JonBenet Ramsey ////// We Have Your Daughter

25 comments

  • Ryan

    Ryan Racine

    Thinking on how conscious we all are when it comes to spelling, writing ect... If I wrote the letter I would avoid using words I was unsure of thee spelling. Makes it seem intentional. Best podcast that exists

    Thinking on how conscious we all are when it comes to spelling, writing ect...
    If I wrote the letter I would avoid using words I was unsure of thee spelling. Makes it seem intentional.
    Best podcast that exists

  • Lisa

    Lisa NY

    I've wondered about the crossed out "do". Could it be a "do not"? It reminds me of the signs with the image crossed out, like No Crossing, or No Smoking?

    I've wondered about the crossed out "do". Could it be a "do not"? It reminds me of the signs with the image crossed out, like No Crossing, or No Smoking?

  • Rachel

    Rachel O-H-I-O

    I just finished listening. Loved it. Can't wait for the next part. I came here to say something about the comments regarding the Ramsey parents not being capable of covering up her death due to the grief parents would naturally feel. I would like to say that our brains--the engines that drive our bodies-- are capable of incredible things when it comes to the drive for survival. When someone perceives a threat, the amygdala kicks in and responds with the fight or flight response before the cortex has time to overrule it with rational thinking. So to use our current state of thinking which is unstimulated by the same fear or anxiety to draw conclusions on how someone in that situation would react is faulty. People do CRAZY things that defy logic when the amygdala is in control. Because the gatekeeper--the cortex--is not leading the charge. So while in a rational state I can agree that grief over a dead child would be overwhelming and crippling, I would also argue that the grief would be latent and would take a back seat to my fight or flight response. If Patsy was covering up for another child (a mother's love is homogenous, no matter what any child may feel or speculate) her need and her physical response to "save" the surviving child would automatically override her own need to grieve. This response from the brain also accounts for the movie quotes in the letter. The amygdala is responsible for storing memories and deciding where in the brain they go, dependent on the emotional response they conjure in the person. Conversely, research shows that in an amygdala hijack situation, memories can only be retrieved from certain parts of the brain, but not all. So it is completely conceivable that there is a scientific explanation behind why the writer of the ransom letter may only be able to draw on movie references to compose the letter. It's also very theatrical in nature to the point of coming across as allegorical, which to me tells me the writer was disassociating themselves from the narrative. Just my two cents :)

    I just finished listening. Loved it. Can't wait for the next part. I came here to say something about the comments regarding the Ramsey parents not being capable of covering up her death due to the grief parents would naturally feel. I would like to say that our brains--the engines that drive our bodies-- are capable of incredible things when it comes to the drive for survival. When someone perceives a threat, the amygdala kicks in and responds with the fight or flight response before the cortex has time to overrule it with rational thinking. So to use our current state of thinking which is unstimulated by the same fear or anxiety to draw conclusions on how someone in that situation would react is faulty. People do CRAZY things that defy logic when the amygdala is in control. Because the gatekeeper--the cortex--is not leading the charge. So while in a rational state I can agree that grief over a dead child would be overwhelming and crippling, I would also argue that the grief would be latent and would take a back seat to my fight or flight response. If Patsy was covering up for another child (a mother's love is homogenous, no matter what any child may feel or speculate) her need and her physical response to "save" the surviving child would automatically override her own need to grieve. This response from the brain also accounts for the movie quotes in the letter. The amygdala is responsible for storing memories and deciding where in the brain they go, dependent on the emotional response they conjure in the person. Conversely, research shows that in an amygdala hijack situation, memories can only be retrieved from certain parts of the brain, but not all. So it is completely conceivable that there is a scientific explanation behind why the writer of the ransom letter may only be able to draw on movie references to compose the letter. It's also very theatrical in nature to the point of coming across as allegorical, which to me tells me the writer was disassociating themselves from the narrative. Just my two cents smile

  • Mystery Solved: Jonbent was killed by hired help that : the family knew ( that’s why she went with this person from her room to the basement ) worked around the house learned English by watching movies Saw the dollar amount on a document in the house comes from a culture that is male dominated financially an associate accidentally killed her perhaps, if she screamed, while another wrote the note You’re welcome!

