This is probably best read by someone with a basic knowledge of the case - read AFTER reading the Thomas book - keeping his book close at hand.
PROLOGUE
A post...
10 . "uncorroborated stories"
Posted by MaskedMan on May-04-00 at 11:19 AM (EST)
Steve Thomas presents many unsourced and uncorroborated stories.
On page 5, he presents the improbable story that JonBenet was chilly at a restaurant, but Patsy wouldn't let her put on a jacket because "You're still on show." Steve Thomas didn't identify his source, but I know that this is one of Judith Phillips' urban legends.
When I aksed Judith about where and when this episode happened, she said that she didn't know and that she didn't see it herself. She said someone else had seen it. I asked her, "Who saw it?" She wouldn't tell me. So, this is just an unverified third-hand rumor.
Judith has done this repeatedly. She's lied to me about what she supposedly knows. She would claim to have first-hand knowledge about something, but then she'd change her story when I tried to pin her down. For instance:
Judith told me that Priscilla White had told her that John Ramsey tried to discourage Fleet White from entering the wine cellar room on Dec. 26, 1996. I believed that story for a long time. She was the source for a story to that effect in the National Enquirer of April 1997. When I found out later that that never happened, I asked Judith how Priscilla could have been so wrong about that. Then, Judith admitted that, uh, well, she didn't hear the story directly from Priscilla, but from someone else...
Steve Thomas used Judith for several dubious stories. She is the anonymous "family friend" whom Steve Thomas mentions. It wouldn't occur to Steve to double-check his information, since any story unfavorable to the Ramseys is automatically true to him. Positive stories, of course, don't appear in his book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On page 5 of Thomas' book, Thomas described "dark secrets". Bed-wetting, regressing in her toilet training. She not only had an occasional "accident", but he noted that she was not wiping herself well after using the toilet. As a parent, I have to say I don't consider skid marks in underwear or an occasional accident by a kindergartner to be "dark secrets" - but I was really offended by Thomas' final comment in the paragraph - "This would never do for a beauty queen." He insinuates that Patsy was upset by the occasional accident - but we know that Linda Hoffman Pugh said the opposite, Patsy didn't really care, just took care of it. And Patsy herself said she never thought that was an important issue - she said that on several TV interviews. Thomas offers no proof that this was "unacceptable", he just put in the snide comment, I believe by using such attitude, he hoped to build an emotional case against Patsy.
I would also say here that he comments several times in his book on a package of pull-ups being found in the hall closet - like that indicated an on-going problem. If she had been wearing a pull-up, or if there had been a few in the garbage, that might have meant something, but just having them in the house doesn't say a lot.
Page 6 - Thomas correctly stated, "Her last year was a rainbow ride." but then he went on to express his undocumented thought that "... by now people expected JonBenét to win everything, all the time." He offered NO proof that that was true. Again, he seemed to be setting up an emotional case against patsy with his little remarks.
Page 7 - some unnamed source says JonBenét, at the party
on the 23rd, was alone and sobbing, said "I don't feel pretty."
IF this is true - and I have NO evidence it is - what does that mean?
Thomas seemed to be saying looks were all important to the little girl
- she would leave a party and cry about not being pretty. As a parent,
I would guess one of the other kids teased her about something and I wouldn't
make a big deal of it. I think it is obvious Thomas has little experience
with children.
CHAPTER 1
Page 10 - We find out Thomas is an aggressive cop - and he doesn't care for Peter Hofstrom. Thomas shot a suspect and Hofstrom suggested that might have been a bit unnecessary - "Couldn't you have just hit him with a stick or something?" Thomas didn't like the attitude. Have to wonder how much this affects later events.
CHAPTER 2
page 13 -14 - Carefully wording it, Thomas says "I believe" Patsy killed JonBenét and John is covering for her.
page 15 - Thomas wrote that "... the FBI and the US Secret Service could not lift anything from the background noise on the tape." But he went on to say that work by "electronic wizards at the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles.... produced a startling conclusion". Thomas claimed Patsy moaned, "Help me, Jesus. Help me, Jesus." John barked, "We're not talking to you!" and BURKE said, "What did you find?" I would note that as of April 2000, the tape had never been heard by the public, the Ramseys insisted Burke was not downstairs at the time, and some authorities insisted that no voices could be heard ont he tape. But those Bent On Ramsey Guilt insisted Burke's voice was on the tape. Thomas offered no documentation that Aerospace was telling the truth - not one word from anyone who heard the tape themselves and heard Burke's voice. Thomas didn't even suggest he himself heard it.
CHAPTER 3
page 18 - "...their small dog spent the night at a neighbor's home." Misleading at best - the dog had been spending nights at the Barnhills' since the previous summer. It really belonged to the Barnhills.
page 20 - the story about Fleet White mving the suitcase. Misleading. The suitcase was not usually stored in that room at all - the killer likely moved it to that room. Fleet White moved it INCHES - that altered the crime scene, but did not eliminate the FACT that someone moved the suitcase to that part of the basement, and it may be important to know who - and why.
page 20 - 21 - Interesting that Thomas points out the photo of the ransom note on the stairs was a staged photo - I don't understand the point, exactly. Why WOULDN'T the police ask Patsy to show them what step she found the note on, how it was placed, and why wouldn't they record that information? Thomas wrote, "The photograph, which was supposed to show exactly where evidence had been discovered, was inaccurate." Really? Does he have any evidence that Patsy didn't find the note there? This is another one of those little comments meant to inflame the reader, IMO.
page 22 - half-truth and omission. Thomas said that a police office was stopped from interviewing Burke as he was taken from the Ramsey house to the Whites'. He did NOT say that another officer DID interview Burke that morning - for over 40 minutes - at the Whites - illegally - and that the Ramseys only learned of that much later - when Burke was subpoenaed for the Grand Jury. I would point out that if Burke had had ANY thoughts that his parents might have done something to his sister, if he had shown any fear of his parents, DSS would have stepped in and removed him from the home. Burke was interviewed several times and that NEVER happened.
page 23 - the old "watching him through parted fingers" statement. Seems to me that this is an attempt to make Patsy look "sneaky", but it falls short - she had covered her face with her hands and looked through her fingers - NOT evidence that she did anything wrong, just another sneer comment.
Page 23-24 - INCONSISTANCIES - according to Thomas...
Did Patsy check the room then find the note or
find the note then check the room. Thomas said she changed her story
- but offered no documentation to support his statements.
Did John tell three officers he had checked the
doors before going to bed? He said he didn't remember saying that.
Maybe police really need to tape record all conversations when answering
calls. This seems to be an issue that won't be easily cleared up.
Not that it mattered - it appeared the killer could have entered any number
of windows.
John listed people who had keys - and that proved
wrong - there were many more keys out.
I would suggest that the people were in shock, despair, scared to death - they may have been confused at times - I don't see how any of those statements indicated they would, could or did kill their daughter.
page 24 - Thomas said that John described reading to JonBenét that night - John disputes that - he says he carried her sleeping to her bed - then HE read to HIMSELF before he went to sleep. Patsy and Burke verify his story - could the cops have made an error? Thomas doesn't offer that choice. He just leaves it there as a lie by John.
Patsy said JBR went to bed wearing a red top - she admits that error. That was the top she had intended for JBR to wear to the party - it matched her own - but JonBenét didn't want to and wore the white one. Upset, Patsy described incorrectly the top JonBenét was wearing. Thomas doesn't SAY that Patsy corrected the error - said Jon was wearing the white sweater she wore to the Whites'- THAT is documented, but Thomas doesn't put THAT in his book - I think because it isn't very BORG.
bottom of page 24 - John and Patsy weren't clinging to each other, and Thomas comments that was "remakable". He took it as a sign of guilt - but I think if they HAD clung to each other, he would say they were sharing a dark secret and afraid to separate for a moment. No evidence of motive or evidence linking the Ramseys to the crime yet - just Thomas playing on readers' emotions.
page 25 - Patsy said he handwriting looked a bit like Linda Hoffman-Pugh's. Nedra, in a conversation with the minister, said that the housekeeper had once spoken about JonBenét being kidnapped. The housekeeper had a key - she became a suspect - and it seemed to me that she had to be - just as the Ramseys had to be. (just noting)
Page 25 - THIS ONE GOT ME!
