The Steven Truscott Case According to Truscott & CBC

The Case According to Truscott and CBC is an impossible dream backed by no facts and no evidence. For facts and evidence about where, when, how, why, and who killed Lynne Harper read Steven Truscott and the Murder of Lynne Harper. .

Lynne Harper Murder | Steven Truscott Case

Lynne Harper came home from school and got into a fight with her parents. She then went to her brownies meeting, where at 7:30, she asked Steven Truscott for a ride to the highway, so she could visit a farm to see some ponies.

Steven Truscott said she wanted to go to a white house down Hwy. 8 to visit the ponies there and asked him to give her a ride on the handlebars of his bike down the gravel road to the intersection of Hwy. 8 where he said she asked to be let off.

Truscott rode her on his handlebars 1.2 kilometers to the highway, where she got off. The farm with the ponies was another less than half a kilometer away, but she choose to hitchhike that distance.

Truscott returned back to town, but stopped on the bridge about half way down the road, and looked back…

View original post 85 more words

Advertisements

Until someone can explain…

Until Someone can Explain…

Until someone can explain why Steven Truscott supporters ignore the fact that in 1966-7, the Canada Supreme Court found 22-year-old Steven Truscott’s testimony before them vague and confused and didn’t believe a word he said.

Until someone can explain why Truscott asked a girl friend into the woods to see calves rather than a boy or his friend George?

Until someone can explain why Steven Truscott proposed a secret date with Jocelyne Goddette to see calves in the woods and told her not to tell anybody and not to bring anyone?

Until someone can explain why Jocelyne would be looking for Steven Truscott on the right hand side of the county road if he had not previously told her to meet him there?

Until someone can explain why Truscott did not tell us in his book that he dropped Lynne Harper off at the Highway 8 intersection? He may have dropped Lynne off, but evidence shows that he did not drop her off at the highway because her body was found near where she was last seen with Truscott.

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered little 12-year-old Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone explains why they accept Steven’s story that Lynne wanted a ride to the highway to see ponies and then when she got there decided instead to hitch-hike to who knows where?

Until someone can explain why anyone would believe Truscott’s story that Lynne wanted to go 1.2 miles to the highway to hitch-hike alone at 7:30 when she had to be home by 8:30 pm.

Until someone explains why the Fifth Estate’s biased movie showed Lynne on the handle bars instead of the crossbar as was testified by Steven Truscott and every witness who saw them?

Until someone explains why anyone would believe that a decent boy would take a petite 12-year-old girl friend on his bicycle cross-bar and then leave her alone at an isolated intersection one hour before dark.

Until someone can explain why generous good-hearted Steven Truscott, after taking Lynne 1.2 miles to the highway, would not offer to take her .3 miles further to the pony farm?

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered petite Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone can explain why Truscott supporters believe, without question, his wild unbelievable story that a mysterious stranger picked Lynne up on the highway, rode around with her for hours without feeding her, would reverse his direction and return her, not to the intersection where he picked her up, but to kill her in Truscott’s favorite place in a dark 20 acre bush; all without leaving one piece of evidence that he was there.

Until someone can explain why they believe Truscott’s story of hitch-hiking when there is absolutely no evidence that Lynne was planning to leave her home and her parents and head east with the first stranger who picked her up.

Until someone can give evidence that this child had the desire or disposition to run away from home.

Until someone can explain why they accept Truscott’s kindness for taking Lynne to the highway, but forgive him for leaving his friend alone and not conversing with her. Steven always said that he took her there, let her off, and rode back to the bridge.

Until Steven Truscott can tell us why he did not notify anyone that he saw his girl friend hitch a ride with a stranger

Until someone can explain the above five evidence of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone can explain why, after a sleepless grief-stricken night, Lynne’s father had to go to Steven Truscott at his home to find out what he did with his 12-year-od daughter.

Until Steven Truscott tells us why he told Mr. Harper only that Lynne wanted a ride to see some ponies and that he rode her to the Highway 8 where he left her unharmed.

Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not tell the concerned father that he was sorry he had left his 12-year-old daughter alone at the intersection one hour before dark.

Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not tell the worried father his favorite story that he saw her hitch-hiking to who knows where. He saves that story for his first police interview.

Until Steven Truscott tells us why he did not tell the grieving father that he saw Lynne get into a stranger’s 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air and that he saw the car speeding east down highway 8.

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until Truscott tells why he would tell his unbelievable story to the police later that morning, but not to the grieving father?

Until someone can explain how it could happen that a driver or passenger on this fairly busy highway did not report seeing a girl, or boy, or girl and boy, or a distinct racer bike during the 10 or so minutes that Steven Truscott says she was there.

Until someone can explain why anyone would believe the made up unbelievable story that the only car to stop for Lynne would happen to be a stranger who would harm her?

Until someone can explain why Truscott’s supporters believe, against all odds, that the mysterious stranger to happen by would also happen to be a pedophile

Until someone explains how this brainless pedophile would, in the dark, happen to pick the same woodlot that Truscott said he and Lynne rode by just a few hours earlier.

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone can explain why Truscott, who sees the girl friend he had just left alone suddenly get into a stranger’s car, does not mention this tragic event to his friends at the bridge. If this story actually happened, even Truscott would have the maturity and decency to tell someone that she may be in danger; at least a mention to his friend Doug Oats or to the girl’s father.

Until someone can explain why Steven Truscott did not tell school chums or his brother that he had given Lynne Harper a ride to the intersection where he saw her get into a stranger’s 1959 Chevy Bel Air car; and speed off with her and that she is probably in danger for her life. The time to say this was after he was asked if he threw Lynne Harper to the fish.

Until someone can explain why Steven Truscott would later say that, “I was in the woods chasing a cow”, if he had actually taken Lynne to the intersection.

Until Steven Truscott has a believable reason why he had two raw lesions the size of quarters on either side of his penis shaft just days after Lynne’s attempted rape and murder?

Until Truscott tells us that he really did tell the truth to three different police officers that he and Richard Gellanty passed each other before reaching the bush and that he later lied under oath that he did not see Gellanty. Truscott also told the court that he never told any police officer that he saw or passed Gellanty.

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone can explain why Truscott supporters do not believe the many people who witnessed the actual events and who knew the most truth about this case.

Until someone explains why Truscott supporters will not accept the finding of the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1960 that Steven Truscott’s original trial was fair and in accordance with law.

Until Steven Truscott tells us why it was that when friends teased him about being in the woods with Lynne, he told them a story about looking for calves in the bush. When police questioned him, he invented a new Chevrolet at the highway. When his penis sores were found his stories changed with every telling.

Until someone can explain why the public accepts every false sound bite about Sergeant Kalichuk as true, but will not consider facts and evidence that prove he could not be Lynne’s killer. The 900 page file retrieved by the Fifth Estate has not even a hint of involvement by Kalichuk in the death of Lynne Harper or of any violence toward anyone, including women and girls. He was arrested only once for indecent exposure and for attempting to get young girls into his car. Truscott maintains that he saw Lynne get into a grey 1959 Chevolet Bel Air; Kalichuk owned a 1952 yellow Ford. It seems Truscott supporters picked Kalichuk not for his guilt but because he was already deceased.

Until someone can explain why Truscott’s testimony under oath before the Supreme Court of Canada contradicted the testimony of every other witness? (except that of his three family friends)

Until someone can explain the above five evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

Until someone can explain why the Ontario Court of Appeal judges were, “satisfied that Truscott could reasonably believe that he saw the color of the license plate on the vehicle from 1300 feet away” but did not consider in their timeline that his school-mates should also see Steven and Lynne riding double on his distinctive green bike from less than 100 feet away.

Until someone can explain why Truscott supporter’s do not want to consider the judgment of Canada’s Supreme Court justices who made it clear that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts, which they found established by evidence which they accepted, were not only consistent with the guilt of Truscott but were inconsistent with any rational conclusion other than that Steven Truscott was the guilty person.

Until someone can explain the above two evidences of guilt, I will have full confidence that Steven Truscott murdered Lynne Harper in Lawson’s Bush.

DID STEVEN TRUSCOTT KILL LYNNE HARPER – THE WHOLE STORY

The Clue Master SDM Blog

FACTS

In the early evening of Tuesday, June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper disappeared near RCAF Station, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario. At about 11:20 that evening, Lynne’s father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.

Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) is a Canadian who was sentenced to death in 1959, when he was a 14-year old student, for the murder of classmate Lynne Harper.

Steve Truscott acknowledged being with Lynne the evening she was killed. He was seen with her on his bicycle after 7 p.m. in close proximity to Lawson’s Bush where her body was found two days later.

After finishing her dinner and wearing only blue shorts and a white sleeveless blouse, Lynne walked over to the school grounds near her home and cheerfully helped Mrs. Nickerson with the younger Clinton Brownies. Steven says…

View original post 4,634 more words

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

By Susan (Sue) I Bennett aka jameson                          With so many names to choose from I will use only “J”

Sam Dennis McDonough’s Answers to Jameson’s (Susan I Bennett) Rebuttal

 

First, I want to thank “Jameson” for taking the time to attempt to rebut my 120+ clues.  After reading the rebuttal I really do believe Susan that she wrote it in a few hours, because there is so little thought involved. 

 

There seems to always be one person in 12 without critical thinking skills who does not, or cannot, search objectively for the truth in real crimes.  Unfortunately, that person too often ends up on jury duty.

 

A mind that thinks critically does not lose sight of the forest for the trees.  Be mindful of the facts in the case as they apply to the overall crime and not just the minute details chosen from here and there.  And don’t pick favorites from the cast of characters and then stand by them, no matter what. 

 

When I first look at a crime, I try to imagine different scenarios, keeping in mind that the scenario must include the known facts, and only the facts.  The facts can be physical or circumstantial.  Therefore, at the end of this answered rebuttal I include a scenario that considers the intruder theory.  Please feel free to improve on the theory or make up your own.  Maybe then you will see clearly why nearly everyone in the world who knows this case well, knows that there was no intruder.  

 

I expected to find some new and revealing evidence from Jameson’s rebuttal.  I regret to say there was none.