    Mystery Solved: Jonbent was killed by hired help that :
    the family knew ( that’s why she went with this person from her room to the basement )
    worked around the house
    learned English by watching movies
    Saw the dollar amount on a document in the house
    comes from a culture that is male dominated financially
    an associate accidentally killed her perhaps, if she screamed, while another wrote the note

    You’re welcome!

  • lucia david

    lucia david portugal

    I'm familiar with this case, but this was the first time I listened to someone reading the ransom note. To me it sounds like the thoughts were structured and constructed from a Portuguese person ( from Portugal not Brazil) to whom English is the second language and Portuguese the mother tongue. Could this make sense? Bom Natal!

    I'm familiar with this case, but this was the first time I listened to someone reading the ransom note. To me it sounds like the thoughts were structured and constructed from a Portuguese person ( from Portugal not Brazil) to whom English is the second language and Portuguese the mother tongue. Could this make sense?
    Bom Natal!

  • Johnson

    Johnson Australia

    Great third episode too. I’m with one or two other posters. I first saw ‘jonbenet’ on the episode and thought ‘ok here we go again’ but listening to your factual unbiased reporting, it’s very good. Often I think the Captain goes too easy on obvious murderers and gives them the benefit of the doubt when there really isn’t much (i.e Adnan Syed, plus those two college kids from Canada in Seattle - I forget their names) but in this case I fully agree with him: intruder. I’m still waiting on any evidence against one of the family. I’ve seen plenty of utterly meaningless comments like “I’ve always thought it was the parents”, “Burke did it”, “I know for a fact patsy wrote that note and I haven’t even looked at the handwriting yet”, “John did it”, etc etc, all in the last two episode posts. And I expect more under this post. As I said previously, every comment like this is 100% utterly lacking in proof or evidence and is therefore meaningless personal speculation. I have actually never been surer of the parents’ innocence. You want a guilty 911 call? The caller will be vague, over emotional, doesn’t answer the questions, and seems completely self conscious that he is being recorded. Michael Peterson is the perfect example. On the other hand Patsy is to-the-point, answers the questions, answers them specifically, and, wants help. Full stop. Heck even the bit she says “she’s blonde” shows to me she’s genuine. The 911 operator didn’t ask for a description, she simply asked how old she was. It’s Patsy’s frantic moment, unimaginable to the rest of us, it’s her subconscious betraying that she sees jonbenet as her little blonde beauty queen. So in the heat of the moment, hysterical, she blurts out “she’s blonde” when she isn’t even asked. It shows her mind is not thinking right because she’s absolutely freaking out.

    Great third episode too. I’m with one or two other posters. I first saw ‘jonbenet’ on the episode and thought ‘ok here we go again’ but listening to your factual unbiased reporting, it’s very good. Often I think the Captain goes too easy on obvious murderers and gives them the benefit of the doubt when there really isn’t much (i.e Adnan Syed, plus those two college kids from Canada in Seattle - I forget their names) but in this case I fully agree with him: intruder.

    I’m still waiting on any evidence against one of the family. I’ve seen plenty of utterly meaningless comments like “I’ve always thought it was the parents”, “Burke did it”, “I know for a fact patsy wrote that note and I haven’t even looked at the handwriting yet”, “John did it”, etc etc, all in the last two episode posts. And I expect more under this post. As I said previously, every comment like this is 100% utterly lacking in proof or evidence and is therefore meaningless personal speculation.

    I have actually never been surer of the parents’ innocence. You want a guilty 911 call? The caller will be vague, over emotional, doesn’t answer the questions, and seems completely self conscious that he is being recorded. Michael Peterson is the perfect example. On the other hand Patsy is to-the-point, answers the questions, answers them specifically, and, wants help. Full stop.

    Heck even the bit she says “she’s blonde” shows to me she’s genuine. The 911 operator didn’t ask for a description, she simply asked how old she was. It’s Patsy’s frantic moment, unimaginable to the rest of us, it’s her subconscious betraying that she sees jonbenet as her little blonde beauty queen. So in the heat of the moment, hysterical, she blurts out “she’s blonde” when she isn’t even asked. It shows her mind is not thinking right because she’s absolutely freaking out.

