• Sections
Patsy's left-hand sample

# Patsy's left-hand sample

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

docG
#220 Feb 21, 2013
When a suspect in a murder case comes up with a bizarre and unlikely alibi, most of the details of which he "can't recall," including details any normal person would easily be able to recall, with the ONLY one supporting that alibi being his wife, then I'm sorry AK, but I see no reason to simply accept it at face value. Or think hard to concoct some rationale for his lying out of thin air. And then, when someone in a position to verify that alibi claims she knows nothing about it, and accuses him of lying, then once again I'm sorry, AK, but the alibi has to be seen for what it is, a desperate attempt at misdirection. What's been missed by so many attempting to understand this case was that the window story IS in fact an alibi, which can be seen as such only when we consider the obvious signs of staging at that window. I'm sorry if you don't get it, but as you've made abundantly clear, anything other than an intruder scenario is simply unacceptable to you and no amount of reasoning or evidence will ever change that.
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, 2 + 2 = 4, but you have 0 + 0 and that still equals nothing. There is no evidence that the window was broken that night and there is no evidence that broken glass was cleaned up that morning. 0 + 0 = 0.
I think that the real problem with “John’s window story” is your analysis and interpretation of it, and sorry Doc, but that aint evidence.
My favorite explanation of “John’s window story” is that the wife and kids were out of town, so he decided to sneak out and have a few, but he didn’t want the wide to know about it. I read this one on some forgotten forum, and I have no idea who posted it, but I love it. It’s also believable.
However, I don’t think an explanation is needed for “John’s window story.” It is what it is. People are notoriously unreliable as eyewitnesses and memory is malleable and fallible and more things are forgotten then ever remembered. Plus, he had all those drinks, eh!:)

AK
docG
#221 Feb 21, 2013
Colt1911 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your overall theory of the case, but I think it's more likely the glass was cleaned up right after the 911 call.
First, JR would not have had any control over the cops once they arrived, so he couldn't prevent them from going to the basement, and if they did that, they'd see the glass.
I think once the 911 call was made he shifted to a plan in which he'd suggest that it must have been someone with a key. He points out that the doors were locked, and that he supposedly broke the window months prior.
Well, we really have no way of knowing what was going on in his mind. But I see no reason to accept AK's version of what happened after the police arrived. Obviously they didn't parade straight down to the basement, because we know they were searching the premises for footprints. And after that it seems as though they were inspecting the ransom note. I see no reason to assume John would not have had time to slip down into the basement while they were preoccupied with the footprints and the note. That to me seems the most likely scenario. But we will probably never know what the real sequence of events were. All I know for sure is that John's window story is complete bullshit, which should be obvious to any but hard core Ramsey defenders.

As far as the "pissing contest" is concerned, I agree. I see no point in continuing this debate with AK. I've made my point.

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#222 Feb 21, 2013
The Count of Monte Cristo wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc, regardless of what happened in the basement, your theory fails with the ransom note. Neither John nor Patsy nor Burke could have written it because none of the above would have suggested that John use his "good southern common sense." Not even a criminal mastermind the likes of Lex Luther, nor his bumbling sidekick, Otis, could have considered such an oblique feint for it is simply far too clever by half. It is just barely exculpatory by sheer accident! The bottom line is that this suggestion alone (to say nothing of the rest of note) makes it extremely unlikely that this ransom note was written by John, or Patsy, or Burke. I could understand your suspecting John Ramsey of such incredible deceit if he was a notorious grifter, or even a career intelligence agent, highly trained in the most sophisticated arts of espionage, but such is not the case.
Of course, one can always claim that "anything is possible" but that is not the intelligent way to follow the evidence. Evidence, like water and electricity, usually follows the path of least resistance. The odds are stacked far too high in favor of this note being written by someone other than a Ramsey. And when you add in John's being excluded by just about every forensic handwriting and communications expert consulted, his personality profile, his lack of motive, his complete lack of any prior history for such extreme, violent behavior, the methodic brutality of the murder, etc. etc., you have to inevitably concede that you are almost certainly on a fools errand if your intention is to prove that John did it.
The ransom letter has Patsy all over it. Forget about matching letters. The use of acronyms fits Patsy. The overuse of exclamation points fits Patsy. The unusual and over-the-top indentation fits Patsy's letter writing to a "t". Certain terms such as "and hence" fit Patsy's letter writing. Only someone biased against truth could look at that ransom note and say: "Patsy didn't write it." At the least, if one is playing fairly, one has to admit that there are similarities to Patsy's style, etc.