 

 

Following are answers by Sam Dennis McDonough (SDM:) to Sue Bennett’s, (J) rebuttal:

 

(l) 

J:  So no one reported seeing anyone walking around the Ramsey house or attempting to gain entry the night of the murder.  While interesting, it doesn’t negate the possibility that it happened. Truth is, most intruders do what they can to avoid detection.

SDM:

Even the best criminal/stranger are often noticed while casing a residential home to commit a crime; especially an obsessed pedophile.

 

(2) 

J:  Obviously if no one reported seeing an intruder entering the Ramsey house, there would be no report on no one reporting.  But more important, in my mind, is the FACT that Boulder was having a problem with a person they called the “Midnight Burglar” and they had chosen NOT to make that public.  They only went public with information on that Boulder criminal AFTER the murder.  His crimes went on during December, 1996 but ended after JonBenet’s murder.

SDM:

Perhaps Boulder Police did not make it public because there were no serial killings or crime epidemic in the city.  Whether crimes in Boulder stopped after JonBenet’s murder is debatable.  This clue was only to say that no one in the neighborhood, including the Ramseys reported any unusual activity during this period.  You would expect a report if there were a stranger walking the neighborhood and looking in windows.

 

 

 

 

(3)

J:  Boulder is a small but heavily populated city. The streets around the college, including the street the Ramseys lived on, are often crowded with parked cars.  Few people pay attention to who is parked on their street.  But if anyone on that street HAD been paying attention, we wouldn’t know because all the neighbors were NOT interviewed and asked about strange cars.

SDM:

The clue here is that no one reported any unusual activity before, during, or after the crime.

 

(4)

J:  There were unlocked windows that could have been used to enter the house.  We have all seen photos of the unlocked basement window.  Was the crime one that involved some risk?  Yes, but aren’t all crimes?

SDM:

Both John Ramsey and the police checked doors and windows throughout the house.  Ramsey said doors and windows were locked as he left them the night before.

 

(5 & 6)

J:  The killer left plenty of clues: handwriting, DNA, prints, fibers.  How about duct tape and cord he apparently brought to the house himself? He brought in a stun gun and that is a real clue!

SDM:

This killer of JonBenet roamed the house, killed a child, carried her to a hidden room, sat down and wrote a kidnap letter, all without leaving a footprint, fingerprint, fiber, or any usable DNA.  Obviously, the killer’s DNA was all over her house as was her fingerprints.  Furthermore, the police found Patsy’s prints on the underside of the duct tape. 

 

 

 

 

(7)

J:  All Boulder suspects were not thoroughly investigated.  Many leads were ignored by police who simply believed it was a domestic incident. And no one knows how the intruder left the scene of the crime. He could have driven away, or walked.  We don’t know.

SDM:

The Boulder police chief said that they formerly interviewed more than 600 people, investigated more than 150 suspects, built a file 40,000 pages long, logged about 1400 items of evidence and spent $2 million.  Each of the dozens of potential suspects named by John and Patsy Ramsey were thoroughly checked out and released. Many suspects can and should be released in 10 or 20 minutes simply because, as in the recent arrest of a school teacher, they were never in Boulder at Christmas time.  The evidence is that the killer did not drive or walk away; she sat down and wrote a letter.

 

(8)

J:  The house was always lit inside and the windows were not only huge but uncovered. Anyone stalking the family could have known their habits and known the house was empty. As for knowing when the family would return, why would a man with the plan to strike after they had gone to bed HAVE to know when they would return?

SDM:

A house always lit inside with huge uncovered windows is inviting a robbery.  It is a comment about this case I have not heard before.  The intruder would have a long wait if they had gone to Michigan for the holidays.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(9)

J:  The staircase was always lit by sconces on the wall. There were nightlights used throughout the house. No one was moving through dark rooms.

SDM:

You and I both know that there were no night-lights in the basement. 

 

(10)

J:  Burglar alarms were rarely used in Boulder because everyone felt safe.  But even an inexperienced burglar could have figured out that the broken basement window wasn’t connected to any alarm system.

SDM:

They still should feel safe because this was an inside job.  If the kidnapper knew the alarm system was not working he would have opened the side door to safety.

 

(11)

J:  There was debris from the window well on the floor under the broken basement window and further into the basement. No investigator honestly expected to find similar debris two floors up.

SDM:

Every person who enters a room leaves some evidence behind that he was there.  A person who roams a house for several hours will leave ample evidence of having been there.

 

(12)

J:  The walkways were clear – photos show that. No need for anyone to leave prints.

SDM:

I realize that you think your intruder was ultra neat, but after murdering a little girl, he would most likely run across the lawn, not look for a walkway.  In addition, some photos were taken after snow patches had melted.

 

(13)

J:  Only the killer can tell us WHY he left a ransom note AND a body.  It could be that an intended kidnapper left the note and a killer left a body

SDM:

That remark is too absurd for comment.  Did the kidnapper and the killer bump in to each other in the dark?  Now we have two people not leaving prints or other evidence.  Has J entered fantasyland?

 

(14)

J:  Most investigators believe the ransom note was written before the crime. If the killer was waiting for the family to get home, to go to bed, to fall asleep… if he was killing time before taking his victim…. Writing a note might have been feeding a different fantasy.

SDM:

Every experienced investigator and critical thinker knows that the killer wrote the ransom novel after killing JonBenet.  The author wants care taken and a nice burial.  The ransom letter indicates the girl is already dead. 

 

(15)

J:   Once the killer left the body behind where it was sure to be found – – calling in an attempt to collect the ransom would have been simply stupid.

SDM:

Yes, most criminals and accidental killers do stupid things.  That is why so many are in prison.  The body was hidden in a seldom used room, was not found by the police, and it seems that only John Ramsey knew to look into that room.  That may have been part of Patsy’s plan.

 

 

 

 

 

(16)

J:  I don’t know of any rules for writing ransom notes, but it is a fact that Leopold and Loeb wrote THEIR ransom note after they had killed Bobby Franks. I think it is fair to say there are no rules. We don’t know why this killer would have waited to write the note in the Ramsey house, but he wasn’t breaking any rules.

SDM:

No rules, but criminals act in predictable ways when they commit crimes.  That is why the police and the FBI study MOs and profiles.  Only a brainless kidnapper would take the kid first and then write a ransom note. 

 

(17)

J:  John and Patsy did NOT both leave prints on the note.

SDM:

All prints were wiped off.

 

(18)
J:
 Anyone in the house had access to the pad as well as the victim.  That is true of family AND intruder

SDM:

Yes, it is true that family members had access to the pad.

 

(19)

J:  Anyone in the house had access to the pen as well as the victim. That is true of family AND intruder.

SDM:

Yes, it is true that family members had access to the pen as well as the victim.  After all, it was Patsy’s pen.

 

(20)

J:  There was no great bleed through proving the killer didn’t write slowly but at a normal pace. The “practice note” consisted of less than one line, writer unknown.

SDM:

Critical thinking would suggest that the same person who wrote the kidnap letter also wrote the practice line. 

 

(21)

J:  What has been reported as “personal insider information” was NOT. That was just wrong

SDM:

Few people would know of anyone’s exact bonus amount.  Obviously, $118,000 was the first dollar amount that came to Patsy’s mind. 

Few people would know that SBTC stands for the Small Business Technology Council, an organization of the National Small Business Association.  SBTC is the largest nonprofit council organization-representing small U.S. technology-based companies.  John Ramsey owned a small, U.S. technology-based company.

 

(22)

J:  Anyone seriously taking JonBenét for ransom would have asked for far more.  That is the reason people believe the ransom note was never a serious attempt to get money.

SDM:

You are correct.  Patsy wrote the ransom note to place blame for JonBenet’s death on someone else, like a “foreign faction”.  Obviously, no real kidnapper or killer would write a letter containing words and phrases that Patsy often used.  The $118,000 came to her because she had just heard about his bonus.

 

(23)

J:  The person who wrote the note left a huge clue when he left his handwritten note. I believe the person felt confident that the Ramseys would never identify his writing because they didn’t know him well, if at all.

SDM:

Right again.  The author left a ton of clues in the kidnap note and nearly every expert in linguistic analysis says the author was Patsy.  (See clues 70 – 96)

 

 

 

(24)

J:  Never say never. Leopold and Loeb wrote a letter every bit as long as the Ramsey ransom note.

SDM:

Right again.  They did write a long letter, beforehand and with their own pen and paper.  Remember too that these were queer boys.

 

(25)

J:  I am not an expert on ransom notes but know if the ransom note is a long one it usually will NOT focus on the sum of money and delivery but does get more “personal”.

SDM:

There are many reasons why a ransom note is not long.

 

(26)

J:  John Ramsey was repeating a theory told to him. Only the killer can answer your question.

SDM:

Perhaps John Ramsey came across those theories all by himself.  I say again, “why not just kill John Ramsey?”

 

(27)

J:  The note was, it seems to me, never a serious attempt to get money from the family and the killer did not explain his actions at all.

SDM:

Patsy did explain her actions.  She wrote the ransom letter to explain why a kidnapper would leave a dead child in her house.

 

(28)

J:  No note was necessary no matter who was guilty.  No one needed to leave a ransom note with the body!!

SDM:

Someone should have quizzed Patsy as to why she wrote a kidnap note with a body in the house.  Only she could have given an answer to that question.

 

 

(29)

J:  The back stairway was not a secret stairway! It was in the center of the house! Anyone entering through the garage passed it. Anyone entering the side door was facing it. Anyone going from the kitchen to the den passed it. Anyone looking in windows could see it.

SDM:

You are right and I am right, but Patsy did say that the metal back stairway was unknown to most visitors to the house. 

 

(30)

J:  JonBenét was sexually assaulted.  It is reasonable to believe the killer was a pedophile

SDM:

There is no evidence that JonBenet was sexually abused for the gratification of anyone.  The vaginal trauma may have been some sort of corporal punishment.  The dark fibers found in her pubic region could have come from the violent wiping of a wet child.

 

(31)

J:  I believe the note was a way to fantasize a bit before taking JonBenét from her bed, during a time when the killer had to sit still and be quiet. I don’t think it honestly served any other purpose.

SDM:

Could it be that J did fantasize about JonBenet?  Truth is Patsy panicked and did not know whether to call for help, stage JonBenet’s death, or sit down a write a letter.  She eventually did all three; in reverse order.

 

(32)

J: How does a ransom note explain a body in the house?

