Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 75
  1. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    I find it hard to concentrate on what Julie Hayden is saying kk ; she talks a mile a minute. Just wish it was Michael Boyle himself. I was stunned to hear about the surgery John Mark Carr has gone through, Good Grief!

    It is hard to understand some of what Julie says; she does talk fast, especially to someone like me--slow Southern drawl X 2.

    Don't you worry about listening or commenting, Elle. I didn't mean to put pressure on you. Cynic and the person on youtube were kind enough to break it into approx. 10 minutes each segment/link, so there's no rush. I mean, it's not like it's going to change anything, after all. Sadly. Maddeningly.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    It is hard to understand some of what Julie says; she does talk fast, especially to someone like me--slow Southern drawl X 2.

    Don't you worry about listening or commenting, Elle. I didn't mean to put pressure on you. Cynic and the person on youtube were kind enough to break it into approx. 10 minutes each segment/link, so there's no rush. I mean, it's not like it's going to change anything, after all. Sadly. Maddeningly.

    I saw the funny side of it and laughed, KK. Not to worry! There are voices which do stand out from all the others.

    It was good cynic and his youtube friend took special time with these. segments. Much appreciated!
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  3. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Now THIS has something in it that has my HEAD SPINNING!

    Oh my god. It answers SO MANY QUESTIONS I've had!

    A call-in listener says he worked for Boulder City for 39 years; he worked there during the time of the murder.

    He says he knew the BPD investigating this case, including those who were at the Ramsey home that morning, and they were all angry about something.

    They were angry because "first thing" Patsy Ramsey called her DEAR FRIEND, SHARED-CANCER PATIENT BUDDY, IN FACT, MAYOR LESLIE DURGIN. This man claims that very same mayor--you may remember her publicly telling citizens of Boulder not to worry, there was NO CHILD KILLER RUNNING AROUND--called then POLICE CHIEF KOBY AND TOLD HIM THIS WAS A PERSONAL TRAGEDY AND TO GO EASY ON THE RAMSEYS!

    Stating up front that that I've never heard this story before, don't know the man telling it, and thanks to Peter Boyle's one flaw as an interviewer--he hardly lets others get a word in edgewise--we only get the bare bones of this story so have no other corroboration that I've ever seen: think about the implication of this, if it's true.

    * This would explain why Hunter doggedly refused to get those Ramsey phone records, as this certainly would go a long way to proving the Ramseys were guilty. I'd also possibly owe Lockheed Martin a big apology--oh, how I hate eating crow.

    * This would explain why the BPD "screwed up" the case so spectacularly: showing up in marked cars, allowing a dozen friends to roam the house, leaving Arndt alone when she was calling for help. It was a done deal before they got there--Koby would have known what happened, more or less, and that's why standard protocol was ignored, including interviewing the Ramseys separately.

    * Hunter's obstruction would be explained, as he surely knew the mayor and of course, as politicians in the same county of privilege, it wouldn't be much of a stretch that they would "scratch each other's backs."

    *Since none of the players in this had any idea that morning this would go beyond Boulder, it wouldn't have occurred to them they'd spend the rest of their lives defending and obscuring what they did. So protecting their rich, close friends probably wasn't even something they thought about carefully--they just made the calls and figured from there it would be buried quickly.

    Okay, I'm still in shock about this. How I wish Boyle's would have SHUT HIS MOUTH and let the man talk. sigh

    Thoughts, anyone?
    Hey KK, it is a shame that PB didn’t run with the ball because the lack of details makes it extremely difficult to judge the plausibility of Rick’s story.
    As it stands, it would take someone like Steve Thomas to rubber stamp the account.
    I agree that this would fill in many blanks, and Rick does appear to be at least superficially believable, but then again there have been many kooks spouting a whole lot of nonsense over the years. Actually, that’s probably the reason why Peter Boyles was a bit dismissive with Rick because he has listened to a lot of tall tales from a lot of weirdos calling in, after a while being dismissive probably becomes a reflexive action.
    I do find it difficult to reconcile Rick’s account with the general tone of Steve Thomas’ book. Fear, incompetence, politics and philosophical views are all presented as working together to derail the case and all primarily with respect to the DA’s office with very little directed at the upper echelon of the BPD contrary to what Rick was implying with the call to Koby. (Steve does attack the “hippie” philosophy of Koby which he blames for crippling the BPD.)
    However, some of the elements of the case seem so incredibly inexplicable that an explanation such as the one offered by Rick provides a plausible explanation. How else do you explain the debacle regarding financial transactions and telephone records in this case? Even fear coupled with incompetence doesn’t begin to explain it; it is quite simply, obstruction of justice.

