I’m going to respond to this by asking questions and pointing out certain things. I shall title each.
You have made the decision I have only read her book, I certainly didn’t tell you that’s all I had read. Below is a list of what I have read & seen in this case. You have decided Paula is biased but not from what I see she’s isn’t. Can you provide evidence she is bias?
Paulas book.
Perfect town perfect murder.
All documentaries
CNN docu-series
Autopsy report
leaked information
Interview statements
Grand Jury indictment
Dr Phill interview
Lou Smit Documentary
Crime Scene images
Crime scene video
John-mark Karr Interview
Question
Why did the DA choose not to convict if they had the evidence From the grand a jury indictment ?
Apparently, you don't know the background of the case. Alex Hunter was Monty Hall. Alex was excluded from the investigation after too much information was being leaked to the press. That's when Lou Smit came in.
Question
Why did they bring in Lou Smit? (He didn’t barge his way in either. They tried to stop him testifying). Why? If nothing he said mattered what were they stopping him ?
Why didn't they bring in any other investigators for the grand jury? Lou Smit insisted and he used evidence he selectively stole from the case.
Comment
His testimony didn’t make any difference as they heard weeks of testimony from many others.
And yet, he pushed himself into a grand jury investigation when he wasn't asked to testify. He had already said that he would never allow the Ramseys to be indicted.
Observation
This was a sadistic crime, no mother would torture their child in this way. Even an evil mother wouldn’t do it this way. Name one who has. I saw the ransom note as more of a continuation of that sadists game to keep enjoying that crime. ( similar to BTK)
Are you sure you have no evidence that a mother could be sadistic? There are plenty of examples of this happening in the past. This could have been a psychotic break. I also wasn't saying PDI even though I've read several scenarios of how that's possible.
Question
Why is it that everybody who says, TRDI or BDI don’t like anything that doesn’t agree with what they think, and it’s biased, but everything that does back their theory up is not biased?
You're supporting IDI and you dismiss every possible RDI. You support your own bias.
Comment
That PD had no experience to deal with that crime and their lies were exposed even if you don’t like that. They admitted they messed it up. See here.
I know exactly how LE screwed up the investigation. The problem with that is that most websleuths write-off the observations of experienced LE. Not everything they did was completely wrong or a complete flub (to put it gently.) The reports of the Ramseys are consistent from one LE officer to the next. Yes, I can list off the top of my head the mistakes they made, but that should never dismiss everything that was reported unless your intent is to completely assassinate the characters of LE (which so many people wish to do.)
Police Chief In JonBenet Ramsey Killing Admits Mistakes
www.huffpost.com
Comment
Never in my 52 years has a mother ever garrotted their child to death! Never! And what was the motive For such a brutal killing?
Yes, I can also identify good people from bad people by standing on a street corner. How many parents have strangled their children to death? How many parents have downed their children? How many parents have killed their children by intentionally beating them to death. Yes, it's extremely rare, but it does happen. (I wish I could live in your world.)
Question
Why is there no mention of the $118.000 by the police regarding the fraud at Access Graphics-and the court ordering the fraudster to pay AG that amount? Instead of telling us it’s Johns bonus amount?
John's friend who embezzled the money from Access Graphics was immediately identified by the Ramseys when this was only a kidnapping case. 'The police knew his name. (What? You thought this was a secret only for the Websleuting community?) And the $118k wasn't the exact amount of the check. But I've got news for you. A 118,000 dollar bonus is a very easy argument between a married couple who are arguing about spending. Remember what Nedra said about JonBenet's tastes when JB selected a chair. Patsy relished having expensive tastes. If John was trying to control her spending, a $118,000 bonus would have been an easy arguing point for Patsy. John, Patsy or anyone around them could have heard it. Another alternative argument is that the $118k was a bragging point. "Oh, John got a $118 thousand dollar bonus this year. Isn't that great." THIS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE SECRET YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT OUT TO BE.
Comment
Burke did not own a pair of hi-tec boots. Show me the evidence he did please. And the evidence of the size matching that at the crime scene.( I’m more inclined to believe the police left that print).
The evidence for this is hearsay. His friends said that they saw him wearing boots with a compass on them.
The boot print could have come from the investigators or someone who was down there getting the Christmas trees. Please identify yourself as an expert on white mold and what leaves such an impression on it. After that, please identify yourself as an expert on what can be caught on the bottom of a shoe that will stop white mold from growing back. You have to put that boot print in the room during the murder.
Comment
Burkes memory from childhood now can’t be relied on as we remember things very differently years late. False memory syndrome being one thing we all have. On top of that it was traumatic for him.
So Burke put the flashlight in John's hands years later. He had no recollection of that when it happened.
There are interviews with Burke not to long after this happened. It's not like he gave a deposition, but he was interviewed. He was asked how his sister was murdered and "surprise" he said that someone either hit her over the head or stabbed her over the head with a knife. A lot of Websleuths believe this is a gotcha moment, but they ignore the comment about downward stabbing (motion) with a knife. None of this convinces me that Burke was there. If he would have ended with "she was struck over the head," then I'd agree. But he may have overheard the stuff about the head wound.
Question
Why would they cover up an accident by garrotting their child instead of calling for an ambulance if Burke had done this? You have to be willing to say he did it all, if you go down that line. Burke was not at the age of criminal responsibility so why would they take this option?
If you've followed this case you've already seen many questions about why John and Patsy would cover this up. Somehow the answers others have reached satisfied them, but it never satisfied me. I don't think any parents so close to emergency responders would do such a thing. I also don't believe the Ramseys were aware of the law, but I still think they would have sought help.
The problem I have with the idea that no one sought help is that "there are other ways of seeking help." What if someone you trust told you...
Comment
While I don’t agree with the entry point that Lou raises, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think there wasn’t an intruder, as you say there were 6 other entry points and people had keys. It doesn’t have to be an intruder the Ramseys don’t know. And with being a Christian family there is no way Patsy would’ve gone to her grave without admitting what she had done and putting herself right before God. No way at all. I grew up in a Christian household and I can assure you you wouldn’t want to go to your meet your maker without confessing as that’s the basic belief’s of Christianity.
Patsy never needed to confess to anything to the police, the press or the public. In Christianity a confession is private between and your priest. You somehow think Patsy needed to confess to the public? (This comment makes me believe that you're not sincere in these comments/questions.)
Question
This truth that you say that you’ve uncovered of what really happened, would you like to share that?
Linda Arndt said she wouldn't every say it. I thought it was because she was afraid of being sued or afraid of her reputation being hurt. It's painful to think about. I understand that now.
Thoughts
I am still open and haven’t made a full decision but I am leaning towards a paedophile ring from within the pageant circle.
Please stick with that theory.
Comment
John Mark Karr didn’t confess to her murder when he contacted Michael Tracey and only ever said he was there when she died. He wasn’t doing it for intentional attention either, because he contacted him anonymously from across the other side of the world! How did he know about other Paedophile’s within the pageant? ( Randy Simmons) before he was arrested and exposed for child *advertiser censored* ? (all of which he divulged in his tv interview Years earlier).
The details he gave about the murder were wrong. He wasn't there. When he was extradited back to the states, he went to prison even without a JB conviction. The original investigators also placed him out of state of Colorado when the murder occured. Mary Lacy didn't do her homework before they brought him back to the US.
Even Detective Steve Ainsworth who once said it was the family now says different.He has also said he realised their investigation was floored and wants to reinterview Randy and thinks he may of been responsible. See here.
Steve Ainsworth. Why don't you ask him what he knows? If he has information then why doesn't he bring it forward? Come on, we're all waiting for an answer. Present your evidence.
Randy was left alone with Jonbenet when her mother went to get pizza, if she was sexually assaulted why are people not look at him as the suspect now we know who he is? instead of accusing her father? He had access to the family home.