SDM:

Patsy had no other way of explaining why JonBenet’s body would be in the house and that no one in the family was involved with her death. 

(121)

J:  Every sexual pervert in Boulder was NOT thoroughly investigated OR cleared. Several have been uncovered by the media since the investigation went cold and we know from them that they were never questioned about this crime in the early days. (Several names were made public by interested parties!)

SDM:

I will accept the word of the police and other objective investigators over well-paid cronies of John Ramsey as to how well the police investigated suspects.  We do know that Ramsey’s lawyers and public relations experts often lied and exaggerated. 

 

(123)

J:  Luck?  Or had he waited for the opportunity? The window was big enough for a man to get through, though I have found myself that it would be difficult to go in or out without leaving fibers behind. A man carrying a bundle could drop it in the house and climb in after.  But I know from personal experience that a man couldn’t get a body OUT and use that window.  No way

SDM:

Why not drop JonBenet’s body bundle outside the window and then climb out.  Perhaps there was a kidnapper and a pedophile.  Better yet, why not just open the side door and carry her outside to safety.

 

(124)

J:  The outside of the flashlight wasn’t the issue. The material wasn’t good for holding prints.  The batteries didn’t have any prints on them and THAT was considered strange. But the point I would make here is that no one knows where the flashlight came from. We do not know if it belonged to the parents or the intruder.

SDM::  Since it was easy for your intruder to climb out with all his trash, he should also have taken the flashlight.  Perhaps it was Patsy’s flashlight.

(125)

J:  Window well was not carefully checked.  We don’t know what evidence was lost.

SDM:

This would be the most likely place for the mysterious intruder to enter.  Surely, it was carefully checked, but you know the Boulder police better than I.

 

(126)

J:  The killer may well have gone to JonBenet’s room to “feel, touch and smell” her clothing. He may have taken some with him. We don’t know if he did or not.

SDM:

True, we do not know.  We do know Patsy never mentioned that anything was missing.

 

(128)

J:  If the victim was not in the house, what would you have the “sexual predator” do?? (He may have done that as well and STILL had time to write the note.)

SDM:

I would have him leave and kidnap JonBenet elsewhere.

 

(129)

J:  If the killer left the note on the stairs after the family had gone to bed, it would have been found when they awoke.

SDM:

True, if the family was actually in bed when the killer left the note on the stairs.

 

(130)

J:  Stun guns are loud only when fired in the air.  Pressed into clothing or body, it makes little noise.

SDM:

I know very little about stun guns, but the people I have seen on TV in actual tests felt pain and screamed when hit by a stun gun, whether pressed into clothing, or not.

 

(131)

J:  He wrote of killing her, repeatedly.  He described beheading her. No one who cared about her could have written that note without leaving it tearstained.

SDM:

Patsy was in high panic mode and obviously not in the crying mood.

 

(132)

J:  Lou Smit and others, including a Federal Judge and the District Attorney, stated publicly that there is clear evidence of an intruder.  Mr.McDonough ignores that. 

SDM:

All critical thinkers began to ignore Lou Smit, Julie Carne, Lin Wood and Mary Lacy years ago.  They do not want to, or cannot, see the forest for the trees.

 

(33)

J:  I am of average size and I went in and out of that window with no problem. Larger men did as well. It was possible, even probable, that the intruder went in that window and maybe out as well.

SDM:

Perhaps you are right about the window, but in this crime, there is no evidence that an intruder entered the house.

 

(34)

J:  Clearly, the ransom note was not intended to gain money.

SDM:

Then why would a kidnapper/killer ask for money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

(35)

J:  Leopold and Loeb were boy geniuses and very well educated.

SDM:

Real kidnappers are seldom intelligent or educated.  Especially, one who asks for $118,000 from a multi-millionaire.  The author staged the ransom note.  

 

(36)

J:  If the man intended to take JonBenét to an isolated place so he might sexually assault her and kill her, he accomplished his goal.

SDM:

No goal reached here because there is absolutely no evidence that anyone sexually abused JonBenet.  He would have gone out the side door with JonBenet.

 

(37)

J:  “Real kidnappers” do not always take their victims from the streets.  Ever hear of Jessica Lunsford?

SDM:

No.

 

(38)

J:  JonBenet’s killer sexually assaulted a 6 year old child and killed her. He WAS a “murdering pedophile”.

SDM:

Again, there is no evidence of sexual assault or that the killer was a pedophile.

 

(39)

J:  We don’t know for sure if the killer went in through the window or had a key. We simply do not know

SDM:

Perhaps she went straight from her bed to the child and an accident happened.

 

(40)

J:  The police were aware of the broken and open basement window right from the start.  The media was misinformed on that detail by the Boulder Police.

SDM:

John Ramsey said in his book that he closed the window after he saw it was open.

 

(41-A)

J:  The intruder used a stun gun on his victim and clearly didn’t plan on the scream.

SDM:

The intruder owns a stun gun and does not know it causes people to scream from pain?

 

(41-B)

J:  The noise heard by Luther Stanton could have been the cover of the grate falling back into place but we don’t know just what he heard. As for prints, I explained earlier that the walkways were clear.

SDM:

The “intruder” would have thought that someone in the house, or in the neighborhood, heard the scream.

 

(41-C)

J:  The fibers on JonBenet’s genitals might have been from the pervert’s sleeve, left behind during the sexual assault. She was NOT cleaned off and there is no evidence her clothes were ever removed OR replaced. The nightgown was tossed, not laid out carefully.

SDM:

Evidence is that the killer did these things to JonBenet:  Found a cloth and wiped down her vaginal area, pulled up her panties, dragged and carried her down two stories to the basement, taped her mouth, tied up her wrists, garroted her, and covered her with the white thermal blanket from her bed.  The killer then placed JonBenet’s favorite pink Barbie nightgown by her corpse

 

(42-A)

J:  The experiments showed that a piercing scream in the basement could NOT be heard in the parent’s third floor basement. I was part of the experiments done by 48 Hours and know personally that the police had that much right.

SDM:

If the stun gun theory had any validity, the intruder would have used it in JonBenet’s bedroom so he could take her quietly out of the house.

 

(42-B)

J:  The killer wasn’t mentally “right”, was he? As for being high, who knows? As for being a risk taker – – yeah, the killer was.

SDM:

It is highly unlikely that a drugged or crazy intruder wandered through the house for hours and left not one real clue.  Yes, Patsy was mentally alright.

 

(43)

J:  I happen to believe there was only one killer.  But the fact that there is a second unexplained print in the basement concerns some. (It is known that some creeps do act in pairs. We know there are pedophile groups!)

SDM:

Now we have two men roaming through the house for hours without leaving any real clue.  At least they could help each other through the window.  I will go out on a limb to say this:  pedophiles never go in a group to kidnap a victim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(44)

J:  The palm print still unsourced might have been left when the killer took off gloves to better “feel” his victim. The print was left very close to where he assaulted JonBenét.

SDM:

The one print here and one print there fantasy might make since to some, but John Ramsey said his house had many people in and out.  I heard John Walsh say there were 200 people at a recent Christmas party.  Where did they park all the cars?  How many roamed through the house leaving prints here and there?

 

(45)

J:  The pubic hair remains unsourced and could prove valuable before this is over.

SDM:

Or Not.  Forensic examiners said the hair might not be a pubic hair, and could be from any visitor to the house.

 

(46)

J:  The DNA found under JonBenet’s nails came from the same source as the DNA mixed with the blood in her panties. It is considered a valuable clue by those who are investigating this murder.

SDM:

The DNA probably belongs to someone who had a right to be in the house

 

(47)

J:  The DNA has been used to clear suspects.  It is in the CODIS national databank, so it’s not a “moot point.”

SDM:

You are right.  It cleared Lacy’s mysterious fantasy man, John Mark Karr.  If those Colorado flackies for the Ramseys had proof-positive that Karr’s DNA was on JonBenet they’d have stated so proudly during that joke of a press conference they gave on 8/17/06.  

During said press conference that silly prosecutor did not announce, as one would expect, that they’ve captured a murdering pedophile.  No.  Instead she warns us all to be patient and let justice take its course. She even cited the wise words of John Ramsey to that effect.  Go to hell do they think we are all stupid out here in la-la land?

 

(48)

J:  CODIS is a national databank that is still growing. The killer could, theoretically, be identified at any time if his DNA is ever submitted for another crime.

SDM:

It will be useful only if the DNA quality is good enough to match.

 

(49)

J:  Stun gun marks make unique marks and are NOT like scratches or bruises from snaps.

SDM:

They also make people scream, kick and yell in pain.

 

(50)

J:  Stun guns make little noise when they are pressed into a person.

SDM:

Any noise and scream from a child wakes any mother. 

 

(51)

J:  The marks on JonBenét match those that resulted in experiments on pigs that were stunned then sacrificed for study. 

SDM:

JonBenet was not a pig.  Sounds like another Lou Smit-Lin Wood experiment.

 

 

 

 

(52)

J:  The Air Taser stun gun was not intended to “tickle” the victim but to “take them down”. 

SDM:

Enough talk about fantasy stun guns.  There is no real evidence that anyone had a stun gun.

 

(53)

J:  The best clue in this mystery is the DNA.  The ransom note runs a close second.

SDM:

The best clue is Patsy’s kidnap letter, followed by John and Patsy’s show of guilt.  Forget the DNA.  This is no evidence of intruder DNA.  The truth lies in evidence, facts and critical thinking—not in a hapless hunt for a mysterious and phantom intruder–an “intruder” who roamed in a house for hours and left not one real clue.

 

(54)

J:  It would seem the killer carried in the stun gun, cord and tape–and he carried them out.  Makes sense to me.

SDM:

Any thought to clear the Ramseys makes sense to you.

 

(55)

J:  The FBI was presented a slanted set of “facts” and their conclusions were based on incomplete information. They have never reported on how they felt about that misuse of power by the BPD.

SDM:

The FBI doesn’t make conclusions based on incomplete information; as Ramseys and their lawyers well know.  The FBI knows full well there was no intruder.

