Patsy Ramsey

[Meara]

What? A replacement jacket? Let's think about this:

At trial, the witness, PR, is told that her Essentials jacket/blazer match the fibers found in the ligature, in the paint tote, on the white blanket and on the duct tape; however, the joke is on the prosecution when the witness whips out a receipt showing she actually purchased a [replacement] jacket/blazer in 1997, after the murder; therefore, the fibers could not possibly be from the night of the murder. (End of fiction.)


The truth is PR was living elsewhere when she shipped her Essentials blazer and John's shirt(s) to LE in CO. Not one who defends the Rs but it is LEs fault for not requesting their clothing in a more timely fashion.

I think John was shocked to learn his Israeli wool shirt fibers were found [perhaps planted by the devious Patsy] in the crotch of his daughter's size 12 underwear. The incriminating fibers were considered by the GJ. It could be one reason why the GJ could not decide who was responsible for the crimes against JB.




PR handed over the Essentials jacket/blazer that she wore to the Ws and, apparently, kept it on for later that evening when she performed the horrific child abuse that resulted in her daughter's death.

BBM

DeDe, when I read your post I thought I recalled that the police investigators requested the clothing very early on, and it was the Rams who were slow to comply. Once the Rams moved back to Georgia, BPD had even less power to obtain this evidence. Thanks to pukasongo's post, we have Kolar's statement handy:

Trujillo shared some other information regarding trace
evidence collected from the home and JonBenet's body. He
advised that investigators had been asking for the clothing
articles worn by John and Patsy on December 25th since the
first days of the investigation.

 

[DeDee]

According to news accounts, the Rs clothing was requested in November 1997 and turned over two months later, in January, 1998.


Ramseys: No interview
Parents demand to review police evidence in case
Friday, January 16, 1998

Snipped for relevance

Police also are waiting for clothing requested from the Ramseys in November and a final decision on whether they will be allowed to interview JonBenet's older brother, Burke.

http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1998/01/16-2.html


Jonbenet's Parents Give Clothes For Investigation
January 30, 1998

The parents of JonBenet Ramsey, the slain 6-year-old beauty pageant winner, have given police items of clothing they wore the night before the child was found dead in their home, a newspaper reported Thursday. The Denver Post said police this week received two shirts, a pair of pants and a sweater from John and Patsy Ramsey, two months after police made a request for the clothing.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1998-01-30/news/9801300382_1_patsy-ramsey-police-items-clothing

In reading the screenshot kindly provided by pukasonqo2, Kolar is referencing the red sweater PR wore under the jacket/blazer when he states that it looked like it "had just come off the shelf of a retail clothing store".

 

[pukasonqo2]

still, two months seem to be too long to help LE w the investigation into your daughter's murder, but that's just me

the infuriating thing w this case is that there are so many people involved, each with their own set of priorities that we might never get a straight forward answer on the why and who




lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[gramcracker]

the first excerpt, from Steve Thomas' Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, was written in the context of describing the events of December 26

kindle location 662 (BBM)

Because Detective Arndt had touched the body, another tech collected her jeans and black silk blouse, but not her footwear. It was important to take those garments because fibers from Arndt's clothing could be used for elimination purposes against any fiber discovered on the body. In another astonishing lapse of procedure, however, no one had collected the clothing worn by either of the Ramseys, both of whom had been in direct contact with the body as it lay in the living room. A huge legal fight would ensue over the coming months as we sought to retrieve their clothing, particularly Patsy's red turtleneck sweater, her black-and-red-checked blazer, and any fur garments. They would eventually assume tremendous importance.

kindle location 2999 (BBM)

When I returned to the clothing issue a little later by asking what Patsy had put on the next morning, her attorney came to attention. When she replied, "I put on the same black velvet pants and the red turtleneck sweater," her lawyer actually began to sweat, perhaps making the same link we did - wondering why Patsy would take time to fix her hair and makeup but ignore a closet full of fresh clothing in favor of clothes she had worn to a party twelve hours earlier.

kindle location 4646 (BBM)

Even more devastating than the time delay on the jacket was the deal that was made to get the clothing. Beckner insisted there was no negative result, but I had watched Team Ramsey pull this trick too often, and demanded to know what we had to surrender this time. Beckner told us the asking price: the evidence photographs of the Ramseys in December, full access to the exculpatory evidence concerning the Ramseys, and for the police department to state publicly that there had been no evidence of prior vaginal abuse of JonBenet. They did get some photos out of us. We would have preferred to get the clothing through a search warrant that was already in preparation by Detective Kim Stewart, but that one never got off the ground either.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

the first excerpt, from Steve Thomas' Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation, was written in the context of describing the events of December 26

kindle location 662 (BBM)

kindle location 2999 (BBM)



kindle location 4646 (BBM)

Oh brother.