  • Billy

    Billy Virginia

    The way the ransom letter was written it seemed like it was being dictated to the writer. Especially with the listen part, someone speaking out loud would start off by saying listen first. Also with the do/don't respect your business part, i think this is another example of the letter being dictated verbally because before they finished writing don't they thought about it and crossed it out after discussing it. The verbal dictation would also account for the sloppy hand writing in the beginning of the letter because when they first started formulating the letter it came to them fast, but the longer the letter was the more they had to slow down and think about it.

    The way the ransom letter was written it seemed like it was being dictated to the writer. Especially with the listen part, someone speaking out loud would start off by saying listen first. Also with the do/don't respect your business part, i think this is another example of the letter being dictated verbally because before they finished writing don't they thought about it and crossed it out after discussing it. The verbal dictation would also account for the sloppy hand writing in the beginning of the letter because when they first started formulating the letter it came to them fast, but the longer the letter was the more they had to slow down and think about it.

  • Amy

    Amy KCMO

    i have always thought Patsy wrote that letter. that whole thing is just BIZARRE!! and only 118k? come on. Nic i am the same way with the word convenient! i never spell it correctly! LOL i had to look it up just now

    i have always thought Patsy wrote that letter. that whole thing is just BIZARRE!! and only 118k? come on. Nic i am the same way with the word convenient! i never spell it correctly! LOL i had to look it up just now

  • Sharon Cameron

    Sharon Cameron Herman, Ne

    Gibby, I feel strongly that you just made a losing bet. Perhaps in the the future episodes you’ll explain how an intruder got in and out of a locked house.

    Gibby, I feel strongly that you just made a losing bet. Perhaps in the the future episodes you’ll explain how an intruder got in and out of a locked house.

  • Rob

    Rob Utah

    This case is frustrating, maddening, disgusting, and many other adjectives. Every thing that makes sense is counteracted but several things that don't make sense. "Why would you put 'vacuum' in a ransom note?" made me laugh out loud.

    This case is frustrating, maddening, disgusting, and many other adjectives. Every thing that makes sense is counteracted but several things that don't make sense.

    "Why would you put 'vacuum' in a ransom note?" made me laugh out loud.

  • Amy

    Amy KCMO

    i know its a big house, but if someone really hit her on the head and assaulted her, or got her with a stun gun, wouldnt someone hear SOMETHING? also I know this may sound weird to people but if you are a mom you will understand.. even if you dont know for sure your kiddo is awake, your body automatically wakes you up when they are ESPECIALLY if they are sick or in danger. i am about 98% sure Patsy would have woken up instinctively to check on JonBenet. also another mom thing that bugs the crap outta me..in the morning they find the letter & find out JB isnt in bed ..i feel like my instinct would be to RUN to my other kids room and see if he was there. i would not let him stay asleep. AND i would DEFINITELY not let him leave the house like they did! that kid is staying in my sight at all times

    i know its a big house, but if someone really hit her on the head and assaulted her, or got her with a stun gun, wouldnt someone hear SOMETHING?
    also I know this may sound weird to people but if you are a mom you will understand.. even if you dont know for sure your kiddo is awake, your body automatically wakes you up when they are ESPECIALLY if they are sick or in danger. i am about 98% sure Patsy would have woken up instinctively to check on JonBenet.
    also another mom thing that bugs the crap outta me..in the morning they find the letter & find out JB isnt in bed ..i feel like my instinct would be to RUN to my other kids room and see if he was there. i would not let him stay asleep. AND i would DEFINITELY not let him leave the house like they did! that kid is staying in my sight at all times

  • Jenni

    Jenni Ky

    The parents didn’t hear anything because their bedroom was on the third floor and the kids on the second floor. Burke didn’t hear anything because kids sleep like logs and are very hard to wake.

    The parents didn’t hear anything because their bedroom was on the third floor and the kids on the second floor. Burke didn’t hear anything because kids sleep like logs and are very hard to wake.

  • Margaret

    Margaret NC

    This letter almost sounds like it’written by a teenager who has played too many video games and who is trying to sound like an adult. It may have been some teenagers overheard the conversation about the bonus. Babysitter? Older siblings of the Ramsey children’s friends?

    This letter almost sounds like it’written by a teenager who has played too many video games and who is trying to sound like an adult. It may have been some teenagers overheard the conversation about the bonus. Babysitter? Older siblings of the Ramsey children’s friends?