 

 

 

 

(56-A)

J:  At this point the author advises the reader to stop reading if they still believe there could have been an intruder.  Knowing what I know, and fully believing JonBenét was killed by an intruder, I am choosing to continue reading this garbage simply so I might expose the book for what it is.  Misinformation and garbage.  On to the author of the ransom note – and I am actually going to agree with a few of the points made

SAM

There is no reason for you to continue.  You seldom consider facts, and when you do you fail to use logic or critical thinking.

 

(56-B)

J:  Lou Smit said publicly, on 48 Hours, that leads were routinely ignored and suspects were NOT thoroughly checked out. He would know as he was there.

SDM:

Was Lou Smit really there or was he in John Ramsey’s pocket?  Facts, logic, and critical thinking are foreign to some people; their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confused by facts.

 

(57)

J:  The following are clues about the ransom letter author as determined by experts in forensic linguistics analysis:

The author of the note was not a foreigner.

SDM:: 

True.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(58)

J:  The person was not uneducated to the point that they couldn’t write at all… but could have been less than a high school graduate.  Not all high school dropouts are stupid or unable to write.

SDM::  Perusal of the letter will tell you that the author is educated, intelligent with a high level vocabulary, practically eliminating a dropout pedophile.

 

(59)

J:  I don’t think the author was stupid, but anyone who watches a lot of TV or reads can develop a fine vocabulary if they try.

SDM:

Self-motivated television educated people almost never become kidnappers. 

 

(60)

J:  I learned how to spell and write a letter in elementary school. 

SDM:

But you didn’t learn to use logic and think critically.

You didn’t write a letter like Patsy’s in elementary.  And you didn’t write while in panic after killing your child.

 

(61)

J:  I learned punctuation at an early age and editing is taught in all grades. 

SDM:

You and I still have a problem with punctuation and editing.

 

(62 – 67)

J:  In these rebuttals, J compares her composition skills to that of an intruder/killer.

SDM:

I, for one, do not believe for a minute that J was the intruder, with or without accomplices.

 

(68)

J:  All students are taught the “who, what, when, where, why” bit.  Don’t have to be journalism major to know how to tell a proper story or write one.

SDM:

Journalism majors do write better stories than most of us.

 

(69)

J:  Patsy was a journalism major, wife, mother, a daughter, sister, and a socialite … not a great cook, but what does any of that really matter?

SDM:

We are talking about being a journalism major and how well the kidnap letter was written. 

 

(70)

J:  I personally don’t feel the note was “feminine”.  How many woman write about beheading a child and not permitting a proper burial?  But in response to the “clue’, I will share this with you. A “famous” linguistics expert once read thousands of my posts and entered an email exchange with me – – and he not only determined I was 25 years younger than I was, but determined I was a southern college boy!  Fact was, I was female, and a middle-aged housewife from Massachusetts only recently relocated to the South.  (Donald Foster is a real jerk.)

SDM:

Donald Foster is a professional linguistics expert who was right in the Unabomber case and is right in the Ramsey case.  Personal pronouns, detailed instructions and being a concerned person is feminine, but not true of every person.  In this case it does apply because Patsy was a beauty queen, not a female auto mechanic.

 

 

 

(71, 72 & 75)

J:  The directions in the letter reminded me of those Leopold & Loeb sent to the Franks. Almost like the killer had studied their note before he wrote his own.

SDM:

I do not know if Patsy was familiar with the Leopold & Loeb case.

 

(73)

J:  I think the killer may have heard JonBenet’s name, but didn’t know how to write it and THAT is why her name was not in the note.

SDM:

That would be another reason to make the note short.

 

(74)

J:  I think most female kidnappers would agree with you – – keep it short and sweet.  No need to risk saying more than necessary.

SDM:

Female kidnappers usually work with a male.  If he could write, probably he would have written the note, if there had been an intruder.

 

(76)

J:  The bit about denying JonBenét a proper burial was a way to pressure the parents to do as demanded in the ransom note.  Even as a fantasy note that was never intended as a real attempt to get rich, the killer was writing what he thought might leave him in control.

SDM:

OK, so the content of the letter still points very much to Patsy as the author.

 

 

 

 

 

(77)

J:  The misspellings in the note were common errors.

Even college professors make mistakes.

SDM:

Thanks for agreeing that Patsy is the most likely writer of the note.

 

(78)

J:  I believe JonBenét was very much alive when the note was written.  If the killer wrote it AFTER killing her, it wouldn’t have been so rambling if it had to be written at all.

SDM:

The rambling letter was written in panic because the writer had just taken the life of her precious daughter. 

A calm Patsy would have put the dead girl in her car and dumped her over a cliff north of Boulder.  Then there would be no clues in the house leaving it up to the police to find the girl and the killer in the house.

 

(79)

J:  Some intruders live in houses they break into for days on end.  Some have parties!  Some murders have taken place and the killers have stayed long enough to take showers or fix themselves something to eat!!

SDM:

True, but that usually takes place in cabins or second homes in the country when the owners are gone for more than a few hours.  Intruders like to know when the owners are likely to return. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(80)

J:  “Fat cat” is not a rare phrase but NO ONE has stepped forward with evidence that the Ramseys ever used that phrase before the murder.  As for SBTC, we still do not know what it stands for.

SDM:

Either you were not thinking as you read my book or you just refuse to believe anything I say.  Patsy may have used SBTC because it stands for the Small Business Technology Council, an organization of the National Small Business Association.  SBTC is the largest nonprofit council organization-representing small, U.S. technology-based companies.  John Ramsey owned a small, U.S. technology-based company. 

 

(81)

J:  The writer was writing a story to indulge a fantasy. No doubt.

SDM:

John’s name is used three times within the last five sentences. Gone is the formal “Mr. Ramsey” of the salutation. The ransom note author now uses “John” to emphasize a personal connection between them.  If a real kidnapper saw a need to use names at all, he would stick with either Mr. Ramsey.  Obviously, this is a made up story written by someone close to John Ramsey.

 

(82)

J:  This makes no sense to me. Read the note again.  Nothing of the sort is implied.

SDM:

You answers are getting weird.  Pause and rest for a few minutes.  The note is written in the passive voice instead of the active voice; implying that real action was not necessary.  Real action was no longer needed because JonBenet was already dead. 

 

 

(83)

J:  This is a redundant clue but the fact is that neither parent had any reason to kill their daughter.

SDM:

An accidental killing does not have a reason.

 

(84)

J:  Why did anyone kill this beautiful child?  That is a far more important question. What WAS the motive?

SDM:

There is no motive in an accidental death.

 

(85)

J:  JonBenét was not only dead; she had been sexually assaulted and MURDERED! There is no question that this was NOT an accident being covered up.

SDM:

There is absolutely no question that this crime was being covered up from the first moment John realized Patsy had killed their daughter.  Just think lawyers, internet sites, PR, and avoiding detectives and lie detector tests.

 

(86)

J:  Typical fantasy ransom note junk.

SDM:

It is time for you to pause and get you thought again.  The writer threatens to “execute” JonBenet if there is any “deviation” from the instructions.  Also there is the statement of blame and guilt: “You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to outsmart us.”

 

(87)

J:  No clue but an introduction to the following clues.

SDM:

The ransom note writer is focused on JonBenet and what will happen to her if the Ramseys ignore the kidnapper’s warnings.  We now know that John and Patsy ignored or disobeyed every important instruction.

 

(88)

J:  Most parents would call 911 for help.  Few would NOT hope the authorities could help.  Especially in a town like Boulder with few roads going in and out.  I know the Ramseys thought the cops were their best friends on the first day.

SDM:

Yes, guilty people stop being best friends with the police when questioning gets close to truth.  Fortunately, the wealthy Ranseys never had to face really tough questions; same thing with OJ.  It’s part of our society and culture to go easy on celebrities and millionaires, with or without their attorneys present.

 

(89)

J:  Faced with the same situation, are you so sure you would NOT reach out to anyone?  Image how helpless you would feel just waiting

SDM:

If my beautiful precious child had just been kidnapped I would have everyone sit down and not touch anything.  Then call 911.  On the other hand if I were guilty I would compromise the crime scene in every way possible, as was done in this case.

 

(90)

J:  John was not making decisions at the time in question.  The Boulder police were in control.

SDM:

John Ramsey said he closed an open window.  John was anxious to search the house for clues.  John found the body and ruined the murder scene.  John decided to make plans to fly to Atlanta the same day his daughter was killed.  John hired lawyers right away.

 

 

 

 

(91)

J:  There is absolutely no evidence of that. To the contrary, most investigators do NOT believe the family would have left the body in the house if they were staging a kidnapping.  And if they were guilty of killing their daughter and saying an intruder had killed her, investigators felt they would have said they woke and found the body OR made sure someone else found the body shortly after the authorities arrived.  Only someone intent on convicting the Ramseys despite the clear evidence of an intruder could believe the parents knew their daughter was in the basement and still kept the secret for hours without betraying their involvement.

SDM:

Fist of all, as the evidence and critical thinking tells us, there has never been any real evidence of an intruder.  Almost every thing the Ramseys did on that first day and all the days following indicated guilt.

 

(92)

J:  garbage

SDM:

Is your brain getting tired or are you finally convinced of the truth about the Ramseys.  The first 56 clues in this book show that an intruder did not kill JonBenet.  Since there was no intruder, it is evident that only four people were in the Ramsey home that night.  And one of them is dead.  Therefore, one, two, or three people had a hand in writing the letter. 

 

(93)

J:  Burke is not involved. I agree.

SDM:

The vocabulary and syntax of the ransom letter are those of an adult, which excludes JonBenet’s nine-year-old brother, Burke. This leaves the two adults who were there that night, John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey.

 

(94)

J:  That is a quote from the note.

SDM:

Yes it is.  Objective, critical thinking readers were able to grasp that the last five sentences were addressed directly to John Ramsey from the letter writer, Patsy Ramsey: Don’t try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!

 

(95)

J:  No. That would be a message better said in person if it needed to be said at all.

SDM:

Yes.  Please remember that this is supposed to be a letter from a kidnapping, killing organization.  The last five sentences are a direct personal warning to John Ramsey to go along with the letter writer, or else.

 

(96-A)

J:  The ransom letter.

Following “Clue 96”, the author goes into Steve Thomas’ theory.  I won’t rewrite it here but will make a few corrections before getting back to numbered clues.

* No one has EVER said Patsy was emotionally upset that Christmas Day.  To the contrary, all the people they saw on Christmas said Patsy was fine.  Relaxed and happy.