    I decided to read through Thomas’ book and resignation letter noting areas where he administers blame. He does not use the word corruption even once in the entire book which I would be tempted to use if I was aware of an early morning phone call that derailed the case. It would seem that if Thomas was aware of the Durgin – Koby connection he kept his cards close to his chest, perhaps there was too much at stake, who knows?

    From, “Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation,” Steve Thomas:
    The district attorney and his top prosecutor, two police chiefs, and a large number of cops, although so at odds on some points that they almost came to blows, all agreed on one thing—that probable cause existed to arrest Patsy Ramsey in connection with the death of her daughter. But due to a totally inept justice system in Boulder, no one was ever put in handcuffs, and the Ramseys were never really in serious jeopardy.
    Page 13

    Koby could be charming over lunch, then bedevil you with some off-the-wall philosophy, such as why some police departments should be disbanded. It was amazing that so many good cops actually stayed around, because Koby did not like hard-chargers, and stood by while discipline, standards, and accountability walked out the door in the persons of a Who’s Who of the BPD’s finest.
    So the department was totally unprepared when JonBenét Ramsey was murdered.
    There was no plan to handle a homicide of such magnitude. In fact, there were no plans at all—just Koby’s Ten Commandments.
    Combined with the lackluster record of the DA’s office, we had a textbook example of how a justice system can rot from within to the point of being virtually ineffective.

    Page 120

    Excerpts from ST’s resignation letter:
    The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case. I had been troubled for many months with many aspects of the investigation. Albeit an uphill battle of a case to begin with, it became a nearly impossible investigation because of the political alliances, philosophical differences, and professional egos that blocked progress in more ways, and on more occasions, than I can detail in this memorandum. I and others voiced these concerns repeatedly. In the interest of hoping justice would be served, we tolerated it, except for those closed door sessions when detectives protested in frustration, where fists hit the table, where detectives demanded that the right things be done. The wrong things were done, and made it a manner of simple principle that I could not continue to participate as it stood with the district attorney's office. As an organization, we remained silent, when we should have shouted.

    The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we expected to "solve" this case when the district attorney's office was crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally, facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider the following:
    During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring evidence to the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily dismissed or rationalized as insignificant. The most elementary of investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone and credit card records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The significant opinions of national experts were casually dismissed or ignored by the district attorney's office, even the experienced FBI were waved aside.

    In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all of this in the district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I served a search warrant, only to find later defense attorneys were simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.

    I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded from pursuing particular investigative efforts.
    Polygraphs were acceptable for some subjects, but others seemed immune from such requests.

    I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable to"break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of events he had witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation, this was an attempt to derail months of hard work.

    While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant affidavits and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six year old child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that we "ask the permission of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just before conducting the Ramsey interviews, I thought it inconceivable I was being lectured on "building trust".

    When my detective partner and I had to literally hand search tens of thousands of receipts, because we didn't have a search warrant to assist us otherwise, we did so. But we lost tremendous opportunities to make progress, to seek justice, and to know the truth.
    Auspicious timing and strategy could have made a difference. When the might of the criminal justice system should have brought all it had to bear on this investigation, and didn't, we remained silent. We were trying to deliver a murder case with hands tied behind our backs. It was difficult, and our frustrations understandable. It was an assignment without chance of success. Politics seemed to trump justice.

