The Best Mainstream Theory on who killed JonBenet is still full of Crap

Detective Steve Thomas was the former lead detective on the Ramsey case. He had a strong case, and a good theory on who wrote the Ransom Note, not so much who killed JonBenet Ramsey. Thomas’ book when it came out in 2000 provided valuable firsthand insight into what was going on on the ground inside the troubling case that rocked Boulder, Colorado in the Christmas of 1996.

As valuable as Thomas’ narrative was then, and remains now, Detective James Kolar’s case was stronger, his theory better and more refined, but then he had twelve years to fine-tune the theory.

But even after twelve years of editing and adapting and fixing the theory, when James Kolar actually put his hypothesis on the record, it was highly simplistic. You can listen to and watch it in full at this link, but what it amounts to is:

  1. JonBenet arrived home at about 21:30 and went to bed.
  2. She did sleep.
  3. John Ramsey did carry her upstairs to bed.
  4. Patsy remained downstairs with Burke.
  5. She served him the tea and the pineapple.Fullscreen capture 20181020 150851
  6. “I think that accounts for the physical evidence as well as the latent print…”
  7. “Then I think [Patsy] got JonBenet up to make sure she used the toilet so she didn’t wet the bed that night.”
  8. “JonBenet was up. She may or may not have brushed her teeth that night.”
  9. “Maybe she was still hungry. And she went downstairs.”
  10. “In the meantime Patsy continued packing for the Michigan trip.”
  11. “I think if Burke was upset about circumstances, or Christmas presents, he probably would have been upset about [JonBenet] trying to snag a piece of pineapple.”
  12. “Out of anger he may have struck her with that flashlight.”
  13. All the experts around the table then sign off on this theory, saying they agree with it, and it’s not actually intentional murder, it’s an accident.

It seems like a pretty darned good theory, doesn’t it? Well, it’s a good theory if you’ve been snoozing through at least half of the sizable archive of evidence that’s out there! This theory makes zero provision for a garrote, and also zero provision for sexual interference. There were actually tiny drops of blood on JonBenet’s underpants. How did that happen when she got bashed on the head? Why were her genitals wiped down and her panties changed? Why was that necessary if she’d simply been hit on the head, presumably in the kitchen?

The TCRS take on the 13 points of Kolar’s hypothesis is that all 13 points are probably not true, and a few only half true. The gist of Kolar’s hypothesis nevertheless may be true, if that makes sense.

What does this mean?

Going through Kolar’s list one-by-one:

1. JonBenet likely never went to bed that night and thus 2. Never slept that night. An initial knee-jerk explanation for this is to simply look at her bed. Does that look like a bed someone went to sleep in, or a bed parents would have tucked their daughter in and left pillows and clothes on?

Beyond the low hanging fruit, there’s plenty of evidence from the housekeepers [plural] who worked for the Ramseys that JonBenet was a problem sleeper. She was often put to bed with a video and a bottle, the latter causing her to wet the bed. Since this was the only reliable way to settle her down, the Ramseys adopted it and had others [the housekeepers] clean up the mess the next morning. JonBenet was also very late in getting weaned off her bottle, a factor that’s not relevant strictly speaking in the circumstances that Christmas in 1996, but is nevertheless generally relevant, as I’ll explain in a moment.002jonbenetbedXXLARGE

3. John Ramsey probably didn’t carry JonBenet to bed that night. He just wasn’t that kind of dad.

4, 5 and 6: Patsy’s fingerprint on the bowl doesn’t mean that she served Burke the pineapple, though it might. The fingerprint could have left earlier when Patsy handled the bowl, or after the incident. One reason it seems unlikely Patsy served Burke is the over-sized spoon. Patsy cared about appearances, from matching outfits for herself and her kids, to Christmas trees in every room, and candy sticks on the lawn. It’s unlikely she would have not cared about her son using an oversized spoon. That seems to be the sort of error a little boy, and perhaps a hungry little boy, might make. The oversized spoon and the messy bed speak of the same thing – neglect.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 150839Fullscreen capture 20181020 150836