SDM:

Many people were at the dinner and each has a different opinion about Patsy that evening.  Anyway, everyone who has raised a child knows that a six-year old can change your emotional stability in a New York minute.

 

 

 

(96-B)

J:  There is NO evidence that JonBenét ate anything when she got home from the Whites’.

SDM:

The conclusion of the two professors was that there were no distinctive differences between the fresh pineapple found in the bowl and that removed from the intestines.

The pineapple eating evidence is not as important as the fact that Patsy has lied again about taking JonBenet straight to bed after arriving home.

 

(96-C)

J:  There is NO evidence that JonBenét wet the bed that night. The bed sheets were not wet or stained and there is no evidence that anyone changed the bed.

* JonBenét was found in the same shirt she wore to the Whites”   There is no evidence it was changed at any time that night.

SDM:

This was a simple case made complicated by John Ramsey’s lawyers, PR, and internet garbage from his cronies and others.  We will just have to differ on many of the clues.  History will show that the clue evidence against the Ramseys will win out.

 

(97)

J:  John and Patsy had five children in all and never got upset over bedwetting – – especially when there was no wet bed

SDM:

Really!  You were with her every day she raised those children.  It seems someone has gone from rebutting the evidence to making up new excuses for Patsy’s actions.

 

 

 

 

(98)

J:  There was NO pineapple found in JonBenet’s stomach.  There was some in her intestines, not in her stomach.  The pineapple she did eat was eaten earlier in the day, not later that night.

SDM:

Dr. Meyer noted for the record that food found in the intestines would have been consumed approximately two hours before death.  Anyway, why tell the police they knew nothing about the pineapple?

 

(99)

J:  What would you have the Ramseys say when the clock struck 10? They were aware of the time.

SDM:

I would expect them to be waiting anxiously for instructions on how to get their beautiful daughter back.  They should be at the phone ready to pick it up.  They should be disappointed with every passing minute wondering why the kidnapper had not called and would be terrified that not calling may mean their child is dead.

 

(100)

J:  Police asked the Ramseys to name anyone they knew who had money problems and Patsy named the housekeeper – but assured the police that Linda would NEVER have hurt JonBenét.  They asked John about disgruntled employees at Access graphics and he gave them more than one name.  They were not telling the police they thought anyone was guilty of this crime. To the contrary, they clearly stated that they couldn’t image that they knew anyone capable of doing that.

SDM:

You are right that they clearly stated they couldn’t imagine they knew anyone capable of taking or killing their daughter.  Then the Ramseys went on to name everyone from John’s employees to their closest best friends.  

 

(101)

J:  Barbara Fernie didn’t go to the body but held back and told Patsy to stay where she was.  Patsy did as she was told for a minute – then went to see what John had found.

SDM:

Suddenly Patsy has become passive?  Obviously, no one holds Patsy back when she wants to be involved.  She already knew what John had found; their dead child.

 

(102)

J:  No one knows where the blanket was when JonBenét was put to bed.  Patsy doesn’t remember seeing it but didn’t notice it was missing.

SDM:

She wisely told the police she didn’t notice it missing.  One thing for sure, it wasn’t in the dark, dirty basement.

 

(103)

J:  John said Patsy was in bed when he went to bed. There is no evidence that she was not.  She did not wear street clothes to bed but preferred a nightgown.

SDM:

The evidence points to what the police saw when they began their investigation:  The ransom note and staging of the body took so much of the night that Patsy did not have time to change from her red turtleneck sweater with black velvet pants. Nor time to take off the black and red checked blazer she wore to the White’s Christmas party the night before. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(104)

J:  Red fibers found on the tape could be explained in two ways. There were red fibers in the tote where the paintbrush was stored and the fibers could have been transferred to the tape by the killer who took the paintbrush from the tote; OR… Patsy had put the red sweater on the morning of the 26th and John had been near her, comforting her. HE could have unwittingly transferred fibers to the tape when he took the tape off JonBenet’s mouth.  More important to the investigation are the unsourced fibers found on the tape and body. SDM:

Is this the same kidnapper/killer who took a broken paint brush but forgot his flashlight?  Is this the same kidnapper/killer who wrote a long kidnapping note and then forgot to take the kid?  Is this the same kidnapper, killer who threatened to kill their child if certain things were not done, and then left the dead child in the house?

The evidence is that John and Patsy were in separate areas and no evidence that John comforted Patsy.

 

(105)

J:  The Ramseys were aware that the police were conducting a homicide investigation from the first day – from the moment they saw their daughter’s dead body. Their cooperation with the police ended when they understood there was a group out there who wanted to nail THEM for the murder.  At that point, they decided to listen to their lawyers and stop trusting the police.  They did, however, still agree to cooperate through their lawyers and ALWAYS agreed to cooperate fully with the D A’s investigators.

SDM:

John Ramsey hired lawyers immediately.  The first thing guilty criminals do is to get a lawyer and stop talking to the police.  Otherwise, they might accidentally say something truthful.  The Boulder DA’s office had no intention of ever bringing Patsy Ramsey to justice.

 

(106)

J:  Not only did the Ramseys try to help police by answering questions, they also offered to PAY for any experts or lab tests the Boulder authorities felt might help the investigation.  The Boulder Police simply rejected the offer. 

SDM:

There is no evidence that any of those statements are true.  We watched on TV as the Ramseys fought every attempt by the police to investigate this case.

 

(107)

J:  The Ramseys did not take “every opportunity” to talk to media. They rarely granted interviews and THAT was also used against them by the ever-growing lynch mob.

SDM:

After getting their act together and practicing their lies the Ramseys’ did talk with hand-picked friendly interviewers.  It is true that many of the friendly interviews were used against them by thinking people and those who seek the truth.

 

(108)

J:  redundant false “clue”

SDM:

Despite knowing that the police needed to eliminate them as suspects before investigating others, the Ramseys’ still refused to cooperate fully.

 

(109)

J:  The Ramseys made no suspect lists at all. They simply told authorities what they knew about the people they were asked about.

SDM:

After saying they couldn’t imagine knowing anyone capable of taking or killing their daughter, they named many of John’s employees and their closest best friends. 

 

(110)

J:  In the first few days, they were separated and spoken to by the authorities.  Later they refused to be interrogated by people they felt were not investigating all leads but focused on them.  The police, on the other hand, was stubbornly refusing to speak to them unless they agreed to outrageous terms.  (Starting interviews in evening and going non-stop until cops wanted to quit.)

SDM:

You probably don’t believe this but the fact is that investigation interviews are conducted to clear the innocent so they can concentrate on finding the guilty.  This was never possible with the Ramseys who fought the police at every turn.  It may seem odd to you, but in nearly every case the guilty feel like the police are focused on them. 

 

(111)

J:  No comment about no one asking for the $118,000.

SDM:

The $118,000 was just another remark in the ransom note designed to derail a police investigation.

 

(112)

J:  The Ramseys went on CNN to thank people for their support and to ask for help from anyone who might have information.  They didn’t release the ransom note or do any number of things that might have helped the investigation because the police asked them not to. 

SDM:

The fantasy in your remark is that the Ramseys would do anything that the police asked them to do, or not do.

They and their lawyers did everything possible so that this case would never be brought to trial and that neither Ramsey would ever spend one night in jail.

 

 

(113)

J:  Parents of missing or murdered children are not encouraged to camp out at the police station.   That is DISCOURAGED.  Beyond that, being the “prime suspect” would likely play a BIG part in anyone’s decision to steer clear of the police.

SDM:

Once they are cleared, victims are always encouraged to work with the police and to stay in touch.  The guilty steer clear of the police and hide behind their lawyers.

 

(114)

J:  No clue here.  It is hardly evidence of guilt to become hysterical after finding your daughter’s empty bed.  If she called an hour or two later it would have been evidence of innocence???

SDM:

No.

 

(115 – 118)

J:  Redundant. Again, most people WOULD call for help.

SDM:

Cool, calm, excellent decision-maker, John Ramsey, ex-naval officer and technology company chief executive officer, does everything the letter says not to do

 

(119)

J:  How in the hell would that work? Would you have the reader believe the Ramseys intended to say the killers killed their daughter because they call authorities and then returned to the house to put the body in the basement? (What HAVE you been smoking???)

SDM:

Evidently Patsy Ramsey, in her panic, wanted the police to believe that because they disobeyed the kidnapper’s instructions the kidnappers would be held responsible for killing their daughter. 

(120)

J:  According to the author, all the information included in the last 22 pages of his book makes up the last clue. I think that is just silly, but from here on I will simply note the page and factual corrections I wish to make. The author is going through a ranting phase and at this point I am wondering if he did any research before writing his book.  This book is FULL of misinformation, the author has done an injustice to JonBenet’s case and I simply hope the few hours I put into writing this rebuttal will prove to that this book is, simply put, garbage.

SDM:

Too bad you are not rebutting this part of the book.  It is easy reading and straight to the point.  But we knew from the start that real evidence, logic, and critical thinking are your weakest points.  No Ramsey will see justice served, but they know people are judging them and the whole world knows that Patsy killed JonBenet.

 

J:(Page 47) Patsy didn’t put out a 1997 Christmas letter.

SDM:

Maybe 1997, maybe not, but Patsy used the uncommon phrase “and hence” often, including in her kidnap letter.

 

J:

Boulder police officer Steve Thomas asked the Ramseys what they would say if asked to take a polygraph.  John said he would be insulted but would cooperate if it helped.  Patsy said she would take 10 – bring them on. And the Boulder Police dropped the subject and never asked them to take the tests.  Years later they refused to be involved in giving the Ramseys tests if it involved an unbiased independent polygrapher.  Those are FACTS.

SDM:

John said only this first part of the sentence…that he would be insulted.  In any case neither Patsy nor John ever took any unbiased lie detector test because they knew they would absolutely fail them. 

 

(Page 50)

J:  I don’t believe the Boulder authorities ever set up FBI polygraphs.  They told the Ramseys that is an option and the Ramseys flat out refused to be tested by a biased entity, like the FBI.  I don’t believe the tests were ever “set up” with the FBI.

SDM: 

Only an obviously guilty person would refuse to take an FBI professionally operated lie detector test.

