole hearing will be carried live, this Thursday at noon, on HLN.

    ReplyDelete
  18. and he'll get it, guys, and don't it just suck?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the HLN parole hearing info. Once he's out he'll likely take to the airwaves to make a living, but the good news is the Goldman's say they'll be ready for him. He now owes them 52 million (interest accrued).

      Delete
    2. I still moderately care as well, CC, and I think you're right that he'll get it. It sucks very much.

      Any media outlet would be foolish to employ him, but if his wages can go to the Goldmans, then sure, put the murderer to work.

      Delete
    3. I'm hoping OJ goes the way of Jimmy Hoffa....

      Delete
    4. OJ is and always was a thug. There is no reason to think prison rehabilitated him, in 2013 at his other parole hearing he was still offering up excuses for why he does what he does.

      Delete
  19. Hey all,

    Just wanted to share something that happened earlier today. I was with my nephew at the grocery store and he said, "You know that JonBenet case? They solved it!"

    I stopped dead in my tracks. Had there just been some breaking news?! Did he get an alert on his phone?! (I didn't even know he followed the case!)

    It dawned on me that I'd always remember where I was when I heard the JBR case was finally, at long last, solved.

    "What do you mean, 'they solved it'?" I asked, admittedly feeling just a tiny bit overwhelmed at what I'd just heard.

    "It says so on one of the magazine covers by the check out."

    Did I mention he's 12?

    Fucking hell.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh yes Canuck, it's on the cover of The Globe so it must be true - she was killed by a sex ring - they got a jail house pervert to spill the beans. And the police have been covering it up all of these years. Sad, truly sad, that some people will buy that swill - but most won't care.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR certainly hasn't taken to the airwaves to either celebrate
      the discovery or chastise the police, has he?

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. I think you feel about John Ramsey the way I feel about O.J. Simpson, Mike. So, he was granted parole. Yet did you all hear his opening statement? This guy is not sorry, he'll never be sorry for anything he's done, and thank you Jeffrey Toobin for pointing out the obvious. Also kudos to Paul Callan, representative of Nicole Brown in the civil suit for what he said about this parole board. To say he's led a "conflict-free life" is just another lie of his. His conflicts are with women/wives and unarmed young men I guess. Then to say "I'd never condone what I did" I was reminded of his book "If I Did It." Women of Nevada, Florida, or wherever he ends up, beware. Narcissistic Predator on the loose.

      Delete
  21. Legal question for cc:
    Judge Lowenbach only released the Indictments IVa and VII. It’s been my understanding from reading internet info that Colorado has a system like a few other states, of voting on both a True Bill and also on a No True Bill. My question involves whether they did not have enough majority votes for issuing No True Bills on those remaining charges or whether there would have been legal considerations to voting those as No True Bills, such as release of information to the Rs. Am I misreading this? Could it also be the grand jurors were not ready to dismiss the other charges but just did not have enough evidence to pronounce those other 7 charges as either No True Bills or True Bills. Can you elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Grand Juries are convened by a prosecutor primarily  to hear evidence and secure an indictment.  They are also very effective investigative bodies with subpoena powers, and can often obtain  evidence police cannot,  by subpoenaing reluctant witnesses, documents like phone and financial records.  Unlike petit juries, they can be presented with hearsay testimony, even unsubstantiated theories (a la Lou Smit in our case).  In addition, they can issue reports based on what they see and hear to help prosecutors and the cops perfect their case by pointing out insufficient evidence, and the reasons they did not find probable cause.


      Most prosecutor's present a GJ with a menu of possible charges, as I outlined above in response to Inq's query.  After hearing testimony and seeing all the evidence they consider each possible charge and vote.  A majority vote results in the issuance of a True Bill.  Failure to obtain a majority automatically results in a No Bill.


      In our case the GJ voted in favor of   two of the possible charges against each Ramsey parent, resulting in the four pages Judge Lowenbach released.  I believe the remaining fourteen pages still under seal are the GJ's report  - something I'm sure we'd all like very much to see.

      Delete
    2. By law the Ramseys would have received copies of any indictments signed by the DA within thirty days of being charged, but as we know, Hunter did not sign the indictments. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that, given his penchant for over-sharing with defense counsel, Bryan Morgan and Pat Burke received copies of the entire GJ report within days.