 

[gramcracker]

Steve Thomas is your brother?

 

[lawstudent]

From other stories I've followed, these "tell-all" books tend to contain a lot of inaccuracies mixed in with facts, no matter how good the quoted source seems to be. It's really hard to tell what's real in this case and what is not since it never went to trial and it took place pre-Internet coverage, etc. I can never understand how people are so certain about what happened here - I definitely can lean heavily one way or the other, but a lot of the information is given undue weight due to the context in which it was presented.

ETA: Not saying that there is not a lot of substantiated info, but there is a whole lot of info that could lead to multiple conclusions and that is mainly opinion.

 

[Meara]

Thanks, gramcracker. You beat me to it : ) Here's as far as I got:


Here's Thomas on the subject of requesting the parents' clothing from the time of the murder:

Because Detective Arndt had touched the body, another tech collected her jeans and black silk blouse, but not her footwear. In another astonishing lapse of procedure, however, no one had collected the cothing worn by either of the Ramseys, both of whom had been in direct contact with the body as it lay in the living room. A huge legal fight would ensue over the coming months [i.e., the months beginning right after December 1996] as we sought to retrieve their clothing, particularly Patsy's red turtleneck sweater, her black-and-red-check blazer, and any fur garments. (ITRMI, Kindle ed., p. 37-38)

November 1997 was not the first time police requested the clothing.

Later, Thomas says:

The clothes that might have been worn by the Ramseys at the Whites' Christmas party finally trickled in for testing a year after the murder, a time delay that seriously damaged the investigation. The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results. (ITRMI, Kindle ed., p. 252)

Thomas's account shows both how police errors at the crime scene hampered obtaining the clothing, and how those assisting the Ramseys capitalized on those errors to prolong the delay unreasonably rather than cooperating with the investigation. If the Ramseys or their helpers had been at all sincere in furthering the investigation, the Rams would have given LE the clothing as soon as possible, and certainly before they left for Atlanta.

 

[lawstudent]

Thanks, gramcracker. You beat me to it : ) Here's as far as I got:


Here's Thomas on the subject of requesting the parents' clothing from the time of the murder:

Because Detective Arndt had touched the body, another tech collected her jeans and black silk blouse, but not her footwear. In another astonishing lapse of procedure, however, no one had collected the cothing worn by either of the Ramseys, both of whom had been in direct contact with the body as it lay in the living room. A huge legal fight would ensue over the coming months [i.e., the months beginning right after December 1996] as we sought to retrieve their clothing, particularly Patsy's red turtleneck sweater, her black-and-red-check blazer, and any fur garments. (ITRMI, Kindle ed., p. 37-38)

November 1997 was not the first time police requested the clothing.

Later, Thomas says:

The clothes that might have been worn by the Ramseys at the Whites' Christmas party finally trickled in for testing a year after the murder, a time delay that seriously damaged the investigation. The polite "ask the Ramseys" approach was deadly slow in getting results. (ITRMI, Kindle ed., p. 252)

Thomas's account shows both how police errors at the crime scene hampered obtaining the clothing, and how those assisting the Ramseys capitalized on those errors to prolong the delay unreasonably rather than cooperating with the investigation. If the Ramseys or their helpers had been at all sincere in furthering the investigation, the Rams would have given LE the clothing as soon as possible, and certainly before they left for Atlanta.

The way this passage is written attaches great significance to this, but it seems pretty baseless.

That the Ramseys were allowed to leave without turning things over indicates the police did not suspect them at the time. Now, that probably would not happen today, because the fact that most of these incidents happen at the hands of someone in the house has become so well-known. But at the time, was it really standard procedure in a small town in such a strange situation? Especially given the lack of testing available at the time? I'm sure they expected her parents to have been in contact with her, so unless they saw blood on the clothing or something, it's not odd to me they did not pursue it, or suspect the parents in such a crime.

Did it really devastate the investigation? Given what we know, what difference would it have made in this particular case? If it had been that significant, they wouldn't have left it up to them to comply. It certainly is good to have as much potential evidence as possible, but in this case if the Ramseys were wearing the clothes there could not have been visible blood or signs of some sort of struggle, and it wasn't like gunpowder was involved. Even if there had been trace amounts of JonBenet's DNA or even the foreign DNA from touching her, if the DNA in this case is given so little weight due to the small sample etc., what difference would that have made? I don't think it's likely the investigation woud have turned out any differently.