"In the sunroom, Patsy Ramsey examined a second
generation photocopy of the ranseom note, a smeary version that showed
little more than the dark printed words. Rather than commenting on
the words and content, she told one of her friends (Barbara Fernie - I
don't know why he didn't put in her name) that the note was written on
the same kind of paper she had in her kitchen. Police would wonder
how she could tell, since they saw no similarities."
Hell's bells! She found the ransom note on the stairs - he read it and realized they had her daughter - she looked at it again when the dispatcher asked who wrote the note. Why WOULDN'T she know it was written on the same kind of paper she had in her kitchen??
It is this kind of reasoning that makes me doubt Thomas' credibility. He was a DETECTIVE???
page 26 - Thomas noted that no one commented when the deadline for the phone call passed. I would ask him just waht he thought they would say? They knew the time - Thomas is just criticizing anything and everything they did, that's how I see it.
Interesting - on this page, Thomas said Patsy "...said she was having second thoughts about the housekeeper being the author of the note." So much for Patsy throwing LHP under the bus.
John was unaccounted for that morning - Arndt
was the lone cop there and lost track of him for a while. Thomas
makes that appear suspicious - "...the time lapse would have allowed Ramsey
plenty of time to roam his house." My comment? OK - so what
- does that make him a murderer? Could he have PLANNED that - known
that the cops wouldn't handle it correctly?
Once again Thomas was creating a hint of deception
and mystery around the Ramseys. Other people moved freely around
the house as well, most notably Fleet White - but Thomas is weaving a tale
- the story spins one way...
page 27 - Arndt said for the men to search the house from top to bottom, Thomas finds it suspicious that the men started with the basement. One might suggest that it made more sense to go to the basement than to go to where John and Patsy slept, dressed. JonBenét's bedroom was taped off, they had been in Burke's room to check on him and later to get him ready to go to the Whites' - they knew what was in there. The first floor was full of people. Why wouldn't they go to search the basement first?
The basement is not correctly described in Thomas' book - the broken window was not in the train room but in the room beyond, a storage room.
page 28 - Thomas described the body as being wrapped "like a papoose". I believe this is incorrect. Feet sticking out? In another place in the book, it is described as 'tucked in". Thomas didn't see the body - I don't think he knows how it was covered.
Fleet moved back to the basement and handled the tape - I can understand that he was upset - acting without a lot of thought as to the damage he was doing - just think it is interesting to note Thomas has no negative connotation to attach to anything White did.
page 29 - Thomas described the scene between Arndt and John Ramsey - his version doesn't match anything I have read so far - seems we will never get a straight answer on that one.
Ramsey, Arndt and others contaminated the crime scene and body - Thomas, in one sentence, set JR apart from others by suggesting he had a reason - "No matter what his motive, he was altering things that should have been left untouched."
CHAPTER 4
Starts with John Ramsey nonchalantly handing pads over to the police so they will have handwriting samples from him and Patsy. My thought - apparently shared by Thomas - is that John wouldn't have done that if he had any thoughts about the note coming from the pads - or that he or Patsy might be suspects.
Thomas wote about John making arrangements to go to Atlanta as soon as he was told that they would have to leave the house because it was a crime scene. "Why would a father whose child had just been murdered be readying an airplane to get out of town?" I would like to answer - 1. He had to go somewhere - had to leave the house - why WOULDN'T he want to go "home" to family? 2. He said he wanted to get away from the danger - wanted his wife and son safe. 3. JonBenét would be buried in Atlanta - there were arrangements to be made - in Atlanta. 4. When told that the authorities would like him to postpone the trip, he did - immediately, with no argument. Is that the response of someone trying to "run"?
Page 32 - John signed a 'concent to search form'
allowing the authorities to search the house without a warrant - hardly
the act of someone trying to "hide'. While Thomas may say that a
warrant could have been gotten easily - I think the important thing here
is that Thomas wrote John "would eventually say he thought he had been
signing an authorization for an autopsy". If John was guilty - or
if Patsy was - I think they would have been paying much closer attention
to what was going on - instead they were placing their trust in the cops
- and it shows - evenin Thomas' book.
pg 33 - Thomas sounded upset when he wrote about the Ramseys leaving the house - "... the parents simply walked away. No one said a word to stop them." Thomas was not being honest here - the Ramseys had been TOLD to leave the house - offered a motel. They said no, they would go to be with friends - the Fernies. The cops said OK and it happened. The cops didn't let them "walk away" - they went with them. The Ramseys had cops with them 24/7 in the beginning. Once again, Thopmas suggests someone did something wrong. I suggest it wasn't the Ramseys. He thinks everyone was wrong... I think he is not considering what they were going through.
FBI profiler is quoted as saying, "Look at the parents. No bullshit, that's where you need to be." I agree, they needed to be considereed as suspects, but Thomas suggests the FBI did NOT think it was necessary to look elsewhere as well. I have a problem believing that is true.
Co-lead detectives were Trujillo and Arndt and they staarted out with personal issues between them? How stupid! They weren't on speaking terms - how could they solve a murder? JMO
I won't comment too much on the rift between the BPD and the DA - it existed - it was not superficial and it hurt the investigation - - someone else can do a book on that...
page 35 - the "fecal matter the size of a grapefruit" story - a lie as far as I can tell. This doesn NOT match what LHP said to other people - and I believe them more than I believe Thomas. The child did have occasional bouts of diarrhea - she was human - and maybe there was a stain that big - but this story is wild.
The interesting thing on this page is that Linda
Hoffman Pugh had fallen apart when told of the murder - and Thomas wrote,
"This
is what she had dreaded and warned the family about!"
I would love to know if this is true - what did
Hoffman-Pugh really say.
page 36 - Thomas paints an unflattering picture of Linda's husband, Mervin. True, according to my sources, but incomplete. Just want to note this.
page 37 - Thomas manipulating facts to smear the Ramseys. He asked "Who had changed her clothes" and didn't add the information that when he wrote the book it was obvious NO ONE HAD - she was found in the clothes she went to bed wearing.
He also incorrectly described the window that could well have been an entry point for the intruder - he wrote, "The dust, film, and debris on the windowsill were undisturbed." By this time, Lou Smit had told the public that leaves and "popcorn" had been disturbed in the window-well, indeed, they had been dragged in and through the basement. As usual, Thomas offered no documentation to support his statements - but we had the official crime scene photos from Lou Smit. Thomas' information was - simply put - WRONG!
page 38 - the Melody Stanton story is questionable. And the neighbors had NOT all been spoken to - that wouldn't happen - ever.
page 40 - Thomas said that Eller decided he needed some "meat-eaters" brought on - and .... pretty soon, Thomas was on case. The book is interesting as Thomas clearly thinks of himself as smart, self assured and RIGHT - if you have any doubt - ask him. he also thinks of himself as a rough, tough guy, a "meat eater".
CHAPTER 5
page 42 - The autopsy said, "The proximal portion
of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light
green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material
which may represent fragments of pineapple." The autopsy listed items
saved for further analysis - "EVIDENCE: Items turned over to theBoulder
Police Department as evidence include: Fibers and hair from clothing and
body surfaces; ligatures; clothing; vaginal swabs and smears; rectal swabs
and smears; oral swabs and smears; paper bags from hands; fingernail clippings;
jewelry; paper bags from feet; white body bag; samples of head hair, eyelashes
and eyebrows; swabs from right and left thighs and right cheek; red top
and purple top tubes of blood." NOTE - there is NO listing for contents
of digestive tract.
But in Thomas' book, he said "...the coroner
found what appeared to be chunks of pineapple in the upper digestive tract.
This also would be tested ..."