7. Patsy didn’t care whether JonBenet wet the bed, just as she didn’t do anything about Burke’s scatalogical behavior. The bedwetting was a chronic pattern, so chronic it was happening virtually every night. The Ramseys’ response to this was to simply cover the mattress with a protective [water/urine proof] plastic sheet, and then have the housekeeper wash the urine-soaked pajamas the next morning. Patsy would habitually strip the urine-soaked sheets each morning, and load them into a conveniently situated washing machine right outside JonBenet’s bedroom.

download

The extract below is from the long form Vanity Fair article Missing Innocence, written in October 1997 by Ann Bardach. The original article has since been taken offline.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 161609

If Patsy wasn’t taking care of chronic bed wetting issues with both her children, isn’t it doubtful that she was preparing special snacks for them late at night, and taking her daughter to the bathroom before bed?

8. This is probably the most true fact in Kolar’s hypothesis: JonBenet was up. Yes she was, and Burke was too. They were both up late at night – it was Christmas after all. If she and her brother had been taken care of generally in a more consistent manner by her parents, probably they would have been in a routine to go to bed at a specific time. As things stood, they weren’t, and there were consequences for this ongoing oversight.

9. Was JonBenet hungry? Was Burke hungry? The pineapple bowl is hardly eaten, which suggests either that someone made the snack for Burke and he lost interest, or that he made it for himself, and then got sidetracked. He did seem to be thirsty as the glass of tea is completely drained.

Besides the evidence in her stomach, there’s no evidence JonBenet was hungry or actively eating, and one should bear in mind that Christmas tends to be a time when there is plenty to eat, including confection. There is a small amount of pineapple in JonBenet’s stomach contents. The autopsy report suggests 10 cc of mucous material remained in the stomach, while fragments of pineapple appeared even lower in the small intestine.

Although the pineapple isn’t irrelevant, if Kolar’s scenario is accurate, moments after ingestion a single piece JonBenet was smashed over the head. This would suggest the fragment would have lodged in her throat or esophagus, maybe her stomach. So how did it get all the way down to her small intestine?

human-digestive-system-vector-3466605

The dramatization shows JonBenet heading downstairs with her pillow, and in the photo of her bed, the pillow is missing. A pillow was found on the kitchen counter, however crime scene photos in this respect are inconsistent.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 152954

10. According to Kolar, both children were in the kitchen – eating – while Patsy was upstairs [elsewhere] packing for their trip first thing the next morning to Michigan. The evidence doesn’t support the fact that Patsy was packing. Nothing was packed. In fact the only suitcase that’s worth noting is the almost empty one belonging to Andrew that was found in the basement below the window, likely as part of a staged scenario.

download (2)

According to Patsy’s interview with the Boulder cops, all she packed was a single plastic bag. Have you ever heard of a pageant queen going on a glamorous trip via chartered jet carrying her clothes in a plastic bag?

[The screengrabs below are from this link]

Fullscreen capture 20181020 163631

Fullscreen capture 20181020 164135

Does this look like anything was packed?

download (1)

I do think Kolar is generally correct that wherever the Ramsey children were, the parents were likely somewhere else that night. I don’t think the incident, as Kolar describes it, happened in the kitchen however. I’ll get to why I think that in a moment.

JonBenet-Ramsey

11. “I think if Burke was upset about circumstances, or Christmas presents, he probably would have been upset about [JonBenet] trying to snag a piece of pineapple.” This is Kolar’s best and most prescient insight, but in the terms expressed here only half true. The pineapple is valuable evidence in calculating time of death, and in confirming that JonBenet was up and eating when she was supposedly in bed and asleep. In terms of the merits of the crime itself I believe it’s completely irrelevant.