    I believe the district attorney's office is thoroughly compromised. When we were told by one in the district attorney's office, months before we had even completed our investigation, that this case "is not prosecutable," we shook our heads in disbelief.
    A lot could have been forgiven, the lesser transgressions ignored, for the right things done. Instead, those in the district attorney's office encouraged us to allow them to "work their magic" (which I never fully understood. Did that "magic" include sharing our case file information with the defense attorneys, dragging feet in evidence collection, or believing that two decades of used-car-dealing-style-plea-bargaining was somehow going to solve this case?). Right and wrong is just that. Some of these issues were not shades of gray. Decision should have been made as such. Whether a suspect a penniless indigent with a public defender, or otherwise.

    In Boulder, where the politics, policies, and pervasive thought has held for years, a criminal justice system designed to deal with such an event was not in place. Instead, we had an institution that when needed most, buckled. The system was paralyzed, as to this day one continues to get away with murder.

    It is my belief the district attorney's office has effectively crippled this case.
    The time for intervention is now. It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for the appointment of an entirely independent prosecution team to be introduced into this matter, who would oversee an attempt at righting this case.

    Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my police career, a calling which I loved. I do this because I cannot continue to sanction by my silence what has occurred in this case. It was never a fair playing field, the "game" was simply unacceptable anymore. And that's what makes this all so painful. The detectives never had a chance. If ever there were a case, and if ever there were a victim, who truly meant something to the detectives pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this case, what case? Until such time an independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee this case, I will not be a part of this. What went on was simply wrong.

    Pages 374 - 384
    Last edited by cynic; February 9, 2012, 2:35 am at Thu Feb 9 2:35:06 UTC 2012.

  4. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    This segment starts with the "Werewolf of Boulder" song--it's so hokey, so badly produced, it's PERFECT! The lyrics are good satire in their absurdity...which simply highlights the absurdity of this case.

    Boyles then introduces guest Peter Fotopoulos: they discuss the absurdity of the case, starting off with the Ramsey's absurd stories. They point out some key elements of evidence, including the "Rosetta Stone" of the case, the ransom note.

    Cynic, they bring up something that I don't believe I've seen: Peter says he's got a video of Darnay's depositions of Patsy and John, and in the family photo album, of which Patsy declared she had no idea who wrote the photo captions under her own photos of her children, letters from the ransom note were laid directly over those captions with a transparency and they matched exactly. Is this Cina Wong's work? I've seen that, but is this video online? Sorry, I may have just forgotten.

    Does anyone have this video? Cherokee? I do remember seeing parts of the video of those depositions, but only short segments, possibly released by Lin Wood, which means they wouldn't have included ANYTHING he considered damaging to the Ramseys. (Fortunately, Wood's "blinders-on" defense lawyer position kept him for seeing how damaging everything the Ramseys said truly was, because they lied, evaded, and obfuscated every time they spoke.) But I don't remember this particular ransom note demonstration.
    I’ve never seen it but that is something I would be willing to pay money to see.
    It would be interesting to see what gems are actually out there in the general public.
    Other than perhaps Why_Nut, I doubt anyone here would have it.
    I do have more information regarding that video, though, I found this interview with Don Wrege from Vinnie Politan and Lisa Bloom’s Court TV Radio show, August 31, 2006
    At about 2:23 in part two of the clip below Wrege says “The Ramseys were forced to sit in front of a video deposition and talk about Patsy’s handwriting versus the ransom note and when you get high profile, as you probably know, people come out of the woodwork and hand you things. There was a Boulder investigative journalist by the name of Peter Fotopoulis that puts a video in my hand that blew my mind and this is smuggled footage out of the Justice Center”

    Don Wrege
    Part 1:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K947FmFMhCs

    Part 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci2sf0MkdWk

  5. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    KK, that part of the video deposition was never released by Lin Wood for the very reason you mention, it was extremely damaging to the Patsy Ramsey.

    And yes, it is Cina Wong's work. No, the video is not online (as far as I know). I'm sure if someone tried to upload it, Lin Wood/the Ramseys would be all over it like a cheap suit, demanding it be taken down under threat of law suit and the plague.