 

[DeDee]

The main point of my original post was that there was no replacement jacket/blazer turned in by Patsy or else the fibers would not be an exact match.

I appreciate those who chimed in with posts on the jacket/blazer/clothing. I stand by my original post that the clothing was not requested until November 1997 and was given to LE two months later.

It is so blatantly obvious, to most of us, that the Rs did not openly cooperate with LE in their investigation.

"Go back to the drawing board."

Although it has been quite a while since reading STs sworn deposition statements, I seem to recall there being times when he did not know the answer to a question bc another officer was assigned that particular responsibility in the investigation.

 

[bettybaby00]

From other stories I've followed, these "tell-all" books tend to contain a lot of inaccuracies mixed in with facts, no matter how good the quoted source seems to be. It's really hard to tell what's real in this case and what is not since it never went to trial and it took place pre-Internet coverage, etc. I can never understand how people are so certain about what happened here - I definitely can lean heavily one way or the other, but a lot of the information is given undue weight due to the context in which it was presented.

ETA: Not saying that there is not a lot of substantiated info, but there is a whole lot of info that could lead to multiple conclusions and that is mainly opinion.

"tell all" isnt how I would characterize Kolar and Thomas' books. That term for me equates to tabloid type reporting. Again that's my opinion. as former investigators on the case I afford them a level of legitimacy that I wouldn't necessarily give someone else. I can speak directly for Kolar in that I feel he presents all aspects of the evidence, even the pieces that potentially contradict his theory. He spoke with many of those involved directly, and sourced his facts.

He also used his own funds to present this story to the public, and after recouping that money will donate the proceeds to The Center for Missing and Exploited Children. These aren't the actions of someone with an agenda.

In the faces of our children we are granted the opportunity to glimpse the future and the untimely death of one irrevocably changes us all. As criminal investigators, it is our chosen duty to go willingly into the breach in defense of the weak and the powerless: to stand tall in the face of adversity, and to seek the truth no matter where the course may lead. Justice deserves no lesser effort.
—Author: April 2006

​

Where was the Ramsey's effort?

Moo, moo, moo?

 

[bettybaby00]

The way this passage is written attaches great significance to this, but it seems pretty baseless.

That the Ramseys were allowed to leave without turning things over indicates the police did not suspect them at the time. Now, that probably would not happen today, because the fact that most of these incidents happen at the hands of someone in the house has become so well-known. But at the time, was it really standard procedure in a small town in such a strange situation? Especially given the lack of testing available at the time? I'm sure they expected her parents to have been in contact with her, so unless they saw blood on the clothing or something, it's not odd to me they did not pursue it, or suspect the parents in such a crime.

Did it really devastate the investigation? Given what we know, what difference would it have made in this particular case? If it had been that significant, they wouldn't have left it up to them to comply. It certainly is good to have as much potential evidence as possible, but in this case if the Ramseys were wearing the clothes there could not have been visible blood or signs of some sort of struggle, and it wasn't like gunpowder was involved. Even if there had been trace amounts of JonBenet's DNA or even the foreign DNA from touching her, if the DNA in this case is given so little weight due to the small sample etc., what difference would that have made? I don't think it's likely the investigation woud have turned out any differently.

We'll never know "what difference" it could have made b/c we can't go back in time. There were definitely mistakes made that day, but they were most assuredly compounded through the successful efforts of the Rs legal team.

With regard to the clothing, you ask some valid questions, but like all evidence in this case, things can't be considered in a vacuum. The clothing was not turned over in a timely manner, plus there was also the issue of the phone records, the medical records, and the refusal by the Rs to sit down and have a legitimate interview with LE, etc., etc.

