An organization the size and nature of CBS has way more coverage than this. They are likely self insured for a significant amount (way over 10k; more likely for multiple millions) and then they would have layers of coverage above any primary E&O or Personal and Advertising Injury coverage. For those individuals sued in relation to the CBS broadcast, they are almost certainly indemnified and defended by CBS pursuant to their contract. For Dr. Spitz, he may be on his own with regard to the separate suit unless he was doing publicity for the show and is covered by his contract with them. Or if both lawsuits stay in Wayne County and end up consolidated, it would might make sense for his defense to be coordinated.
What's eating you alive re this case?
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
I have always suspected the Santa Claus, Mr. McReynolds. I remember reading in a news article not long after the death of Jon Benet that his wife had written a book that had similar circumstances to Jon Benet's death, i.e. found in the basement. It has been years since I read about the book, so I don't remember a lot of details. But, the Santa Claus has always been my number 1 suspect.
Yes, you are correct (albeit, a play; not a book), not to mention other crazy coincidences. I don't necessarily believe they were involved though; I am RDI, but I just thought you'd find the following information intersting. The following is from acandyrose.com -- http://www.acandyrose.com/s-mcreynolds-family.htm:
22 years prior, on December 26, 1974, her (Mrs. McReynolds) 9 year old daughter Jill was kidnapped.
Her play copyrighted "Hey, Rube" fiction account 1965 basement murder of Sylvia Likens
(End acandyrose).
That's the thing that blows my mind about this case: there are so many coincidences in this case, both on a macro and micro level, that simply blow my mind; honestly, they're infinite. It's downright eerie. One I've heard recently (from a television special) was that supposedly, at the Pugh residence (one of the housekeepers), there was duct tape and nylon lace that matched those found on JBR -- I heard this on TV and they really didn't elaborate much (of course, because it was a special that was IDI).
ghostrighter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 75
Well, what JR said and what was real were often two different things. Here is a photo of an evidence photo from right after she was taken upstairs by JB and then placed near the Christmas tree - when she was in rigor:
Looking at this photo something occurred to me. The nylon rope found on JBR looks just like the rope/twine that stores give you for free to use to tie your trunk lid down when hauling packages that are too big for your vehicle. Stores like Home depot have a spool by the exit that you can cut from and use for free. If this were that kind of twine, it would explain why no one was able to locate the rest of the roll. Was the twine used to tie down the trunk when hauling the Christmas presents from the store to the home? Would twine have been needed to tie down the trunk to hall the large paintings or the new bikes to the house?
Didn't the local Army-Navy store have a spool like that? My memory's not what it used to be.
I've always noticed there are at least two kinks in the rope in the evidence photos. This makes me think it had seen prior use and wasn't taken straight off a spool. I think I've heard theories that it may have been taken from one of the many picture frames in the basement (the cord having been used used for hanging them on the wall.)
kanzz
kanzz=kansas
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,272
- Reaction score
- 55
You're on the right track, SD. Both that store and McGuckin's, a local hardware store carried the Stansport cord. Thomas found that Patsy had purchased an item from the sporting goods section of McGuckin's on 12/02/96 for the same price as the Stansport - $2.29. (from ST's book)
If I wake up in the mornin and find a note in my livin room from a stranger saying " I helped myself to a blogna sandwich and took a nap on your couch" I'm searchin the house from top to bottom. I'm lookin in every room. I'm lookin in the closets, I'm lookin under the beds. Then I'm going to look around in the yard.
What eats me alive the most is the insult to our intelligence.
And the death of this beautiful little girl.
There's no excuse.
What eats me alive the most is the insult to our intelligence.
And the death of this beautiful little girl.
There's no excuse.
Something that's driving me crazy: the sequence of events when the family got home, particularly, how JBR was put to bed that night.
JR says, initially, that PR and BR immediately went to bed (which is an out and out lie; he later says he helped BR put together a toy; PR & BR fingerprints on the bowl and glass; etc., but I digress) and that he took JBR up to bed and "read her a story until she fell asleep." There is zero mention, initially and as far as I can tell, about how PR came after JR and dressed JBR in the red turtleneck for bed.
So my question is, when did PR re-dress JBR for bed? Was it after she was already sleeping (which doesn't make much sense)? Or was it before JR read her the bed time story (which does make sense, but was never mentioned by JR as happening before he read her story, as far as I know)?
Side note: ever notice how it's JR who has stated that PR was involved in "re-dressing" JBR, but not him himself. Why? Why couldn't a father re-dress his own daughter for bed? Why was it so important for him to directly point to PR as having "re-dressed" JBR for bed? One might argue, because he wanted to distance himself from ever "re-dressing" the victim at all that night, let alone before bed. Separate lawyers, indeed.