12. “Out of anger he struck her with a flashlight.” Kolar’s right, Burke probably had reason to resent his sister, and he’d struck her in past in a fit of pique on JonBenet’s fifth birthday, so why wouldn’t those same events play out on the night JonBenet was killed?

For one, no fingerprints were found on the flashlight. If the flashlight was the murder weapon, and the little girl was killed in the kitchen, why leave the flashlight there to “explicate” the circumstances? Let me be more clear. If Kolar’s version is accurate, then the Ransom Note was an elaborate ruse meant to mislead investigators about what really happened. If the Ramseys went to so much trouble to cover up evidence, why would they leave something as instrumental as the murder weapon at the crime scene? Why not get rid of it? Why not put it somewhere else?

In my opinion Kolar [and his cohorts in the documentary] are a tad unsophisticated in their assumption that pineapple + pineapple fragments + flashlight = death by flashlight in the kitchen. It’s too simplistic, and it doesn’t account for the fashioning of the garrote, the tying of the hands in nylon rope or the sexual interference. If Burke struck his sister, it was out of fear – in my view – of being found out about said sexual interference.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 153858

13. The thirteenth and last point is the most absurd of them all. The experts – from the FBI, the world’s leading forensic minds – are all unanimous. JonBenet wasn’t murdered, it was an accident. It wasn’t an intentional murder.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 153029

If it wasn’t an intentional act, why the intentional cover-up of an accident? Why cover-up an accident for 22 years? Why construct a Ransom Note? And when the police asked Patsy if it might be some sort of accident, why didn’t she tell the cops investigating and interrogating them that it was?

According to CBS:

“JonBenet got up and somebody in that house – legally, lawfully, one of the three of you – also happens to be up, or gets up because she makes noise,” Haney said during the questioning. “There is some discussion or something happens, there’s an accident.”

“You’re going down the wrong path, Buddy,” said Patsy.

Haney continued: “OK. Somebody accidentally or somebody gets upset over bedwetting, that’s one of the things that’s been proposed.”

“Didn’t happen,” said Patsy. “If she got up in the night and ran into somebody, it was somebody there that wasn’t supposed to be there. I don’t know what transpired after that, whether it was accident, intentional, premeditated or what not. It was not one of her three family members that were also in that house. Period. End of statement.”

If Patsy ever admitted it was an accident, she’d be throwing Burke under the bus, and herself [for misleading the cops], and implicating her husband as an accessory too. If one was implicated, all would be.

On October 18, 2018, an interesting update occurred in the Ramsey case. InTouch reported on Burke Ramsey “urging investigators to release files proving his innocence…” as well on Burke’s lawyers responses to Kolar’s Hypothesis:

Burke’s lawyers say key evidence about the contents of JonBenét’s stomach was deliberately left out of the docuseries in order to frame him. The scenario alleged that a then-nine-year-old Burke was furious at JonBenét for stealing pineapple from his bowl, so he smashed her over the head with a flashlight and killed her.

But Burke’s lawsuit claims the pineapple found in JonBenét’s body was in the intestinal tract below her stomach — meaning it had been eaten two to three hours before she died. Additionally, grapes and cherries were found in her system, which the series failed to disclose.

Experts — who testified in the case — said JonBenét would have died within three minutes of a blow to the head, so she wouldn’t have digested the pineapple. In other words, the docuseries’ theory is impossible.

TCRS’ assessment of this: the docuseries rather than “framing” Burke, implicates him in an accident. The 2-3 hour claim seems about right in the sense that it would take time for food to move through the stomach and into the small intestine. Three hours however seems excessively long. The mention of grapes and cherries in JonBenet’s system actually points to the little girl eating a small fruit cocktail, or the remains of one prepared earlier, before her death. The additional fruit pieces obviously pours cold water on the theory that JonBenet plucked pineapple out of her brother’s bowl.

The docuseries theory is implausible, but the theory that Burke smashed his sister over the head is not.  As noted, he’d smashed his sister in the face before with a golf stick just one year earlier. The findings of the Grand Jury accusing both parents of child abuse, and accusing both parents of being accessories shows further reinforcement of Kolar’s contention.