You are convinced that Patsy or John wouldn't say: "Use that southern common sense" in adressing John. Why not? He lived in the South for quite some time and his wife and children were still living there at the time of the crime. At the least, you have to admit the letter writer was quite familiar with John. That narrows the field down quite a bit: The letter writer is someone who is familiar with John, knows the lay of the house real well and kindly placed the pen back in it's proper place. The letter writer is someone that JBR was most likely familiar with.

So, if not Patsy, then, what close acquaintance was involved and didn't leave DNA evidence, fingerprints, hair evidence and disguised their writing so well that no one could find resemblance to the ransom note.

Judged:

3

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#223 Feb 21, 2013
Nobodyudno wrote:
What is the pissing contest in this thread accomplishing?
Sorry. I thought this was Topix.

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#224 Feb 21, 2013
Colt1911 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with your overall theory of the case, but I think it's more likely the glass was cleaned up right after the 911 call.
First, JR would not have had any control over the cops once they arrived, so he couldn't prevent them from going to the basement, and if they did that, they'd see the glass.
I think once the 911 call was made he shifted to a plan in which he'd suggest that it must have been someone with a key. He points out that the doors were locked, and that he supposedly broke the window months prior.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that the window was broken that night and no evidence that glass was cleaned up that morning.

AK

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#225 Feb 21, 2013
docG wrote:
When a suspect in a murder case comes up with a bizarre and unlikely alibi, most of the details of which he "can't recall," including details any normal person would easily be able to recall, with the ONLY one supporting that alibi being his wife, then I'm sorry AK, but I see no reason to simply accept it at face value. Or think hard to concoct some rationale for his lying out of thin air. And then, when someone in a position to verify that alibi claims she knows nothing about it, and accuses him of lying, then once again I'm sorry, AK, but the alibi has to be seen for what it is, a desperate attempt at misdirection. What's been missed by so many attempting to understand this case was that the window story IS in fact an alibi, which can be seen as such only when we consider the obvious signs of staging at that window. I'm sorry if you don't get it, but as you've made abundantly clear, anything other than an intruder scenario is simply unacceptable to you and no amount of reasoning or evidence will ever change that.
<quoted text>
Why should he remember the details?

Which part is bizarre? Since when do people not – often!– act bizarre?

LHP can only verify that she wasn’t asked to clean it up. So, she wasn’t asked to clean it up.

You have no evidence to show that the window was broken that night and no evidence to show that glass was cleaned up that morning. Evidence of either should exist, it does not.

AK

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#226 Feb 21, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we really have no way of knowing what was going on in his mind. But I see no reason to accept AK's version of what happened after the police arrived. Obviously they didn't parade straight down to the basement, because we know they were searching the premises for footprints. And after that it seems as though they were inspecting the ransom note. I see no reason to assume John would not have had time to slip down into the basement while they were preoccupied with the footprints and the note. That to me seems the most likely scenario. But we will probably never know what the real sequence of events were. All I know for sure is that John's window story is complete bullshit, which should be obvious to any but hard core Ramsey defenders.
As far as the "pissing contest" is concerned, I agree. I see no point in continuing this debate with AK. I've made my point.
It’s not my version Doc. It’s from the Thomas book, the Kolar book, the Search Warrant Affidavit’s and PMPT. It’s their version.

Reichenbach is the officer who did the “search for footprints.” He did it after going into the house (6:00 by search warrants, about 6:10 by Kolar and Thomas) and talking to French and talking to Mr Ramsey and searching the inside of the house (with Mr Ramsey). After searching inside, Reichenbach went outside and made his observations regarding the snow, etc.

By the time Reichenbach went back outside (approx. 6:45, iirc, PMPT) to scope the situation others had arrived. In all the literature and various sources we have available to us there is nothing to even suggest that Mr Ramsey was ever missing or unaccounted for or given any opportunity to sneak away and sweep up shattered glass before the initial search by police.

You have nothing. No surprise you don’t wish to continue this “debate.”

AK

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
docG
#227 Feb 22, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that I am aware of that the window was broken that night and no evidence that glass was cleaned up that morning.