  • Matt

    Matt Virginia

    I am not inclined to make too much of the fact that the writer used the accent marks for "attaché." Adding diacritical marks, or any other foreign mark, is much easier when writing something by hand. They are often omitted in typewritten/electronic messages because the writer can't figure out the keyboard code. As for the writer getting "your" and "you're" consistently correct, I would note that standards were somewhat stricter in 1996. People who wrote tended to have a better command of the language than they might nowadays. Those who did not have that same command did not write, nor did they need to. The Internet has contributed to erasing these boundaries, which is good for a free exchange of ideas, but not good for maintaining grammatical discipline.

    I am not inclined to make too much of the fact that the writer used the accent marks for "attaché." Adding diacritical marks, or any other foreign mark, is much easier when writing something by hand. They are often omitted in typewritten/electronic messages because the writer can't figure out the keyboard code.

    As for the writer getting "your" and "you're" consistently correct, I would note that standards were somewhat stricter in 1996. People who wrote tended to have a better command of the language than they might nowadays. Those who did not have that same command did not write, nor did they need to. The Internet has contributed to erasing these boundaries, which is good for a free exchange of ideas, but not good for maintaining grammatical discipline.

  • Matt

    Matt Virginia

    Two unrelated thoughts: 1. Do we know that the notepad and pen which were used for the ransom letter did, in fact, belong to John Ramsey? Is it possible that the "intruder" brought them with him and left them there, perhaps intentionally planting them on his desk, and John could not definitively say whether either belonged to him? I've known accomplished people for which this would not be a far-fetched scenario. They didn't become successful by keeping inventory on their pens and notepads. 2. To what extent would someone not familiar with the family know that John was a Southerner ("Southern common sense")? Was this something that appeared in the press whenever the family or John's business was discussed?

    Two unrelated thoughts:

    1. Do we know that the notepad and pen which were used for the ransom letter did, in fact, belong to John Ramsey? Is it possible that the "intruder" brought them with him and left them there, perhaps intentionally planting them on his desk, and John could not definitively say whether either belonged to him? I've known accomplished people for which this would not be a far-fetched scenario. They didn't become successful by keeping inventory on their pens and notepads.

    2. To what extent would someone not familiar with the family know that John was a Southerner ("Southern common sense")? Was this something that appeared in the press whenever the family or John's business was discussed?

  • Megan

    Megan Parts Unknown

    I noticed that the writer of the ransom letter used two English-language-specific idioms: "to the letter" and "fat cat". To me, this would further support an American pretending to be a foreigner.

    I noticed that the writer of the ransom letter used two English-language-specific idioms: "to the letter" and "fat cat". To me, this would further support an American pretending to be a foreigner.

  • Amanda

    Amanda Maryland

    I'm glad Captain managed to keep me laughing through an otherwise heartbreaking story. Asking why Nic would use "vacuum" in a ransom note... lol. I would take the crossed out letters/words with a grain of salt to some degree. I think it would be wrong to assume it was meant to be connected to the word after it. You were trying to decide whether the writer was saying "We do respect your business" or "We don't respect your business." They may have been starting to go right for "We don't like your country," or maybe even something a bit different like "We don't like you" or "We don't have anything against you personally." I don't think "We do/don't respect your business" are the only options for what they were starting to write. I agree that many parts of the letter don't fit, such as a "foreign faction" referring to themselves as such. Lucia- What makes you think this was a Portuguese person over someone speaking a different non-English language? I'm not doubting you... I'm honestly curious if you noticed something about the sentence structure that Americans wouldn't catch. Doing great with this one, guys! Love the intro, Captain.

    I'm glad Captain managed to keep me laughing through an otherwise heartbreaking story. Asking why Nic would use "vacuum" in a ransom note... lol.

    I would take the crossed out letters/words with a grain of salt to some degree. I think it would be wrong to assume it was meant to be connected to the word after it. You were trying to decide whether the writer was saying "We do respect your business" or "We don't respect your business." They may have been starting to go right for "We don't like your country," or maybe even something a bit different like "We don't like you" or "We don't have anything against you personally." I don't think "We do/don't respect your business" are the only options for what they were starting to write.