Thomas offered no documentation to support his
statements - and I believe he was lying.
pg 42-43 - - Thomas wrote about the head wound and the garrote - how both took place when the child was alive. He noted that the head trauma was not visible when an external examination took place - but he did not explain why that might be - I think that is important to note... especially when remembered later, when Thomas tells his theory...
page 44 - Despite previous rumors that the Ramsey bible was opened to Psalm 118, Thomas now says the bible was open to Psalms 35and 36. No documentation was offered, and I couldn't help but wonder if this was a lie - especially knowing that one of those Psalms was connected to Donald Foster's theory. Without someone else verifying this information, I would warn people to cast a wary eye...
page 45 - Three things in the first paragraph
that I would like to comment on.
1.Thomas noted that a neighbor noted a light
normally left on was off that night - I don't know why he didn't name her
- Diane Brumfitt. He didn't say why he thought the parents would
cut off a light that was always on - especially one in a room not involved
in the murder. I would suggest that an intruder in the house at dusk
might turn it off so that people outside wouldn't note a stranger moving
around. I see no reason for the parents to do such a thing, knowing
it would be "unusual" and draw attention to the house.
2.Thomas said that the neighbor to the north - again, no name but the name is Scott Gibbons - saw lights on in the "butler's kitchen". This is not the best information I have - I heard from someone I trust that Gibbons said the lights in the KITCHEN appeared different. I don't believe Thomas is correct on this one. I will check my sources and apologize if wrong, but I believe Thomas is being dishonest.
3.Thomas spoke about dogs that belonged to the neighbors to the West - in the alley. The thought was that they would have barked if there was an intruder. It was my personal experience that I spent a LOT of time in that alley - alone and with opthers - and only ONCE did a dog bark. I was there, alone, with others, walking, slinking, whatever - and no one seemed to care. Does this negate Thomas' thoughts? Nope - but it puts them in perspective, I think.
An unnamed "acquaintance" said JonBenét was unhappy about being in the pageants - was "rebelling". Believe it or not, I don't believe it. My conversations with people have indicated that JonBenét LOVED the activity. I think Thomas is spreading an unsubstantiated tabloid rumor.
Thomas did note that Suzanne Savage, a nanny when Patsy was receiving chemo for cancer, had only nice things to say about the Ramseys. Why did Thomas include her in the book? I think her part was to say the kids were a bit spoiled, that JonBenét wasn't an "angel".
page 46 - Mike Archuleta's name came back into the discussion - he said he didn't think it was strange for John to start to make arrangements to go to Atlanta on the 26th. At this point, I had to wonder if the lawyers didn't insist Thomas include some "facts" so as not to be TOO "unbalanced".
Again, Thomas included information in his book that made the Hoffman-Pugh's appear interesting suspects. I won't guess at the reason - maybe to show that other suspects were taken seriously. Considering what he wrote, I don't think anyone can say the family should have been ignored as suspects.
Page 47 has to do with the "ransoming of the body" - and Thomas' story does NOT reflect what others have said about the subject. He reports that Eller, Koby AND the coroner had decided to hold the body for more evidentiary tests. Again, who to believe? After reading the rest of the Thomas book, I am less likely to believe him than the others. I just ask readers to keep this in mind - decide later if the coroner really wanted the body held or if Schiller was right when he wrote, "...the police asked the coroner to hold JonBenét's body until they had interviewed the Ramseys. He refused. There was no reason for his office to maintain custody of the body, John Meyer said."
page 48 - Thomas notes that John Ramsey asked about his golf clubs. Thomas asks, "...what else might have been in the bag that was so important....?"
Thomas also commented on the interview John Ramsey gave to the police on the 27th - at the Fernie house - with attorney Mike Bynum there. Thomas would have the reader question why John Ramsey didn't want details of how his daughter died. he obviously feels it indicated something sordid, not innocent. I think it was a defense mechanism, I think the Ramseys knew instinctively that it was so horrible they couldn't handle the details at that time. I met the Ramseys in May of 1998, have met with them a few times - what may have been difficult to discuss two years ago would be easier now - time does that. I don't understand why Thomas doesn't seem to understand that.
CHAPTER 6
December 28th - just two days after the body of JonBenét was found - and look what Thomas reports - Patrol officer Angie Chromiak was told by a police intern, "The detectives already know who did it."
page 53-54 - Thomas reported that the Ramseys
would cooperate with the police, but they would have their attorney, Bryan
Morgan present every time they spoke. He also reported that the police
were very upset to find out Peter Hofstrom was in contact with the Ramsey
lawyers. I don't know why he would be shocked - the Denver/Boulder
community is not that small, lawyers and prosecutors know each other -
no just in the courtroom but outside as well.
page 54 - The Sharpie pen used to write the note came from the Ramsey
kitchen. The killer, no matter what his name was, had access to the
house and everything in it. But Thomas would have the reader believe
the pad and pen was evidence pointing to Patsy.
Consider this - IF the child had been killed at school - and if THEN
the pad and pen used in a ransom note came from the Ramsey house, that
would mean the killer was not only at the scene of the crime but in a second
location - the Ramsey house. The prosecustion would have to put a
suspect in BOTH places - that would be important - proving the killer had
access to the child and crime scene, AND access to the pad and pen.
But in this case, the killer, parent OR intruder, had access to the child,
and hence to the pad and pen. That was not a question
- access. The question is WHEN was the note written - before or after
the murder.
pg 55 - Thomas first met the Ramseys to take "nontestimonial evidence".
He commented on John's silence- "He uttered not an unsolicited word..."
I would note that depression often leaves people in silent solitude.
Thomas noted that when Burke was brought in, Ramsey "held and huggd the
boy, almost smothering him, and speaking quietly in his ear."
I couldn't help but think that no matter what John had said or done,
it would be written in a way that would reflect badly on him.
Thomas said he checked Patsy's hands and arms, face and neck, for bruises and noted none. Personally, I would think this was important - I am glad he included it in his book, wonder if he wasn't prompted to by lawyers seeking some balance.
page 56 - Patsy's turn - and unsolicited, she said, "I didn't kill my baby." Thomas remarks that no one had said she did. Did he think she didn't realize she was a suspect? He made it sound like it was close to a confession. I think this devastated mother, under medication, would have spilled her guts if she were guilty - Thomas apparently thinks she is much stronger than I do.
The older kids went in for interviews (hardly the act of family members "hiding dark secrets", IMO) Melinda, according to Thomas, was "pressed... hard". She denied there was any inappropriate sexual behavior in the Ramsey family. Thomas chose to deny that that was important information, instead he reported that "nothing of significance" was revealed in her interview. I disagree.
John Andrew wrote out his thoughts - and Thomas would interpret them for us. I have to say that if the family was involed and covering, none of those interviews or written statements would have materialized.
page 58 - Unnamed "friends" of the Ramseys were supposedly preparing to talk to Patsy about their disapproval of the "mega-JonBenét thing" - the pageants. Again, I question the honesty here. Not only are the friends not named, unknown to the public 39 months after the murder, but I have a hard time picturing "friends" facing off with Patsy about how she was raising her child. I have not heard of ONE incident where Patsy asked opinions, permissions or blessings for the decisions she made concerning her family. I think Thomas is repeating yet another tabloid rumor.
page 60 - Linda Hoffman-Pugh was mentioned again - the context was not as important as much as the repeated "first suspect" description. I don't know why Thomas does it again and again, but he sure does.
Thomas met John after the memorial service - and John "offered a mild, 'Thank you'" - Thomas found fault with that - he felt John should have been more emotional - another situation, IMO where no matter what John did, he would be criticized.
CHAPTER 7
Finally - Thomas is trying to link evidence to Patsy - she may have chosen the figure of $118,000 because their financial liabilities were $1,118,000.
page 66 - the blanket was described - "Why tuck a blanket around the corpse?". This isn't exactly like he described it earlier - remember the "wrapped like a papoose"? He would NOT note that the feet were sticking out - or wonder why her face was not covered, a sign of remorse by a killer.
page 67 - Again, Thomas says that spiderwebs and dust on the windowsill was not disturbed - but we know from Smit's photos of the crime scene that this is not accurate.
page 67-68 - Thomas criticized Patsy for having a favorite pair of jeans recovered from the house - he says, "...she had plenty of money and credit cards with her" and suggests she was wanting to keep evidence from the authorities. I would suggest that maybe Patsy didn't feel like going shopping - her baby had been murdered, she was heavily medicated and grieving, scared about her families future as the killer was still free and she and John WERE being treated as suspects.