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

      Delete
    4. Would you like to speculate what is contained in those fourteen remaining pages and why they are still under seal, CC?

      Delete
    5. Thanks, CC. I was trying to understand why the other charges were simply in the category of Not a True Bill instead of the grand jury voting them as No True Bills. It was my impression that the gj settled on charges most likely to be able to be proven in court, yet wanted to keep some options open.

      From the Daily Camera in 2001 - Reflecting now on his interviews with the Ramseys, Michael Kane said, "I never felt like I was getting a spontaneous response. John Ramsey always left me with the impression that he was a very smart man, and he is very careful at answering questions."

      Delete
  22. Murder One and Conspiracy to Commit have no statutes of limitation in Colorado, Inq, so if the report includes the GJ reasoning, the testimony heard, and the evidence viewed that supported their inability to find probable cause those crimes had been committed, those pages will remain sealed.

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you for helping us out with all things legal, CC. I think we all want to understand what happened with the Grand Jury, etc. I have another question or two - in regard to Count VII - the phrasing - and just a portion of it:

    the GJ alleged each parent "did render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime." Since Burke could not be prosecuted for a crime (any crime?) is that one of the reasons you believe, at the very least, that the Grand Jury did not think Burke had anything to do with it? Or am I misinterpreting the count.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The part of Count VII that makes me conclude it was not Burke to whom they were referring is a little further on . . ."knowing the person being assisted was suspected of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

      Children cannot be accused of either Murder in the First or Child Abuse Resulting in Death, and it's inconceivable to me that either or both Ramseys would aid an intruder, leaving only one another.

      You're welcome. I've long been passionate about making the law accessible to and understandable by everyone.

      Delete
  25. Maybe this will help. The nomenclature and lexicon of children and crime are completely different from those of adults.

    Children 10-18 are "juveniles" under the law. Burke would have been considered a "juvenile delinquent", and deemed not to have committed a crime, but rather a "delinquent act". He would not be subjected to a criminal trial, but an "adjudication" in juvenile court resulting in a "disposition".

    ReplyDelete
  26. How do you think JR and OJ would interact if they were alone in a room together? Other than the fact that OJ isn't the sharpest tack in the box, they have some similarities in their personalities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JR and OJ are both narcissists. Beyond that, they have no similarities. That anyone believes OJ "isn't the sharpest tack in the box" demonstrates the ease by which narcissists are capable of manipulating others' perceptions of them for deceiptful purposes. That OJ's "lusts" were reinforced by cultural signals received and responded to while growing up---i.e. that he was "made in America"---is just another liberal shibboleth. Tiger Woods married a white women and afterwards slept with many others, but he didn't murder any of them.

      John Ramsey's "lust", unlike OJ's or Tiger's, once acted upon was both perverted and illegal. He killed to silence his victim not to punish her. Narcissists come in all different flavors and sizes.

      If John and OJ found themselves in a room alone together, John would get up and leave. If they were forced to be alone in a room together, with incentives and proper coaching ahead of time, OJ could get John to confess.

      Mike G

      Delete
    2. I think OJ and JR are also both highly persuasive. Was reading and am still reading a lengthy interview in 1998 posted on acandyrose with JR, Lou Smit, Mike Kane, Bryan Morgan and David Williams. John says he was trying to have an "open dialog" with people who were trying to solve the case. He says the BPD was "out to lynch them" (he and Patsy), he mentions his one million dollar reward to find the killer, and his letter to Smit of suspects. You are going along thinking impressive. Persuasive. Kane is silent. Until he says "Yeah. And for the record, the investigator is biting his tongue through all of this."

      Delete
  27. Posting this for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

    "Kathleen Zellner Sets the Record Straight."

    http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2017/07/making-a-murderer-kathleen-zellner-sets-the-record-straight-001869667.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Canuck. I am not a Zellner fan, but she may finally be on a winning track with her criticism of Kratz. That pre-trial press conference he did was the single most inappropriate, pejorative piece of lawyering I've ever seen, and imo was grounds for a mistrial in and of itself.

      Delete
    2. So, CC, would you be in favor of a mistrial if John is ever brought to trial, based on what the Mayor of Boulder said at her press conference?