    There's a double standard here. Lin Wood/ released segments of that video deposition he considered favorable to the Ramseys, but he wouldn't allow anything released that was UNFAVORABLE to the Ramseys. That's why the full deposition was never publicly released.
    Darnay would have had a VERY interesting video collection; I wonder what happened that portion of his estate after his passing? (Unless he wasn't able to obtain the video(s) as KK suggested.)

  6. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Appreciate the thanks, but it isn't my scoop. It would belong to Peter Boyles, if he could have gotten his head out of his...well, if he'd noticed his caller was handing him some important info which was at least worth a follow-up question or two. Egads, how did he miss that?

    Anyway...yeah, if true, it would explain so much. Even if the mayor was only called by Patsy and told there was a "kidnapping," it's still mind-blowing if she was the one putting the BPD into "protect the Ramseys" mode, thereby starting an injustice that will go down in the history of unsolved murders next to Jack the Ripper and Lizzie Borden.

    Yet another stroll down memory lane:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/10/us...ted=all&src=pm



    Also, from the ever-interesting "Bonita Papers":

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=4502



    I am thinking the "friend of a friend" began with Judith Phillips: From a transcript stored at ACR's site, the interview Judith Phillips did with Mame (typos and mistakes as transcribed):

    http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/0206200...sinterview.htm

    Judith is speaking of Patsy's philanthropic work after her cancer struggle:
    Here's some more...
    People are using patience
    By Chuck Green
    Denver Post Columnist

    June 25 - Six months ago tonight, someone saw JonBeneÚt Ramsey alive for the last time - someone who crushed her skull with a harsh, violent blow, and someone who pulled a cord tight around her neck, choking the life out of the 6-year-old beauty queen on an innocent child's Christmas night.

    And while the world waits and watches for an arrest, whoever murdered JonBenet is still walking free.

    From the start, the investigation into the little girl's murder seemed to be in disarray, and six months later it continues to be troubled by internal bickering and political squabbling.

    Even one of the police department's strongest defenders, and one of the Ramsey family's most sympathetic supporters, Boulder Mayor Leslie Durgin, now has openly voiced frustration.
    "I have questions about whether there is going to be sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute," she recently told The Denver Post. "The community has gone through this evolution, from extreme sympathy for the family, to some distancing, to frustration about the attention from the media. Now I know people who have started to be both suspicious and angry about how the family has handled this."

    Criminal experts in Colorado and from around the nation, with precious few exceptions, say it is unlikely that a conviction of JonBenet's killer will ever be attained - unless someone confesses to the crime.
    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/green66.htm

  7. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zoomama View Post
    Then the first thing that I thought of was that would explain all of the craziness of Lou Smit and his invention of an intruder. He could have been told to come up with something to help out the Ramseys. WE have all maligned him for years. But really he was a good detective and had an impressive "solved" record for homicides over his career. So why then did he seem like a goofy fool with this case? Perhaps this is why.
    Zoomama, you and I are dear friends, but we will have to part ways about Lou Smit being a "good detective" with an "impressive 'solved' record." Lou Smit was not that good (according to LE who worked with him), and he tended to put on blinders, only going with information and clues that already matched his preconceived notions. Yes, Lou did submit DNA that solved a high-profile case, but his true record as a detective is somewhat abysmal when you actually look at the facts. I had a conversation with an investigative reporter from CO who told me Lou was something of a joke among real detectives, and that his "grey fox" moniker was also considered a joke.

    I believe Lou Smit probably had good intentions at one time, but his siding with the Ramseys no matter what evidence was presented (including his self-named "bugaboo" - the pinapple), his blackmailing of the Boulder DA to obtain the power-point presentation, his getting into video bed with Michael Tracey to frame innocent victims to promote Ramsey innocence, and a hundred other things Smit did, erased all of that. For a detective to declare, after praying with a suspect, that they are innocent, evidence be damned, does NOT show that detective to have any sort of critical thinking skills or the necessary objectiveness that a good detective should have.