If she had gone shopping, can you imagine THOSE headlines?
Page 68-69 - Thomas correctly described the problem between John and Fleet at the funeral as emotional moments between friends, but he was not honest, did not tell the whole story about why Fleet was upset.
page 69 - Thomas was VERY upset - said they needed to get banking and
phone records for the Ramseys - but they did not simply ask the Ramseys
to sign concent papers to get those private files. No, the BPD wanted
to get them by warrant - and were frustrated when that didn't happen.
Knowing that Thomas feels that the murder of JonBenét was unplanned,
I have to wonder what he thought he would find. I mean, if he thought
it was planned, or a murder for hire, that would be one thing - but he
believes Patsy went into a rage and lashed out - that the initial blow
was an "accident". I think the brou-haha was smoke and mirrors, just
something else he could whine about. Later, they got the phone records
- when the ramseys were asked to sign over the records, and did voluntarily.
I don't know about the banking records.
page 70 - IMPORTANT - An unnamed detective revised a report. "His revised report was not the first, and it would not be the last, that would enter the Ramseys case file."
page 73 - the pages in the pad - in detail. 1-12 missing. 13-16
written on by Patsy. 17-25 missing. 26 the "practice note". 27-29 THE RANSOM
NOTE PAGES.
On page 26, the "practice note", there was "bleed through" from the
page before. Thomas felt that was evidence that there may have been
another pactice note. I think Thomas added 2 and 2 and got 7.
What a stretch. The author of the ransom note didn't write slow enough
or hard enough to cause bleed through when he wrote the ransomnote - so
what makes Thomas thing that page 25 was written by that person?
Got me - another situation where Thomas has an opinion - and it is not
supported by any evidence - it's just an opinion. An opinion - Thomas feels
that points to Patsy as guilty, I don't understand.
page 74 - IMPORTANT - Information relayed by CBI examiner Chet Ubowsky
- information he later denied - as soon as the book was published - (according
to mainstream newspapers).
"24 of the alphabet's 26 letters looked as if they had been written
by Patsy Ramsey."
The next paragraph? "When taken together, the tablet, the Sharpie
pen, and the writing formed a powerful base of evidence. And that
evidence pointed directly at Patsy Ramsey."
WOW - THIS is the BASE of Thomas' case? Good Grief - I am SO glad
that Thomas wrote his book - even I thought there was more to it than THIS!!!
CHAPTER 8
Chapter 8 is mostly biographical material on John and Patsy. I didn't see anything in there that indicated these people had any motive to kill their daughter, they certainly had no history of prior neglect or abuse of their children. There was no known history of violence in the home - and hence Thomas was left with the necessity of hypothesizing (sp?) that the killing was an accident or rage act.
Pg 80 - Thomas said "I would often consider the visible agony he endured on the death of Beth in comparison with his almost businesslike response to the murder of JonBenét."
John's first wife said once that John had two faces, a public face and
a private one. His brother and friends described him breaking down,
being devastated, weeping for chunks of time.
John himself said that if people want to see him break down, they should
visit the sanctuary of his bedroom.
Thomas' assessment of John's demeanor seemed cold to me.
page 82 - describing Patsy's recovery from cancer, Thomas says one motivation was "to keep an unnamed 'blond bitch' down the street from getting her husband." Thomas's source was unnamed, the female was unnamed, there is no witness or documentation verifying this - - I think this is another tabloid rumor that has no basis in fact. There is NO evidence that John was stepping out on Patsy. NONE.
page 83 - pointing out that JonBenét was taking violin and French lessons as well as participating in pageants, Thomas says, "Just to have JonBenét win titles didn't seem to be enough for Patsy. It seemed to me that she sought perfection." He offered not one bit of documentation that she was a harsh taskmaster demanding perfection. No stories of her "demanding" the child not be a child, that she WIN. No stories of her screaming at JonBenét or pushing her where she didn't want to go. No one has stepped forward and said that JonBenét was unhappy, abused... (I know some people disapprove of pageants, some disapprove of pushing music lessons, but those are decisions left to parents - no parent is perfect and judging is a common pasttime - but Thomas had it right in the beginning when he said her life was a "rainbow ride" - she had a great life.
CHAPTER 9
page 88 - I am starting to understand more what I am coming to think of as the "Thomas Twist". Start to explain something, word it carefully, don't say it all, and the people will fill in the blanks in a negative way. Here is an example.
Thomas and others were on their way to Atlanta after the Ramseys gave an interview on CNN. Thomas wrote, "The Ramseys knew we were coming, and Commander John Eller was pushing the DA's office to arrange a meeting. Gosage and I stayed up all night reviewing the case, readying questions, but our quarry fled without warning. The Ramseys were on their private plane, headed for points unknown. We never saw them. So much for their promised 'cooperation'."
Well - the Ramseys had said they would cooperate - that they would want their lawyer present. If the DA did not arrange an interview with the Ramsey lawyers, there was no appointment, and saying the Ramseys "fled' is misleading and clearly an attack.
pages 90-91 - Nedra was described - obviously Thomas wanted to get readers
to dislike her - a member of the Ramsey family. He said that she,
"called a black man 'boy', and described a little girl the same age as
JonBenét as homely. Bur she had not one negative word to say about
John Ramsey, which I thought was unique for a mother-in-law."
Well, I won't defend her use of the word 'boy', though I hardly think
it matters here. The child in question may well have been homely.
Nedra had nothing negative to say about John - but by using the "Thomas
Twist", it seems Thomas has attempted to make Nedra's support of John negative.
page 91 - "Could there have been a bed-wetting accident that night?
Patsy was the only person who could tell us, and she wouldn't."
Patsy was not on the Moon - she had answered questions and would continue
to do so through the lawyers. Thomas is insinuating something that
is untrue... fact is, if they wanted to ask if the bed was wet that night,
they could have. And they would have gotten an answer. The police
were saying over and over that the Ramseys WERE cooperating, that no one
was doing anything wrong.
page 92 - Using Nedra as a source, Thomas pointed out that it would have been difficult to take JonBenét from her bed quietly - JBR was a fighter. He neglected to point out that one popular theory is that she was shocked with a stun gun. (I believe this to be the case and would point to the photographs of the marks and Smit's research to support my position.) And Thomas even fails to offer his OWN theory that the blow to the head came first (which I believe is disproven by the EVIDENCE - the lack of bleeding in the brain.) and suggest maybe she was hit in the head while sleeping. (There is no evidence of a struggle as the killer took JonBenét to the basement.)
page 94 - The neighbors had not all been canvassed, but Thomas was hot to trot on finding a mistress John Ramsey had 18 years before. Interesting - just another situation that I think shows the focus on the Ramseys... just how did Thomas think an interview with that woman would help? Thomas didn't explain - just wanted to make sure everyone knew John had once committed adultery. That's how I see it -I think this whole book is just a "smear the ramseys any way I can and make people think ill of them so they will think they killed their daughter even though I am offering no case against either of them" effort.
page 96 - Thomas seemed to see that John was innocent in this - the investigation uncovered nothing that implicated John in any unsavory acts. I don't know why the same benefit of doubt wasn't extended to Patsy - there was still nothing linking Patsy to the crime that I can see.
Still waiting for Thomas to prove Patsy did it....
CHAPTER 10
page 99 - "The police found it particularly interesting that John and
Patsy would be represented by separate attorney, a move that can indicate
a possible conflict of interest between the parties."
The Ramseys had no choice but to hire two lawyers - lawyers are often
unwilling to represent two people - they don't START with two clients who
MIGHT have a conflict of interest. Hiring separate lawyers was not
indicative of guilt - or evidence that there WAS any conflict of interest.
Describing the Ramseys at church, Thomas wrote, "The church had been
used to help create an image of a grieving father and mother."