      Delete
    3. Apples and oranges, Doc.

      Prior statements by the prosecutor appointed to try the case are unethical, at the least, prejudicial and an act of prosecutorial malfeasance at the worst. He began his press conference by saying children under 15 should not be permitted to watch and listen - highly inflammatory - and it went downhill from there.

      A prosecutor may not: Make statements about the physical evidence, the character or criminal background of a defendant, or speculate about evidence that is likely to be inadmissible. He made all of the above, and more.

      In contrast, Mayor Durgin (NOT the DA in Boulder County and NOT a lawyer) was responding to Patsy's tearful warning on CNN two days before "there's a killer out there [in Boulder]", by saying that Boulder was safe, and there was no killer roaming the streets and preying on children.

      Delete
    4. Nevertheless, her statement could be seen as prejudicial, no? That's what the Ramseys and their lawyers argued, and would certainly argue in court.

      Kratz may have violated certain principles constraining prosecutors and if that's the case he should have been reprimanded. And the mayor may not have been subject to such constraints, at least on purely legal grounds. But her comments were no less prejudicial, as far as I can see. And since the mayor occupies a position of even greater authority than a prosecuting attorney, her words would carry even greater weight, no?

      Delete
    5. Durgin, to my way of thinking - and I grasp that I'm sometimes too literally lawful (or law-full?) - was guilty of nothing more than knee-jerk boosterism. She didn't name the Rs or allude to the crime being an inside job, gave away no detailed information that would later be used in court.

      But I take your point, Doc . . . barely.

      Delete
    6. I'll add that I have little sympathy for legal niceties that enable defense lawyers to demand a mistrial or even an acquittal based solely on malfeasance on the part of some official authority figure. If the malfeasance can be proven, then that person should either be reprimanded or put on trial, depending on the seriousness of the charge. But letting an offender such as Steven Avery, whose guilt is more than obvious, get off on such a basis strikes me as a ludicrous perversion of justice.

      Delete
    7. So appeals based on ineffective assistance of counsel - a perennial favorite - don't cut it with you?

      Delete
    8. That's a different matter. Malfeasance on the part of an officer of the law can always be revealed to the jury and explained. The jury can then be instructed to ignore whatever the offending officer did or said. Ineffective counsel is a different matter entirely since there is no simple way to undo the damage an incompetent or indifferent lawyer can do to his client. On that basis, if proven, I suppose an argument can be made for a retrial, yes. But NOT acquittal, no.

      Delete
    9. Malfeasance automatically results in a mistrial.

      Appeals very, very seldom (unto never) result in a dismissal of charges. The most a criminal appellant can usually hope for is a reversal and a re-trial.

      Delete
    10. Well, in the Avery case, malfeasance on the part of the prosecutor, based on his prejudicial statements prior to the trial, was argued by the defense, but their efforts did not result in a mistrial. Any thoughts on that, CC?

      I'm also intrigued by Zellner's attempt to raise this same issue once again. I'd think that, since the issue was already raised in the initial trial, that it could not now be the basis for an appeal.

      Delete
    11. The trial judge erred, Doc. Over and over. I've had better law clerks.

      Delete
    12. So you actually want to argue that Avery should be given another trial because the original judge should have declared a mistrial and did not?

      How would a new trial undo the prejudicial statements of the original prosecutor? It seems to me that what was said was said and cannot be unsaid.

      I'm all for the rule of law, but when it no longer makes sense then maybe it's time for the law to be changed.

      Delete
    13. Run right out and do that, why doncha', but in the meantime follow the existing law with as much grace as you can muster, regardless of its perceived deficiencies.

      Absolutely Avery's should have been declared a mistrial. Absolutely he's entitled to a re-trial. And absolutely he'll be found guilty again, as he should.

      Delete
    14. As inefficient as it may be (considering Avery is guilty), I agree with you 100% on this, CC. Kratz tainted the jury pool and it would have been bad enough if he'd stuck to established facts, but instead he spouted an inflammatory and sensational theory that wasn't supported by the evidence. He knew exactly what he was doing and he revelled in the attention.

      That press conference also did a great disservice to Theresa Halbach and her family. They deserved the truth and to be treated with dignity. They also deserved a prosecutor who didn't risk a mistrial for a few minutes of screen time. Kratz deserved a lot more than a reprimand.

