Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Steve Thomas' Letter

Following tonight's program, here is Steve Thomas' letter.  Emphasis added. 

August 6, 1998

Chief Beckner,

On June 22, I submitted a letter to Chief Koby, requesting a leave of absence from the Boulder Police Department. In response to persistent speculation as to why I chose to leave the Ramsey investigation, this letter explains more fully those reasons. Although my concerns were well known for some time, I tried to be gracious in my departure, addressing only health concerns. However, after a month of soul searching and reflection, I feel I must now set the record straight.

The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case. I had been troubled for many months with many aspects of the investigation. Albeit an uphill battle of a case to begin with, it became a nearly impossible investigation because of the political alliances, philosophical differences, and professional egos that blocked progress in more ways, and on more occasions, than I can detail in this memorandum. I and others voiced these concerns repeatedly. In the interest of hoping justice would be served, we tolerated it, except for those closed door sessions when detectives protested in frustration, where fists hit the table, where detectives demanded that the right things be done. The wrong things were done, and made it a manner of simple principle that I could not continue to participate as it stood with the district attorney's office. As an organization, we remained silent, when we should have shouted.

The Boulder Police Department took a handful of detectives days after the murder, and handed us this case. As one of those five primary detectives, we tackled it for a year and a half. We conducted an exhaustive investigation, followed the evidence where it led us, and were faithfully and professionally committed to this case. Although not perfect, cases rarely are. During eighteen months on the Ramsey investigation, my colleagues and I worked the case night and day, and in spite of tied hands. On June 1-2, 1998, we crunched thirty thousand pages of investigation to its essence, and put our cards on the table, delivering the case in a formal presentation to the district attorney's office. We stood confident in our work. Very shortly thereafter, though, the detectives who know this case better than anyone were advised by the district attorney's office that we would not be participating as grand jury advisory witnesses.

The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we expected to "solve" this case when the district attorney's office was crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally, facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider the following:

During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring evidence to the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily dismissed or rationalized as insignificant. The most elementary of investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone and credit card records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The significant opinions of nationalexperts were casually dismissed or ignored by the district attorney's office, even the experienced FBI were waved aside.

Those who chose not to cooperate were never compelled before a grand jury early in this case, as detectives suggested only weeks after the murder, while information and memories were fresh.

An informant, for reasons his own, came to detectives about conduct occurring inside the district attorneys office, including allegations of a plan intended only to destroy a man's career. We carefully listened. With that knowledge, the department did nothing. Other than to alert the accused, and in the process burn the two detectives [who captured that exchange on an undercover wire, incidentally] who came forth with this information. One of the results of that internal whistleblowing was witnessing Detective Commander Eller, who also could not tolerate what was occurring, lose his career and reputation undeservedly; scapegoated in a manner which only heightened my concerns. It did not take much inferential reasoning to realize that any dissidents were readily silenced.

In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all of this in the district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I served a search warrant, only to find later defense attorneys were simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.

An FBI agent, whom I didn't even know, quietly tipped me off about what the DA's office was doing behind our backs, conducting investigation the police department was wholly unaware of.

I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded from pursuing particular investigative efforts. Polygraphs were acceptable for some subjects, but others seemed immune from such requests.

Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were destroyed.

Some in the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak, defenseless, and innocent people in shameless tactics that one couldn't believe more bizarre if it were made up.

I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable to"break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of events he had witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation, this was an attempt to derail months of hard work.

I was repeatedly reminded by some in the district attorney's office just how powerful and talented and resourceful particular defense attorneys were. How could decisions be made this way?

There is evidence that was critical to the investigation, that to this day has never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other means were supported to do so. Not to mention evidence which still sits today, untested in the laboratory, as differences continue about how to proceed.

While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant affidavits and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six year old child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that we "ask the permission of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just before conducting the Ramsey interviews, I thought it inconceivable I was being lectured on "building trust".

These are but a few of the many examples of why I chose to leave. Having to convince, to plead at times, to a district attorney's office to assist us in the murder of a little girl, by way of the most basic of investigative requests, was simply absurd.

When my detective partner and I had to literally hand search tens of thousands of receipts, because we didn't have a search warrant to assist us otherwise, we did so. But we lost tremendous opportunities to make progress, to seek justice, and to know the truth. Auspicious timing and strategy could have made a difference. When the might of the criminal justice system should have brought all it had to bear on this investigation, and didn't, we remained silent. We were trying to deliver a murder case with hands tied behind our backs. It was difficult, and our frustrations understandable. It was an assignment without chance of success. Politics seemed to trump justice.

Even "outsiders" quickly assessed the situation, as the FBI politely noted early on: "the government isn't in charge of this investigation." As the nation watched, appropriately anticipating a fitting response to the murder of the most innocent of victims, I stood bothered as to what occurred behind the scenes. Those inside this case knew what was going on. Eighteen months gave us a unique perspective.

We learned to ignore the campaign of misinformation in which we were said to be bumbling along, or else just pursuing one or two suspects in some ruthless vendetta. Much of what appeared in the press was orchestrated by particular sources wishing to discredit the Boulder Police Department. We watched the media spun, while we were prohibited from exercising First Amendment rights. As disappointment and frustration pervaded, detectives would remark to one another, "if it reaches a particular point, I'm walking away."

But we would always tolerate it "just one more time." Last year, when we discovered hidden cameras inside the Ramsey house, only to realize the detectives had been unwittingly videotaped, this should have rocked the police department off its foundation. Instead, we allowed that, too, to pass without challenge.

The detectives' enthusiasm became simply resigned frustration, acquiescing to that which should never have been tolerated. In the media blitz, the pressure of the whole world watching, important decisions seemed to be premised on "how it would play" publicly.

Among at least a few of the detectives, "there's something wrong here" became a catch phrase. I witnessed others having to make decisions which impacted their lives and careers, watched the soul searching that occurred as the ultimate questions were pondered. As it goes, "evils that befall the world are not nearly so often caused by bad men, as they are by good men who are silent when an opinion must be voiced." Although several good men in the police department shouted loudly behind closed doors, the organization stood deafeningly silent at what continued to occur unchallenged.

Last Spring, you, too, seemed at a loss. I was taken aback when I was reminded of what happened to Commander Eller when he stuck his neck out. When reminded how politically powerful the DA was. When reminded of the hundreds of other cases the department had to file with this district attorney's office, and that this was but one case. And finally, when I was asked, "what do you want done? The system burned down?", it struck me dumb. But when you conceded that there were those inside the DA's office we had to simply accept as "defense witnesses", and when we were reduced to simply recording our objections for "documentation purposes" -- I knew I was not going to participate in this much longer.

I believe the district attorney's office is thoroughly compromised. When we were told by one in the district attorney's office, months before we had even completed our investigation, that this case "is not prosecutable," we shook our heads in disbelief. A lot could have been forgiven, the lesser transgressions ignored, for the right things done. Instead, those in the district attorney's office encouraged us to allow them to "work their magic" (which I never fully understood. Did that "magic" include sharing our case file information with the defense attorneys, dragging feet in evidence collection, or believing that two decades of used-car-dealing-style-plea-bargaining was somehow going to solve this case?). Right and wrong is just that. Some of these issues were not shades of gray. Decision should have been made as such. Whether a suspect a penniless indigent with a public defender, or otherwise.

As contrasted by my experiences in Georgia, for example, where my warrant affidavits were met with a sense of support and an obligation to the victim. Having worked with able prosecutors in other jurisdictions, having worked cases where justice was aggressively sought, I have familiarity with these prosecution professionals who hold a strong sense of justice. And then, from Georgia, the Great Lakes, the East Coast, the South, I would return to Boulder, to again be thoroughly demoralized.

We delayed and ignored, for far too long, that which was "right", in deference of maintaining this dysfunctional relationship with the district attorney's office. This wasn't a runaway train that couldn't be stopped. Some of us bit our tongues as the public was told of this "renewed cooperation" between the police department and the district attorney's office -- this at the very time the detectives and those in the district attorney's office weren't even on speaking terms, the same time you had to act as a liaison between the two agencies because the detectives couldn't tolerate it. I was quite frankly surprised, as you remarked on this camaraderie, that there had not yet been a fistfight.

In Boulder, where the politics, policies, and pervasive thought has held for years, a criminal justice system designed to deal with such an event was not in place. Instead, we had an institution that when needed most, buckled. The system was paralyzed, as to this day one continues to get away with murder.

Will there be a real attempt at justice? I may be among the last to find out. The department assigned me some of the most sensitive and critical assignments in the Ramsey case, including search warrants and affidavits, the Atlanta projects, the interviews of the Ramseys, and many other sensitive assignments I won't mention. I criss-crossed the country, conducting interviews and investigation, pursuing pedophiles and drifters, chasing and discarding leads. I submitted over 250 investigative reports for this case alone. I'd have been happy to assist the grand jury. But the detectives, who know this case better than anyone, were told we would not be allowed as grand jury advisory witnesses, as is common place. If a grand jury is convened, the records will be sealed, and we will not witness what goes on inside such a proceeding.

What part of the case gets presented, what doesn't?

District Attorney Hunter's continued reference to a "runaway" grand jury is also puzzling. Is he afraid that he cannot control the outcome? Why would one not simply present evidence to jurors, and let the jury decide?

Perhaps the DA is hoping for a voluntary confession one day. What's needed, though, is an effective district attorney to conduct the inquiry, not a remorseful killer.

The district attorney's office should be the ethical and judicial compass for the community, ensuring that justice is served -- or at least, sought. Instead, our DA has becoming a spinning compass for the media. The perpetuating inference continues that justice is somehow just around the corner. I do not see that occurring, as the two year anniversary of this murder approaches.

It is my belief the district attorney's office has effectively crippled this case. The time for intervention is now. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for the appointment of an entirely independent prosecution team to be introduced into this matter, who would oversee an attempt at righting this case.

* * * * *

Unmistakably and worst of all, we have failed a little girl named Jon Benet. Six years old. Many good people, decent, innocent citizens, are forever bound by the murder of this child. There is a tremendous obligation to them. But an infinitely greater obligation to her, as she rests in a small cemetery far away from this anomaly of a place called Boulder.

A distant second stands the second tragedy -- the failure of the system in Boulder. Ask the mistreated prosecution witnesses in this investigation, who cooperated for months, who now refuse to talk until a special prosecutor is established. Ask former detectives who have quietly tendered their shields in disheartenment. Ask all those innocent people personally affected by this case, who have had their lives upset because of the arbitrary label of "suspect" being attached. Ask the cops who cannot speak out because they still wear a badge. The list is long.

I know that to speak out brings its own issues. But as you also know, there are others who are as disheartened as I am, who are biting their tongues, searching their consciences. I know what may occur -- I may be portrayed as frustrated, disgruntled. Not so.

I have had an exemplary and decorated thirteen year career as a police officer and detective.

I didn't want to challenge the system. In no way do I wish to harm this case or subvert the long and arduous work that has been done. I only wish to speak up and ask for assistance in making a change. I want justice for a child who was killed in her home on Christmas night.

This case has defined many aspects of all our lives, and will continue to do so for all of our days. My colleagues put their hearts and souls into this case, and I will take some satisfaction that it was the detective team who showed tremendous efforts and loyalties to seeking justice for this victim. Many sacrifices were made. Families. Marriages. In the latter months of the investigation, I was diagnosed with a disease which will require a lifetime of medication. Although my health declined, I was resolved to see the case through to a satisfactory closure. I did that on June 1-2. And on June 22, I requested a leave of absence, without mention of what transpired in our department since Christmas 1996.

What I witnessed for two years of my life was so fundamentally flawed, it reduced me to tears. Everything the badge ever meant to me was so foundationally shaken, one should never have to sell one's soul as a prerequisite to wear it. On June 26, after leaving the investigation for the last time, and leaving the city of Boulder, I wept as I drove home, removing my detectives shield and placing it on the seat beside me, later putting it in a desk drawer at home, knowing I could never put it back on.

There is some consolation that a greater justice awaits the person who committed these acts, independent of this system we call "justice." A greater justice awaits. Of that, at least, we can be confident.

As a now infamous author, panicked in the night, once penned, "use that good southern common sense of yours." I will do just that.

Originally from a small southern town where this would never have been tolerated, where respect for law and order and traditions were instilled in me, I will take that murderous author's out-of-context advice. And use my good southern common sense to put this case into the perspective it necessitates -- a precious child was murdered. There needs to be some consequence to that.

Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my police career, a calling which I loved. I do this because I cannot continue to sanction by my silence what has occurred in this case. It was never a fair playing field, the "game" was simply unacceptable anymore. And that's what makes this all so painful. The detectives never had a chance. If ever there were a case, and if ever there were a victim, who truly meant something to the detectives pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this case, what case? Until such time an independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee this case, I will not be a part of this. What went on was simply wrong.

I recalled a favorite passage recently, Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter: "Just remember that one thing does not abide by majority rule, Scout -- it's your conscience."

At thirty-six years old, I thought my life's passion as a police officer was carved in stone. I realize that although I may have to trade my badge for a carpenter's hammer, I will do so with a clear conscience. It is with a heavy heart that I offer my resignation from the Boulder Police Department, in protest of this continuing travesty.


[Signed] 
Detective Steve Thomas #638
Detective Division
Boulder Police Department
August 6, 1998

31 comments:

john said...

Great show peter.

Well done hobs a fine contribution

Anonymous said...

All this time people have been saying that the Boulder police bungled the JonBenet case. How could they fail to bungle it with their hands tied behind their backs? The Grand Jury STILL found a reason to indict even with the evidence covered up. Dirty DA, bought and paid for by John Ramsey no doubt.

Anonymous said...

This letter from the detective should be used as evidence in a case against the DA for sabotaging JonBenets murder investigation.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if The DA, RAmseys and attorneys will be prosecuted for the kidnapping hoax that they've perpetuated all these years. It's led to many copy cat/coverups.

Lynn said...

Anons 11:51 and 11:58, I agree!

Sus said...

What makes this double sad is that I believe this is the model for prosecutors once a high-powered attorney enters the picture. It's also what happened in Kansas City with the Lisa Irvin case. The KC police have a case ready, but the attorneys, prosecutors, and FBI seem to have another agenda.

Jen said...

I will be finishing this mans book in the coming days with a whole new respect for his dedication and the work he did trying to bring justice for this murdered little girl.

john said...

OT.

Madeleine Lookalike Sends DNA Sample To Police.


The unnamed girl from New Zealand is often mistaken for Madeleine McCann who vanished from Praia da Luz in 2007.6:52am UK, Wednesday 06 February 2013
An age-progressed picture of Madeleine as she might look aged eight

A New Zealand girl repeatedly mistaken for missing Madeleine McCann has given police a sample of her DNA which will be sent to Scotland Yard.

The girl, who has not been named, is understood to have a similar eye defect to Madeleine, prompting members of the public to believe she is the missing child.

The DNA sample is a conclusive way of proving her identity, said Detective Senior Sergeant Kallum Croudis of Dunedin Police.

"The results of this process will not be known for some time," he told New Zealand newspaper The Southland Times.

On New Year's Eve police launched a five-day investigation when a retailer became suspicious of a man and a young girl, who bore a resemblance to Madeleine.


Kate and Gerry McCann say they will maintain their search for Madeleine
However, they said they were "absolutely satisfied" she was not Madeleine, and it was not the first time she had been mistaken for the missing girl.

Madeleine was nearly four when she vanished from her family's Portuguese holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in 2007 as her parents dined at a nearby restaurant with friends.

Madeleine's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, have never abandoned their high-profile campaign to find their eldest daughter, who would now be nine.

Sightings have also been reported in Sweden, Belgium and Australia.

It is not the first time a child has been DNA-tested in relation to the case of the missing British girl.

In 2011, a young girl spotted in India with a Belgian man and French woman was tested and was also found not to be Madeleine.

john said...

Kate and Gerry McCann say they will maintain their search for Madeleine
However, they said they were "ABSOLUTELY SATISFIED" she was not Madeleine, and it was not the first time she had been mistaken for the missing girl.

Do you no otherwise kate and Gerry?

Apple said...

Wow. Jon Benet had a good man on her side.

rob said...

This letter should have been published in the Boulder Daily the day it was submitted. Maybe in every newspaper nationwide.

Eliza said...

Great show. I downloaded it and listened to it today. About Steve Thomas, I think he was one of the few people who really seeked justice for Jonbenet.

Skeptical said...

Has Statement Analysis been applied to this letter? I am uncomfortable taking anyone at their word in this case. I want to know if Steve Thomas is telling the truth or if this is a CYA letter for a bungled police investigation. Have any other personnel of the Boulder Police made similar allegations? If the misdeeds in the DA's office were as rampant as he indicates, I am assuming there is corroboration from other officers.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
This letter from the detective should be used as evidence in a case against the DA for sabotaging JonBenets murder investigation.
February 5, 2013 at 11:51 PM

Well said.

Anonymous said...

rob, I agree. Hopefully detective Steve Thomas and his fellow LE officers get called to testify. Many of the original investigators have persisted patiently through the years, they possess virtue and diligence. It is news worthy!

Dee said...

If this is a true representation of what was happening behind the scenes of the investigation, how very sad and frustrating. LE works their butt off to solve a case and see justice served, only to have roadblocks put down on every avenue. Can the DA be prosecuted for obstruction of justice? To share sensitive case information with the defense - that's not just someone scared to go against a high powered private attorney, that sounds like someone whose pockets were being lined.

Mouse74 said...

Is Skeptical here just to combat boredom? I notice the name fits, but how do you expect to be taken seriously when you only look for one side of things? You have an agenda to be skeptical so your mind is already shut to learning anything. I don't get your presence? Is this a joke?

Lis said...

How sad is it when the crooked person stays on and the honest resigns.

Anonymous said...

Skeptical is not the only person in the world who questions whether the Ramseys are guilty or not. I'm not convinced they are guilty either. Please just allow alternative viewpoints or the discussion gets uninteresting.
I personally do not find Steve Thomas' theory that convincing. One reason is that, in his theory, John Ramsey is completely oblivious of Patsy's alleged murder of Jonbenet. Really??? Another reason--a brutal murder because of bedwetting? Again--
really???
I also am not convinced the ransom note came out of the mind of a middle-aged woman. Yeah I know you guys are completely convinced, but I am not.

Anonymous said...

I think this would be one of the best sites, because Peter has a talent for teaching statement analysis and there are smart minds here, but geez does everyone always have to agree with Peter or everyone else? I doubt Peter really needs to hear "you're right" "you're right" 50 times after every post.

Trigger said...

Steve Thomas is a man of integrity who cares about justice for a six year-old a little girl who was murdered on Christmas Day in her home.

Steve Thomas has carefully described how the DA's office was instrumental in helping Jon Benet's killer(s) avoid arrest and prosecution.

I am saddened that man who loves justice like Steve Thomas, has been silenced by a corrupt DA who protects the offenders.

There are many people who care about justice for Jon Benet, as Steve stated. This case will not rest until justice is meted out on her behalf.



Anonymous said...

The other thing is about the bedwetting theory, didn't the Ramsey's have maids and I have also read Jonbenet had 2 beds in her room, so, if jon benet had wet the bed what would the big deal have been? Patsy could have just told Jonbenet to sleep in the other bed and as far as washing the bedding, the maids would have done it! So, in my view, I don't understand how murderous rage would have come out of Patsy if Jonbenet wet herself. I mean, she had maids, they were rich she could easily buy another mattress even if Jon Benet had an accident that ruined the mattress although I am guessing she probably had plastic covers on Jonbenet's bed since she was a bedwetter.
Did police find any evidence that Jonbenet had even wet herself or her bed that night? Like clothes or bedding with urine on them? I am not saying that Thomas's theory is impossible, but I am saying I feel it is a weak theory.

Anonymous said...

The only way his theory is possible is if Patsy was completely sociopathic and hid it well for all those years in my opinion. To write that ransom note so calm and collected after she murdered Jonbenet--she would have to be a cold-blooded sociopath. I wonder did Patsy show any other previous signs of sociopathy?

Anonymous said...

If she murdered Jonbenet, it is likely she would not have a normal reaction to her kid bedwetting, don't you think?

I heard about something called content analysis being done on the ransom note and the results said it was likely written by a woman but with a man's input, which fits the bill here.

I also read a theory that John had planned to dump the body later, but might have changed his mind and panicked if word were a K-9 unit was going to be brought into the house. That the whole point of the ransom note was to explain why Jonbenet would be found dead later ouside the house, and that Patsy may have called police without John's permission way ahead of schedule. This is all assuming John killed Jonbenet.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but what about the stun gun marks? Did Patsy use a stungun too?
Plus, Steve Thomas is saying Patsy exploded in rage slamming Jonbenet's head into something and then strangled her because she had been so injured by having her head slammed. Strangling is an extremely cold-blooded way to kill--so, it is hard to picture Patsy or anyone exploding in rage, slamming the head, thinking oh my God what have they done? and then going on the attack again, but this time to strangle the person.
People say no signs of breaking and entering--what about the open window? No, bc a spider can't weave a web in a day--yeah they can.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
I didn't read Steve Thomas's book, however in the long police interview with Patsy, and again in a later CBS interview Patsy shows sensitivity and additional info when asked about the kids showering (long interview) and lists all the reasons to suspect John in the CBS interview.

Ivy said...

Still plowing through the interview transcripts. I'm sure there is a lot of truth in this letter, though I have to say I am general skeptical of these long finger pointing screeds upon departure. They must be taken with a grain of salt, given the agenda, etc. I don't doubt someone exiting the DA's office in frustration could write one similar in tone about the misdeeds of the Boulder police department prevented them from properly prosecuting this case, blah blah blah, that would have a lot of people nodding.

Here is the thought I have been focusing on recently regarding this case. The thing that is so puzzling is that both parents appear to be covering up what happened. Both were afraid one would turn on the other or give the other away (no separate interviews) What kind of circumstance could lead to that? If they both planned to and did kill JonBenet, which seems not impossible (she was about to out about abuse and they couldn't have that) but farfetched. An "accident" where death was not intended, but that makes the parent involved criminally responsible in some respect or a nonaccidental death where one parent tells the other it was an "accident" that won't be believed for x, y or z reason. But then why would the other parent go along and cover up the "accident"? If it was the father who killed her how could he convince the wife to go along? With threats? By somehow convincing her it was her wifely duty? Was the shame of having been married to someone who would do something like this so much greater than being the victim of a stranger kidnap/murder wrongfully accused? Or was the mother guilty of some abuse that would be discovered if she told the truth about what happened, as some have speculated? If it was the mother, what would make the father go along? I think the only thing people can think of is fear of discovery of abuse, as the father doesn't seem like he would just stand by the mother and lie out of some obligation or shame of being married to a murderer or whatever. The Burke did it theory offers a possible answer to the puzzle of why they both cover, but to me the fact that they got separate lawyers suggests they weren't working as a team to get Burke out of a mess. I suppose it's plausible they would have different levels of culpability there too that would make it necessary for them to have separate lawyers (e.g. one finishes off JonBenet, the other only participates in cover up) but that just doesn't ring true to me. I also don't think the father would go to bat for Burke that way. Who was Burke's lawyer? Did he have a third lawyer, or was he represented by one of the same lawyers as one of the parents? That might be a clue. In his interviews, who was representing him? We don't have interview transcripts for him obviously, but do we know who represented him? If I had to make a wager, I would say one of the parents committed the murder and the one who only participated in the cover up for whatever reason had the same lawyer as Burke, who had little culpability except possibly lying about what happened that night and morning, i.e. coverup. I change my views on this case all the time, though. I do strongly suspect that JonBenet's death and/or the cover up her death was related to sexual abuse. This is all just opinion.

rob said...

anon 11:11- I read a statement by the maid, who said that Patsy did absolutely no housework, except change the bed and wash the sheets, everytime JB wet it.

Anonymous said...

Ivy--I have wondered the same thing--there really is no logical answer about what wouldcause one to cover for the other particularly with setting up a such a sick crime scene to cover up. My opinion is that an intruder had to have done this crime. EXCEPT for the fact that Patsy's handwriting seems to match the handwriting on ransom note. I do not agree that the style/content of note comes from a middle aged woman. The writer I believe, is someone who
obssessively watches crime movies. I believe of the writer of the note may have been "part" of something (not a foreign faction) but perhaps had a coconspirator bc the writer goes from "I" to "we" when trying to sound tough and "powerful".
However, the handwriting match is what is so
incriminating of Patsy.

Anonymous said...

The author of this tradgedy already has a clue, though not all the pieces to the puzzle.
He realizes the FBI is sharing information on a case that is not theirs. He realizes the DA wants to promote himself via media exposure the murder brings his town/county. He realizes only the best of authors would reconize the "game."

What he doesn't realize is how the game is put together. Does he search for the author or the killer?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Steve Thomas was given a key to the Ramsey's house when he was in the evidence gathering portion of his investigation? What's up with the new DA?