CREATE AN IMAGE? Is Thomas saying they WEREN'T "a grieving father
and mother."
This book is about Thomas creating an image of the Ramseys - spinning, the "Thomas Twist". He clearly wants the reader to see the Ramseys as phonies, uncooperative manipulators. But he offers no concrete evidence against them, just his theory, how he saw it.
Chapter 10 is largely an attack on DA Hunter - but I would remind reader that the man remained in office - re-elected time and time again, for 27 years.
Page 104 - The Ramsey had given handwriting samples - but the spin had
to be negative so the location became the focus - it was given at the home
of a PROSECUTOR - the Ramseys weren't forced to walk into the police station.
Thomas wants people to be angry about that - like they were getting away
with not being forced to go "to the station" so maybe they were also getting
away with murder. That's my take on this whole book. Don't
like the Ramseys, Thomas whispers. They aren't nice and they are
treated nicely - don't like them...
Still waiting for any evidence that ties them to the crime...
page 104 - Trip Demuth was described by Thomas as "the bane of our existance" for his unwillingness to go along with the BORG program. He joined Smit and Hofstrom. (I am writing this on April 18th, 2000 - last night, Thomas was on Geraldo and said Lou Smit was alone in his belief that the Ramseys are innocent. Guess he forgot Hofstrom and the "bane". LOL)
page 106 - Thomas was told by Kris Gibson, a victim's advocate coordinator,
that she thought the Ramseys were innocent. Thomas wrote, "I thanked
her for that valuable observation." I think Thomas' attitude is clear
in that statement. He was after Patsy Ramsey and would not be swayed
from his position and course.
Saving this article by Charlie Brennan - here seems as good a place as any...
Former Boulder Detective Makes His Case In Book
... A Case He Couldn't Make In A Courtroom: That
Patsy Was To Blame
by Charlie Brennan
April 2000
Nobody else is saying it, so it appears this falls to me:
Steve Thomas is the little kid who, protesting a call by the ump, takes his bat and ball and quits, bringing the game to an end for everyone.
Thomas is the former Boulder police detective who resigned in protest over the handling of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, and is now telling all in his book published Tuesday, April 11, by St. Martin's Press, "JonBenet -- Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation." It is co-authored by veteran Boulder County non-fiction writer Don Davis.
If there was any question as to whether this case might someday be prosecuted, that question has been answered. It won't. Thomas empties his three years of bitter frustration onto the pages of a book that, while compelling reading for any Ramseyphile, could also serve as exhibits A-through-Z for defense attorneys, should this beleaguered case ever limp battered and bloodied into a courtroom.
We pause for this disclosure: I am far from a disinterested observer in this matter. I worked for 16 months in collaboration with Lawrence Schiller on another Ramsey book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," published in February 1999.
It was, I feel, the definitive book on the Christmas night 1996 murder of Boulder's six-year-old child beauty queen -- until now. A significant number of law enforcement personnel cooperated with Schiller and myself by sharing details they felt could be divulged without compromising the investigation or precluding a future prosecution.
Certainly, we didn't cast all players in an entirely positive light. We exposed bizarre subplots to the drama -- police and prosecutors dallying with a tabloid reporter to advance their own personal vendettas, for example -- that left many shaking their heads in disbelief. The tales of extreme dysfunction between and among some officials involved in this case are already widely chronicled.
Thomas now picks the scabs and the blood is flowing anew.
He holds nothing back in his quiver, blasting District Attorney Alex Hunter ("a Teflon politician who was always one step removed from any carnage left behind by his office"), both the Boulder police chiefs he served under (mocking former Chief Tom Koby's affection for "bluesky psychobabble"), and even dumps on many peers in the detective bureau. The infallible and unforgiving Thomas is not the kind of person you want to unwittingly cut off in traffic.
In an interview with the Denver Post, Thomas declined to say whether the book was based on his own notes or case files. I can answer that one. It's clearly based on case files, some of which he obviously must have carted home sometime before or after noisily throwing down his badge on Aug. 6, 1998.
Readers can see that for themselves as early as page 14, where Thomas and Davis reprint a verbatim transcript of Patsy Ramsey's call to 911. It's all there, down to the last "(inaudible)." As a student of the case who was outside the Ramseys' home to see JonBenet wheeled away past the twinkling white Christmas lights in a body bag, I know this transcript has previously appeared nowhere else. It's not part of any file that is open to the public.
Thomas not only violates the spirit of the oath he took as a law enforcement officer. He also tramples two citizens' rights to a presumption of innocence.
His book makes the case Thomas couldn't make in a courtroom. He flatly declares Patsy committed the murder in a fit of rage over bed-wetting, and that her husband joined the next morning in a cover-up. Thomas isn't alone in embracing such a theory. But this is the first time a central figure in the investigation has dared say so for the record.
In writing "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," Schiller and I certainly had our own theories, but we spared readers our conjecture. Instead, we clearly laid out the reasons that many believe the Ramseys are guilty, and the reasons that others consider them innocent. We invited readers to draw their own conclusions.
Call me old-fashioned, but for a former detective to unilaterally issue his own indictment through a publisher and not a courtroom, in a case still under investigation, is flat wrong.
Thomas had no experience as a homicide investigator prior to arriving on this stage. He couldn't put together a case that would stand up in a courtroom. Not to be denied, he's doing so in a book. Here, he's unbound by such distractions as the rules that govern evidence.
It should be noted that Thomas walked away from law enforcement one month before a grand jury was even convened in this matter. That panel worked for 13 months after he was gone and still couldn't come up with grounds to indict John and Patsy Ramsey or anyone else.
If I can be forgiven another baseball analogy, it's as if Steve Thomas is the would-be slugger who whiffs in every at-bat during the big game -- then smacks it over the wall off a batting tee in front of the vacant seats after the crowd's gone home.
The product of Thomas and Davis' labors is, no question, essential reading for anyone with an interest in the child murder heard 'round the world. This is the first book published to date from a key participant in the investigation. Its pages carry the ringside sense of intimacy.
But by doing it this way, at this time, Thomas does a disservice to the couple he accuses, to the officers he leaves behind, and most of all, to the memory of a little girl whose murder is now far less likely to be avenged.
There is this irony. Thomas believes Patsy Ramsey struck her daughter in a rage -- then, mistakenly believing JonBenet already dead, applied a garrote to disguise the crime as something else. In taking that second, bizarre step, Thomas believes, Patsy Ramsey then actually killed JonBenet for real.
The ex-detective may well have done the same,
misreading this case as over -- then making darn sure that it is.
CHAPTER 11
page 107 - Thomas noted that Patsy said she had not read the entire ransom note but could tell the dispatcher that the note was signed, "SBTC - Victory". He felt that was a "contradiction". I would have the reader look at the transcript.
Patsy:... I just found the note and my daughter's (inaudible)
Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?
Patsy: What?
Dispatcher: Does it say who took her?
Patsy: No... I don't know... it's there.... there's a ransom
note here...
Dispatcher: It's a ransom note
Patsy: It says SBTC... Victory... please
Dispatcher:OK, what's your name....
It appears to me that Patsy didn't read the note before she called but looked for the answer when asked who it was from. I think Thomas was twisting things to fit his theory.
page 108 - again with PINEAPPLE in the STOMACH
Again Thomas mentions the FACT that Patsy had told a cop that her missing daughter was wearing a red shirt. YES, she did - in the confusion when asked what JBR had on, she at first thought of the matching outfits they had planned to wear and said red - but she was wrong. JonBenét had wanted to wear white to the Whites' house - and the plans changed at the last minute. An honest error - and Thomas is trying to make it look like some giant lie - but WHY LIE ABOUT THAT???
Thomas was angry when he didn't get simple yes or know answers. When they said they didn't know or didn't remember something, he grew frustrated and angry. I can't say I blame him, but it doesn't mean the Ramseys were lying.
Page 109 - Thomas was angry that Burke would be questioned by a psychologist, without police present, in a comfortable setting. He said that that ended "possible police leverage". I can't help but wonder if he would have wanted a detective to press hard like they had with Melinda. Burke was only 9, maybe 10 by then, just a kid. Thomas seemed like a "meat-eater" alright.