      Delete
    15. Dead right as ever, Canuck, and well said as always. Great to see you here again. What do you think about Burke's lawsuit(s)? Or have you not had time to follow all that?

      Delete
    16. Thanks, CC. I check in when I can and always try to get caught up on the comments.

      I'm certainly not surprised by Burke's lawsuits. (Or, should I say John's lawsuits. His coffers must be getting low.) I read Kolar's book when it first came out and I have to admit, I found his theory plausible. He’s seen every single piece of evidence available in this case. I was frustrated that he didn't reveal his theory in the book but "The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey" spelled it out for us. If Dr. Spitz and the others are wrong, then Burke is totally justified in seeking damages — because I'm sure that show did indeed damage him. I can only imagine that his life became even more insular after it aired.

      But I’m not entirely convinced they were wrong. And if they’re right, then the lawsuit is frivolous. (Is that the right term?) If Burke came forward and said, “Yes, I got angry and hit her and my parents tried to protect me," I think he'd be surprised at the support he'd receive. He was very young, after all, and I believe he was likely dealing with mild autism spectrum disorder, though I hate to label him as I’m not a psychologist. If he were to fess up, any anger would be reserved for John, who lied and misled everyone for so long (not to mention the innocent people he and PR accused).

      To give you a short answer: I hope the lawsuit actually goes to court and that it gives the defence the chance to question both John and Burke. I don’t want Dr. Spitz and the others to settle. They appear to be confident in their conclusions, so I hope they defend them vigorously. Anything that can shake unknown facts loose is a good thing in this case.

      Delete
    17. Yup, a shake up is what's needed. I'm disappointed neither side leaks as badly as Hunter's office and the BPD did, at least not yet. Thanks for weighing in.

      Delete
    18. If Kratz tainted the jury pool, then what about the 10 part Netflix series, heavily biased in favor of the defense? Seems to me there is now no way to seat an "untainted" jury.

      Delete
    19. "If Burke came forward and said, “Yes, I got angry and hit her and my parents tried to protect me."

      More like: "Yes, I got angry and hit her and then constructed a "garrote" and strangled her. Guess I just lost it."

      Or: "Yes, I got angry and hit her, and then my parents covered it up by constructing a "garrote" and strangling her with it, then writing a 3 page "ransom note" to make it look like a kidnapping and then tried to blame all sorts of people, including some of their best friends."

      Delete
    20. Yes, I know, Doc. I still believe your theory is the stronger one, but I also think the BDI theory, especially as detailed by Spitz and Clemente, explains some things, too. Burke didn't construct the garrotte. If he did hit her with the flashlight, he was sent to bed the moment his parents discovered what he'd done, and then the cover up began.

      For those who saw The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsay, do you believe the 911 tape actually caught the three of them talking in the kitchen and, if so, do you agree with the show's interpretation of it? If BDI and his parents covered it up, why would he be asking what they found minutes before the police showed up? Surely he'd already know that they knew. And would Patsy really still be hysterical hours after learning the truth and meticulously writing a ransom note that threatened beheading? The fact that they think she's hysterical after the 911 call didn't really fit with their assertion that she wrote the note. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. (Also, we know the 911 operator heard something completely different.)

      Delete
    21. I'm disappointed in that, too, CC. Perhaps the best we can hope for now (if Burke's lawsuit is settled and everyone signs NDAs) is that we get a deathbed confession from someone. It'll probably never happen, but I can hope.

      Delete
    22. Canuck, been pondering your post. So if it was an accidental killing (head blow only), and by Burke, many have wondered why the 45 min. to 2 hours (ME wasn't sure) pause between blow and strangulation. Investigators believe the strangulation was staging. Others in here wonder why, if BDI, an ambulance was not called. Because she was thought dead, one possible explanation. Now if there was sufficient light, for example, to notice she was still breathing, or if a pulse was taken, then the parent would have noticed she was still alive, and then do what any normal parent would do and call 911. However if she appeared dead, was limp, unresponsive, she may have been presumed dead. An ambulance would not be called in that scenario. Instead, a coverup would begin.