    I agree that many parts of the letter don't fit, such as a "foreign faction" referring to themselves as such.
    Lucia- What makes you think this was a Portuguese person over someone speaking a different non-English language? I'm not doubting you... I'm honestly curious if you noticed something about the sentence structure that Americans wouldn't catch.

    Doing great with this one, guys! Love the intro, Captain.

  • Toni

    Toni ft lauderdale

    Has anyone ever thought that the letter was (google) translated from an alternate language? that would explain why the word choice was off . Kinda like when i would try to us babble fish to do my spanish homework and would always be caught because some words translate differently. Just an idea.

    Has anyone ever thought that the letter was (google) translated from an alternate language? that would explain why the word choice was off . Kinda like when i would try to us babble fish to do my spanish homework and would always be caught because some words translate differently. Just an idea.

  • Angela

    Angela KC

    Great show. Can't say I agree with Nic's theory that the note was definitely a farce with the point just being to buy the killer time (if written by an intruder). If the point was simply to avoid having the Ramsey's call the cops right away, then a very short and to the point "normal" ransom note would have done the job better. The intruder wanting to buy time, in no way explains why the thing rambled on for 2.5 pages. If Patsy wrote the note it would somewhat make sense because you could imagine she was trying to establish that the killer was an outsider with a grudge against John. I don't think Patsy committed the crime or wrote the note though. More often than not, the simplest solution is the correct one and I'm opposite of Nic because I don't think the note is a farce at all, I think it's exactly what it appears to be. I think it was written by a young, immature male, who knew of John Ramsey, maybe just from the papers, and thought of John as a fat cat and resented his, and his family’s, wealthy lifestyle. I think he intended to remove Jonbenet from the house, with sexual assault/murder as the primary motive, but also had the secondary motive of resenting the Ramsey’s and wanting to possibly extort some cash from them as well, though it’s unlikely he would have actually gone through with trying to pick up ransom money. So I think the note rambled on for 2.5 pages because the writer was enjoying himself. We know he liked to watch all those action movies, he was fancying himself in one, toying with his fat cat prey. He was enjoying taking shots at John and challenging him. It was fun for him. I’m with Lou Smit’s theory in that I think it was written prior to the crime, while the killer waited in the house for the Ramsey’s to come home and go to sleep. And just like how this person’s immaturity shows in the ransom note, it also shows in the rest of the crime, in that he didn’t succeed in getting Jonbenet out of the house but wound up prematurely assaulting and murdering her inside the home. I think the 118k amount was definitely related to John’s bonus. I have read repeatedly, but don’t know for sure that it’s true, that the amount of his bonus was printed in a newspaper article about Access Graphics that was published shortly before Christmas. If that were true, then lots and lots of people knew about it and I think the killer picking that amount fits with how this person resented the Ramsey’s wealth. He very much resented the idea that someone’s Christmas bonus would be that much money.

    Great show. Can't say I agree with Nic's theory that the note was definitely a farce with the point just being to buy the killer time (if written by an intruder). If the point was simply to avoid having the Ramsey's call the cops right away, then a very short and to the point "normal" ransom note would have done the job better. The intruder wanting to buy time, in no way explains why the thing rambled on for 2.5 pages. If Patsy wrote the note it would somewhat make sense because you could imagine she was trying to establish that the killer was an outsider with a grudge against John. I don't think Patsy committed the crime or wrote the note though. More often than not, the simplest solution is the correct one and I'm opposite of Nic because I don't think the note is a farce at all, I think it's exactly what it appears to be. I think it was written by a young, immature male, who knew of John Ramsey, maybe just from the papers, and thought of John as a fat cat and resented his, and his family’s, wealthy lifestyle. I think he intended to remove Jonbenet from the house, with sexual assault/murder as the primary motive, but also had the secondary motive of resenting the Ramsey’s and wanting to possibly extort some cash from them as well, though it’s unlikely he would have actually gone through with trying to pick up ransom money. So I think the note rambled on for 2.5 pages because the writer was enjoying himself. We know he liked to watch all those action movies, he was fancying himself in one, toying with his fat cat prey. He was enjoying taking shots at John and challenging him. It was fun for him. I’m with Lou Smit’s theory in that I think it was written prior to the crime, while the killer waited in the house for the Ramsey’s to come home and go to sleep. And just like how this person’s immaturity shows in the ransom note, it also shows in the rest of the crime, in that he didn’t succeed in getting Jonbenet out of the house but wound up prematurely assaulting and murdering her inside the home. I think the 118k amount was definitely related to John’s bonus. I have read repeatedly, but don’t know for sure that it’s true, that the amount of his bonus was printed in a newspaper article about Access Graphics that was published shortly before Christmas. If that were true, then lots and lots of people knew about it and I think the killer picking that amount fits with how this person resented the Ramsey’s wealth. He very much resented the idea that someone’s Christmas bonus would be that much money.