 

[pukasonqo2]

as none of us where in the mind of the killer (or killers) we are left w conjecture, concepts, reading and, maybe, misreading articles

my background is in the arts so i don't have a flying donkey idea, except from reading journals online, about how complex DNA is

as bettybaby00 said, kolar's book is not a tabloid type of book, i liked ST's book, i haven't yet read superdave's but it seems that those books do contain facts. kolar is not afraid to show where his theory might be just that, theory and does not follow the facts. PMPT also
presented interesting facts

i found the R's book self serving and more on the line of tabloid crime

i live w a scientist, a physicist to be accurate, he pointed out that all our experiences are influenced but who we are, even when we try to be unemotional, clinical and accurate our feelings and emotions get involved. yes, my opinions of the Rs are biased by what i read about them.

the only thing in this murder not coloured by emotions, opinions, etc are facts, the facts we know so far is that JB was murdered, the Rs didn't or did a half assed effort to collaborate w the investigation, we are two yrs away from the 20 yr anniversary of JB's death and no closer to find out who killed her






lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"tell all" isnt how I would characterize Kolar and Thomas' books. That term for me equates to tabloid type reporting. Again that's my opinion. as former investigators on the case I afford them a level of legitimacy that I wouldn't necessarily give someone else. I can speak directly for Kolar in that I feel he presents all aspects of the evidence, even the pieces that potentially contradict his theory. He spoke with many of those involved directly, and sourced his facts.



He also used his own funds to present this story to the public, and after recouping that money will donate the proceeds to The Center for Missing and Exploited Children. These aren't the actions of someone with an agenda.

In the faces of our children we are granted the opportunity to glimpse the future and the untimely death of one irrevocably changes us all. As criminal investigators, it is our chosen duty to go willingly into the breach in defense of the weak and the powerless: to stand tall in the face of adversity, and to seek the truth no matter where the course may lead. Justice deserves no lesser effort.

—Author: April 2006



​

Where was the Ramsey's effort?



Moo, moo, moo?

The books are self serving, IMO. All books are really. But these books are meant to be sensational and make the author relevant.

That has to be considered.



I think the best way to look at this case is through depositions and evidence. Every thing else is opinion.

 

[bettybaby00]

Snipped....

as none of us where in the mind of the killer (or killers) we are left w conjecture, concepts, reading and, maybe, misreading articles

It's has been reported by many close to the case that only roughly 10% of the evidence is in the public domain. Another reason I regard Kolar's analysis so highly. He's seen it all, including info regarding the GJ.

i live w a scientist, a physicist to be accurate, he pointed out that all our experiences are influenced but who we are, even when we try to be unemotional, clinical and accurate our feelings and emotions get involved.

This! There has been a good deal of discussion regarding bias among those following the case. We all have it, and it influences how we judge different aspects of the case.

And, wow (in a good way) to your SO. I imagine it's rare for a scientist to think along those lines....well to admit it at least

 

[gramcracker]

The way this passage is written attaches great significance to this, but it seems pretty baseless.

That the Ramseys were allowed to leave without turning things over indicates the police did not suspect them at the time. Now, that probably would not happen today, because the fact that most of these incidents happen at the hands of someone in the house has become so well-known. But at the time, was it really standard procedure in a small town in such a strange situation? Especially given the lack of testing available at the time? I'm sure they expected her parents to have been in contact with her, so unless they saw blood on the clothing or something, it's not odd to me they did not pursue it, or suspect the parents in such a crime.

Did it really devastate the investigation? Given what we know, what difference would it have made in this particular case? If it had been that significant, they wouldn't have left it up to them to comply. It certainly is good to have as much potential evidence as possible, but in this case if the Ramseys were wearing the clothes there could not have been visible blood or signs of some sort of struggle, and it wasn't like gunpowder was involved. Even if there had been trace amounts of JonBenet's DNA or even the foreign DNA from touching her, if the DNA in this case is given so little weight due to the small sample etc., what difference would that have made? I don't think it's likely the investigation woud have turned out any differently.

it's not about the time frame or the size of the town. which was reflected in the outlook of the boots on the ground vs the moccasins in the office. the first officers on-scene "knew" something wasn't right. have you read the books which lay out the background of the police chief/the detective commander and the district attorney, and their turf battles? they were touchy-feely types who felt, and enforced, that LE needed to evolve into community outreach representatives. LEOs were actually ordered to re-train when they raised their voices with suspects. IMO the greater fault lies with the DA, who didn't want to prosecute in court; rather, he wanted to plea bargain any and everyone in Boulder. that way he/his office could create and maintain a pristine "conviction" record without stepping into court

BBM

LE wasn't incompetent. it wasn't allowed to BE competent

I find very little fault with the boots on the ground, although Detective Arndt did make two bad calls. my beef is with the superior officers: Detective Commander Eller and Police Chief Koby. Koby considered DA Hunter a close friend and sometimes Eller/Koby/Hunter teamed up, but two of them would also pair up and turn on the third one. they were like a trio of mean girls with constantly shifting alliances