      If the three of them were talking after the 911 call was made that morning, and IF Burke said "what did you find" then I do agree with you, that he did not know what was done after he was sent to bed. A note? What note? etc. Didn't he also ask where did you find the body? Not, on the 911 call, but to his father.

      It would be, and might have been, criminal that Burke was not told the truth. He's shuttled off to the neighbor's, he's told his sister was missing, he's told she's in heaven. All of these years later it's hard to believe it hasn't occurred to him that he was culpable in some way, but the family would have stuck together, in a pact, to protect each other's involvement.

      Delete
    23. Canuck,

      I appreciate your input here and refreshing to see you are not ruling out BDI, as I have not ruled out that JDI or PDI for that matter.

      As far as the 911 call, unless there is a clearer version, I remain skeptical. To me, it's too garbled and therefore useless.

      EG

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

      Delete
    25. Thanks for answering, Inquisitive and EG. As I've said, I still lean heavily towards Doc's conclusions, but Kolar's book and "The Case Of" have been nagging at me for some time. The investigators didn't address the fact that substantial time passed between the two assaults and they also dismissed the sexual assault because these two items didn't fit their theory. If BDI, Kolar believes he may have spent some time with her body -- when else would he have pressed his train track into her skin to see if he could evoke a response? Perhaps some time passed between the head strike and John and Patsy finding out. Then perhaps there was some discussion about what should be done. As Dr. Spitz noted, she was already brain dead after the head strike and her parents might not have even realized there was still life there. I agree that if this was an accident and they thought she was still alive, an ambulance would have been summoned. If they thought she was already dead, however, and the parents knew there was a history of mental disturbance with Burke, they might have opted to cover things up. We know Nedra gave Patsy a book called "The Hurried Child," which deals with overwhelming pressure on children and the emotional and behavioural consequences of such. We also know he had scatological problems. Something was going on with Burke long before JBR died.

      I agree, EG, the 911 tape is pretty useless. Doc has already offered proof that people tend to hear what they want to hear in cases like that -- and if people are offered an interpretation (as we were in "The Case Of"), we're likely to hear what is presented to us. The voices certainly sound like the three of them, but what exactly they're saying no one really knows.

      As for Burke, there HAD to have been some discussion with him when his parents discovered what he'd done. They wouldn't just find her dead and, without knowing why (there was no blood or obvious trauma remember), just go about garrotting and washing her down. Even if they found her and Burke was already in bed, they'd still confront him about it, just as they would have confronted him after they found her missing in the morning. There's no way if they had just gotten up and found her missing, that they wouldn't have immediately woken Burke and asked if he knew where his sister was.

      As intriguing as BDI is, there are still problems with that theory.

      Delete
    26. Canuck, I'm really glad you are thrashing it out. There are problems with any of the three being the perpetrator IMO. With Burke, surely he would have known something he did could have caused her death - if he thought about it at all later (and wasn't told the truth and instead protected from the truth). What kind of questions was he asked during his GJ testimony. Was he well coached to say as little as possible? No, I was asleep, I didn't hear anything, I got up but I went back to bed and saw nothing. Did it start with a tying her up game and rough "interference", or was the garrotte already made, by Burke previously and lying in the paint tote, handy.

      You mentioned the hysterical 911 call and how that could have come on the heels of a carefully written ransom note (if P wrote the note). If you see it as an act, or a play in a series of acts, it would be Act II. In that particular "play" if you will, John would have had no involvement, and indeed, he seemed to indicate that he was elsewhere in the house while she found the note, ran upstairs, shouted for JonBenet and John, and he suggests calling the police (elsewhere P. says it was her idea). A perplexed John searches the basement but not the wine cellar room until sometime later and finds her and tells JA it was 11 a.m. John handles objects - closes a window - moves a suitcase, picks up glass or at least he points out the glass to Fleet. Is he trying to figure it out or messing with a crime scene.

      And if Burke was sent to bed after confessing what he had done surely sleep wouldn't have come too easy. His recount of lying in bed, afraid, would be more consistent with knowing something very bad happened and hearing sounds downstairs the rest of the night.

      With ASD, if you want to read the article, symptoms show up primarily in male children, and at around age 2. He was likely the center of Patsy's attention before JB came along and even after until she could be entered in toddler contests and Patsy realized she had a little future Miss America. Then Burke is pushed to the side, his father at work and building a business and his mother and grandmother fussing over the girl child.