  • Wyborne

    Wyborne TX

    I just finished the last episode. In the third, this one, you pointed out and asked why the hypothetical three "ransomers" would only asking for $118,000, which would have split to be around $39,333 per person. But this isn't adjusting for inflation. $118,000 in 1992 is about $200,000 (depending which calculator you use) in 2018. This would equal about $66,666.66 a person, which doesn't mean the money is much more, but a somewhat more reasonable ransom than about $40,000 per person. (This is, assuming, it is not tied to the Christmas bonus given to John Bennett Ramsey.) I love your episodes! Keep doing the good work!

    I just finished the last episode. In the third, this one, you pointed out and asked why the hypothetical three "ransomers" would only asking for $118,000, which would have split to be around $39,333 per person. But this isn't adjusting for inflation. $118,000 in 1992 is about $200,000 (depending which calculator you use) in 2018. This would equal about $66,666.66 a person, which doesn't mean the money is much more, but a somewhat more reasonable ransom than about $40,000 per person. (This is, assuming, it is not tied to the Christmas bonus given to John Bennett Ramsey.) I love your episodes! Keep doing the good work!

  • Jessica

    Jessica NY

    I have heard this story so many times but I love how TCG breaks it down. CAPT brings up the fact that the S.B.T.C could be S.B.J.C but if you look at the "t" in try, it does the same drag mark, so I feel confident it is a T. Keep up the great episodes guys, this podcast is one of my favs.

    I have heard this story so many times but I love how TCG breaks it down. CAPT brings up the fact that the S.B.T.C could be S.B.J.C but if you look at the "t" in try, it does the same drag mark, so I feel confident it is a T. Keep up the great episodes guys, this podcast is one of my favs.

  • MacDougal Ng

    MacDougal Ng Mars Colony

    I'm confused as to why you entertained the idea of the writer being a legit kidnapper and considered the significance of the amount asked for outside of it possibly being significant to being the bonus amount (like wondering why someone would risk what they did for such a small amount). Because we KNOW it wasn't a kidnapping and her dead body was in the house and whoever wrote it would know that the body would be discovered before any random would be delivered. Whatever we don't know about the letter, we do know it must have been written as a deflection/to cause confusion/delay. Not that someone really wanted to get money from them. Do people really think the writer could have possibly expected to get paid off?

    I'm confused as to why you entertained the idea of the writer being a legit kidnapper and considered the significance of the amount asked for outside of it possibly being significant to being the bonus amount (like wondering why someone would risk what they did for such a small amount). Because we KNOW it wasn't a kidnapping and her dead body was in the house and whoever wrote it would know that the body would be discovered before any random would be delivered. Whatever we don't know about the letter, we do know it must have been written as a deflection/to cause confusion/delay. Not that someone really wanted to get money from them. Do people really think the writer could have possibly expected to get paid off?

  • True Crime Garage

    True Crime Garage

    I don't think the writer of the RL thought they would get paid. I said the letter was a farce. However I have suspicions that the RL could have been constructed and left before JBR died. I don't think they wanted paid I think they were trying to delay the Ramsey's calling police. This is such a very difficult case. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I hope to see some more. Happy New Year! Nic

    I don't think the writer of the RL thought they would get paid. I said the letter was a farce. However I have suspicions that the RL could have been constructed and left before JBR died. I don't think they wanted paid I think they were trying to delay the Ramsey's calling police.
    This is such a very difficult case. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I hope to see some more.
    Happy New Year! Nic