Page 110 - Interesting - Patsy spoke alone with Arndt for an hour and no report was made. I agree with Thomas - something in that talk may have been important - - but I feel that anything said was innocent - if it was BORG, I feel sure it would have made it into the reports.
page 113 - Thomas wrote that Santa "didn't do it". Seems Thomas felt he was too frail, not a pedophile, and that handwriting analysis proved he wasn't involved. Well, I just happen to think he is innocent as well, but he was NOT to frail to have killed the child - he had been active and strong on the 23rd. I don't know how they proved he was not a pedophile. And IF he was cleared because expert handwriting analysts (and that is not Donald Foster) said he didn't write the note, then why haven't other people been as well? No one has been publicly cleared except John Andrew, Melinda, Burke, and John Brewer Eustace.
Page 114 - Another person apparently cleared by Thomas by handwriting
- though not officially - Jesse McReynolds.
Looks like he gave a blood sample, Thomas doesn't say it was tested
or didn't match the DNA found in the panties.
CHAPTER 12
page 115 "... the sergeant who reported the undisturbed snow now filed an amended report. The first officer was having difficulty in recollecting certain events. Then Arndt began amending her reports too. I saw big trouble ahead."
Yep, I agree - looks like trouble to me too - Were the first reports the truth? The second? Do they need to be revised again? With the focus on the parents and the lead detective angry about having to look elsewhere, I would find "altered reports" a BIG problem.
This book doesn't show clear evidence against the Ramseys - I think it shows how desperate some were to make the evidence fit the theory that the parents did it.
Page 116 - One AG employee let the detectives know the ransom amount was near to the amount of John's bonus. Thomas was obviously excited about that. But the end of the page... well, I think it shows Thomas' position very clearly.
"The interviews with Access employees continued throughout January, sometimes helpful, sometimes hostile, and turned up nothing. They weren't the only one's not cooperating."
Obviously, "cooperating" meant point to the Ramseys and giving something "meaty" to the "meat-eater".
page 117 - Thomas wanted to investigate with muscle - he wanted warrants issued to get medical records, phone records. When the DA's office recommended he just ask the Ramseys sign consent papers to get the records, Thomas was upset. But I would point out that the Ramseys signed over 100 such consent forms - the aggression was not only unnecessary but harmful to any lines of communication there would ever be between the Ramseys and the BPD.
Page 118 - Thomas attacked the members of the BPD - I don't mind the truth being known, if he is telling the truth - but I have to wonder if he is putting any future trial in danger. Thomas leaked to Barddach, Mason leaked to Krupski, Eller set up Mason... as interesting as it is, if no one was charged with wrongdoing, did we need to know? Just a thought.
page 120 - VERY INTERESTING
This page deals with the receipts for purchases Patsy made from McGuckin's
hardware. The duct tape and cord found on the body MAY have been
bought at that hardware store (there is no way to trace where they were
actually purchased). The detectives found two charge receipts from
that store for the Ramseys - and the wanted to know if the cord or tape
was listed.
The cord cost $1.99 and was located in the paint department - Patsy
had purchased two items that cost $1.99. One from "builders' hardware"
and one from the "garden shop". Thomas wrote that maybe the cashier
mistyped the department. I say that Thomas seems to be
s t r e t c h i n g to make the evidence fit his theory.
No one remembers seeing her buy the tape, none was found in the home. If
the murder was not "planned", and Thomas says he has no reason to think
Patsy planned to murder her daughter, then isn't it odd that she would
but new items that fit the need, no one remembers her having them and the
receipts are "incorrect"?
page 121 - Thomas said Sergeant Wickman reported the Ramseys owned the book MindHunter, by John Douglas. The Ramseys and John Douglas deny that. I would like to hear if Wickman has a comment on this. This was a Boyles story that was a flash then died... the theory about it being a blueprint for JonBenét's murder laughable.
Page 122 - Jim Marino is described as a friend who stuck up for the Ramseys - and as someone the Ramsey's repeatedly turned in as a suspect. I doubt the latter statement. Would like to see some documentation. This is what I think happened to Fleet, I think he heard from Thomas and others that the Ramseys kept putting him in as suspect and Fleet took it serious. I think Marino knew better.
CHAPTER 13
Page 124 - Pineapple again (the coroner couldn't tell if it was fruit or vegetable, never mind pineapple) and on this page Thomas has it in the intestinal tract AND in the stomach.
Thomas said unnamed doctors put the blow to the head BEFORE the strangulation - (not what my sources and common sense tell me) and he said the DNA "could be totally unrelated to the case".
I think this is a HUGE effort to make the pieces to the puzzle fit his
theory. Doesn't fit? Deny it, push it away.
Lou Smit says let the evidence talk - I think Thomas should listen
closer.
Thomas wrote - "our handwriting expert thought Patsy was the possible author". Well, unless she was totally eliminated as the author, this isn't untrue, but it IS another case of the statement being leading, and not altogether honest.
page 126 - Hunter hired Barry Scheck and Henry Lee so that the Ramseys couldn't. Interesting - almost like he felt that the experts wouldn't simply investigate but would be influenced by who had hired them. So far they haven't attacked the Ramseys so I can only hope they are honest about the evidence and what it means.
page 128 - Bill Wise suggested bringing in an experienced homicide investigator. His comments were taken as an insult to the BPD and he was removed from the case. Interesting battle of egos and hurt feelings going on in Boulder.
page 129 - Thomas reported that the Ramseys had successfully
stalled the interviews - but he described how the Ramseys offered to meet
with the BPD. They wanted the interview to be at their lawyers' office,
with their lawyer present. Patsy was still medicated so she wanted
her doctor present and the meeting to be limited to an hour. And they asked
that Detective Arndt do the questioning and they wanted Peter Hofstrom
from the PROSECUTOR'S office to be present. (Considering he would likely
be the lead prosecutor if this went to court, I see it as a benefit to
the prosecution).
- ironic - Thomas said that the Ramseys wanted to chose who interviewed
them - and they wanted Detective Arndt. Guess they didn't know her "mind
exploded" on the 26th and that she thought John might have been a danger
to all of them. I really am curious about the "altered reports".
Anyway, rather than take the Ramseys up on the offer, get the answers to some of their more pressing questions, the BPD decided to show their muscle and said, NO! It will be at police headquarters, we will pick who interrogates you, it will go on as long as WE like, and Hofstrom is NOT welcome.
I think theRamseys remembered Melinda's interview and decided to just turn aside - and I don't blame them a bit. If the BPD wasn't talking to the Ramseys at all, they have only themselves to blame. If they met the Ramseys for an hour one day, it might have opened the lines of communication and led to more talks. They slammed the door, IMO.
CHAPTER 14
page 132 - Thomas tells how he tried to "deal" with Lucinda, John's first wife. He would help clear John Andrew IF she spoke to him about an affair John had 18 years before - the affair that broke up the marriage - Thomas wanted the woman's name.
I think this speaks volumes - this is what the Ramsey family was hearing from the cops - we don't care about truth and fairness - we want certain information and the truth is being withheld unless we get it. Hardly a good base for trust. Lucinda kept the secret - it was John who willingly share the information later.
On page 134, JAR and Melinda were cleared - and look what Thomas said about that! "That was a huge gift to the Ramseys. Once the older kids were cleared we had no more leverage in Atlanta, and it was a milepost in the sham of cooperation. To me, it seemed that their priorities were seriousluy out of order."
Thomas wanted to be a macho cop and he wanted to make these people suffer unless they cooperated HIS WAY!
Further down on the page, Thomas wrote that he felt the Ramseys should have asked to be polygraphed, gone to the cops themselves... he wrote, "Who better to turn to than the cop who will do anything possible to catch the killer of a loved one?"
I have to say, the Ramseys didn't have any reason to think the BPD was investigating anyone other than them - I am amazed that Thomas didn't see why they wouldn't come in for tea on a daily basis.