      The timeline is the major problem. When did they really return home; was JB put to bed; was Burke just up later or did he sneak downstairs; what time was he downstairs alone or was he just in his room; what time did JB get out of bed or did events happen soon after they arrived home and no one went to bed.

      My main problem with Burke was how has he not cracked? But if he had cracked, it would have implicated his parents as accessories. Quite possibly he compartmentalized all of it, chose to get on with life, but never can which brings us back to the lawsuits and there have been approx. 7 already involving Burke. Look on #shakedown for a list of all of them.

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

      Delete
    28. "Now if there was sufficient light, for example, to notice she was still breathing, or if a pulse was taken, then the parent would have noticed she was still alive, and then do what any normal parent would do and call 911."

      You would presume that one would make SURE there was "sufficient light" when trying to determine whether their child is dead or not, don't you think? That one would be SURE to take a pulse and check the breathing before tightening a ligature around their daughter's neck if murder was not their goal! I'm so over this madness BDIs have to insist upon in order for their theory to work: "Her parents didn't KNOW she was still alive".....if BDIs expect any credibility, they're going to have to do better than that. NO ONE would take that kind of a gamble with their unresponsive child. I think BDIs really need to accept that either Burke did it all, or he did none of it.....because there is just no way any rational minded person could believe these two parents had any logical reason whatsoever to tie a cord around their daughter's throat rather than try to save her.....even if it appeared she might already be dead, it would be instinctive for two parents to call an ambulance.

      "However if she appeared dead, was limp, unresponsive, she may have been presumed dead. An ambulance would not be called in that scenario. Instead, a coverup would begin."

      Again, if two, loving parents are going to go to such extraordinary lengths to cover for their much loved son, they're not going to twist a garrote around their much loved daughter's neck before making absolutely certain she is not still breathing! At any rate.....a ligature twisted so tightly that it is deeply embedded in the victim's flesh, is NOT a "cover up".....it's just too violent, too ANGRY to be mere staging. The loose wrist bindings - which *are* pure staging - are in stark contrast to the tightness of the ligature around her neck, which suggests the former serves no function, whilst the latter does. Take another look at JB's neck wound in the autopsy photos: that garrote was applied with shockingly brutal force by someone who had one goal - to strangle the absolute life out of this little girl. I can't believe anyone can look at the state of that child's tiny neck and continue to maintain that the strangulation was only staging, and not an intentional act of murder.....it boggles the mind.

      Delete
    29. But certainly you would agree that there were not "two loving parents" since you believe one of those loving parents put his own self interests ahead of his whole family and brutally bludgeoned and then strangled his child. And why wouldn't a loving mother seek justice for her murdered daughter, who she's trying to convince all of us an intruder must have done it. Why not help the police find the culprit. They wouldn't even sit for a police interview until months later but the airwaves were the acceptable place they, both of them, sought to plead their innocence.

      Delete
    30. For all I know "they" tried to revive her and couldn't. How to explain it to the hospital, and then the police. Don't go by me, investigators thought the strangulation et al was staging. Are you trying to say that John was not only trying to cover his pedophilia with a blow to her head but an angry choking as well? There are problems with every single scenario and every single suspect.

      Delete
    31. "But certainly you would agree that there were not "two loving parents" since you believe one of those loving parents put his own self interests ahead of his whole family and brutally bludgeoned and then strangled his child."

      Inq, of course I don't believe these were *two*, loving parents, as I believe *one* of these parents brutally murdered his daughter in order to save his own ass. However, I was addressing the theory that BDIs adhere to, so your response is really a non sequitur. BDIs insist that Patsy and/or John - as an act of love - staged a murder to cover for an accident committed by their son, and I say that common sense dictates that the strangulation was quite obviously deliberate, and not mere "window dressing".

      Delete
    32. "For all I know "they" tried to revive her and couldn't. How to explain it to the hospital, and then the police."

      Why would they try to revive her, then decide to strangle her because they were unsuccessful?! Why not call an ambulance the moment they found her and let the paramedics do their job? As far as the police go: A. Upon finding your child dead or dying, a parent's first thought is NOT the police, it is "Oh my God, let's get help!". B. *If* explaining the accident to the police was indeed an issue for Patsy and John, then they would have concocted a story about a fall down the stairs.....because a botched kidnapping by a pedophile intruder who left a three page ransom note with no intention of ever collecting the ransom is NOT a more believable scenario than an accidental fall down the stairs...come on now, surely at one point, logic and common sense must prevail, even for the most hardcore of BDIs.

      Delete
  28. We're never going to agree on the "legal niceties" and the necessity of accepting the rule of law as part and parcel of the social contract, Doc.

    Believe what you like, but the "obviousness" of Avery's guilt does not in any way abnegate the rule of law, and the necessity of its even-handed application.

    I'm done with you on this topic, for the second time. Argue with yourself in your usual intractable way.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And no, a mayor is not in a position of higher authority. A mayor presides over a City Council, and has little real authority or influence. A DA or State Attorney or, in your case, Commonwealth Attorney, is the chief LE officer in that county or commonwealth or district, quite a different kettle of fish, particularly when it comes to rendering legal opinions on a pending court case.

    Rather like a Humanities/Social Sciences professor arguing with a former A.S.A., is it not? Which brings us, nicely, right back to apples and oranges.

    ReplyDelete
  30. You're funny as all get out CC. How did I not see that before. And of course I like you too Doc. I'm going to star you two in my first televised debate.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I'll be the Gore Vidal to his Bill Buckley.

      Delete
    2. Tsk, or one of you could be Christopher Hitchens

      Delete
    3. Back in the old days all of us liked to watch Doc and CC get into it. We used to say uh oh Mom and Dad are fighting ahain. Sparks did fly and it was always fun to watch

      Delete
  32. I’m still savoring Mike G’s delectable description of John - lying bast**d s.o.b. So accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I suspect the frustration builds up sometimes. And you think it's been 20 years and no arrests. I think what bothers me is no one seems interested in finding her "killer". That is to say Patsy had sisters, John has a brother and two older children. Do they think justice is going to come to them or shouldn't they be trying to get it on their own? John said Dr. Phil will be his last interview. Why is that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Phil was not his last interview, as Ms D and Zed will attest; he gave another to Down Under radio/TV scant weeks after making that statement, and if it suits his agenda, he'll give more.

      Why in god's name you think a Ramsey relative or in-law, long benefactors of John's largesse, would "pursue justice" is entirely mysterious to me.

      Delete
    2. Because if they believed the spin that an intruder did it as they have said they do, then why give up and not keep looking.

      Delete
    3. Ummmm...'cause at a deeper, more honest level they in fact believe nothing of the sort? Because they were each and every one of them bought off, financially or emotionally or both?

      Delete
    4. Yes, what I was getting at is an indifference to the victim. You and I know it was not an intruder, I think most of the public, the ones that care know it was not an intruder, but the family has pretended it's an intruder - yet they don't pretend to have any interest in finding "him." So there is just silence. What was telling to me was when John Mark Karr was brought into all this by Mary Lacy. She was convinced they had their man, yet - silence from the Ramsey camp.

      Delete
  34. At least O.J. pretended to look. He searched every golf course he could think of.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "I'll be the Gore Vidal to his Bill Buckley." ---CC

    You should stick with your own sex, CC. Claire Booth Luce fared far better than Gore Vidal up against Buckley on Firing Line.

    Mike G

    ReplyDelete
  36. Very well said Canuck. In the 1998 police interview with JR John tells us who Burke was being treated by - Dr. Steven Jaffe (spelling wrong in the interview)from Atlanta, GA. He is still practicing, and specializes in child and adolescent psychiatry. The conditions he treats are anxiety phobic disorders, ADD, Bipolar disorder, depressive disorders and obsessive compulsive disorder.

    ReplyDelete
  37. One more comment - in regard to ASD, which is a real possibility with Burke the following article mentions a symptom as "having facial expressions, movements, and gestures that do not match what is being said". Of course not every kid with ASD displays the same symptoms or all of the symptoms in any diagnosis, but the following article is for anyone interested:

    https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  38. Off topic, for those familiar with the Colorado case of young Dylan Redwine, an arrest has finally been made after 5 years. His dad has been arrested for his murder.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks Lil. I was really concerned about the Dylan Redwine case. So sad.

    ReplyDelete