Fullscreen capture 20181020 153007

Further reading: 

Debunking the JonBenét Ramsey Kidnapping: What was the family’s real role in the murder?

New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder

JonBenet Ramsey Case: James Kolar, Former Leading Investigator Rejects Intruder Theory In New Book (PHOTOS)

‘The Case Of: JonBenet Ramsey’: Investigators Land on Theory of Brother Burke Ramsey

Lawyer’s claim the JonBenet Ramsey documentary wrongly accused her brother Burke

Former Jonbenet investigator talks to CNN

‘Burke did it’: Crime show claims JonBenet Ramsey WAS killed by her ‘violent’ older brother and her parents covered it up after the siblings ‘clashed over a midnight snack of fresh pineapple’

Brother of JonBenet Ramsey Sues CBS for $750 Million Over TV Special

37 thoughts on “The Best Mainstream Theory on who killed JonBenet is still full of Crap

  1. This is SO right on. Had I not found your books over two years ago I would still have been struggling with so many loose ends pertaining to this case. They have deepened my understanding of what really went down but I had to keep contemplating after I finished reading – in particular – the Dark Star Over Bethlehem series because so much more is revealed and pounded home. And now you’ve dissolved my thinking that there was anything “accidental” about it. I’m never too old to learn.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sure, the pineapple isn’t the catalyst. However, make no mistake about it-JonBenét ate fresh pineapple from that very bowl that night. The rumor of cherry and grape skins is just that. It’s bogus. Paula Woodward floated this around in her book she released in 2016. Whenever the Ramseys backs are against the wall they invent a Wag the dog or false flag situation. Can you say Santa Bear, and Faked Atlanta Intruder?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. 1. Wrong
    2. Wrong
    3. Wrong

    John Ramsey in his initial statements to both the first officer at the scene(French), and the first detective on the scene(Arndt), told the officers that he read to both Burke and JonBenét before they went to bed. In Burke’s interview he stated that when they returned home on Christmas night from the Whites, that JonBenét walked up the stairs behind his mother Patsy.

    Of course, 125 days later when the Ramseys sat down for their first official interviews with police-and after they were allowed to get a copy of their first initial statements from a deal with Hunter, John Ramsey then changed his story about when/how JBR went to bed, and changed what she was wearing when she went to bed.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. In the Ramseys’ dining room, just steps away from the kitchen, the police had found a bowl with fresh pineapple in it. Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenét’s small intestine was in near-perfect condition — it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

    “Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn’t canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

    “Returning to more serious subjects, Ramsey stumbled when Lou Smit questioned him about the pineapple. He insisted that he didn’t remember JonBenet eating it at the Whites’ Christmas party and knew she didn’t eat it at home before going to sleep. In retrospect, he thought it “strange” that Priscilla White fixed her a plate of cracked crab. He would “guarantee” JonBenet did not eat the pineapple at home, so it had to be before they went to the Whites’ or while they were there. “I don’t buy that an intruder fed her pineapple,” he declared, adding that he recognized neither the bowl containing the fruit nor the spoon that were on the table.

    The very next day he retracted that firm statement, saying his lawyer chastised him for making it. Neither he nor Patsy fed her pineapple, he said, but then he asked, “What if she knew the intruder?” After thinking about it, he said, “It hit me like a ton of bricks.” JonBenet “adored” Santa Bill McReynolds, and if he had come into her room, she would have gotten out of bed and gone downstairs with him without a problem. “She may have had a secretly prearranged meeting,” he said. “Maybe he fed her pineapple.” The detectives stopped the tape and watched that section repeatedly. Only the day before, Ramsey had said such a thing was impossible. Now he laid it on Santa Bill.”

    Steve Thomas, ITRMI

    You see why the Ramseys need this pineapple thingie to go away?

    Like

  5. In the Ramseys’ dining room, just steps away from the kitchen, the police had found a bowl with fresh pineapple in it. Meyer noted in his report that the pineapple in JonBenét’s small intestine was in near-perfect condition — it had sharp edges and looked as if it had been recently eaten and poorly chewed.

    “Our experts studied the pineapple in the stomach and reported that it was fresh-cut pineapple, consistent down to the rind with what had been found in the bowl. It was solid proof that it wasn’t canned pineapple, and what were the chances that an intruder would have brought in a fresh pineapple to cut up for his victim?

    “Returning to more serious subjects, Ramsey stumbled when Lou Smit questioned him about the pineapple. He insisted that he didn’t remember JonBenet eating it at the Whites’ Christmas party and knew she didn’t eat it at home before going to sleep. In retrospect, he thought it “strange” that Priscilla White fixed her a plate of cracked crab. He would “guarantee” JonBenet did not eat the pineapple at home, so it had to be before they went to the Whites’ or while they were there. “I don’t buy that an intruder fed her pineapple,” he declared, adding that he recognized neither the bowl containing the fruit nor the spoon that were on the table.

    The very next day he retracted that firm statement, saying his lawyer chastised him for making it. Neither he nor Patsy fed her pineapple, he said, but then he asked, “What if she knew the intruder?” After thinking about it, he said, “It hit me like a ton of bricks.” JonBenet “adored” Santa Bill McReynolds, and if he had come into her room, she would have gotten out of bed and gone downstairs with him without a problem. “She may have had a secretly prearranged meeting,” he said. “Maybe he fed her pineapple.” The detectives stopped the tape and watched that section repeatedly. Only the day before, Ramsey had said such a thing was impossible. Now he laid it on Santa Bill.”

    Steve Thomas, ITRMI

    See why the Ramseys need this pineapple thingie to go away?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks for this CottonStar. Not saying the pineapple – as evidence – doesn’t matter. Just that the mainstream version where the pineapple is the appetizer milliseconds before the murder is crazy.

      You seem to be suggesting here that the pineapple was virtually completely undigested. Maybe, but then the official autopsy report and the location of the pineapple is either misleading, inaccurate or a deceit.

      Part of the problem in Kolar’s version is, as I say, he brings in the pineapple and the torch while simultaneously excluding the garrote, the loops on the wrists, the wiped down genitals and the underwear change. Why would it be necessary to change panties if she was simply clobbered on the head in the kitchen?

      Like

  6. I read The Craven Silence 1, 2 & 3. (Kindle Unlimited). Bravo. Positively brilliant.
    My theory was the green box almost exactly. (Which I’d like to point out was better than Thomas, Kolar and Smit). 🙂
    But at no time did I ever consider the contents of the red box. Bravo to you again.
    I will move to the other JBR series but I’m currently reading the 2nd Steven Avery book. I chose that case because I know it well and wanted to get your views on it.
    I will have to pause and continue your series on Watts also. I have a completely new theory on Watts. It’s very different from yours but as I read your work I’m a bit intimidated by deviating from YOUR theories.
    Your books are pushing the pointy eared logic to extend way beyond first impressions and self imposed speculations. Thank you.
    I will leave some reviews.

    Like

    • Spock, you’ve made my day. You shouldn’t be intimidated by deviating from my theories if you’ve spent some time thinking about yours. A good theory gets stronger with more information, and fits the facts. A bad one ignores the information and just “feels right”.

      Reviews will be super, thank you.

      I’m curious to know about your new theory on Watts 😉

      Like

      • Bad theories are what I’ve been good at because they feel right or I’m forcing the theory around the evidence.
        The mistake I’ve made on Watts is thinking he’s not too bright from the beginning. I now think he just might qualify as diabolical.
        I don’t have time at the moment to back up my new theory with a lot of typing but I’ll give you the highlights:
        1. Complete premeditation – no fight.
        2. She went to bed. (Makes no difference her flight was delayed – plan is still on. Possible explanation for bedding).
        3. Murdered all 3 shortly before he left the house. (Trying to avoid cadaver smells/evidence. Nothing to see here – just heading out to work).
        4. No processing of bodies in the house. (No evidence left behind). (Explains what he was doing all night – nothing but waiting for morning to come).
        5. No time to deal with bedding, purse or staging the scene he needs to leave as quickly as possible. (Will do that when he gets home and starts “looking” for Shanann).
        6. He left early – not late. (Re-read Bette Marcoux’s statement).
        7. No GPS on truck.
        8. Bodies processed at a scene he’s been to many times and knows he will not be disturbed. (That’s why he chose CERVI 319 – it provides cover set in behind hill. No one will ever find processing evidence. Hairs in truck – not house).
        9. He’s finished the girls but doesn’t have time to finish his wife. (That’s why she’s found in a shallow grave).
        10. Had he been allowed to finish – they’d still be looking for the bodies and he’d still be giving stupid speeches to the media on the porch.

        Like

  7. Interesting. Processing could have taken place at the Cervi site.

    Re: Bette Marcoux’s statement, when the press report “She said she hadn’t before seen him leaving home that early” I read that as Marcoux found the time he left for work unusual. The press assumed because it was so early, that it was unusually early. But Shan’ann regularly wrote on Facebook that he was up at 04:00. So my take is what Marcoux meant was that she hadn’t seem him before leaving that late. It was early for most people, but later than usual for him.

    Remember if he leaves at 5:30 he arrives on site at about 6:30. And he only walks into the office after doing his checks [on a routine day] probably an hour or two after that. Shan’ann also said he worked 12 hour days, that’s approximately 05:00 to 17:00 [not sure if that includes the commute].

    Call it a gut feel, but if it was premeditated and he knew what he was about to do [bearing in mind it’s almost an hour’s drive to the site]:

    1) He needed all the time he had.

    2) Given the choice between processing three cadavers in the safety, security, control and privacy of his own home [and being able to use resources there – cleaning materials, laundry, soap, shower] – and the site, it seems likely he chose the former.

    3) Cadaver odor could not have formed if he committed the crime and removed the bodies say within an hour afterward. We don’t know for certain whether there was cadaver odor or cadaver dogs, but we do know the cops very quickly were searching for dead people, and that points to the likelihood of cadaver dog alerts.

    Like

    • Bette lives one door to the west. She would see his pick up sitting there every morning at 5:15 am. I think she meant what she said – he was leaving early – she noticed his truck was idling she didn’t notice that it was still there.

      Shanann’s statement about being up for work at 4:00 am is in my opinion more Thrive bullshit. (Along with working 12 hours a day). Besides who goes to work in the unlit tank batteries/pumps while it’s dark out? That makes no sense and would be an unnecessary safety hazard.

      Anadarko works a very popular 9/80. Nine hours a day 5 days a week and every other week is an extra day off. I don’t know for sure that schedule applies to him but it has applied to other Anadarko operators.

      I agree about the site choice for processing. But he also has a choice between truck loads of evidence in a house he knows the cops will suspect or a safe and secure place he thinks they’ll never find. He’s got all night to pack his “kit” and he knows she won’t be going in the garage when she gets home. Safer to forgo the soap and water? Does the processing require soap and water?

      When he leaves his house daily does he go straight out to the Cervi Ranch area? I don’t think he does. He told the cops he went to Hudson. I think his territory is probably pretty large and he may not even work the same tank batteries and pumps every day.

      I found this article about testing cadaver dogs:
      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crime-scene-canines-835047.html

      “He needed all the time he had”. And he didn’t get it.

      Here’s something that trips me up. If he’s worried about cadaver smell in the house why isn’t he worried about the truck?

      Like

      • Well, from what he says in the affidavit and from what Shan’ann says about herself, him and the kids. I think it’s a bit of stretch for you to assume she’d be dishonest about what time he got up to go to work. It comes up repeatedly in her posts.

        You don’t seem to be entertaining the flip side. Like I said, if he woke up at 5, committed all three murders in 15 minutes and was out of the house 10 minutes later there would be no cadaver odor, and three months on, they’d still be considered missing persons.

        Your assumption that the crime happened at 5 and he left at the usual time fits in with what he wants you to believe.

        Like

      • I’m not assuming the crime happened at 5:00. I’m theorizing it happened shortly before he left. I think it would have to be earlier than 5:00.
        The article I referenced said the cadaver dogs were 98% accurate with a piece of carpet exposed for 10 minutes to a recently deceased person. That’s pretty damn accurate. I will default to your knowledge on cadaver dogs.
        I was not aware that Shanann had repeatedly said he got up for work at 4:00 am. I was only aware of her saying that on the lawn mowing video. If she did say it repeatedly than I would be inclined to think that statement was not dishonest. I will have to research.
        If he usually got up at 4:00 and that’s when lights went on and moving about the house began then that might fit nicely within his “I’m just going to work as usual” plan.
        This is so good for me. Thank you. Send me back to the drawing board!!!

        Like

      • I’m not assuming the crime happened at 5:00. I’m theorizing it happened shortly before he left. I think it would have to be earlier than 5:00. >>>Not sure I’m following you. The surveillance footage shows him backing into the driveway at 5:27. So if the crime happened shortly before he left, how shortly are we talking about?

        Cadaver odor takes around 1-2 hours to form.

        Like

  8. At the time of the murder he’s worried about evidence. He’s aware of odor perhaps but I doubt whether he knew much about cadaver odor. Few do.

    Like

    • I agree. That may be giving him too much credit. Would explain the lack of concern over the truck too.
      He does look surprised and shook up when those dogs are barking behind him in the interview.
      I have to believe those are cadaver dogs raising the alerts coming from the house. They would be using the scent dogs to trail her out of the house not in it.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. We don’t know his daily routine but as a low level operator it makes sense he’d start the day with site inspections. Did he go to to the same sites every day? Unknown. How many sites did he inspect? Unknown.

    Like

    • Absolutely correct. His schedule is unknown. His level of work independence is unknown. Once again I agree that site inspections/repairs/testing would be his main job. I have to assume he knows what he can get away with while on the job. He’s done a bit of planning here.

      Like

      • The answer may be the same as the Scott Peterson case, in that the crime was hidden in the ruse of a fishing trip [where he didn’t actually fish]. So irrespective of Watts’ usual schedule, probably that Monday he was scheduled to do routine maintenance or checks. And the crime [the dumping part] was hidden in the ruse of going to work [we assume like any other day] and inspecting sites [we assume like any other day]. A deviation of time, place and the monitoring readings inside those tanks – would raise questions

        Like

      • Sorry had to take a break and travel back to primary home. Gave me several hours to think about the points you raised while I was driving.
        If cadaver odor takes 1-2 hours to form then Watts isn’t the only one foiled by the damn dogs! My theory takes a big hit also.
        Well, it was a good attempt and seemed to line up with what little evidence is available.
        At the very least I’m practicing thinking outside the box.
        I may still be stuck in the green box but at least now I’m looking for the red one.
        Once again amazing work on the JBR case. I’ll keep reading.

        Like

      • Not sure if it was you who mentioned it, but someone said Watts said he was headed to Hudson that Monday. Hudson is halfway to Roggen, and Roggen is 9/10ths of the way to CERVI 319.

        Like

      • Maybe to you. Been researching its history, including depictions in Centennial. It features quite prominently in TWO POLLYANNAS. When are you back in the area again? Think I must hire you to record some sights and sounds.

        Like

      • Here now. I crossed the South Platte twice today and it’s big brother the North Platte once. Both are beautiful rivers and rich with history. Record sights and sounds of what?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s