    Lou Smit was a legend in his own mind. I think he saw himself as a knight errant who would right the wrong done to the fair damsel, Patsy Ramsey, and her family. He would not, could not, admit he was wrong. Because of his own bias, he helped to effectively sink the Ramsey case and keep it from ever being successfully prosecuted. Smit was also the conduit between Susan Bennett (Jameson) and private case information. He gave away files to Michael Tracey, Susan Bennett and anyone else who said they were there to help the Ramseys. Patsy Ramsey was Lou Smit's achilles heel, and he NEVER was able to rid himself of the delusion of her innocence; primarily, because he didn't want to.

    I do think there were people in power who helped keep the Ramseys from being investigated, indicted and prosecuted, but I don't believe they had that much control over Lou Smit. He was on his own mission. He attached himself to the case and wouldn't let go. Lou's purpose was not to find JonBent's killer, but to prove Ramsey innocence. He failed to do that because it couldn't be done, but he did succeed in helping muck up the case so horribly, it could never be prosecuted.

    Lou Smit was written up in a couple of interviews, sounding like God's gift to LE. The reality behind those fawning reports is very different from what was printed. We've all been led to believe Lou had a great reputation as a wonderful detective, when the truth is, he was an average detective, if that good. As I said, some in LE thought he was probably a decent person but felt his detective work was sub-par, and at times, laughable.

  8. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cynic View Post
    Darnay would have had a VERY interesting video collection; I wonder what happened that portion of his estate after his passing? (Unless he wasn't able to obtain the video(s) as KK suggested.)
    Cynic, I will try to get the time tomorrow to answer your question via PM.

  9. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Zoomama, you and I are dear friends, but we will have to part ways about Lou Smit being a "good detective" with an "impressive 'solved' record." Lou Smit was not that good (according to LE who worked with him), and he tended to put on blinders, only going with information and clues that already matched his preconceived notions. Yes, Lou did submit DNA that solved a high-profile case, but his true record as a detective is somewhat abysmal when you actually look at the facts. I had a conversation with an investigative reporter from CO who told me Lou was something of a joke among real detectives, and that his "grey fox" moniker was also considered a joke.

    I believe Lou Smit probably had good intentions at one time, but his siding with the Ramseys no matter what evidence was presented (including his self-named "bugaboo" - the pinapple), his blackmailing of the Boulder DA to obtain the power-point presentation, his getting into video bed with Michael Tracey to frame innocent victims to promote Ramsey innocence, and a hundred other things Smit did, erased all of that. For a detective to declare, after praying with a suspect, that they are innocent, evidence be damned, does NOT show that detective to have any sort of critical thinking skills or the necessary objectiveness that a good detective should have.

    Lou Smit was a legend in his own mind. I think he saw himself as a knight errant who would right the wrong done to the fair damsel, Patsy Ramsey, and her family. He would not, could not, admit he was wrong. Because of his own bias, he helped to effectively sink the Ramsey case and keep it from ever being successfully prosecuted. Smit was also the conduit between Susan Bennett (Jameson) and private case information. He gave away files to Michael Tracey, Susan Bennett and anyone else who said they were there to help the Ramseys. Patsy Ramsey was Lou Smit's achilles heel, and he NEVER was able to rid himself of the delusion of her innocence; primarily, because he didn't want to.

    I do think there were people in power who helped keep the Ramseys from being investigated, indicted and prosecuted, but I don't believe they had that much control over Lou Smit. He was on his own mission. He attached himself to the case and wouldn't let go. Lou's purpose was not to find JonBent's killer, but to prove Ramsey innocence. He failed to do that because it couldn't be done, but he did succeed in helping muck up the case so horribly, it could never be prosecuted.

    Lou Smit was written up in a couple of interviews, sounding like God's gift to LE. The reality behind those fawning reports is very different from what was printed. We've all been led to believe Lou had a great reputation as a wonderful detective, when the truth is, he was an average detective, if that good. As I said, some in LE thought he was probably a decent person but felt his detective work was sub-par, and at times, laughable.
    BBM
    Absolutely, consider the case that was his “claim to fame,” the Heather Dawn Church case. It wasn’t Lou that found the crucial piece of the puzzle; it was actually a crime lab tech by the name of Tom Carney.