This is where dumb meets dumber.
1) I don't know that she was sexually assaulted before her murder. There are many reasons for her autopsy results. The problem is that signs of sexual abuse need much more investigation. That investigation was severely stunted due to the murder investigation and the opposition to the murder investigation. (Randy was a suspect just as every other family member was. He was investigated.)
2) If she was sexually abused before her murder, was that sexual abuse actually connected to the murder?
3) She was abused during her murder due to the evidence of blood and a piece of wood found. (Why are you implying that Randy had anything to do with this. Do you have evidence?)
Comment
The vitriol & hate I have seen in this case towards her family and Burke has been the worst I have seen and that happened because of the lies being leaked to the media. ( no footprints in the snow) There was no snow!
There was snow on the ground (it didn't snow that night). The front and the back footpaths were cleared, but there was some frost.
Comment
Unless you’ve been in a situation so horrific as this you’ve no idea how you would act, and there is no prescribed way of how to grieve. Nor would you know how traumatic amnesia may affect you after, altering memory.( Changing what you say in these circumstances, doesn’t mean you LIED).
There are too many cases where this claim caused investigators to overlook obvious signs (with 20/20 hindsight). Unusual behaviors must be investigated and must not be written off with such a simple dismissal.
It doesn't mean you LIED--it doesn't mean you shouldn't quickly dismiss these details either.
Question with Comments.
Why did detectives not look more closely at Linda Hoffman-Pugh? She had no alibi, needed money, they found a piece of rope tied round a stick in their garage similar to the garrotte. The rope fibres found on the knife (only she, Burke and his mother knew where it was). She had the same note pads and pens she stole from theIf house. Leaving a note on the step she knew Patsy would see, as that’s where she left notes for her.
Hmmm. A woman with children of her own and you're questioning what she was doing on Christmas night. If she had done something she would have been labeled as one of the stupidest criminals. So you're saying that she put her kids to bed, drove to the Ramsey's home and murdered a little girl and somehow managed to get back home. What? The criminal mastermind Lou Smit couldn't figure this out? According to Lou Smit's theory, she arrived at the Ramsey's house early, broke the window and waited around until the family arrived to kill JonBenet. She then survived all the interviews and faked her remorse. That's okay for a theory, but she also managed to survive all the police questioning. And she was such a mastermind to fake her shock when she was told JB was killed. Okay, but I think you need to dig deeper on this theory.
The circumstantial evidences for her to of arranged this crime is for more then the Ramsey’s circumstantial evidence. Was she jealous of them and wanted to make it look like it was Patsy?
Smile. Make it look like it was Patsy. Yes, the RN was written in letters that Patsy would use. Every single one of the handwriting experts the Ramsey's hired were exactly that: hired by the Ramseys. They were under contract--release those contracts so the public can understand what the handwriting experts agreed to. The handwriting experts who say it was Patsy's handwriting are excluding one very important part. The Ransom note was written on sharpie. That means that 1/2 of their analysis is not available. They can't evaluate the same pressure points created by pencils or pens. They're going on the shape and (more importantly) the distinctive quirks of Patsy's handwriting.
Comment
If I was forced to make a decision right now I would say it was a couple of paedophiles who worked within the pageant world that did this. They had links to JonBenet regularly & her home, passed her photographs round the Paedophile scene, and had sexually abused her prior. But there is not enough evidence to accuse anyone!
For me this is more a question of deception. Who applied deception? Exactly what was happening before and directly after the murder of this child? I'd still love to blame this on some monster. Once I put the pieces together, this thing makes me feel sicker inside than I ever thought I could feel.
If it was a couple of paedophiles, then John and Patsy would have been united in going after this person. Do you really think a business man who's admitted to compromising himself for his business would have stopped at nothing to find the murder of his daughter? If John was worried about the safety of his family, he would have flown then out of town, put them in a secure place and then gone right back to Boulder to help.
And don't say we don't know John and Patsy's thoughts. We do. They put it in their own words in their book.