 

J:

He has the intruder killer entering the house after the family got home, running “willy-nilly” through the house and taking a child, bound to be screaming, from her bed and through the house.

SDM:  I believe those are your thoughts.  Nothing like that has ever occurred to me.

J:

I have to admit there was no intruder there acting like that.  Then he has Patsy, the killer in his mind, angry at having to feed JonBenét pineapple when she hadn’t even had a Christmas Dinner! (What about feast at Whites?)

SDM:

At first Patsy told the police that JonBenet did not eat well at the Whites; so she fixed some pineapple for her.

 

J:

Meanwhile he has the parents burying JonBenét in an unmarked grave in Atlanta.

SDM:

I did not write that the parents were burying JonBenet in Atlanta.  That was Pat Fish’s fine contribution.

 

 

 

 

 

J:

(Page 57).  Fact: Burke’s voice is NOT found on the 911 tape.  That is a lynch-mob myth.

SDM:

Three Aerospace Engineers enhanced the tape and heard John Ramsey say, in what sounded like a very angry voice, “We’re not speaking to you.”  Patsy then says, “Help me Jesus, help me Jesus,” and finally Burke is clearly heard to say, “Well, what did you find?”

J:

From there to the end of the book – – well, he goes over the same stuff and then rails against the injustice bought in this country. His credited sources include the Internet lynch mob so… I guess I shouldn’t have expected anything else.

SDM:

Thanks for mentioning the injustice bought by wealthy criminals.  That is proven by many cases year after year.  There is nothing in my book about a lynch mob; your failure seems to be comprehensive reading. 

 

J:

So his book ends and so does my commentary. I hope everyone who buys his book will spend the little more to buy this book, “hears the other side of the story” – – and goes on to do their own research.

SDM:

The only phrase in the above paragraph worth commenting on:  “and goes on to do your own research.”  Good suggestion, but don’t be like J; use critical thinking as you read.

What J is really saying is that the last 20 pages are so truthful she didn’t want to read them again so she just mislabeled them garbage, misinformation, and maliciousness.

 

 

 

J

Truth is important. And it is needed here. I hope one day truth and justice prevail and JonBenet’s killer is not only exposed but properly punished by the same system that denied her justice for so many years.

SDM:

The killer is known and is not now among us.  There may be John Kerr arrests in the future but no one should be convicted for JonBenet’s death.  JonBenet’s killer is known by every critical thinker; John Ramsey needs no longer to convince the simple minded.

 

SDM:

What are some reasons many crimes are solved years after the crime took place?

 

The criminal is caught committing another crime.

 

The criminal is unable to keep his secret.  A secret is a most difficult tale to keep.  Every word must be censored to prevent the secret’s escape.  Trust, bravado, guilt, daring, or a burning need to tell his secret can end up in a confession and arrest.

 

There is the fact that “loose lips” solve many crimes years after they were thought to be unsolvable.  “Loose lips” describes guilty persons who confess their crime to a close friend or even to a stranger while drunk or depressed.  The listener then tells the police, either out of fear or for revenge, reward, or sense of civic duty.

 

Unbelievable to the layman, seasoned investigators have all seen criminals who could not stop bragging about what they had done, which, in turn, led to their capture.  And then there is the lonely imposter who confesses to a highly publicized crime to gain notoriety, like J.M. Karr.

 

Finally, in a case such as this one, the killer would feel a need to brag that he murdered JonBenet, and he is smarter than the police because he got away with it.

Since no one in 15 years of this highly publicized crime has come forward with any real evidence that someone other than Patsy killed Jonbenet, the passing of time makes it evident that Patsy Ramsey is the guilty person.

 

Some guilty criminals who maintain their innocence from day one eventually convince themselves that they are actually innocent.  Some, like OJ Simpson, block the incident from memory and actually believe their own lies.  They eventually believe their own unbelievable story and stick with it, no matter what.

 

Intruder Scenario for the JonBenet case: 

(As possibly envisioned by Jameson, J)

 

There are many different scenarios that would fit this story. This is only one:  (But the truth is that the facts do not fit well with any intruder scenario.)

 

Imagine that you are a criminal fixated on a six-year old girl.  You stake out the house and the neighborhood instead of kidnapping the girl away from home. 

 

One very cold December night you happen by when the house is fairly dark and no sign of life.  You search for an entrance and find the only way in is through an 18” by 30” window that has a slight opening.  You climb through the small opening with your heavy coat, stun gun, flashlight, etc. without disturbing dust or anything on the window sill or in the room.  You roam the house for hours searching here and there without leaving any prints or clues.  Then you find something that tells you John Ramsey has just been awarded an $118,000 bonus. 

 

You wait for the family to return, not knowing if it is that night or days away when they return from a Christmas vacation.  You are alone in the house and getting bored.  You find a pad and pen in the kitchen and decide to write a ransom note even though you have other plans for the girl.  You also decide to write as if you were Patsy Ramsey and what she may have to say in a ransom note.  You attempt to write words and phrases that Patsy might use; it becomes very long.

 

When the family returns from their dinner out, you hide in your entry room.  Since you roamed throughout the house for hours you know which bedroom is for JonBenet. 

 

After the lights are turned off and all is quiet you slowly and quietly enter JonBenet’s room.  You immobilize JonBenet with a stun gun.  You find a cloth and wipe down her vaginal area, pull up her panties, and carefully wrap JonBenet in her thermal blanket that is on her bed under the comforter.  Then you carry and drag her down the stairs to a small windowless room in the basement, leaving abrasions on her back and legs. 

 

There in the dark room you tie JonBenet’s wrists above her head and place tape on her mouth.    Next you grab some nylon cord and a broken paintbrush from Patsy’s paint tools to fashion a garrote.  You carefully cover her with the white thermal blanket.  You then locate JonBenet’s favorite pink Barbie nightgown and lay it out by her corpse.

 

You remember now that while going down the stairs you passed within a few feet of a door that would have taken you outside to safety.  In panic, instead you carried her down to the basement and killed her, screams and all.  

 

 

She screams loud enough for neighbors fairly far away to hear but not loud enough for three people in the house to hear.  You are unaware of the megaphone theory so the loud scream disturbs you but not others in the house.  Now you feel it’s time to flee so, with heavy coat, etc. you worm your way up and through the small window and over the window well to the ground, again leaving no clues.  Then you carefully replace the grate, so as to not disturb the cobwebs, run into the darkness through patches of snow, and vanish into thin air.

 

This is an interesting scenario but improbable because it doesn’t fit all of the facts.  Susan Bennett is the classic case of a pathological liar.
While other people may be embarrassed when getting caught in a lie, pathological liars rarely are. They just come up with other lies, for lying has become so much part of their life that they are completely callous as to the monstrosity of their deceptive schemes.

What Susan really craves is attention and power. Even negative attention is better for her than no attention. The Ramsey case gave her the unique opportunity to play a major role in a public forum.  From that role she derives her feeling of being powerful and in control.

When John Ramsey was finally interviewed about some of the evidence by law enforcement officials, they told him that sweater fibers matching his unusual Israeli wool sweater were also found in the crotch of his daughter’s underwear.  So you want to talk about DNA of a mystery man, that`s fine.  Let`s also talk about John Ramsey`s sweater fibers, shall we?

Page 55 – – –

SDM:

The above statement is frankly too absurd for comment

DID STEVEN TRUSCOTT KILL LYNNE HARPER – THE WHOLE STORY

FACTS

In the early evening of Tuesday, June 9, 1959, 12-year-old Lynne Harper disappeared near RCAF Station, an air force base just south of Clinton, Ontario. At about 11:20 that evening, Lynne’s father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.

Steven Murray Truscott (born January 18, 1945 in Vancouver, British Columbia) is a Canadian who was sentenced to death in 1959, when he was a 14-year old student, for the murder of classmate Lynne Harper.

Steve Truscott acknowledged being with Lynne the evening she was killed. He was seen with her on his bicycle after 7 p.m. in close proximity to Lawson’s Bush where her body was found two days later.

After finishing her dinner and wearing only blue shorts and a white sleeveless blouse, Lynne walked over to the school grounds near her home and cheerfully helped Mrs. Nickerson with the younger Clinton Brownies. Steven says he met Lynne at the Brownies and that she was in a chatty, presumably happy mood. He says that Lynne asked for a ride to Highway 8 so she could hitch a ride to a pony farm. He pushed his bike and Lynne walked alongside until they got to the county road. Then Lynne sat on the crossbar and they rode from the school northwards along the county road.

Steve Truscott has maintained since 1959 that he took Lynne Harper to the intersection of the county road and Highway 8, where he left her unharmed. Truscott maintains that when he arrived at the bridge, he looked back toward the intersection where he had dropped Harper off and observed that a 1957 or 1959 gray Chevrolet Bel Air had stopped and that she was in the process of entering it. (It should be noted here that the Truscott’s Toronto Star delivery man drove a gray 1959 Chev Bel Air. He was never a suspect.)

When the police asked Truscott whether his schoolmates made any comment to him or whether there was any conversation with them after his return to the school, he replied in the following words: “I believe one of them asked me, ‘What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?’ and I replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.”

Arnold George, one of Truscott’s closest friends, testified that Steven had put him up to supporting his story when they spoke at Steven’s house the day after Lynne’s disappearance but before her body was found. George was to tell the police that he saw Steven and Lynne on his bicycle down at the river around 7:30. At first George lied but when the body was found he told the police the truth, that he had not seen Steven.
Truscott testified that at no time did he ever ask George to lie and tell the police that he had seen him at the bridge.

Steven Truscott gave the police an account of the events of the day Lynne disappeared from which he was never to waver and which contained no suggestion that he had gone into the woods the previous evening. That was his story and he was sticking to it.

Two days after Lynne disappeared, in the afternoon of June 11, searchers discovered her partially nude body in a nearby farm woodlot known as Lawson’s Bush. Someone had strangled her by winding her blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.

There is no doubt about the place of death. The position of the body, the scuff marks and a footprint at the foot, and the flattening of the vegetation between the legs, indicated that the act of rape or attempted rape took place there.

All of her clothing was in the area where the body lay. Most of her clothing was removed and neatly piled up— near her corpse. Her shoes were neatly placed side by side, her blue shorts zipped, and her socks rolled up.

There were several puncture wounds on her back and shoulders, some of which were caused before death and some after death. Under the wound in her left shoulder, which she suffered before death, was a pool of fluid blood lying on the vegetation. The wounds were consistent with their having been made by twigs scattered around the ground. A small quantity of blood was found on the dandelion leaves at the fork of the body. Under Lynne’s left shoulder was a button from her blouse. It appears that this button was ripped from her blouse when forming the ligature used to strangle her.

The local coroner said that intercourse took place “while the child was dying, when the heart had stopped or had almost stopped beating”. His reason for this conclusion was that although the injuries to the parts were severe, the bleeding from them was very small.

June 12, 1959: shortly after 7:00 p.m., Truscott was taken into custody.
June 13: at about 2:30 a.m. Steven Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
June 29: A police magistrate rules that Truscott will be tried in adult court Truscott was ordered to be tried as an adult; an appeal was dismissed.
July 14, 1959, Steven was committed to stand trial for capital murder.

September 30, after 15 days, the 12-person jury returned a verdict of guilty, with mercy. The jury found that Lynne Harper died where she was found in Lawson’s bush and that she was not picked up at the intersection and subsequently brought back by anyone. Mr. Justice Ferguson, as was then required under the law, sentenced Truscott to be hanged.

1960 Jan 21: A five-judge Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses Truscott’s appeal.
1960 Jan 22: Amid much controversy about the serious sentence, the Conservative government of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and the federal cabinet commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. Truscott had been on death row for four months. Steven remained at the Ontario Training School for Boys. Then, in January 1963, when he turned 18, he was transferred to the Collins Bay Penitentiary in Kingston.

1960 February 24: Appeal of his conviction denied by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court of Appeal wrote as follows: “. . . certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on Mr. Truscott. He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered.”

1966: Journalist Isabel Le Bourdais published, “The Trial of Steven Truscott” that questioned hasty police investigation and the15-day trial procedures. Her popular book created a furious public debate, demonstrations in the street, and a Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court decided to hear the case of Steven Truscott – not to determine Truscott’s innocence or guilt but simply whether or not he deserved a new trial. The judges found Truscott’s testimony confused and vague. Canada’s top judges ruled 8 – 1 against Truscott getting a new trial.
The lone dissenting voice came from Justice Emmett Hall. He said that having considered the case fully, he believes that the conviction should be quashed and a new trial directed. His view was that the trial was not conducted according to law and that even the guiltiest criminal must be tried according to law. He went on to say that does not mean that I consider Truscott guilty or innocent. The determination of guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury and for the jury alone.

1967 May 7: Truscott was transferred to the Farm Annex of Collins Bay Penitentiary.

1969 October 21: Ten years after Steve Truscott was sentenced to hang by the neck, he was released on parole. He had an unblemished institutional record.

1971: Bill Trent’s The Steven Truscott Story causes new interest in the crime.

1997: Truscott goes public with his bid to clear his name.
2000: Julian Sher works with CBC TV’s the fifth estate to produce a documentary, “Until You Are Dead,” which was watched by more than 1.4 million Canadians. Since that broadcast, the public clamor to have Steven Truscott’s name cleared, has grown. It sparked Truscott mania across the country and caused more questions in Parliament.
2001: Lawyers for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted file an appeal to have Truscott’s case reopened.

2004: The Ontario Court of Appeal reviews Steven Truscott’s conviction.
2006 April 6: The body of Lynne Harper was exhumed by order of the Attorney General of Ontario, in order to test for DNA evidence. There was hope that this would bring some closure to the case, but no usable DNA was recovered from the remains.

2008 July 7: The government of Ontario awarded Steven Truscott C$6.5 million in compensation. Truscott is calling the Ontario government’s C$6.5 million compensation package for his murder conviction “bittersweet.” He says money will never truly pay back the years of his life lost while in prison. It also includes C$100,000 for his wife.

SUPPOSITIONS (supported by facts and logic)

Jocelyne Goddette was supposed to meet Steven Truscott (in the same bush where Lynne Harper was found) for a secret date. She, Lynne and Steven were all in the same classroom, Grades 7 & 8, at A.V.M. Hugh Campbell School on the Air Force Base in Clinton. Jocelyne Goddette’s story was that Steven Truscott had arranged to meet her at Lawson’s wood at 6 p.m. to show her a new calf. He told her to keep the meeting quiet because Mr. Lawson did not like people trespassing on his property. She says that he called at her house about 5.50 p.m. and she told him that she could not come out now because of house duties and that she would meet him later if possible.

Lynne Harper and Steven Truscott were in the same classroom but were not close friends. Another classmate, Lorraine Wood, testified that at her birthday party on the previous Friday, June 5, Lynne asked Steven to dance and they did for a short time.

On the day of her disappearance, at about 6.35 p.m., Lynne Harper went to the school where she assisted a Mrs. Nickerson, who was conducting a meeting of Junior Girl Guides. Mrs. Nickerson confirms the time of her arrival. Mrs. Nickerson said that Steven came along shortly before 7 p.m., stopped nearby and sat on his bike. Lynne went over to him and sat on his front wheel. They were talking. After a few minutes, Mrs. Nickerson saw them leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Mrs. Nickerson puts the time between 7.00 and 7.10 p.m.

Truscott’s story is that Lynne wanted to go to a place where there were a few ponies. He told the police that Lynn rode on his crossbar to the highway where he dropped her off, all alone, and headed back home on his bike. He stopped once at the bridge to look back towards the highway to see if she’d found a ride. He saw Lynne get in and the car speed away. He estimated this to be near 7:45 p.m.

Steven Truscott was the last person to see Lynne that evening before she disappeared.

The bridge is 1,300 feet from the highway intersection. He said he saw a gray 1957 or 1959 Bel Air Chevrolet with yellow license plates stop, and he watched Lynne get into the car and saw it drive away, down the highway. Later, with police and his family watching, Steven could not identify license plates from that distance.

The pony farm was only about 500 yards east of where Steven left Lynne. According to Steven she was still at the intersection when he had returned to the bridge 1,300 feet to the south. From there he saw her getting into a car. If what Steven says is true, then whoever picked her up or some other person would have had to bring her back to Lawson’s bush, either dead or alive, unnoticed by anyone. If dead, he would have had to place her body in the bush and create the appearance that she had been murdered at that spot.

And all the while, her stomach contents are in the early phases of digestion. It is a process that is as natural today as it was then. The time of death of Lynne Harper was established as roughly 7:30 – 8:30 based upon the digestion of stomach contents. Lynne’s parents said she ate at 5:30 and the coroner estimated that it could be 15 minutes to either side.

Now let’s take Truscott’s story as true. If true, a random violent pedophile happened to be driving along the country road after Steven dropped Lynne off. If this pedophile drove on down the road and then decided to rape and kill her, why not just dump the body miles away from where he may have been seen when giving her a lift. Instead the pedophile turns the car around, drives back to where she was picked up, parks his car along the road, walks back towards the school along the pathway which goes near Lawson’s Bush where he decides to rape and strangle her and neatly lays out her shoes, socks, and shorts. By now it is very dark and a stranger would have a difficult time in those woods. (Coincidently, this is the same wooded area that five kids saw Truscott earlier, some of them further saying that Steven was there with Lynne.)

A convertible was reported seen near Lawson’s bush about 10 p.m. the night of Lynne’s disappearance. A man and maybe a girl were inside. It was very dark. Is it possible that the man who picked her up earlier and drove away from the area had now brought her back so that the blame for her murder would be put on someone else? But how would he know what went on earlier that day, who was last seen with her, or who would be searching for her now? This scenario, like any other involving a stranger, does not follow a logical path.

JUNE: (dates are accurate, times are approximate)
7 Sunday – Jocelyne says Steven wanted to meet her at Lawson’s bush on Monday to show her a new calf. She says she told Steve not Monday but maybe she could on Tuesday. They arranged to meet at Lawson’s wood at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Truscott says this never happened.

June 9 Tuesday
5:50 p.m. – Jocelyne says that Steven called at her house and she told him that she could not come out now because of domestic duties and that she would meet him later if possible. Truscott says he did not contact Jocelyne that evening.
7:00 -7:10 p.m. – At the school, Mrs. Nickerson saw Steve and Lynne leave together in a northerly direction around the west side of the school with Steven pushing his bike and Lynne walking alongside. Steven says the time is incorrect.
7:15 – Not one person has reported seeing Steve or Lynne at County Road & Highway 8 around this time. Not even the boy who rode by that intersection on his way home at 7:15 p.m.
7:15 – 7:25 p.m. – Jocelyne is looking for Steven near Lawson’s bush.
7:25 – 7:30 p.m. – Farmer Lawson said Jocelyne was at his barn and she told him she had been looking for Steven Truscott and was going back to look for him again, which she did a few minutes later.

June 9 Tuesday
Jocelyne was at Lawson’s bush looking for Steven (this was around the same time Steven says he was on his bike with Lynne). Also Philip Burns was looking for Steve. Shortly thereafter Butch George joined in the search for Steven. When Butch says Steven took Lynne into Lawson’s Bush they both began calling for Steven and Lynne. They failed to find any sign of either Steven or Lynne.
8:10 p.m. – When Steve Truscott returned to the school a classmate asked him, “What did you do with Harper, feed her to the fish?” and he says that he replied that I had taken her and let her off at Highway No. 8.
Tuesday Evening: Butch George first tells his “in the bush” story to Kenny Geiger and Allan Durnin and then later that evening to a group of boys at The Custard Cup.
11:20 that evening, Lynne’s father reported her missing. She was last seen with Steven Truscott.

June 10 Wednesday morning – Tom Gillette said Trescott told him that he was in Lawson’s bush on Tuesday evening looking for a calf. Truscott denies this happened.
Wednesday noon – George Archibald hears Truscott say that he was in Lawson’s bush. Wednesday evening – Bryan Glover also hears Truscott say that he was in Lawson’s bush on the day Lynne disappeared. Truscott says he never said such things.
Wednesday evening – Mike George, a teenage relative of Butch George, tells Joyce Harrington, one of the mothers on the base, that Lynne Harper has been raped. Joyce Harrington reports this to the Clinton police who record the tip in a brief police note.