    El Paso County got a new sheriff, John Anderson, a former Colorado Springs police sergeant. Anderson soon hired an old partner, Lou Smit, as head of investigations. Smit, who has a knack for solving old homicide cases, made Heather a top priority again.
    Shortly after starting work last January, Smit reviewed Heather's file, a process he calls "messing with a case." He asked his investigators to come up with something new, something that hadn't been tried.
    Tom Carney, a crime laboratory technician, immediately thought of the prints. "We knew those fingerprints had to be from the suspect," he said.
    A better approach, he figured, would be an exhaustive mailing of quality photos of the prints to every police agency with an Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Like the FBI's system, AFIS compares fingerprint images electronically. AFIS computers aren't interconnected, but each one may contain prints that aren't in the hands of the FBI.
    So Carney made 100 sets of photos of the three fingerprints and began sending them to 92 agencies with AFIS. Carney remembered thinking, "If this doesn't work, that's it.
    On March 24, someone from the Louisiana prison system called to report a match between the prints from the Church home and prints in its data base. The prints belonged to Robert Charles Browne. He had spent time in Louisiana prisons for various crimes, including auto theft, in the early and mid-1980s. He moved to Colorado in 1987 and, after living at several addresses, settled into a home just down the road from the Church residence.
    August 6, 1995: Colorado Springs Gazette

    Now watch how the above reality morphs into Lou "The Legend" Smit:

    Smit first displayed talent for getting to the bottom of cold cases in the 1980s with Colorado Springs police, then later with the El Paso County Sheriff's Office. In 1991, four years after the murder of 13-year-old Heather Dawn Church, Smit dredged up old fingerprint evidence from a windowpane at the Church home, sending it to dozens of agencies in hopes of finding a match. The effort paid off. The print belonged to a man who lived about a quarter-mile from the girl. The man was subsequently arrested and convicted.
    http://www.csindy.com/colorado/getti...nt?oid=1127733

  10. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase View Post
    Cynic and the person on youtube were kind enough to break it into approx. 10 minutes each segment/link…
    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    It was good cynic and his youtube friend took special time with these. segments. Much appreciated!
    Sadly, I am friendless on YouTube. I edited and uploaded those clips.
    Last edited by cynic; February 9, 2012, 2:30 am at Thu Feb 9 2:30:32 UTC 2012.

  11. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Thank you, KK. So much information to soak up. Wish I could just download it all into my head. I'm just wondering if this is what cynic has done with all these files he posted lately. Do we have a robot in our midst?
    Thanks, I think. LOL
    I will reiterate what KK said, I look forward to your comments (but no pressure!)

  12. #36

    Default

    I've arrived late on this one and have to catch up by listening to these recordings. Thanks for putting them up, Cynic. KK, this is a very interesting exchange that you have brought to our attention. Thanks for catching it.

    Just a few preliminary remarks. If this caller is being truthful, and it rings true just from what we already know about this case, then, here's my interpretation. I say it rings true because Patsy was calling everyone that morning. It's not far fetched to think she called the mayor especially if they were friends. My interp.

    Patsy called Durbin but did not say, "we're guilty". She simply called Durbin to tell her about the "kidnapping" and tried to gain sympathy from her so the police would go easy. This would explain why the police were steaming. Kidnapping case and mayor asks police to go easy on these folks especially after French already thought something was screwy from the git go as soon as he arrived. In other words, police think somethings darned fishy and then, later that morning they get a phone call from the mayor asking them to tread lightly.

    If true, this is just another thing that casts suspicion on Patsy's actions. Heck, it's hard telling how many phone calls were made that morning.



Similar Threads

  1. Peter Boyles talks about the recent Grand Jury revelation (Jan. 28 & 29, 2013)
    By cynic in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: January 21, 2017, 5:38 pm, Sat Jan 21 17:38:04 UTC 2017
  2. Peter Boyles 2
    By koldkase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: August 25, 2006, 10:27 am, Fri Aug 25 10:27:00 UTC 2006
  3. Good News. Peter Boyles will feature New Times article on Wed. show
    By Tricia in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: August 24, 2006, 7:48 am, Thu Aug 24 7:48:33 UTC 2006

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •