Doc Discussion - Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey

This week, Heather & Scott discuss the hottest new True Crime doc: Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey, which reexamines the haunting 1996 murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey. The three-part docuseries delves into the botched investigation, media frenzy, and legal missteps that overshadowed the case.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Welcome back to status pending. Scott Fuller and Heather Wrights
back with you with a different kind of an episode
this week. As you can tell from the title. We'll
get to that in a minute. Heather, how are you.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. Thanksgivings over? Ye, finally finished
the Leftovers?

Speaker 1 (00:44):
How is that?

Speaker 2 (00:44):
Azures? It's okay. It's not as exciting as it used
to be. I don't know what it is.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
You mean, like when you were a kid, well, just.

Speaker 2 (00:51):
Like even early adult, like because now it's like like
I still like preparing the meal, but then once it's
time to eat, I'm like, I don't want to do it,
like I'm tired. Why oh, I'm just tired.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
The whole point, I know.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
But it was nice. We had a nice Thanksgiving here.
It was just me, Jason and Courtney, and honestly it
was great. It was quiet, we ate our food, we
watched a couple of crazy movies, and you know, drank
a little. It was nice, so relaxing.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
It's that's what it's supposed to be. I think it was.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
That part of it was really nice. It was like
the days that followed, I'm like, oh, leftovers again. Well,
how much people. Apparently too much because I got a
little carried away and I was like, I don't know,
I'm used to making food for a lot of people.
For this, I didn't really size it down.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
I guess I can sympathize with that. I get that
it's just fun to do.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
To make it was fun. Yeah, that's going to eat
this now?

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Well good. I had a lovely Thanksgiving by myself with
my dog, and as we talked about last week, this
way I prefer it, and we did. I did go
for the crab cakes and some steak. I didn't make
any get lamb though, No, no, I didn't do lamb.
It's a little harder. You can buy lamb here, but
it's kind of harder to find than beef. It's beef country, yeah,
and it's good stuff. That's fair, good local Wyoming steaks.

(02:12):
So yeah, it was fine. Just relaxed and relaxed and
watched football and didn't do a whole lot. I did
a lot of chores while my family was out of town.

Speaker 2 (02:21):
You know what I did too. And the one day
that I didn't do a lot of chores was Friday,
I think until about four pm. Like I woke up
and then I just hung around the house until like
four pm. And then we went and did some shopping
and I did some decorating over the weekend and it
was nice.

Speaker 1 (02:38):
Sure Christmas this year because it's later than usual, right
the Thanksgiving? Isn't it? Make that up?

Speaker 2 (02:45):
I think you're just lying again and people don't like
caring that.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
I think it's either. I think it's the latest possible Thanksgiving.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
Oh yes, yes, I see what you're saying. Yes, I
think so.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
It's Christmas time now. It's officially here. Speaking of which,
the whole world's talking about this new Netflix documentary about
John Benny Ramsey. It's getting a lot of traction, especially
in our true crime community. And we're going to kind
of add add lib our way through the dock more
so the case, but the dock is as well. All Right,

(03:16):
we'll dive right into that, and that's coming up next,
all right. Heather right away said she was annoyed by
this documentary and I'm curious as to why John Benny.
I'm not sure of the title. I can't remember, but
you know what, everyone knows what we're talking about. It's
the new job ye doc on Netflix.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
I think the biggest part that annoyed me. I don't
know why I got my hopes up, but I got
my hopes up that there was going to be something
different or more intriguing. And every time I thought that
it was like something new that I hadn't heard before,
it would like slot me in the face and be like, Nah,
just kidding this, this is something you've heard about before.
Give me an extip, and I'm like, you can remember
the teacher. I didn't realize that they were talking about

(03:57):
car for a while, and maybe I missed it when
they first introduced him into the episode, but I was like,
holy shit, who's this guy?

Speaker 1 (04:04):
Wait?

Speaker 2 (04:04):
This sounds familiar. And then when they said his name,
I'm like, but no, they proved he didn't do it,
but I don't know. That part annoyed me, and then
we can tell Okay, so yeah, let's talk about it.
Because the part that I felt like they proved, quote
unquote was the fact that they didn't have any DNA evidence.
But they kind of go down a little rabbit hole

(04:24):
with that too, So you're basically saying that case yeah,
and I was really I was hopeful. Yeah, I think
that's why I'm annoyed. I don't know why I was
so hopeful.

Speaker 1 (04:34):
I think that's probably fair. I can't think of any
like bombshell new evidence that these specials liked to try
to do. But I think the whole point of the
show was this is the family documentary, this is the
family side perspective, which hadn't been done before. I thought
they did a pretty good job of, you know, generally

(04:54):
the case. There is no new information, really, there's some
small details that's interesting to be filled in on. I
thought they did a really good job of demonstrating and
explaining some of the harder aspects of the case, like
the layout of the house as an example.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Yeah, I'll agree with that. That really got me. I
actually watched episode one twice because I was really intrigued
by the layout and how they described the different floors
and where everybody slept, because that's something that I wasn't
really for sure on, Like I didn't realize it was
technically four floors and in.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
What six thousand square feet?

Speaker 2 (05:29):
Yeah, dude, it doesn't look like yeah.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Yeah, so it's a tourist trap that house obviously. Yeah,
everyone that sees it will tell me it's it's way
too small. I thought it was a mansion.

Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, it's kind of it is it is, It's just
a mansion upward.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
Yeah, exactly. So this is a case that I grew
up with. I grew up I was born in Boulder,
and I spent a lot of my childhood in Boulder
and never lived too far away from there until I
was an adult. So this case was everywhere I meant
to words they tried to in the documentary. But it's

(06:04):
surreal remembering like this was wall to wall. It would
be on the radio like all day call ins like
who do you think did it? Like I think it
was John or Patsy or Burke. This was like when
it happened, And obviously it took a lot of strange
twists and turns since then. Obviously it hasn't been solved
since And yeah, so this I'm iffy about this case

(06:27):
because it's it's it feels different than the other cases
we've covered.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
To me, yeah, and I want to kind of stop
right there just for a second, just you know me,
I have to interject whenever I have a thought, So sorry,
but free I did appreciate the fact that they really
did kind of highlight you know, obviously this was in
the mid nineties, So they really highlighted the fact that
because she was you know, a freaking oh my god,

(06:55):
why can't I think of the name a beauty queen, child,
beauty queen. So because she was in that life, there
were photos of her everywhere. So at the time, because
of that aspect of her life, of course, she was
plastered everywhere, not like most of the children who died
or went missing at the time. Yeah, there were some,
but she was everywhere. And it's because of the lifestyle

(07:17):
that she was in at the time. And I think
that that's one of the reasons that so many people,
even people who were young, young know everything about this case.
I remember going to the grocery stores, even Kmart when
that was around, and seeing it in the checkout line,
seeing magazine upon magazine, all the different kinds with her
face plastered on it. Like I remember those days, And

(07:39):
it makes sense to me now, like why it was
so prevalent. It's hard to not just because she was
like famous, you know whatever.

Speaker 1 (07:46):
Right, Yeah, And then that's a good point. There were
a lot of footage and photos of her. It's also
got everything, it's got a ransom note, it's got a kidnapping.
Oh wait, no, it's a murder. She was found inside
the house a garrote being used as a murderway. So
it's it is that, it's that she's white, it's that
she's pretty, it's that she did these strange beauty pageants,

(08:06):
it's that there's so much media. But it's also you know,
the case is no slouch either. It's got it's weirder
than fiction.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
It is, and I I know we're probably gonna bounce
around a lot. I do want to hear a little
bit more about Boulder at the time, since you were
from around there and kind of your thoughts on that.
But one of the things that did stick out to
me in storytelling, I guess you can say from the
family's perspective, I don't remember ever knowing before that John

(08:34):
was the one who was like, hey, docs, just like
stop doing treatment on her. She's never gonna know. It's
too much on her. Yeah, yeah, like she just thought
that she was still fighting, and then for him to
make that decision. I guess people can have their thoughts
about it, but that like hit me in the gut.
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
I think she's pretty far gone from the sounds of things.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
I didn't know that she was, but she was like
still fighting. And then once he stopped the treatment, that's
when it like stir to you know, go into her
brain and like causing her to think differently and act differently,
which I understand, but I don't know. I don't know
why that got me so bad. I'm like, Okay, I
got to go home and make a will because like,
I don't want you deciding for me, Jason, Like that

(09:14):
was so sad.

Speaker 1 (09:15):
Well, anyone that's gone through it with especially an older,
older person or a late stage cancer patient, it's you know,
if you don't decide that in advance, Yeah, there's nothing
you can do. So exactly, Yeah, that situation, I don't know,
and we only have that one side of it. I
think I knew that she had cancer before I.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
Knew that and I knew it came back.

Speaker 1 (09:36):
Yeah, Bolder in the mid nineties. I mean this is
from a kid's recollection, So it's just I had no
context for probably you know, what it would be to
be an adult back there at that time. I loved Bolder.
I mean, it's beautiful, the weather's great. It's always been
a little bit crazy, you know, weird politically and culturally.

(09:56):
It's a lot worse now than it was. It's always
been a little bit of a strange place that way,
but the mountains make up for it. You got the
college campus there. I would run like in the Boulder
Boulder every year, which is a ten k that you know,
winds around the town and then ends up at folsom Field.
After my parents got divorced, I would spend half my
time in Boulder. I liked it. It was a great town.

(10:19):
There was a time when I wanted to live there.
I couldn't do that now. I couldn't even afford to
do that. Now. It's kind of a crazy place. But
the crime that they mentioned like that was the first
murder with only a couple of days remaining in that year. Yeah,
and in Boulders it's always been kind of like that.
I'm sure with more people there now that stats a
little bit higher. Relatively calm, peaceful, you know, easy going place,

(10:42):
which is when a whole town is stoned twenty four
to seven, that ends to happen. There's no incentive. No,
it's really a safe place. It always has been, and
it's it's great, beautiful, especially if you're into that outdoor
lifestyle and like jogging and hiking and running and all
that stuff. So I don't have a whole lot of it,
you know, socio economic, political recollections of it, just because

(11:05):
I was like eight years old. But yeah, Boulders great, quiet,
nice and and simple because of the way.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
So you were eight when this happened, or you were
eight when you lived there?

Speaker 1 (11:13):
Oh when was this ninety seven sixty six, so I
would have been I would have been twelve, so I
was a little bit older than I was older than John.
And what's wild though, there's in the doc there's a picture,
a family photo of Burke and John and a posing
in front of a lobster. Do you remember that I
have that same picture of me and my sister. Yeah,

(11:34):
that's Shaw's Share in New Harbor, Maine is where they were,
and I have that. I probably have that picture of
me and my wife actually, because those cutouts are still there.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
That was kind of wild. Yeah, that made it more
real because here's this, you know, a pair of siblings
and we have the exact same photo with me and
my sister.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
Okay, that's a little creepy though.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
But yeah, I mean it's a popular Yeah.

Speaker 2 (12:00):
Yeah, So when you were twelve then, do you remember,
like did your family say anything, do you like, oh,
we got to lock the doors, be careful here, don't
talk to did they like kind of react to us
at all?

Speaker 1 (12:13):
Remember they remember it an intense fascination but from everybody.
Part of what the Internet has done for us is
divide our attention spans where you can you can isolate
yourself from things like if you don't want to consume something,
you're going to encounter it, but you can swipe up
and move away. It wasn't like that, as you know.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
Back then it was oh say it like that, like
I'm old too?

Speaker 1 (12:37):
How old were you? Never I'm not going to ask
how old you. I know how old you are, but
I'm not going to make you say, oh, you're fine,
twenty four?

Speaker 2 (12:42):
I know, wow, okay, yes, that's that's my age.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
But it was everywhere, especially in Colorado. I didn't have
a sense at that time how big a national story
it was, but I did know it was everywhere all
the time, for months in Bolder. So I think the
best thing to do is to take this piece by
piece and just we can jump around, like you said,
but just take an aspect and okay, share your thoughts
on it. Is there any one thing from the whole

(13:09):
case that really stands out to you the most to
start with.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
To start with, just something that just keeps coming back
to my mind. But I feel like you and I
have talked off Mike about this so we can elaborate
a little. But just the fact that the crime scene
was treated so poorly, and you know that may have
something to do with the fact that they didn't deal
with homicides all that often, and in fact, that was
the first one that year. But my hang up with

(13:33):
it is there's still detectives involved, there are still police
officers involved that have a set of standards and processes
that they must follow, and it just seemed to me
so careless the way the crime scene was handled, how
they allowed I get when it's set in the dock
or whatever. I get the fact that they were like, oh, well,
they had this support system, and we just wanted them

(13:55):
to have that support system. I get that, But they
can have the support system outside or added diferent place
because this is a crime scene and we still don't
know what happened to this child. Also, my second hang
up That's always been a hang up for me is
how the fuck did they search the entire house, but
yet the one place that she was found apparently wasn't searched. Like,
I don't care if it's the basement that nobody ever

(14:18):
goes into, you go in there when there's a crime.
You have to check everywhere. So I'm still pissed off
about that.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, it's that's kind of wild. I told you I
know someone who's there that day. I'm going to say who.
They were, not a detective, but they were there because
they were very new, bolder PD and they drew the
short straw of the Christmas shift. Yeah, I've never talked
to them about that, and probably never will it just
you know, it's not a polite thing to bring them,
so I mean talking about I would sham Benet, but.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
I literally would. Though. I'm just so intrigued as to
how something like that happens, and I would like to know, like, hey,
A through Z what happened, Like you can easily figure
out how it got messed up, even if it wasn't
just on you, you know what I mean, Like, it's
just curiosity.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Well, everybody always focuses on when John found the body,
and that is where it went sideways evidentiarily, which is true.
He picked her up and yeah, ripped the duct tape
off and all that.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
But at the same time, if you're a dad and
you just found your kid and you assume they're dead,
but you're also trying to help them, you're gonna instinctively
pick up your child and run upstairs. I don't care
who you are, whether you know about crime scenes or not. Yes, right,
I would feel like I would.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
Yeah, I think that's fair. Yeah, that's more than fair.
But he that's the point is he's not the one
that's supposed to find John by the cops are supposed
to find her. Obviously a big deal that she's lying
in kind of a hidden area behind the door in
the basement that was never you know that they didn't
open the door, is what happened, Nor is there any
indication that the rest of the house was processed like

(15:51):
at any time. Probably my favorite theory is that someone
broke in. It's either someone who'd been in the house
before or had been in that house for a long time.
John says on the documentary he thought someone had broken
in and stayed for hours while they were at a
Christmas party, yes, which is by the way, my my,
hang up. You know, in terms of freakiness, someone hiding

(16:15):
in your house somewhere and you.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Not knowing what happened.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
Oh, it happens all the time. Not all the time,
but yeah, it's definitely happened before. But it freaks me
the hell out if this person is in the house
for hours. And I'm not sure how well planned it
was to prevent evidence, because the guy doesn't bring a weapon,
the guy doesn't bring a rant, a notepad for the
ransom note. So I don't think this was supposed to
be a murder, to be honest with you, because there's

(16:40):
no planning. And if you don't process the whole scene,
for obviously you'll find a lot of DNA fingerprints from
the whole family, So it's not going to help you.
It's yeah, and the friends and anyone who's been in
the house. But this person either would be you know,
known to John Bane and her family or I mean,
you do the processing of the whole scene, because if
you find evidence of someone who has no excuse to

(17:01):
be there there, you go right and there's no indication
that that was done. They may have, but I've never
heard anyone say that the whole house was processed after
the body was found.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
Even so, tell me if I'm wrong on this person,
because I kept getting confused on a couple of the
suspects in the documentary. But the photographer at the time.
Is he the one who said that he entered the
house at five pm and stayed in there and the
family got home at ten? Was or was that John
mark Ka? Okay, that's what I thought.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Photographer denied everything. I think, yeah, Carson that, I'm sure
other people confessed, but he has a really detailed confession.
The problem is so much of it was in the
media that it was easily accessible. I don't think he
ever gave that I can remember any guilty knowledge, information
that only the killer would know.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
Well, isn't he the one who said that he hit
her over the head with the flashlight and that's how
she died?

Speaker 1 (17:53):
Is he the one his confession was?

Speaker 2 (17:56):
Was?

Speaker 1 (17:56):
I don't think. I don't know if he ever accounted
for the head injury.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
Because that's that's where I was like, oh shit, because
originally people didn't know that she died of a head injury,
but there was like a huge crack in her skull.

Speaker 1 (18:09):
I'm curious how there's no blood me too, the head injury,
like whatever in the house it happened. There is some
blood in her underwear, but that's it that they talk about.
Whatever the object was caved her skull in right, there's
no laceration on the head that's going to bleed.

Speaker 2 (18:23):
I know, it doesn't make any sense. Do you think
that she was killed elsewhere and brought back in through
that window?

Speaker 1 (18:30):
No, no, I don't. It's possible.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
No, I don't, No, I don't it's possible.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
I mean, it's possible, but I think it's I think
it's that someone broke in, waited, planned a sexual the
soul to some kind, having gotten the lay out of
the house, probably had an idea where they wanted to
do the first part. Something got out of hand, like
maybe she got close to escaping and that's where the
blow over the head happened, and then she was just
disposed to basically in the basement. I don't think there

(18:58):
was anybody inside the family in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
Okay, I was just about to ask that, and I
again with the scene processing, like if somebody leaves a
ransom note and says that they have your daughter. Wouldn't
you think that the police would check all the perimeter
of the house, all the entry points, including windows to
the basement like that. Stuff just drives me crazy about
this case. I don't understand.

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Yeah, that's wild. It's like they weren't assuming that the
family was involved until the body was found, and then
they decided the whole thing had been a setup and
a ruse. So no, they should have gotten them out
of the house regard. They should have found her on
the search, and then it will be obvious to get
everybody out of the house because it's a crime scene
and then process the whole house and might have been
enough to solve the case. Probably would have been enough

(19:39):
to solve the case. DNA was kind of early on then,
but it was definitely a thing. But collection of DNA
at a scene is not something Boulder PD probably had
ever Ton, and not something that a lot of agencies
had to do at the time, like a lot of
are cases. In the cases that I've looked into from
the nineties. I love that time period. But the most
frustrating thing is lack of evidence because they're not used

(20:01):
to looking for DNA to the extent that they are now. Obviously,
what about the garats, the weapon, which is probably the
biggest reason I think the family is not involved.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
The way they described it in this documentary, with like
how it was basically embedded in her neck and the
dad didn't even realize that that's what it was at first, Like,
that's like super scary and that's some rage that's beyond rage.
I don't understand this. She was six, Like, how can
you have so much rage against him?

Speaker 1 (20:30):
If it was rage or that's part of the motive,
that's part of the fantasy.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
Oh god. Well, the way that one guy freaking described
it like must have.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
Been a card talking about it when he's trying to.

Speaker 2 (20:42):
Have that was so disgusting.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
But I thought that was accurate, not that he had
done it, but I thought the mindset, you know, you're
getting a free view inside the mindset of these people.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
It's so disgusting. I don't know. That was really hard
to listen to.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Yeah, it's really hard to process. Yeah, it's really hard
to accept that as you're walking around a certain percentage
of people that you encounter are going to be like that.
It's disturbing and they're not you know, they don't look
like you think they would look like, right right.

Speaker 2 (21:09):
Some of them are listening to our show right now,
which is really disturbing. I know, we know you're there,
you fuckers. Stop it.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
Stop doing what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
Stop doing what you're doing. You're sick.

Speaker 1 (21:18):
I think. I think I'm not a psychologist, so I
shouldn't say anything. But I think that there's an element
of enjoyment to it, in a gratifying sense. But I
also think it's probably a compulsion because it's inconvenient. It's
extremely inconvenient to be that kind of a person in society, right,
So I'm not sure. I think they.

Speaker 2 (21:35):
Well know the inconvenience.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
What I mean is, I think it may not be
a choice. They might have some control over it to
varying degrees, but it's I try to imagine. I try
to imagine my own predilections and impose them on people
like that who I don't understand. Try to understand what
they're thinking. Does that make sense?

Speaker 2 (21:55):
It does, but it's still it's broken.

Speaker 1 (21:58):
Yeah, yeah, can scary and all the bad things, but
the garat You know, there was that CBS documentary that
the Ramses end up suing over where they say Burke
got mad because of some ice cream or something.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
No, the pineapple, because she came down to eat some
of us pineapple.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
By the way, that is not mentioned. There is pineapple
found in her stomach.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
I know that was not I'm glad you brought that up.
It was not mentioned, And that was one of the
things that kind of irked me because I was like,
are we not going to talk about what she actually
had in her stomach because that really does help determine
the time of death.

Speaker 1 (22:31):
Yeah, but the pineapple isn't accounted for as far as
I know by the family, Like I think Burke is
supposed to have had some, but not John Beney. That
was interesting. I thought they glossed over that when they
went into detail in some other areas. Just imagine the
theory that CBS put forward, which was something happens, whether
it's a toileting issue or a sibling fight or something.

(22:53):
And this CBS theory that they got sued for defamation
over and successfully they settled for a ton of money,
is that Burke hit his sister over the head, and
in cover up mode, one or both of the parents
fake the sexual assault or not faked it. They didn't
fake it. They actually did it with a paint brush
and then fashioned a garrot from the paint brushes. With

(23:15):
this really complicated knot at either end, you can't convince
me that either John or Patsy Ramsey had ever heard
of a garrot in their lives and then strangled them
to cover up what Burke had done. And if that's
the best you can do to link all these events
to make it seem like the family did it, I
think that's the most far fetched theory I've ever heard

(23:37):
in a murder case. I guess everything's possible, but that's wild, Like,
that's not if that first sequence of events had started
to happen, it would not have ended up the way
it did end up if the family.

Speaker 2 (23:49):
Were involved, right have you? I'm assuming you have, But
have you seen photos of that garrot and how her
hair is entangled in.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
They showed it right, Oh, I missed it.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
But I've seen photos of it, and I just pulled
it up again just to make sure what I was
thinking was right. But yeah, that's just insane to me.
I don't think that the parents would have been able
to do that honestly, like or how like you said
they would have had the knowledge or experience to do
something like that. But did they even say where that
came from? Was that from the house too?

Speaker 1 (24:18):
It was her. It's all from the house, with the
exception of one rope that was found upstairs. Okay, that
appears to be the only thing that this guy brought.
But the garrote was fashioned from some rope I think
that was found downstairs, I believe, and paint brushes that
were Patsy's. And it's a complicated knot, and it's not
a murder weapon. It's a as they talk about, it's
a device to take consciousness from someone and then you

(24:41):
can let them regain consciousness. So it's a very inefficient
murder weapon. So it's the last one that you would
pick if you're trying to frame somebody, and it's yeah,
you know, the sequence of events would be nice to
know because we don't know if the garotting was after
but I or maybe before, you know, I don't know
that they were able to determine a constant death. Was
it the head injury?

Speaker 2 (24:59):
Well they said that the autopsy said both it was
that and the head injury. They happened so close, Yeah,
they happened so close in time that they couldn't tell
which one actually caused it. If we're going with the
theory that you were talking about where it's like a
fantasy situation, I feel like the garage was used first,
they were living out their fantasy and then they panicked

(25:19):
for whatever reason and then killed her by the blow
to the head and got out of there. But again,
how was she not found before the dad went down there?
If that was the case?

Speaker 1 (25:30):
Yeah, And I was wondering to myself if it's impossible,
So it's dumb to wonder. But if you get that note,
isn't your first reaction to search the house yourself like that?

Speaker 2 (25:38):
Well, you would think, but again people are gonna be like,
you can't judge it if you make a situation, which fair,
very fair, but looking back on it, like, yeah, I
would hope that that would be one of my first instincts.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
Pretty evident example of tunnel vision. If we're right about
all this. With the detective who's on scene that tells
tells John Ramsey it just go search the house. I
don't under stand that at all, because if he finds anything,
you have to maintain chain of custody for a prosecution.
So I don't know what that's about. But she's convinced,
you know, right away and persistently that he's the one

(26:11):
that did this. And she doesn't give a great explanation
for why, except for this feeling that she I.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
Was gonna bring that up to you because I remembered
that she was the one who said that, and then
just watching her face in these interview clips, I was
just like, dude, she honed in on him immediately, and
just some of the things that she was saying, like
I get to an extent, like yes, everybody has a
gut feeling, but like she wasn't really elaborating on why.
And then just the fact the part about the male situation,

(26:39):
like she got irritated or weirded out that he was
going through his mail, Like I can totally see his
justification for that, Like, Okay, they left a note with
our paper in our house. What if there's something that
was already mail to us that we missed? Lummy check, Like,
let me check anything I can while we're playing this
fucking waiting game. I can totally see that.

Speaker 1 (26:58):
I can see where she's coming from when, according to her,
he makes a bee line for the basement and miraculously,
you know, cool finds her.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
That's the sketch part for me too, Like why do
you go there?

Speaker 1 (27:08):
Especially?

Speaker 2 (27:09):
It's like that's the first place you should go when
you're searching.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
Is it that the basement? And we're imagining, like, you know,
go search the house. So he grabs a friend and
they start running down the hall and into exactly it
may well have been five minutes. It could have been
ten minutes that yeah goes by. So no, I again
do not believe family was involved.

Speaker 2 (27:27):
I am a person that likes lists, order things like that,
checking stuff off. So what if he's the type of
person that's the same. Okay, I need to start at
the bottom and work my way up, and that's just
where he happened to go first.

Speaker 1 (27:39):
Yeah, And it's sad, you know, assuming he's not involved.
It's the saddest thing in the world for her father
to find their young girl murdered. What about the note?
We could do a whole show on the note.

Speaker 2 (27:50):
Jesus, the note is just fucking fucky. Honestly, everything allowed.
It just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
I still don't understand it.

Speaker 2 (27:57):
It was just a bunch of gibberish. And then the
number is super fucking weird. And I know they mentioned
something I know in the case when we covered it before,
we talked about how he got a bonus or something
that was like right around that number. But it was
almost like in the documentary they were like, where did
this number come from? It's so random? Why didn't you
do two hundred thousand? But like, was that how much
his bonus was?

Speaker 1 (28:18):
I think it was something like that. It was close
to me.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
Okay, well, how did be somebody who knew him?

Speaker 1 (28:22):
They talk about everything with a note, They talk about
how it was too long.

Speaker 2 (28:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
The biggest thing for me is it was on the
fly decision. Unless you're just assuming there's going to be
a notepad that you can use to write a ransom note,
you're probably going to write that out beforehand to make
sure there's no evidence on it, make sure it's type written,
make sure you know if this is an actual kidnapping
for ransom, which it very ninety nine percent was not.
It's a weird Is it a distraction?

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Is it right?

Speaker 1 (28:48):
Is it to pass time while the family's away, which
is what I think and you're waiting kind of but why?
And my only theory would be that the plan was
to take her to kidnap her, not necessarily extract any money.
But you could do that anyway without writing the ransom note,
knowing that your plan is to bring her back relatively

(29:10):
unharmed or at least alive. The ransom note's just going
to it gives more opportunity for you to get caught,
maybe distracts the police. It did distract the police, apparently
at first, until the body was found. I just don't
understand it. It doesn't make any I can't think of
a case like it.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
I have a question too, because I feel like he
was talking about the business that he had started or whatever,
and I feel like with certain businesses you'll hear stuff
in the news about the success and how much money,
you know, the company's profiting, things like that. I just
wonder if maybe this person had no ties to this
family at all, because they did talk about a two

(29:45):
year old around that same time that somebody literally took
the screen out of the window, took the kid out,
all this other kind of stuff, right, So if this
was a stranger situation, and then he already knew just
by looking at the mail or the photo or whatever,
that he was part of a company that made such
and such amount of money. Maybe that's where he got
the number from and put it on the note. Maybe

(30:07):
he didn't know shit about them.

Speaker 1 (30:08):
He knew something, and it may only be in the
couple of hours he had around the house, right, Well.

Speaker 2 (30:13):
That's what I mean, Like, maybe he didn't know anything
about them before he entered the home and learned everything
while he was there and then decided to write this
ransom note like shit, I might get some money at it.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
Well, let me go back, because I can't think of
the case like it. But it's the Lindberg Baby where well, yeah,
it was a ransom note left the baby was accidentally killed,
and I'm not sure they ever did really solve that.
I think they, if I remember you think so prosecuted
the wrong guy or something. The link that they bring
up in I think episode two about how it had
happened before, not the murder, but a mom had found

(30:44):
a man in her daughter's bedroom preparing to sexually assault
her and he managed to escape. They never found him,
and then they figured out that the two girls, John
Binney and that girl had been connected through the same
damn or a dance studio to show the pageant show.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
Yeah, the pageant circuit thing. Yeah, I'm not.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Sure what you call that, like a troop or whatever
it's called. Yeah, but that's it. I mean, that's the guy,
and for my money, that's the guy that did it.
They ruled out John Mark Carr through because DNA doesn't match,
but then they do talk about the DNA being problematic,
it may not match anybody, and they do say then
you can't rule anybody out, which is also true. And

(31:27):
his confession is really obviously intense and detailed, and so
it's possible somebody like him is who did it. Whether
or not he's the one that did it, I'm not sure,
but he obviously spent a lot of time thinking about
this whole case through his own predilections, and gives you
a pretty good insight into the guy that actually did
do it, whether or not it was him, but that's
who I think did it. Whoever that guy was, they

(31:48):
never caught. According to John, the Boulder PD told him
couldn't have been that guy because that girl wasn't murdered. Well,
we know about escalation and exactly things happen whether or
not they're intended to in those situation. So I like
that guy whoever that guy was. I don't remember now
any of that growing up in Boulder, but.

Speaker 2 (32:07):
Well you were twelve.

Speaker 1 (32:08):
Yeah, kids aren't supposed to know about that stuff and be.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
Worried no scary stuff. Yeah, what about the guy? God,
I keep just getting all these people confused that they
were talking about. I feel like they just went on
and on. But like the guy who they kind of
looked at for a minute and then he moved to
Oregon and then he ended up getting arrested and sentenced
to like, however many years for child pornography and downloading

(32:31):
stuff on a Yeah, so lived outside. Do we think
that that is the guy like that? It could be possible.

Speaker 1 (32:39):
There's also the Santa. The guy that was hired is
the Santa.

Speaker 2 (32:42):
Yeah, I never really I never really bought into that one.
I kind of dismissed that one immediately.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
Yeah, I think it's it's a sex offender. I don't
necessarily think it's And there is a difference between looking
at child pornography and breaking into a girl's house and
doing something not. I mean, they're both very illegal and
should be, but those aren't the same things. I know
the latter will engage in the former, but the former
doesn't necessarily ever make that escalation to break into somebody's

(33:08):
house and live out the fantasy. So that kind of
segues into the whole child beauty pageant thing. Where are
we at on that?

Speaker 2 (33:16):
I don't know, I feel weird about that, Like just
like with like the Dance Moms stuff. I get letting
the kid do that if that's what they want to do,
but where they put on all the makeup and make
them do these I don't know. The outfits just get me.
I don't know. They're just too young for that in
my eyes. I didn't oh that now that you bring

(33:36):
that up where they were talking about it in the
documentary about her playing that saxophone and they were like, oh,
she's definitely got some sexual trauma because she was masturbating
for two minutes. No, she fucking wasn't. She was literally
playing a saxophone as a six year old.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
On the one hand, that's true, like they you will know.

Speaker 2 (33:54):
That aspect is true, But she was not doing that
on that.

Speaker 1 (33:57):
Stage, correct Because if you can see the video, if
you're miming playing a saxophone, that's like you're not really
playing the thing. It's a plastic you know, prople exactly.
So she's pretending it's part of her act, that she's
playing it, and that's what you know, you've seen saxophonists
do when they're on stage.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
Well, and for them to put that out there and
like put that in people's minds, I thought that was
really disgusting and disturbing. And then them to be like, oh,
the photos on John Ramsey's desk of his daughter, like
that's sexually predator, Like no, that's his fucking daughter. He's
proud of her, like she he's gonna put her photos
on his desk like fuck you? Like that shit pissed
me off.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
It did, Yeah, it's It was this therapist who is
on Peraldo, I think is where that came from. She
it was massively professionally irresponsible because she's taking a four
reel thing that you should be on the lookout for
with your kids at that young and totally twisting and
distorting it. And I don't think she did it on purpose.
I think she was just a bad therapist. I think
she was just bad at and science.

Speaker 2 (34:54):
Was she needs a new teacher and needs to go
back to school for it.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Then yes, it's well, I mean, and the behavioral sciences
have evolved since then. Even back then, you know, if
you see a child doing an obvious sexual act in
public or at all, that that is a good red
flag of something's happened. But this was not what was
going on.

Speaker 2 (35:14):
No, it's like she's showed the video like it's not she.

Speaker 1 (35:18):
Saw the beauty pageant and just didn't see anything else
like that freaked her out to the extent where she's,
you know, claiming sexual abuse just because of this video clip.
I think it's really I think the whole child beauty
pageant thing, I still think it is pretty sick. They
try to whitewash it a little bit in the Netflix documentary. Yeah,
but I think it's I think it's wrong. My daughter

(35:40):
had done dance, doesn't do it anymore, but it's not
quite as off the deep end. But the sexualization of
the outfits and everything. I get that it's a sport
and people like to do it, and kids don't see
it that way at all. But they talk about the
documentary too, not that this is something you should walk

(36:02):
around worrying about with your kids. But there are spectators
in the stands, in the seats at these performance shows
that nobody knows, you know.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
Exactly that don't appear to be reorded.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
To any of the girls. Yeah, I mean it's just
a weird public showcasing kids.

Speaker 2 (36:17):
I mean even with the dance groups. I mean, we
have a niece right now who's doing it, and she's
getting older and she's doing different dances that are like
some of them are hip hop, some are other things.
But it's like the music that even the music alone
that they're using, never mind the dance moves that are
just okay whatever, you shouldn't be doing that at that age.

(36:37):
But it's just and then they make them wear these
certain outfits on my outfit gets it's not okay, like
it's the it's the combination for me, like if it
was a different type of dance move or a different
song at that age, like a more age appropriate song
or dance. But then you add the outfit to and
it just takes it to a whole other level and

(36:57):
it's like you should not be sexualizing them there. I'm
just very eleven twelve.

Speaker 1 (37:02):
I think most dads of daughters are very hyper aware
of don't get yourself worth through how you look, and yes,
the attention that you get for doing certain things, and
that's that's what it is. It's a hard like dance
is a hard thing to do, takes a lot of
practice and training with your team. I imagine some of
that exists in the child beauty pageant world as well.

(37:23):
Oh I'm sure, but it just screams to me. Living
vicariously through your kids on.

Speaker 2 (37:28):
The mom's side, yes, yes.

Speaker 1 (37:30):
And when someone confronts Patsy about you know, is this
over sexualizing your daughter, it's like the thought had never
occurred to her before the way she reacted, She's like, no,
that's a sick mind that's thinking about it. Yeah, that way.

Speaker 2 (37:42):
I feel like maybe that that could have been very
innocent in her outlook of things. Maybe she just really
wanted her daughter to succeed in something she was really
good at that she you know, like you said, vicariously
living through her daughter, which we know somebody in our
life is that literally did that for years, lived vicariously
through their daughter, and their daughter said time and time again,

(38:05):
I don't want to do this, and they made them
do it because they failed when they were a kid.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Well, Patty Patsy was a Miss West Virginia finalist or
something like that, which is a normal adult beauty pageant,
which are also dumb by the way, you might, I agree,
but she said John Mane would ask me constantly, Mommy,
when when can I do that? And I was thinking
about that. It's like John and A wouldn't know that
unless there were pictures all over the house of you
or you watch that video with your performances all the time.

(38:31):
I think that's what was going on. I sympathize with
John that way because it's it's what your wife really
wants to do, and we all want to pass things
on to our kids from our interests, and that was
her interest growing up.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
So it is a form of art if you think
about it.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
Yeah, I suppose it's just that it's the age. I mean, yeah,
I do what you want in America, raise your own kids.
But I wouldn't not saying.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Outlaw it, but I agree, I agree with you. I
think that there's definitely a fine lot and it's yeah,
you want your kid to be happy. You want your
kid to experiment and do things that they want, but
at the same time, if they ever decide they don't
want to do that, maybe don't force them to keep
doing it.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
Yeah, you know it's yeah. Rule was if you start
something like during the season, you don't gets quit until
the season's over.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
But right, that's fair.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
That goes for sports or drummer or anything. I just wouldn't.
I would never so anyway, I am of the opinion
that that was related to what happened to her. I'm
not saying that they caused what happened to their daughter,
So I think that's a stretch. I think that's not foreseeable.
But without that, if she's not a child beauty contestant,
my opinion, she never is killed. I think that's how

(39:38):
he was introduced to his victim, whoever the guy was.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
I mean, we talk about vulnerable populations all the time,
like sex workers, for instance. If they're not in that
line of work, they may have never been a victim.
Not victim shaming, but just saying how the opportunity presented itself.

Speaker 1 (39:55):
You need an opportunity either. Our last patreon was you know,
two people sitting on a bench and increases the chances
of something bad happening if you're involved in high risk
behavior and that I'm not saying that for Jombanny and
beauty pageants.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
Because that's no you're just saying that that was a connection.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
I think that's how the guy found her or was
introduced to her at first. That's just my opinion, and
it's pretty baseless because we don't know who the guy was.

Speaker 2 (40:18):
So do you think it'll ever be solved? Mm?

Speaker 1 (40:22):
Probably not.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
Did you ever think that the family had anything to
do with it? Were you ever on the boat of
Oh my god? It was probably and the parents were
covering it up.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
Everybody was from the beginning. And it's the limited option
thing that we talk about all the time because is
it an unknown person in the safe community who is
faceless and nameless, or is it one of three people
who were in the house were possible suspects. So they
also statistically, if you find a kid in the house
who did it, it's going to be somebody into the house,

(40:53):
like every time, but a few and this is just
one of those. I think one of those few times.
I wondered here and there. The more I got into
our world here, the more things like the note less
the note, but the garat is what I think pushed
me over the top of Nope, not one of them
did this. There are a thousand of even if they
knew how to fashion a garrot. There are a thousand

(41:15):
other ways to resolve whatever situation has happened that led
to this moment that are all going to be terrible,
but not a grot. So no, I have the thought
I just was never on board that train, like a
lot of people still are.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
It's sad too, because if the family had absolutely nothing
to do with it, and they are as innocent as
they seem, it just sucks because it ruined their entire lives.
Like it just it's a horrible thing because they've already
lost a huge part of their lives and then to
deal with that the entire time and still never have
an answer, like I could not ims.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
It's got to be maddening, Like to know you didn't
do it and to be accused left and right. Yeah, yeah,
I mean it's not about the money. But they won
a couple of big, big lawsuits and they should.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
Have based on Yeah, they definitely should. But then at
the end of the day, they have that money, Yeah
they want a lawsuit, but they still in the public eye,
people still think they did it. They still don't have answers.
They still don't know who killed their sister and their daughter.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
No doubt they would trade all the money and then
some for having John Babak. Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
I mean you kind of already brought it up about
the the detective lady. I just she still gets me.
I mean, I understand that she had these gut feelings,
but I unfortunately don't think they were right. No, I
think she I don't know. I don't want to say
what I.

Speaker 1 (42:36):
Really well, the thing is like, you need to not
limit your options as you're especially at the beginning and
the time of investigation. You can have that suspicion, and
I'm sure all the cops there were kind of thinking
the same thing, like this is not in the street
where a ransom note gets left and a girl is missing.
You proceed in a textbook way because the textbook accounts

(42:57):
for all possibilities, like this is how you approach crime scene.
This is how you approach a death scene, so that
you can come back to the family and have evidence
against them if that's what happened, or if you're wrong.
Heaven forbid, you're not limited in going in a different
direction with the evidence that you have too. But I
think the big flaw in the investigation wasn't even as
much having everybody all over the house wasn't even forcing

(43:19):
them to leave, which they should have done. It was
it seems to me after the body was found, it
was not treated like a death scene or even a
crime scene. They must have processed something. It doesn't seem
to me like they went all over the house. And
maybe they did. I mean, there are a couple of
photos of like fingerprints on John Benay's door, and there's
some documentation of the window that that one detective Smith

(43:42):
gets really interested in with his intruder theory. The breast
of the house. I don't know that it was or
was not processed for DNA and for fingerprints and hair
and fiber and everything that you're supposed to collect. I
get it's a big house. But if they're suspicion, if
that one detective's suspicion that John did this prevented them
from treating it as a crime scene, I don't know

(44:03):
how you can expect to solve the case. How are
you going to use evidence against him that you didn't
collect either exactly? That would be harder because his DNA
is rightfully all over the house, and he found the
body and he disturbed the scene that way. But you
never know what you're gonna find. He may have called
someone at two am, Hey, Jimmy, I got a problem,
can you come help? So yeah, no, I don't think

(44:25):
it's ever going to be solved. I have a hunch
that that DNA is not usable because it's been tested
a lot, and it was collected early on in the
life timeline of DNA. It could be, but they're excluding
people based on this DNA, so on the one hand,
they must believe in it. We know a lot more
now about how easily contaminatable DNA is, but we also

(44:47):
know more about how durable and how long it lasts
compared to what we used to think, and testing is
different and more much more precise and accurate and all that.
What John is his whole thing now that they mentioned
at the end is they want familial DNA done on
the offender. DNA makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't do that, And maybe
they are. They haven't confirmed that they are, but right,

(45:08):
it seems like a logical thing at this point.

Speaker 2 (45:10):
So I don't even know how to ask this, like,
did they think that she was taken from her bed
and taken from her bedroom by somebody, or do they
think that it started in the kitchen, which was one
of the main theories from the beginning, because if they
thought that she was that it happened in the kitchen
or started in the kitchen, then why did they block
off her bedroom door?

Speaker 1 (45:29):
So the kitchen things new. That's a new theory. The
old theory is what that detective says in the documentary,
not the man.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
Because I remember when I first heard about this case.
I remember one of the main theories when you and
I even talked a few years ago about it was
the kitchen thing with the pineapple stuff.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
That was the CBS theory.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
I don't know, I just get confused. I guess.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
Sorry, my daughters asking when we're going to Mawana tow.
So the male detective has the whole thing starting in
the bedroom, and I think that's where his bed wedding
theory comes from. The kitchen side of it, I don't
think is concocted until later. And that's what's highlighted in
the CBS one.

Speaker 2 (46:12):
Like when they started blaming the family, like the brother.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
Basically they're it's still the same outcome, but it's the
early theory. Is it starts in the bedroom because of
bed wedding. The later theory is it's actually in the
kitchen with a pineapple, But the theory is the same.
It ends up the same where the parents cover up
what someone else had done. In the downstairs theory, it's Burke.
In the upstairs theory, it's Patsy or something.

Speaker 2 (46:34):
I just don't see that. No, I don't see why.

Speaker 1 (46:36):
I just again the garrot and to make it look real.
Sexually assaulting your.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
Daughter, Yes, that's the part that I can't buy into. Like,
I don't see even if you were trying to cover
up a murder for one of your other kids, I
don't see you going to the extent of sexually assaulting
your own child with an object and then still being
able to like live with yourself honestly, Like what the fuck?

Speaker 1 (47:01):
Yep, I agree, there's the window. I didn't I may
not have known this that the window was broken.

Speaker 2 (47:06):
It was I didn't know that either, But I don't know.

Speaker 1 (47:08):
If I knew that it was broken. That was interesting
because it's the basement. But if I break over, that's
one thing you have to fix, especially in December.

Speaker 2 (47:18):
Right, Well, he said we didn't fix it, like.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
That's odd. So maybe out of sight, out of mind,
maybe they never went down to the basement. But I
would fix a window in the winter in Colorado.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Oh my god, absolutely I would fix a window even
in the summer, Like I don't. I don't want people
coming into my house.

Speaker 1 (47:35):
So that's their theory is that through the broken window,
the guy reaches in and opens the window and then
slides in and that's the entry point. And I think
I buy that. I think that makes.

Speaker 2 (47:46):
Sense that a fool ass grown man can fit through
that way too well and out without keeping evidence.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
The only thing I have the tiny hang up is
if you're looking at the house like knowing what you're planning,
I don't know if that's the plan I would come
up with, whether or not you knew the window was broken.
Maybe they did. Is before ring cameras and cameras all
around the house. This was not before security systems, and
obviously they didn't have one of those, and they were
kind of affluent and well off, but they're also in

(48:14):
a low crime area. It's a really interesting way to
plan doing this because it's really conspicuous, and how do
you know you're not going to get stuck? How do
you know?

Speaker 2 (48:24):
That's my thing? Like, how do you know you're not
going to get stuck? You're not going to leave parts
of your DNA, your hair, clothing fibers, rip your clothes,
cut yourself on the fricking broken window, and leave blood
behind like anything. How do you know none of that's
going to happen?

Speaker 1 (48:38):
They demonstrated, I think, to my satisfaction that the grate
had been opened because of how the grass was stuck
in the grape pace. So I guess I want to
say it's sophisticated, But is it? Because when you look
at the more you do this like a Joseph DiAngelo
comes to mind, where they have no problem getting into
houses over and over again, undetected, you know, and not

(48:59):
waking anybody up. Not his first rodeo, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (49:02):
And that blanket that she was wrapped in was that
from her bedroom or was?

Speaker 1 (49:06):
I think it was?

Speaker 2 (49:06):
Right?

Speaker 1 (49:07):
I think it was.

Speaker 2 (49:08):
It looked like it was, but I wasn't sure.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
So yeah, in scooping her up from the bed she's sleeping.

Speaker 2 (49:14):
Like, and scoops her up and then she doesn't make
a noise or does he put the freakin.

Speaker 1 (49:19):
Me at all? That's not unusual because kids. Both of
my kids sleep like rocks.

Speaker 2 (49:24):
I mean, I get that Rebecca did too.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
But and it's not unusual for a young kid to
be picked up while they're sleeping.

Speaker 2 (49:31):
They're kind of used to that and moved around.

Speaker 1 (49:33):
Yeah, so that's kind of my theory. I don't think
it was the Ramses. I think it was somebody who
had done it before in Boulder. I really liked that
suspect that. Oh, by the way, they the victims are
linked to the same dance studio. It's like, guys, that's it.
I mean, maybe they can do whoever that was, and
they never caught him, but for my money, that's it.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
So are they still do they still have somebody looking
into this right now? No?

Speaker 1 (49:56):
I think they think. They say they reopened it CBI
was involved, which is a good idea. They should have
done that way years ago. I don't know what they're
actively doing with it, though.

Speaker 2 (50:06):
Familiar two thousand and nine they opened it back up,
but I wasn't sure.

Speaker 1 (50:10):
If it had been closed that it's been a while.
Familial DNA. I don't know why you don't do it
right At this point, Narrow went on cousins and you
know whoever on the family tree you can and work
it like you work these homicides that are solved with
unknown offender DNA, because that's what this is.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
Exactly a lot.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
Of crazy conspiracy theories out there that aren't even mentioned
in the documentary that I think are fun. But I'm
sure well, like, for example, he was he had government contracts.
Oh yes, you know all that stuff.

Speaker 2 (50:39):
I don't know how I forgot about that.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
There was some kind of theory with the Denver Broncos
that I never fully understood. That was a fun one.
Oh wow, Yeah, I can't remember all of them. But
once they figured out that John Ramsay had government contracts
that they tied in the nine to eleven, they tied
into Jeffrey Epstein and all that. Second, well, ransom note,
it puts it out there. The ransom note is worse
all foreign faction. That's like a political demand, right. Yeah,

(51:03):
the whole thing is strange, but it has everything, and
it does. I think it's a straightforward, simple sexual assault
that went too far. Not say straightforward, and I was just.

Speaker 2 (51:12):
Gonna say simple what the fuck?

Speaker 1 (51:15):
But it's I think the core of the crime is
that I think it's a sexual assault on a child,
and it just so happens to have all these crazy
planets that orbit around it.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
The fucking ransom and it was just ridiculous. It literally
just sounds like somebody is just going off into space,
like I don't know, half of it doesn't make sense,
and half of it's like I'm trying to be very
threatening and intimidating. Like if we catch you talking, I
think they said to like a stray dog. She dies, like, yeah,
what are you fucking talking about?

Speaker 1 (51:43):
At this point, that John Mark Carr confession is I mean,
it rings pretty true. I'm not saying he did it,
but the little tiny details seem true to me. When
he's talking about the ransom note, for example, and he says,
I started to address it to both of them, and
then I decided I was only going to address to John. Yeah,
that seems legit to me. I don't know why. He's
obviously obsessed with it, put a lot of thought into it,

(52:04):
and so he may have concocted the whole thing. Probably did.

Speaker 2 (52:07):
What if he actually did it, though, Yeah, like what
if they're wrong?

Speaker 1 (52:11):
If them let him go and he'd like, nah.

Speaker 2 (52:14):
You didn't do it. He's like I've fucking been telling you.
It's been me.

Speaker 1 (52:17):
Tried to tell you he wasn't presenting himself for arrest though,
but once he was arrested, he admitted to everything. But
is it true or not? And we know about false confessions,
especially in high profile cases, So probably not him. I
think if you did find him, he would be like,
very disappointing looking. I could he is like the size
of John Mark Carr, like a slim, kind of short

(52:39):
maybe guy, But he's going to look like anybody. He's
going to look like just your average Joe in Boulder.
The profilers say a lot of times they're still there
in that kind of his situation, but I'm not sure
if I believe that. But who knows, Like what if he.

Speaker 2 (52:52):
Is though, Like what if he's living on that same
street still to this day and he's just like you idiots. Now,
you guys posted a Netflix documentary and you still didn't
have But.

Speaker 1 (53:00):
I can't imagine unless it's just the worst case of
tunnel vision against the family that I've ever heard of.
I can't imagine that everybody at the dance studio, everybody
who's remotely associated with anybody who's anybody in their lives
has to have been looked at or at least interviewed.
So I'll bet they talked to him. I'll bet his
name is in the file, and they just were never
able to link the DNA. They obviously screwed up the

(53:23):
initial scene and they probably didn't know what to do
with it after that. It reminds me of like the
Jody Who's True case and so many of these nineties
cases where something like this happens that they're not remotely
prepared for it, and then the media onslide of the
popularity the case is just like a freight train that
runs them over. I think that's definitely true in this case.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Yeah, I think I just have one final thought about
this that kind of bugs me too. If I'm not mistaken,
they were planning to leave for vacation, yeah, that day,
and it's just like the fucking timing of this, how unfortunate,
how fucked up? Like did this person know they were
leaving or was it just luck on this person's hand
and just the worst fucking luck on theirs, Like I

(54:04):
just had they left a little sooner and never would happen.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
Well, I think it's if the guy broke in like,
if I'm right about my theory and he broke in
and waited there, I'll bet he'd done that before to
that house. I'll bet he had broken in and looked
around and looked so creepy, looked at papers and saw
plane tickets. Maybe. Well, I mean it makes I also
kind of think military, honestly, because mostly because of the

(54:29):
not on the garage. But if you look at it
that way, you want to do as much recon as
you can and get as much information as you can
about your mission, about your objective. So I wouldn't be
shocked if he had done that before knew that she was.
They were planning a trip and had been watching the
house and maybe once before broke in and did a
recon on it and said, all right, that's going to
be the night because they're leaving on the twenty eighty.

Speaker 2 (54:51):
Six, Or going back to your theory too, with somebody
knowing of her because of the beauty pageant's circuit, if
he knew them well enough or was around kind of
stalking them long enough, I'm sure Patsy and the family
were talking to other pageant moms or other people about
their upcoming trip too, And you could have definitely gained
knowledge that way.

Speaker 1 (55:11):
Yeah, I think this person had seen John been a before.
I would bet a bit of money on that. I
bet that they had not maybe even talked to her.
Maybe the family didn't know who it was, maybe they did,
but at the very least this person had seen her
in real life prior at some point. So hopefully I'm
wrong and it is solved, and that'd be a big story.

(55:34):
The worst way you can kill a child that it
seems like it's it's by committed, probably by the most
twisted mind. Again, assuming the family had nothing to do
with it. I don't think they did. And the case
itself is like an Agatha Christie book, you know, the
ransom note, the garat finding the body by the dad.
It's it's two. It's like gone girl, It's like two strange.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
I just hope, I say I feel like I say
this every time, though. I just hope that somebody has
some type of fucking remorse to the point where if
they're on their deathbed, they just fucking admit to it
and tell what needs to be told. I don't think it'll.

Speaker 1 (56:11):
Happen, though, I think you have to function in society
if you're that way. Don't you have to compartmentalize your obsessions?

Speaker 2 (56:18):
And especially you're saying that like I'm a sociopath or something.
I don't know. I'm assuming function otherwise.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
Like so, I think there are cases where people convince
themselves they didn't do it like they put it in
the start. Oh, I'm sure, brain, and it never gets opened.
So I doubt there would be a confession. You'd have
to be the kind of narcissist. It's like, yeah, I
did that, and you guys never caught me. Peace out,
you know, but most of them aren't like that. I

(56:46):
I don't think, Like, if he hasn't taken credit for
this yet, I'm not sure he's going to. So please
give us your job in a theories. If you'd like
to share your Status Spending podcast Gmail, we could even
do a listener feedback follow up.

Speaker 2 (56:59):
Send us your audio of it too. If you have
a theory you want to say, record that ship stat
and that.

Speaker 1 (57:05):
Yeah, that's it. So we will be back for another
episode and thank you all for listening.