Mason was second in command over the detectives and initially was in charge because Eller was on vacation, but then Eller stepped up and assumed command. Eller's first bad call was ordering that care be taken not to offend the Rs, that they were to be handled gently. the detectives would have interrogated them separately in the first few hours if they had been allowed to do so

a Boulder search dog was on standby at 7:30 that morning but Eller didn't order the dog into service. that was his second bad call. by noon Mason and Eller were still squabbling about whether to use the local dog (Eller) or send for one from Aurora (Mason)

Eller's third bad call was not assigning continual backup in the house for Arndt. because of the holiday there was a skeleton crew available across the department (detectives and patrol officers). many of those with seniority (and experience) and accrued leave had taken time off, which they were entitled to do. one detective who had recently attended an FBI kidnapping seminar was on vacation and unavailable (out of town IIRC). Eller and Koby were not at the scene but they were receiving constant updates. Eller was responsible for detective assignments (and which prodecures they followed) but the buck stopped with Koby for overseeing Eller, and overseeing patrol officer assignments. if Eller couldn't find a backup detective for Arndt, Koby should have found a backup patrol officer for her if his patrol sergeant in command couldn't find one

we know that Arndt's two bad calls were sending JR on a survey mission and moving JB's body from the spot where JR deposited her. which shows that the R's psyops were successful because, like water dripping on stone, Arndt's judgment was worn down and diminished. (psychological operations ... to influence emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and behavior of ... groups and individuals)

Eller's fourth bad call that day was when he decided that the house would be turned back over to the Rs after only ninety minutes of evidence gathering. ninety minutes! DDA/chief trial deputy Hofstrom was infuriated, and insisted that the house be examined more thoroughly. then Eller was infuriated because a DA was questioning his decision and authority. Hofstrom went over Eller's head and complained to Koby, who overruled Eller, and evidence was gathered for ten days

talk about your shifting alliances. this is the same DDA who later took a handwriting exemplar from PR in his own home, and stayed out of the room while she was doing it! Master Alliance Shifter Hunter wigged over that, but quickly recovered when he remembered who was buttering his publicity, er, bread. after both Rs lawyered up DDA Hofstrom started brokering an interview deal. he told Arndt they wouldn't answer questions in person but would respond to written questions if they could review all the case material beforehand. when Arndt returned Hofstrom's call at the phone number he had given her, it was the office of defense attorney Mike Bynum! rather than being a bunch of bumblers, the rank and file LEOS were demoralized by how this case was handled. for the DA's bunch it was business as usual. ST said that he made hundreds of arrests in Boulder but went to court only twice in seven years

Hofstrom's 1996 comment to a reporter boggles the mind: "I haven't tried a case this year and don't intend to unless absolutely necessary." I guess it was fortunate for the citizens of Boulder that he was a DA instead of a teacher or a nurse or a firefighter: "I haven't taught any students/provided any medical care/put out a fire this year and don't intend to unless absolutely necessary"

I've always thought what this case and the Casey Anthony case have in common is that both cases, if being submitted as works of fiction, would be rejected by publishers for having poorly written characters and too many holes in the plot to be plausible

 

[lawstudent]

"tell all" isnt how I would characterize Kolar and Thomas' books. That term for me equates to tabloid type reporting. Again that's my opinion. as former investigators on the case I afford them a level of legitimacy that I wouldn't necessarily give someone else. I can speak directly for Kolar in that I feel he presents all aspects of the evidence, even the pieces that potentially contradict his theory. He spoke with many of those involved directly, and sourced his facts.

He also used his own funds to present this story to the public, and after recouping that money will donate the proceeds to The Center for Missing and Exploited Children. These aren't the actions of someone with an agenda.

You make a good point, but lately the line between tabloid and legitimate has been more and more eroded. I regularly read articles from reputable newspapers that I know are incorrect either factually or in the way they present something. It's not that I don't think Kolar's books offers valuable info and perspective, but things like the attorneys "sweating" as a result of the clothing request would not be something I would include in that, because that sort of thing is easily exaggerated in hindsight. I've just read so many false and misleading books or articles that I can't take anything at face value at this point. I believe everyone has some sort of agenda - a lot of people claim they are going to donate the excess of certain things to charity and don't - he may be a truly good guy who will follow through, but I'm pretty cynical with these things.

We'll never know "what difference" it could have made b/c we can't go back in time. There were definitely mistakes made that day, but they were most assuredly compounded through the successful efforts of the Rs legal team.