On page 135 is a prime example of what the Ramsey KNEW about the BPD. They were looking into the chance that Beth, John's oldest daughter who was killed in a car accident, had been a victim of sexual assault - there was no evidence found - but the implication was clear - the cops were looking for evidence that John may have had a history of sexually assaulting his daughters. Oh yeah, John should have turned to the cops and trusted them without question - *gag*.
Thomas criticized the way John grieved over the loss of JonBenét. He said that they heard how John had been inconsolable after Beth died, that "...he could be heard late at night almost howling with grief. Years later her presense was still large inhis life. Pictures of her filled a desk drawer, her name was on his plane. But when JonBenét was murdered, we saw little open grief."
Thomas failed to reflect on or report the descriptions by friends of John breaking down - was he lying by omission or just upset that John didn't break down in his arms and beg for help?
page 138 - Thomas recounted a conversation with Stewart Long, Melinda's boyfriend. Thomas said Stewart said John said he found the body at 11 o'clock. In fact, John found the body at 1. Why the error? I have no idea but Thomas thinks it means John was in on a cover-up. THIS is typical of Thomas' spin. Something got said that i don't understand but I think it might point to the Ramseys as guilty if spun this way so.... spin, spin, spin.
Page 139 - Detective Arndt reportedly had a private and personal meeting with Patsy Ramsey - sanctioned by her lawyer. Nothing in Thomas' account indicates Arndt thought John OR Patsy was guilty or was trying to get either Ramsey to confess. What DOES come out is that Thomas encouraged Arndt to be more of a "team player', Arndt was afraid that she would be removed from the case, and then Thomas wrote this amazing thing, that "She raised a finger to her forehead, thumb back like a cocked pistol, and told me, 'If I get kicked off this thing, I'm going to take out myself and everyone else.'"
I am amazed at this revelation - and the fact that Arndt is not suing. Could this be true? If so, this is startling.
CHAPTER 15
.
This chapter starts out telling how the BPD didn't only investigate
the Ramseys - that they looked at other suspects.
OK - I admit, they did look into some other suspects - but I also maintain they didn't go after anyone with the same energy they used on the Ramseys. In fact, from everything I know, they went to CLEAR the others, not to find evidence against them.
Page 141 - Interesting - Thomas was hot to criticize me for discrediting Foster, but he didn't mention that I called in the Eustace tip - documented, but Thomas certainly wouldn't want to write that I had indeed identified a good suspect - one even he had to admit was a "likely suspect".
page 142 - misleading and a truth - misleading? "Evidence
at hand pointed to the Ramseys." - WHAT EVIDENCE??? Thomas hasn't
revealed any so far!
Truth - ""There was no shortage of suspects, just a shortage of detectives."
I agree, and maybe if they took some off the ramseys, the investigation
of the others would have solved this case.
page 143 - Thomas critical of Hunter - and states that Koby's opinion was that the Ramseys were acting guilty. Hardly "evidence".
page 144 - "Intruder theorists in the DA's office would try to weave the semen stain (on the blanket), the blanket and a Dr. Seuss book also found in the suitcase into a convoluted scenario in which JonBenét was lured from her bed with the book. The plan was then to stuff her in the suitcase and take it out through the window. When it was argued that the suitcase didn't fit through the basement window, the theory simply changed to having her taken out through a door while the suitcase was used as a stairstep to the window. It was convenient arrangement of the facts."
Having been in the house, it might be a plan to put her in the suitcase
to carry away, but it would be impossible to get the suitcase in the window
well then climb in over it. It would also be impossible to get in
the window well, reach down and lift that suitcase up and in the well.
I don't know how big the suitcase was but have to say it may not have fit
in there at all.
As a person who believes in the intruder theory, I think Thomas should
have listened closer to us. There is far more to the theory than
Thomas says.
page 145 - Thomas indicates there was a beaver hair found on the tape that was on JBR's body - and he is angry that no search warrant was issued for Patsy's fur coat or boots. Again, he wanted to play macho cop and strong-arm when a simple request would have gained him the information he sought. The Ramseys say they owned nothing made of beaver. But my comment is that the cops had the house for well over a week - did they find any other beaver hair? My sources say no - just that one.
They were given the chance to search again months later - again they had the opportunity to vacuum closet floors - no one was using Patsy's closets at any time I visited the house - I think if they found any evidence of beaver we would have known - but no one is saying the Ramseys pwned anything beaver. More Thomas spin - a veiled accusation with no supporting evidence.
page 146 - criticizing the investigation - but also misleading the reader. Thomas said that Lee began asking questions about the urine stains - asked if there was evidence the bed was wet. Were there matching stains on the sheets. Now this is important for it is the motive in Thomas' theory - bedwetting. So Lee asked the question and Thomas writes, "We didn't know..... those sheets should have been promptly collected for testing." WHAT??? True, the sheets SHOULD have been taken in - but Thomas knows the photos of the bed indicate NO wetting, NO staining... Thomas twists again...
Thomas wrote about the possibility of old sexual assault - and he clearly notes (thank God) that there was NO evidence of old scarring. He did not the "chronic" inflammation and even admitted that it could have been some infection. Being a parent, I know little girls who have ear infections often use an antibiotic that has GREAT results as far as the ear goes, but sometimes results in yeast infections that cause vaginal irritation and itching. I would suggest that JBR's medical history indicates THAT the more likely cause of the irritation than "chronic sex abuse".
page 147 - I believe this is an out and out lie. Thomas said that Henry Lee "...questioned why a 6-year-old girl, who could easily have been manually strangled, had been choked with a garrote. Such complicated violence did not fit the crime. Lee suggested the possibility that death had been accidental with a cover-up, and noted distinctive elements of 'staging'"
I don't think so - Lee knew that the blow to the head had minimal bleeding - that the flow of blood to the head had been cut off before she was hit - he also knew that the garrote was the ONLY thing used to choke her. I don't think Lee said this at all - I think this is Thomas spin.
page 147 - Thomas calls Lou Smit ".. a gentle man and a gentleman". He rightfully said that Smit had "impeccable police credentials, brought the Intruder theory to life."
CHAPTER 16
page 150 - an amazing quote!!! "..DeMuth seemed to truly believe that someone broke into the house and killed this little girl. .... His allegiance to the intruder idea was apparently so strong that he was eventually removed from the investigation."
Later on that page, Thomas wrote, "Trip DeMuth and his boss, Pete Hofstrom might as well have been twins..."
Page 151 - Thomas wrote, "Team Ramsey was overwhelming us with useless leads..." I think his attitude speaks volumes and it is not a stretch to believe the "Team Ramsey leads" were treated with little serious care.
page 152 - Thomas twist - information he later admitted he heard second hand and did not verify - information I have been told is denied by the "source". Thomas said CBI analyst Chet Ubowsky "made the early discovery that Patsy's handwriting was consistant with the ransom note on 24 of the 26 alphabet letters..." I have been told that is NOT TRUE. Considering the rest of the book is filled with misrepresentations, half-truths, omissions and lies.... considering Thomas himself backtracked on this one.... considering the FACT that the CBI, FBI and US Secret Service were unable to attribute the note to Patsy Ramsey, I have to say I think Thomas was simply willfully lying here.
Page 153 - another VERY INTERESTING QUOTE - I bet this was insisted on by the lawyers...
"To me, the evidence was mounting. There was only one person who looked good as the author of the note, whose pen and pad were used to write it, and whom we could place in the home at the time of the murder - Patsy Ramsey - and the DA's office still would not call her a suspect."
WOW! THAT is the evidence against Patsy! I will go over it point by point.
Her pad and pen were used - well, the killer had access to the house and everything in it - he had obvious access to the pad and pen - didn't even have to look in a drawer to find them! If he had used paper from some remote office that she maintained, I might agree it pointed to her - but under the circumstances, that "evidence" is NOT indicitive of Ramsey guilt and Thomas has to know it if he is ANY kind of detective.
"whom we could place in the home at the time of the murder" - Yep - there was evidence of an intruder - Thomas knew it - but he didn't have a name for the intruder, couldn't place HIM in the house - so he went for the easy "Patsy". If this is evidence of Patsy's guilt, Lord help us all.
I am still looking for Thomas' evidence that patsy did it - none so far...
Page 154 - Lucinda tried to give Thomas items left at the grave - her thought was that the killer may have left something there - maybe something in there could help solve the crime. Thomas writes that she "...wanted us to look at garbage." Again, his attitude shines through - if it wasn't BORG, he didn't want to hear it.
Page 154 - Thomas shoots down the stun gun theory - or so he thinks. Thomas wrote that Smit and Ainsworth claimed a stun gun was used on JonBenét. "We would spend months proving to our satisfaction that it simply did not exist, but they wouldn't give up on the idea."
What Thomas failed to report is that many people looked at the evidence and believed it WAS a stun gun - and later Lou Smit would be able to share that evidence with anyone he chose. It would be put out on 20/20 in March of 2000. It was GREAT evidence - true evidence that proved a stun gun was used - but the BORG media never picked up on the story... Thomas Twist was just part of the problem - the world was BORG and happy to close their eyes to the facts as they emerged.
PART THREE
CHAPTER 17
page 160-161 - Thomas was VERY upset that the Ramsey defense team and experts got to examine the actual ransom note and garrote - as if their examination of those articles would change their value as evidence. He wrote, "In my opinion, Team Ramsey was being allowed to loot our Property and Evidence Room."
In my opinion, and this is jameson speaking, the Ramseys and their lawyers SHOULD have been allowed to view the evidence - especially the ransom note which would be damaged by testing. The evidence was not charged or damaged by the inspection, and Thomas was once again just trying to be "macho cop" holding the Ramseys to a place as 'suspect".
page 161 - Deputy DA Pete Hofstrom told the Ramseys a truth - and Thomas was once again furious - called Hofstrom's statements a "terrible surprise". He wrote that Hofstrom toldthe Ramseys. "We have nothing to indicate you areinvolved in this crime." The Ramseys themn agreed to be interviewed by the BPD.
(I think Thomas would have preferred the interviews be gained through more adversarial means.)
The interviews were set up - and cancelled. Why? Because the FBI felt the arrangements were "ridiculous".
My personal comment is that if the BPD wanted an interview with the Ramseys, NO conditions placed were so "ridiculous" that they couldn't live with them. Thomas didn't outline the "ridiculous" conditions - I didn't think they were so bad. I think there were other reasons the BPD called off the interviews - and I believe Thomas is lying on this issue.
Lou Smit was saying the child had been hit with a stun gun - and it seemed to me that the BPD was buying time to look into THAT possibility before they interviewed the parents - they knew that the presense of a stun gun would not be considered good evidence against John and Patsy.
page 162-163 - Thomas was studying the photos taken at the Whites - and he noticed that Patsy was wearing the same outfit at the party that she was the next morning. Rather than accept the fact that some people DO wear the same clothes two days in a row, Thomas figured Patsy never went to bed that night.
I would venture to say that if she HAD killed JonBenét, as Thomas
claims, she would have changed - would have wanted to wash up and change
out of those clothes and start "fresh" with the 911 call. (Thomas
doesn't explain a lot of details - like if she killed JBR because she had
an accident, and carried her to the basement, wouldn't there be urine on
her clothes? Would she stay in those clothes? Might not someone have
noticed that on the 26th? Nevermind - just pointing out that Thomas left
many questions unanswered, indeed, unasked.)
Chapter 18
.
Thomas talks about the April 1997 interviews and says he thinks they
had probable cause THEN to arrest Patsy - but he does not list those "causes".
He is critical of her ability to stand up to him in the interview and he
points out inconsistancies while he publishes misinformation - talk about
a bad book!
page 165 -
"She confirmed that the last thing JoBenét had to eat was some
cracked crab at the Whites' dinner party on December 25. I knew the
Whites served no pineapple that night, but pineapple was found in the
victim's stomach, and a bowl of pineapple bearing Patsy's fingerprints
wa on her kitchen table. Inconsistant."
Well, there was no pineapple found in her stomach, there MAY have been some further down the digestive tract, and how does having her prints on a bowl in her house make Patsy a killer? She emptied the dishwasher - I bet her prints are on MOST dishes in that house. Burke's prints were on the bowl also - he could have gotten that snack on Christmas day with Patsy paying no attention to it. But Thomas jumps to conclusions that make amateur scientists shudder.
Thomas says that until that interview, the authorities thought JonBenét had worn the red shirt to bed. That is because very early on, when JBR was missing, Patsy HAD made an error. The cops wanted to know what JBR was wearing, Patsy remembered that she had planned for them to wear matching outfits and that included a red top. But Jon teased to wear the white and that was allowed. Under the circumstances, I hardly think that error unforgivable - or evidence that patsy killed her child.
Thomas seemed to feel that no intruder would close the bedroom door when he carried JonBenét from her bed. But he seems to feel that would fit a parental crime. I don't find it strange that the intruder would close a door he found closed - - and I don't think the door evidence points to or from anyone - intruder OR parent.
pages 166-167 Thomas was furious when the Ramseys said, "I just don't know." He wanted a confession - and he was angry that he was NOT the one getting a confession by the people he believed innocent!
page 167 - Thomas is relying on the 911 tape to prove the Ramseys lied - that Burke WAS awake and in the kitchen when Patsy called 911. But the FBI, CBI and US Secret service couldn't get any voices - not many people have heard that tape and many believe it is a total LIE - the voices on the tape. Thomas knows that is not reasonable evidence that can convict anyone of anything - not even a "lie". The Ramseys and Burke say he was not downstairs, that his voice is not on the tapes - and Thomas has not proven any lie. He is just repeating rumor.
Thomas really didn't like Patsy's answers about 118,000, the note pad, SBTC - he wanted certain answers - when he didn't get them - it is obvious he was simply MAD!
page 167-168
Thomas described the ONLY time Patsy broke down during the interrogation
- when describing the discovery of JonBenét's body - and he says
THAT was the time to really get rough with her - and he is ANGRY that he
was not allowed to do that, that her lawyers called for a break.
Bottom line - It seems Thomas didn't LIKE Patsy Ramsey - just plain couldn't stand her - and wanted to break her down, rake her over the coals and beat her into a confession. It wasn't allowed, Thomas didn't get the confession he wanted so badly, and he was angry. He is angry yet. His book SHOWS it. What upsets me is that he is publishing theory as fact, attacking people without proving his statements, and he has been caught publishing misinformation and lying by omission.
moving on... Thomas was angry that John's interview didn't end in John "being pinned down". Thomas was fighting - and he wanted a win. He didn't get it and was angry - it doesn't even seem to occur to him that he may have been battling innocent people. He was hell-bent on their guilt - a true BORG.
page 172 - Thomas points out that Fleet White admitted moving the suitcase - and jumps to a conclusion... "so the intruder had not done that."
WHAT??? The suitcase was not normally stored near the window - White found it near the window and YES, he did move it a bit - but THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE INTRUDER MOVING IT AS WELL. Thomas twist at work here.
A CLEAR LIE - at the bottom of page 172 - top of 173 "..undisturbed dirt and debris on the sill of the basement window..." We know from Lou Smit - who supports his statement with crime scene photos - that there WAS clear evidence of a disturbance at the window.
page 173 - Thomas ignores or disputes the fact that there were errors in early police reports -( like that John left the house to get the mail) and on this page he tries to discredit John. John said that he put the kids to bed and then read a bit. It got twisted into him reading to the kids. Burke has cleared it up - he was not read to - but Thomas wants to point to this as some kind of lie by John.
page 174 - the polygraph issue - Thomas asked Patsy if she would take
one - she said she would take ten, bring them on. John said he felt
he would pass but would be insulted if asked. The interesting part
here is that Thomas was not prepared to give them a test - and blames it
on Pete Hofstrom! He said Hofstrom had told him - "...if we asked,
the Ramseys would 'just say no'."
SO it iis obvious that Thomas was not sincere in the request for a
polygraph - he thought they would refuse - that is the answer he wanted
and expected. I think the authorities didn't want those tests to
be done.