Steve Thomas' IRMI
Just in case:
I have a problem with this kind of reasoning. It assumes (correctly) that calls made from the house during the night would be incriminating, but then when the records come back and show no such activity, the absence of the calls become suspicious, enough that people start making ridiculous conspiracy theories? Phone records can't just be erased - the data would still be there - so the only explanation would be if AirTouch was in on it, at which point we've left reality far behind.
Of course, the "missing" December minutes for John's cell phone could have a far
more prosaic explanation:
TOM HANEY: Let me back you up again. We talked about that phone, possible phone lines. Did you folks at that time have any other phones, any cell phones, cellular--
PATSY RAMSEY: John had a cell phone. And I had just gotten a cell phone at Christmas, little teeny one.
[...]
TOM HANEY: Did he have just the one, was that a personal one?
PATSY RAMSEY: He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- anyway, I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, what's that store -- that music video store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one. And I think meanwhile, Denise, his secretary had ordered him a new phone.
TOM HANEY: Okay, was that an Access Graphics phone?
PATSY RAMSEY: Access Graphics, yes. I mean there were a couple of phones and they were both relatively new and I don't know what the number was.
[...]
TOM HANEY: Okay. And between the time that you folks had returned from the Whites on Christmas night, and this call to the Boulder police in the morning, on the 26th, had you made or received any phone calls on any of those lines?
PATSY RAMSEY: Not that I recall, no.
So, John had a cell phone bought a few years ago (confirmed as 94 by Thomas). Patsy says he lost it, at a time when she felt a new one as a Christmas present in 1996 would be convenient. And we see no activity on said cell phone for December, meaning it makes sense for John to have lost his phone in late November or early December.
I also think the last paragraph from the Thomas quote is... bizarre (not to mention petulant) and goes some way to explain why he was such a failure in the role as lead investigator.
Three calls the day after the murder and two more a few days later came from the home phone of the lieutenant governor of the State of Colorado, Gail Schoettler.
Treating her like any other witness simply didn't work. The lieutenant governor strutted her political power and stonewalled me until she was damned good and ready to answer questions. Her husband, Don Stevens, a friend of John Ramsey for thirty-five years, had made the calls merely to convey sympathy, Schoettler told me.
OK, so the husband of the lieutenant governor of Colorado was a friend of the Ramseys and conveyed his sympathies, as so many did. That's well and...
The experience demonstrated how deeply John Ramsey was plugged into the Democratic Party power structure.
...huh? Being friends with the spouse of a lieutenant governor is being plugged into a political party's power structure? It wasn't even his party - Ramsey was a Republican. Also, a more pertinent bit of information might be that John Stevens was the Dean of the University of Colorado at Denver School of Business, a far more likely "structure" for Ramsey to be "plugged into".
Colorado Governor Roy Romer was chairman of the Democratic National Committee and advised by the politically astute Hal Haddon, one of John Ramsey's attorneys. Haddon's firm prepared President Clinton's taxes.
Which might have something to do with
Hal Haddon being a renowned attorney of considerable skill who was hired in plenty of high profile cases, and that goes for
his firm too. If you had money and wanted a good local lawyer, that's where you'd go. When someone tries to draw a connection - Haddon worked for both Ramsey and the governor/president - look at what's not being said. As in, what others did the firm work for? The answer is
a lot.
When Schoettler left office, she was appointed head of the US delegation to an international commission by President Clinton.
A high-ranking Democratic politician was appointed to a commission by a Democratic president after she had lost a gubernatorial election? How is this in any way suspicious and not very much business as usual? Clinton appointed plenty of politicians to commissions over his two terms in office.
Thomas really tries to imply a conspiracy here. Vague hints at nefarious connections, with absolutely no evidence - which is about the same as he did with the JonBenet case.
This doesn’t prove it; merely that it has been stated.
So, like I said, baseless gossip.