With regard to the clothing, you ask some valid questions, but like all evidence in this case, things can't be considered in a vacuum. The clothing was not turned over in a timely manner, plus there was also the issue of the phone records, the medical records, and the refusal by the Rs to sit down and have a legitimate interview with LE, etc., etc.

Right, but saying it seriously devastated the investigation is pure speculation given that we will never know. And I agree that in totality the Ramseys' behavior is highly suspicious, but the clothing has never meant much to me because if they thought it could be incriminating, I feel like they would have tried to destroy it or hide it. It doesn't seem likely to me that they thought if they wore it, they'd be able to sneak out with it.

it's not about the time frame or the size of the town. which was reflected in the outlook of the boots on the ground vs the moccasins in the office. the first officers on-scene "knew" something wasn't right. have you read the books which lay out the background of the police chief/the detective commander and the district attorney, and their turf battles? they were touchy-feely types who felt, and enforced, that LE needed to evolve into community outreach representatives. LEOs were actually ordered to re-train when they raised their voices with suspects. IMO the greater fault lies with the DA, who didn't want to prosecute in court; rather, he wanted to plea bargain any and everyone in Boulder. that way he/his office could create and maintain a pristine "conviction" record without stepping into court

BBM

My problem with this is how many people say "I *knew* something was wrong" in situations where they had been uneasy that later went wrong - in hindsight, they all think they knew. They may well have been suspicious and had reason to be, but I don't think any of them "knew" it - that's all a matter of perception. And the DA may well have been pursuing a poor strategy but LE could have still investigated more thoroughly - they just can't prosecute on their own. Now, they still could have been pressured to avoid further investigation, but then it's hard to say the perceptions they got from the initial investigation are fully accurate. Sometimes police are convinced they have the right theory and end up being totally wrong - that doesn't mean the Ramseys didn't do it, but the details of it could be very misrepresented based on the information available to police. I don't think any of them truly ever knew what happened.

 

[gramcracker]

the first thing (among many) the responding officers "knew" was "not right" was what they realized after reading the RN. there was a house full of people at 0:dark early who were invited by the kidnapped child's mother and, after arriving and parking their marked police vehicles right in front of the house because the mother didn't tell them not to, when they read the RN they realized that the parents had been directed NOT to call the police and NOT to talk to anyone (even a stray dog). hence, the marked cars in front and beaucoup friends were indisputably "not right"

at one point when the phone rang (a friend unaware of the event) Arndt had to yell for JR to come and answer the ringing phone because he had wandered off during the time the ransom call was expected. the deadline for the call passed without comment from the parents. both of those behaviors were indisputably "not right"

so, no way was it hindsight which told them that they "thought" they "knew" something

BTW, which books have you read, if I may be so bold as to ask?

 

[pukasonqo2]

how that saying goes, "hindsight is 20/20"?

you always have somebody who claims to have witnessed something after the fact, sometimes is truth, sometimes is a way of being part of the news, might be malicious, might not be

nobody knows. only those involved in the crime know what actually did happen but, for the sake of argument, JB's killers are found, they were both involved, never left each other's sight but what A remembers might be different to what B remembers, not to mention each is worried w saving their own skin.

sometimes i find it hard to believe you can convict a person on an eyewitness ID


lupus est homini , non , non quom qualis sit novit

 

[Chewy]

the first thing (among many) the responding officers "knew" was "not right" was what they realized after reading the RN. there was a house full of people at 0:dark early who were invited by the kidnapped child's mother and, after arriving and parking their marked police vehicles right in front of the house because the mother didn't tell them not to, when they read the RN they realized that the parents had been directed NOT to call the police and NOT to talk to anyone (even a stray dog). hence, the marked cars in front and beaucoup friends were indisputably "not right"

at one point when the phone rang (a friend unaware of the event) Arndt had to yell for JR to come and answer the ringing phone because he had wandered off during the time the ransom call was expected. the deadline for the call passed without comment from the parents. both of those behaviors were indisputably "not right"

so, no way was it hindsight which told them that they "thought" they "knew" something

BTW, which books have you read, if I may be so bold as to ask?

I find this comment amusing. Everyone who read the ransom note realized it was a fake ransom note. It was dramatic and over the top with lines taken straight from movies and the amount of money not being anything that indicated a real ransom note.

But apparently John and Patsy were supposed to buy it hook line and sinker and freak out like they were in a movie, playing along.

Instead what the parents did was call every single person at their disposal to try to get their daughter back. The note doesn't read REAL. It reads fake from beginning to end and indicates that the person who did this knew John in an intimate way. So it makes sense to me that they would call everyone they felt they could trust.