June 11 Thursday afternoon – searchers discover Lynne’s partially nude body in a nearby farm woodlot known as Lawson’s Bush. She had been strangled by someone winding her sleeveless blouse tightly around her neck and securing it with a knot.

June 12, Friday – shortly after 7:00 p.m., Truscott was taken into custody.
June 13, Saturday – at about 2:30 a.m. Steve Truscott was charged with first degree murder under the provisions of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

So, even before Lynn’s body was found several schoolmates stated that Steven had gone into Lawson’s Bush the evening she was murdered. Two of them state that Truscott admitted to being with Harper in the area of the crime. If every kid is a horrible liar, each directly or indirectly has made up a story putting Truscott near where Harper’s body is coincidently found. Steven Truscott maintains that nearly every person who saw him or said they had a conversation with him was either lying or mistaken. (Many children on the air force base were intimidated by athletic Steven’s physical strength.)

Trescott has always maintained that he was with Lynne, but claims they split up and he saw her getting into a car after he rode away. It should be noted here that not one person has reported seeing Steve or Lynne at County Road & Highway 8. Not even the boy who rode by that intersection on his way home at 7:15 p.m.

This may be what the original jury was thinking when they found Steven Truscott guilty of Lynne Harper’s murder: Steve Truscott did not take Lynne to Highway 8. Instead they left the County Road before reaching the bridge over the Bayfield River. That is what most witnesses have maintained all along. Steve and Lynne walked to a wooded area beside the county road, known as Lawson’s Bush, where they did what many young boys and girls do in the woods and bushes. Lynne may have taken off her shoes, socks and blue shorts and laid them out neatly as they later would be found. She may have teased too much and gone too far; then tried to get Steve to stop. Now Truscott was too passionate and in no mood to stop. She may have said she would tell on him for trying to rape her. This and his frustration about his penetration may have caused him to strangle her, which he did so with her blouse.

If it were not for the murder, the incident would mean no more than this: that Steven had a tentative date arranged with Jocelyne Goddette. He wanted a date with a girl that night and he took Lynne Harper when Jocelyne was not available.

Young Steven was a calm, tough kid. Today Mr. Steven Truscott is a cool, gutsy guy. There may be those who think this 14 years old boy could not have killed his 12 year old classmate and still be calm and collected about it. Then consider this: Anyone who can convince authorities and the public to reduce his sentence from hanging until dead to ten years and freedom, and then rally tax-payers to give him C$6.5 million dollars for a crime he committed and found guilty is capable of raping and killing a little 12 year old girl. O Canada has been duped, hoodwinked, and swindled by a smart, gutsy guy.

What kind of person can act normally within hours after killing someone—a person who can kill one hour and party normally with friends the next? The answer is: A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse and who is unable to feel guilt for such acts. In one word a psychopath.

Mr. Steven Truscott missed his calling. He should have been a politician.

The original trial jury received more facts and relevant information about this case than any other people anywhere in Canada, then or now.

Steven Truscott has never denied killing Lynn Harper.

Lynn Harper’s sacrifice: The real victim in this case is the beautiful delightful12-year old girl in the Harper household. She lost her life but may have saved other innocent girls from losing their lives. Perhaps while in prison Truscott got himself together and learned to control his psychopathic tendencies. He probably never killed again and instead set his goal to convince himself and everyone else that he was not the killer. The gullible public did him one better—awarded him C$6.5 million dollars for his crime.
(Also, his wife got C$100,000 and the fed/province paid C$990,000 in legal aid bills.)

The Clue Master SDM

A FEW WORDS ABOUT TRUTH, CRITICAL THINKING AND THIS CRIME

It makes no sense that every kid and adult in this story is a liar except Steven Truscott.

It makes even less sense that the stranger who happened along within a few minutes after Steven left Lynne Harper all alone–was the one stranger who would happen to kill her.

It makes absolutely no sense that this stranger who just happened by also just happened to be a pedophile and who just happened to be in his raping, killing mood.

It makes absolutely no sense at all that this stranger pedophile would drive miles away and then turn-around and take poor Lynne back to the very area where people are looking for the missing girl and are eyeing every strange movement.

There he would defy all logic by parking his car near the road, walking her into the woods, laying out her clothes neatly, raping her, and strangling her—doing it all in the dark and in the very area where people are searching for her. This happens to be in the same area where Steven and Lynne were last seen together and where Lynne’s body will be found.

The difference between real crime and TV crime is that in real crimes we should think with our heads and not our hearts.

IF STEVEN TRUSCOTT’S STORY WERE TRUE:
Perhaps it was Truscott’s kind heart that caused him to give his young 12-year old girl friend a ride down the road. Unfortunately, this character of kindness was unable to wait a few minutes until the little girl hitched a ride. If he had been with Lynne when she got a ride the driver would have known that there would be a witness if anything happened to her. (Maybe Steven was in a hurry to meet up with his other girlfriend. It matters not because the real evidence shows that Trescott made up the hitch-hike story.)

Even if Truscott’s unbelievable story were true he still should be held partly responsible for Lynne’s death because he took her to a vulnerable spot and left her all alone. At the very least he should give the C$6.5 million to the Harper family and consider the ten years in prison as justice deserved.

This post is dedicated to Mr. Steven Truscott who very wisely said:

“I’m not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I’m not afraid of that. Why are they?”

P.S.
I would like to point out that the legal system that acquitted Steven Truscott in 2007 made their decision 48 years after the crime was committed. It appears that they were driven to their opinion by Truscott mania.

On the other hand, the legal system that unanimously found Truscott guilty in 1959 was based on reliable testimonies from real live witnesses who were actually involved in the incident. They were not under duress during their decision making process.

In 1960, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Steven Truscott’s appeal. Canada’s top judges ruled 8 – 1 against Truscott getting a new trial. The judges found Truscott’s testimony confused and vague. To be fair, Truscott did say that his lawyers (all highly qualified) did not properly prepare him for his testimony before the Court of Appeal. (How much time and effort does it take to prepare yourself to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?)
In not finding Truscott innocent one court of appeal wrote as follows: “. . . certain immutable facts cast some suspicion on Mr. Truscott. He was the last known person to see the victim alive and was with her at a location very close to where she was murdered.”

Consider the evidence, dear reader, with an open mind. Picture objectively the only two routes that can be considered. Either Truscott rode Lynne to the highway intersection and left her there alone to an unknown fate or he took her into Lawson’s bush to look for a calf, or whatever. This would be the same Lawson’s bush where Lynne’s body will be found two days later.

Then consider what the only jury of his peers actually saw and heard from the witnesses directly involved in this incident; the same jury that in 1959 unanimously found Truscott guilty of murder. Among the overwhelming evidence presented was that his own friends and classmates were teasing him about being in Lawson’s bush with Lynne and what may have happened to her. These conversations took place in the days BEFORE Lynne’s body was found.

Consider every piece of evidence objectively. Especially, do consider that Truscott did see Lynne get into a car and speed off down the highway. Consider the different scenarios and all of the possible psychopaths and pedophiles who could have picked her up within the few minutes of being left alone by Steven. Consider every possibility no matter how unlikely it may be. Then objectively see if it fits into the overall picture of this crime.

To the minds of many inquisitive Canadians the rendition of events makes Steven Truscott’s innocence highly unlikely. It appears that Truscott’s reduced prison sentence and campaign for innocence were driven mostly by tainted media advocacy.

The facts of this case implicating Steven Truscott go well beyond preponderance of the evidence, they comprise a moral certainty.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I like to search for the truth in real crimes. I first heard about the Truscott – Harper crime in late August, 2010 when it was shown on Discovery ID. The show was interesting but I had a problem with the outcome. As crimes go, this was a simple crime and easy to see who was guilty.

I did not know that so many people had such passionate feelings about this incident until my article was posted. Everyone is right: a wrong was done in this case. By objectively looking at the logical evidence it is clear that the wrong was done to the victim and her family.

Like everyone, I hate to see the innocent go to prison and I do not like to see the guilty free to kill again. But even more, I hate to see a killer get well paid for his crime.

To date I have written three books and posted this one Article, all on controversial crimes:

120 Clues That Show Who Killed JonBenet (Ramsey)
The O.J. Simpson Murders (40 Clues That Show Who Killed Ron Goldman & Nicole Simpson
Oswald, Conspirators and JFK (The Assassination of President John F Kennedy)

This post is dedicated to Mr. Steven Truscott who very wisely said:

“I’m not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I’m not afraid of that. Why are they?”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I like to search for the truth in real crimes. I first heard about the Truscott – Harper crime in late August, 2010 when it was shown on Discovery ID. The show was interesting but I had a problem with the outcome. As crimes go, this was a simple crime and easy to see who was guilty.

I did not know that so many people had such passionate feelings about this incident until my article was posted. Everyone is right: a wrong was done in this case. I try to show that it was done to the victim and her family.

Like everyone, I hate to see the innocent go to prison and I do not like to see the guilty free to kill again. But even more, I hate to see a killer get well paid for his crime.

To date I have written three books and posted this one Article, all on controversial crimes:

120 Clues That Show Who Killed JonBenet (Ramsey)
The O.J. Simpson Murders (40 Clues That Show Who Killed Ron Goldman & Nicole Simpson
Oswald, Conspirators and JFK (The Assassination of President John F Kennedy)

This post is dedicated to Mr. Steven Truscott who very wisely said:

“I’m not asking for the world. Go over all the information. Investigate. Let the people know all the evidence, and let them judge for themselves. I’m not afraid of that. Why are they?”

The Clue Master SDM

TRUE STORY?

IF STEVEN TRUSCOTT’S STORY WERE TRUE:
Perhaps it was Truscott’s kind heart that caused him to give his young 12-year old girl friend a ride down the road. Unfortunately, this character of kindness was unable to wait a few minutes until the little girl hitched a ride. If he had been with Lynne when she got a ride the driver would have known that there would be a witness if anything happened to her. (Maybe Steven was in a hurry to meet up with his other girlfriend. It matters not because the real evidence shows that Trescott made up the hitch-hike story.)

Even if Truscott’s unbelievable story were true he still should be held partly responsible for Lynne’s death because he took her to a vulnerable spot and left her all alone. At the very least he should give the C$6.5 million to the Harper family and consider the ten years in prison as justice deserved.

The Clue Master SDM