AK
The testimony of a witness is evidence, I.e., "testimonial evidence." LHP testified she had no knowledge of any broken window, in effect denying Patsy's claim that the two of them cleaned up the broken glass together. She called John's story a lie. We're talking about an eye witness, not someone spouting hearsay. So, yes, there IS evidence the window was broken that night.

Judged:

2

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
docG
#228 Feb 22, 2013
And if the window was broken that night then who do you suppose cleaned up the glass? The "intruder"?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#229 Feb 22, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
The testimony of a witness is evidence, I.e., "testimonial evidence." LHP testified she had no knowledge of any broken window, in effect denying Patsy's claim that the two of them cleaned up the broken glass together. She called John's story a lie. We're talking about an eye witness, not someone spouting hearsay. So, yes, there IS evidence the window was broken that night.
Some people, most I think, find LHP to be a less than credible witness. I’m not one of those. I think she’s as credible as the next person. If she didn’t know there was a broken window, then she didn’t know. If she knows nothing about any glass being cleaned up, then she doesn’t know. If she thinks the Ramseys are liars and worse, then it is what it is.

In the ’98 interview Mrs Ramsey claims that she – Mrs Ramsey - cleaned up the glass. She says,“Well, yes. When I came back, 24 you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass 25 everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out – 0418 1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned 2 it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda 3 sweep down there because the kids, the boys would 4 sometimes play in here.”

She had LHP sweep there, after the glass was cleaned up. She does not say that she and LHP participated in this event together, and we don’t know how much time may have passed between Mrs Ramsey cleaning up the glass and Mrs Ramsey asking LHP to “sweep down there.” Did LHP even do that much? Maybe, but we don’t know.

And, let’s make no mistake. One might be able to pick up a lot of the glass, but you would have to sweep up the rest. If this happened the morning of crime, then the other “scattered debris” from the window well would have also been swept up. It was not.

So, we’re right back to where? Oh yeah. 0 +0 = 0. No evidence that the window was broken that night and no evidence that glass was cleaned up that morning.

AK

Judged:

3

3

2

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#230 Feb 22, 2013
docG wrote:
And if the window was broken that night then who do you suppose cleaned up the glass? The "intruder"?
There is no evidence that the window was broken that night so we don’t have to suppose that anyone cleaned up that glass.

AK

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Colt1911
#231 Feb 22, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that I am aware of that the window was broken that night and no evidence that glass was cleaned up that morning.

AK
No, no evidence, just common sense.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
Colt1911
#232 Feb 22, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, we really have no way of knowing what was going on in his mind. But I see no reason to accept AK's version of what happened after the police arrived. Obviously they didn't parade straight down to the basement, because we know they were searching the premises for footprints. And after that it seems as though they were inspecting the ransom note. I see no reason to assume John would not have had time to slip down into the basement while they were preoccupied with the footprints and the note. That to me seems the most likely scenario. But we will probably never know what the real sequence of events were. All I know for sure is that John's window story is complete bullshit, which should be obvious to any but hard core Ramsey defenders.
As far as the "pissing contest" is concerned, I agree. I see no point in continuing this debate with AK. I've made my point.
I'm not saying there wasn't enough time, I'm just saying JR didn't know what the cops would do, or where they would go first. They might have started searching the house and found the glass. It's less of a risk for him to clean the glass immediately after the 911 call.

If the window had been broken, LHP would certainly have known about it.

Judged:

2

2

2

Report Abuse Judge it!
docG
#235 Feb 22, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people, most I think, find LHP to be a less than credible witness. I’m not one of those. I think she’s as credible as the next person. If she didn’t know there was a broken window, then she didn’t know. If she knows nothing about any glass being cleaned up, then she doesn’t know. If she thinks the Ramseys are liars and worse, then it is what it is.
In the ’98 interview Mrs Ramsey claims that she – Mrs Ramsey - cleaned up the glass. She says,“Well, yes. When I came back, 24 you know, from the lake, I mean there was glass 25 everywhere all over the floor, and I cleaned out – 0418 1 picked up pieces of glass, you know. He never cleaned 2 it up, obviously, and cleaned it up, and I had Linda 3 sweep down there because the kids, the boys would 4 sometimes play in here.”
She had LHP sweep there, after the glass was cleaned up. She does not say that she and LHP participated in this event together, and we don’t know how much time may have passed between Mrs Ramsey cleaning up the glass and Mrs Ramsey asking LHP to “sweep down there.” Did LHP even do that much? Maybe, but we don’t know.
"PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."
docG
#236 Feb 22, 2013
Colt1911 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying there wasn't enough time, I'm just saying JR didn't know what the cops would do, or where they would go first. They might have started searching the house and found the glass. It's less of a risk for him to clean the glass immediately after the 911 call.
If the window had been broken, LHP would certainly have known about it.
You are assuming John would have been completely on top of the situation that morning, but that does not seem likely. I think he was improvising from the seat of his pants. I think that through sheer dumb luck he probably saw an opportunity to sneak down into the basement when the police were distracted, so that's what he did. If he'd never had that opportunity, then the glass would not have been cleaned up and he'd have had to come up with a different story. What happened after the police arrived is what happened, it certainly didn't HAVE to happen that way.

And yes, if the window had been broken LHP would certainly have known about it. According to John's story it would have been broken for months, so how could she not have known? Yet she denies knowing anything about it.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#237 Feb 22, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
"PR: I mean I cleaned that thoroughly and I asked Linda to go behind me and vacuum."
Ah, the ’97 interview. I forgot about this one. And, of course, you take this literally, right? Good grief.

LHP denies knowing about a broken window, and I believe her. LHP denies cleaning up the glass – Mrs Ramsey did that – so, there’s nothing to dispute here, so far. It’s the question of clean-up that seems to be – for you – a bother.

If LHP was “behind” or with Mrs Ramsey, then why was Mrs Ramsey picking up the glass –“every chunk,” every,“little, you know, pieces, big pieces, everything.” Ramsey would have told LHP to pick up the glass; right? Or they would have done it together; wouldn’t they?

If Mr Ramsey was lying about the event, then why would she mention LHP? She would have just stopped with “I cleaned up the glass, every little piece of it, all by myself.” If a lie, why mention the Pughs at all? John broke the window, I cleaned it up, it was never repaired, I have no idea if anyone else knew anything about it; end of story. g’nite.

AK

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#238 Feb 22, 2013
the above “Mr Ramsey” should be “Mrs Ramsey.”– typo; sorry

AK
deb
#239 Feb 23, 2013
docG wrote:
<quoted text>
The testimony of a witness is evidence, I.e., "testimonial evidence." LHP testified she had no knowledge of any broken window, in effect denying Patsy's claim that the two of them cleaned up the broken glass together. She called John's story a lie. We're talking about an eye witness, not someone spouting hearsay. So, yes, there IS evidence the window was broken that night.
Linda lied about other things, so therefore, she does not make a reliable "witness." How do you KNOW she was telling the truth?

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: May 11

AOL

#240 Feb 23, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
Linda lied about other things, so therefore, she does not make a reliable "witness." How do you KNOW she was telling the truth?
The Ramsey's lied about LOTS of things, therefor they're not reliable witnesses either. How do you KNOW when they're telling the truth???

Judged:

1

1

1

Report Abuse Judge it!
docG
#241 Feb 23, 2013
deb wrote:
<quoted text>
Linda lied about other things, so therefore, she does not make a reliable "witness." How do you KNOW she was telling the truth?
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Acceptable in a court of law. Unless her allegations can be shown to be outright lies, her testimony would be completely acceptable. So let John have his day in court, and when that day comes then his lawyers can cross examine Linda Hoffmann Pugh and try to poke holes in her story. The jury can then decide for itself if they think she was lying.

I see no reason for her to lie about that window, by the way. And her comments about the window date from the time she was supporting Patsy wholeheartedly, so again no reason for her to lie.

Also, just out of curiosity, I'm wondering "other things" you think she lied about.

#### Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

### JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

2.5 Pages of RN 1 hr PelicanBreefs 79
naked through a window (Jun '10) 2 hr PelicanBreefs 18
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 5 hr icu2 752
Jonbenet naked 8 hr Texxy 9
the box of candy 16 hr heatherk79 20
Author strikes down intruder theory in JonBenet... (Jul '12) 23 hr Texxy 146
Juror 13 solved the crime. Fri PelicanBreefs 5

#### JonBenet Ramsey News

More JonBenet Ramsey News from Topix »

More from around the web