  • Sissy

    Sissy LaLa

    Too many get caught up in the style of the note, and not in the purpose of it. What was the writer trying to persuade the reader to do? Not. Call. The. Police. Read it again — that’s the purpose. And once you agree that the **purpose** of the note was to prevent law enforcement involvement.....then by logic you understand that Patsy could not be guilty. The writer of the note would not turn around and call the police knowing the body was still in there. If Patsy was guilty then that meant she knew the body was still in the house. And if she knew the body was still there, she would not have called police to come and find the body. Patsy calling the police is proof of her innocence. John told countless lies that day (that’s not an opinion, that is a fact), John found the body, John found the broken glass, John took a shower that morning, John disappears for an hour+, John runs down to the basement after the Detective asked him to start searching on the top floor, John took off the tape and threw himself on her body in front of everyone, John is the person whose hobby it is to name a new suspect every year, John is the one who showed the cop that the house had been secured, I could keep going. John did not find the note, John did not call police, John went to get the mail, John was calm and collected while he gave a tour of the house. Patsy was hysterical and inconsolable. Sidebar: statistically speaking, when a child is murdered and/or sexually abused, by 13 to 1 the perpetrator is the eldest male of the family. Fleet White said that John screamed as he looked into the cellar, but that it was so black in there that he could not have *possibly* seen anything inside that room. John asked the Detective if she was dead though she was in obvious rigor mortis, the Detective said she feared for their safety when she made eye contact with John over the body. It is true, we can’t judge some behavior in an emergency — but who would carry their child straight out away from their body like a dirty diaper? Remember, John wanted to get on an airplane within 45 minutes of his daughter’s body being discovered by him, John argues with an officer and was told he wasn’t allowed to leave, and John immediately called in his attorney and refused the interview. Talk about fight or flight! John and Patsy weren’t being intimate, his daughter was hyper-sexualized, and some abusers only act if given an opportunity. John gave himself that $118 and since he just got it he wouldn’t really miss it, John was a cyber-security expert who dealt with “foreign factions” in “busines.” It seems like such a deep mystery, but it’s all right there — look at everything John says and does. The number of lies he told is literally dozens and dozens. Patsy told two lies that could possibly even be white lies caused by gaslighting and/or chemo brain.

    Too many get caught up in the style of the note, and not in the purpose of it. What was the writer trying to persuade the reader to do? Not. Call. The. Police. Read it again — that’s the purpose. And once you agree that the **purpose** of the note was to prevent law enforcement involvement.....then by logic you understand that Patsy could not be guilty. The writer of the note would not turn around and call the police knowing the body was still in there. If Patsy was guilty then that meant she knew the body was still in the house. And if she knew the body was still there, she would not have called police to come and find the body. Patsy calling the police is proof of her innocence.

    John told countless lies that day (that’s not an opinion, that is a fact), John found the body, John found the broken glass, John took a shower that morning, John disappears for an hour+, John runs down to the basement after the Detective asked him to start searching on the top floor, John took off the tape and threw himself on her body in front of everyone, John is the person whose hobby it is to name a new suspect every year, John is the one who showed the cop that the house had been secured, I could keep going. John did not find the note, John did not call police, John went to get the mail, John was calm and collected while he gave a tour of the house. Patsy was hysterical and inconsolable. Sidebar: statistically speaking, when a child is murdered and/or sexually abused, by 13 to 1 the perpetrator is the eldest male of the family. Fleet White said that John screamed as he looked into the cellar, but that it was so black in there that he could not have *possibly* seen anything inside that room. John asked the Detective if she was dead though she was in obvious rigor mortis, the Detective said she feared for their safety when she made eye contact with John over the body. It is true, we can’t judge some behavior in an emergency — but who would carry their child straight out away from their body like a dirty diaper?

    Remember, John wanted to get on an airplane within 45 minutes of his daughter’s body being discovered by him, John argues with an officer and was told he wasn’t allowed to leave, and John immediately called in his attorney and refused the interview. Talk about fight or flight! John and Patsy weren’t being intimate, his daughter was hyper-sexualized, and some abusers only act if given an opportunity. John gave himself that $118 and since he just got it he wouldn’t really miss it, John was a cyber-security expert who dealt with “foreign factions” in “busines.” It seems like such a deep mystery, but it’s all right there — look at everything John says and does. The number of lies he told is literally dozens and dozens. Patsy told two lies that could possibly even be white lies caused by gaslighting and/or chemo brain.

  • Reed

    Reed Ice Cream Capital of the world

    Angela from KC called it.

    Angela from KC called it.

Add comment