JR says, initially, that PR and BR immediately went to bed (which is an out and out lie; he later says he helped BR put together a toy; PR & BR fingerprints on the bowl and glass; etc., but I digress) and that he took JBR up to bed and "read her a story until she fell asleep." There is zero mention, initially and as far as I can tell, about how PR came after JR and dressed JBR in the red turtleneck for bed.
So my question is, when did PR re-dress JBR for bed? Was it after she was already sleeping (which doesn't make much sense)? Or was it before JR read her the bed time story (which does make sense, but was never mentioned by JR as happening before he read her story, as far as I know)?
Side note: ever notice how it's JR who has stated that PR was involved in "re-dressing" JBR, but not him himself. Why? Why couldn't a father re-dress his own daughter for bed? Why was it so important for him to directly point to PR as having "re-dressed" JBR for bed? One might argue, because he wanted to distance himself from ever "re-dressing" the victim at all that night, let alone before bed. Separate lawyers, indeed.
Miz Adventure
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2016
- Messages
- 542
- Reaction score
- 20
I'm not even certain that JBR was re-dressed for bed; she probably would have been too tired - Patsy too. I think she may have simply had her trousers removed (and another garment put on her lower half).
I think John would have left the dressing of JBR - even for bed - to Patsy. I expect he left everything to Patsy, and hence her resentment of him.
I think John would have left the dressing of JBR - even for bed - to Patsy. I expect he left everything to Patsy, and hence her resentment of him.
I always wondered why JB didn't get herself dressed for bed. She was 6, not 4. And its not like they got home at midnight, it was 9:00 or so.
BeCAUSE she was ZONKED! Gosh, how many times do these innocent people have to tell you that JBR was just ZONKED and she was carried up the stairs to bed, that her dad removed her coat and shoes and mom dressed her for bed! Forget that JR said he read to the kids before bed. Forget that PR said she dressed her in a red turtle neck for bed. Forget about BR saying she walked upstairs on her own or that her coat was in the car the next day or that she was dressed in one of the mysterious disappearing giant panties, the white shirt from earlier in the day and her brother's long johns and that the red turtleneck was waded up, wet on the counter, you must understand she was ZONKED. Forget pineapple in her digestive tract. She was ZONKED I tell you, ZONKED! Why oh why don't you believe them?
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=DCnNV4-rEKeC8QeH2Y_gAw#q=zonked+definition
verb
past tense: zonked; past participle: zonked
verb
past tense: zonked; past participle: zonked
- 1.
hit or strike.
"Charley really zonked me"
Ah, forgot about her being zonked. That explains it. Not sure I've ever seen a 6 year old zonked by 9:00 on Christmas day, but ya, case closed on that little mystery
Just for clarification, was it 9 or 10 that they got home? I always thought it was 10, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, I mean, in a way I can understand a 6 year old being tired after a long day like that and having to be carried to bed by a parent -- and this wasn't just some ordinary day, it was Christmas day, where you're pretty much going nonstop as a kid, playing with your toys every chance you get from the minute you wake up, then going to a party and playing/running around with all your friends there. In addition, I imagine a 6 year old's bedtime would be around 10 ordinarily. At face value, I don't find the story of her being carried upstairs suspicious. It could have not played out as JR said -- granted -- but the story in and of itself is believable at face value.
It's the exact sequence of events (that I outlined in my post above) that I find the most suspicious.
Anyways, I mean, in a way I can understand a 6 year old being tired after a long day like that and having to be carried to bed by a parent -- and this wasn't just some ordinary day, it was Christmas day, where you're pretty much going nonstop as a kid, playing with your toys every chance you get from the minute you wake up, then going to a party and playing/running around with all your friends there. In addition, I imagine a 6 year old's bedtime would be around 10 ordinarily. At face value, I don't find the story of her being carried upstairs suspicious. It could have not played out as JR said -- granted -- but the story in and of itself is believable at face value.
It's the exact sequence of events (that I outlined in my post above) that I find the most suspicious.
Between 9:00 and 9:15 according to John's interviews. I believe they left the Whites at about 8:30.
And if they didn't put the lid back on my jar of mayonaise I would be lookin even harder.
What an insult
No excuse, no excuse at all
Goodnite
ZoriahNZ
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 22,351
Their testimony kept changing, which is why there is some confusion. The initial police report by Officer French states the Ramseys claimed they got home at 2200 hours and were in bed by 2230 hrs.
https://shakedowntitle.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/file-nov-23-6-43-34-pm.jpeg