It seems that first time homicide investigator, Steve Thomas, finally gave a free pass to everyone but the grieving mother of the victim. He ignored valuable input from more experienced investigators and scoffed at them. Thomas kept his focus on Patsy Ramsey, like a chicken on a June bug. Thomas even offered John Ramsey a free "pass" on national TV while he accused Patsy Ramsey of writing the ransom note and the brutal rape, torture, and "accidental" murder of their youngest child.

Thomas theorized Patsy wrote the note after a bed-wetting rage and then staged a cover-up, but his theory didn't fit the evidence and never will.

After many years the case was finally removed from BPD, and some of Thomas' major supporters started an Internet petition which was sent to the Governor of Colorado. The petition requested the removal of Detective Lou Smit, District Attorney Mary Keenan, et.al. to be replaced with "unbiased" investigators. (Like Thomas?)

Do you think Thomas was "stuck" on Patsy or became another "patsy" of sorts? Was he spoon fed certain information or disinformation by others with ulterior motives? Why did he give everyone but Patsy a free pass? So far, his record of solving homicides is still a big zero.

In my opinion, Thomas wanted to solve his first murder case, and was deeply affected by the horrific murder of JonBenet. Unfortunately, his inexperience got in the way. There's a first time for everything, but lead homicide investigator should not be one of them. This crime has always been bigger than Boulder, and much more important than Steve Thomas and his theory. By placing blame on Patsy Ramsey, a vicious child murderer was allowed the freedom to roam among the rest of society.

Thomas wrote that Patsy was the only one "in the house that night" who could not be (100%) eliminated as the ransom note writer. On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being elimination, handwriting experts determined that John scored 5, and Patsy scored 4.5. There was at least one other person who was not eliminated by handwriting, and possibly more. Thomas wrote that Bill McReynolds had "questionable" handwriting but was too frail to commit the crime. In my opinion it was either an attempt to mislead the public and/or bolster his theory. A "half" truth isn't truth at all. One of the "final straws" that caused him to quit the force was that the DA wanted to further the investigation of "Santa Bill."

What's your opinion?

It has been shown that McSanta was NOT too frail to have murdered this child. If Steve Thomas is suggesting that Patsy is more virile than McSanta, I would have to seriously wonder about him (and I DO!!!). If posters around the inernet are suggesting that a nine-year-old child is more virile than McSanta, I would have to seriously wonder about them (and I DO!!!). Shortly after the murder, Bill and Janet McReynolds not only toured the US doing talk shows, but travelled to Spain. Just how frail should we consider them to be?

With regard to the Internet Petition, I am embarrassed for these people who are attempting to derail this current investigation. IF they really cared about Justice for JonBenét, they would petition for additional funds and manpower to bolster the investigation. JMO

I'm sure his dna was tested and didn't match or he would have been arrested when he was alive.Too many people in LE suspected him as well.

Although, he made a GREAT suspect and at one time I was convinced it was him for all the same reasons you suspect him Evening. But I just don't see it anymore.

Imo, he wouldn't have left the rn in his handwriting or in Janet's. And, he would have taken her out of the house.

My thinking is someone did it who was familiar with the neighborhood and had somewhere he could slip into close by. I don't think this perp traveled in the area very far.

Santa Bill lived 20 miles form the Ramsey home. He would have taken a real risk driving there and back on Christmas night.

And lastly, I think he's just plain stupid. How, or why he became a cop is beyond me. Good thing he's NOT anymore. It will save a lot of heartache for a lot of people.

Hi Ashley,

I've heard of people being convicted in absentia, but have no idea if that applies to the dead. A couple interesting case characters have died (or been murdered) leaving a lot of unanswered questions.

Several case players have shaky alibis and Bill's handwriting was deemed "questionable" by more experienced experts than rookie homicide investigator Steve Thomas.

Have you read Pete Peterson's press interview? He passed out samples of Bill's handwriting to reporters.

>Santa Bill lived 20 miles form the Ramsey home. He would
>have taken a real risk driving there and back on Christmas
>night.

It was risky for anyone to write a note, enter the home and remove an alive or dead child. That's one reason I think it's possible they intended to leave her in the basement. Then, there is the sadistic possibility of running John all over town in an "exhausting delivery"
and advising him to be well rested, only to learn later he could"pick up" his daughter in his own basement, whether the ransom was paid or not.

JMO

I think Vince Foster was just thrilled to have Steve Thomas take him seriously and encouraged Thomas every chance he got. I think Fleet White would have been happy if Thomas had been able to have any influence over getting rid of Alex Hunter.

>Thomas kept his focus on Patsy Ramsey, like a chicken on a June bug.
Precisely. He selected an easy target.

>Thomas theorized Patsy wrote the note after a bed-wetting rage and
>then staged a cover-up, but his theory didn't fit the evidence and never will.
He knows that now; he knew that then. He was never seeking the truth about anything. Look at his deposition testimony: vague stuff about thinking he may have heard something, rumors, etc.

>So far, his record of solving homicides is still a big zero.
His record on everything is a big zero. All he did well was simple narcotic buys where there is no 'investigation'.

>and was deeply affected by the horrific murder of JonBenet.
I see nothing to support that statement.

>There's a first time for everything, but lead homicide investigator
>should not be one of them.
He was not really the lead investigator, he coordinated manpower utilization on the case and called himself the lead investigator. He wasn't.

>One of the "final straws" that caused him to quit the force
"quit the force"?? He was about to be fired, so he made a noisy and self-serving exit that would be good for his book

>I see nothing to support that statement.

I think he was too emotionally involved in the case and that contributed to making major mistakes. He seemed to have tunnel vision where Patsy was concerned. The "love of money" is said to be the root of all evil, and he may well have seen $$$$ and the chance to make a name for himself. But writing a book, and accusing Patsy of murder while on National TV is pretty evil in my opinion, and not the remarks of well balanced investigator.

>>One of the "final straws" that caused him to quit the force
>"quit the force"?? He was about to be fired, so he made a
>noisy and self-serving exit that would be good for his book

Basically, he wrote in his book the straw that broke the camels back in his decision to quit was the caravan of investigators who drove out to question McReynolds again. Were they stupid? Steve had already cleared them all! Why weren't they interrogating Patsy and throwing her in a cell until she confessed?

Press conference held outside the Regent Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. Representatives from ABC, KABC, KCAL, KCBS, KNBC, FOX, KCOP, CNN, Extra and others attended.

Peterson: ...for two years now and we want to announce some of our findings which are somewhat contrary to the official line of Boulder quote-unquote authorities. We think should get on the right track. We realize it's been a myopic investigation there--different approach--Grand Jury for a year and we think we know who did it. In the next couple of days we'll pass out some of our handwriting comparisons--compare them with the ransom note, and other findings. Some of the people we think they should retarget are -or at least have under the umbrella of suspicion-are one William Irwin McReynolds, and his wife, Doris Janet McReynolds. For those of you familiar with the case, you know that Bill McReynolds is Santa Claus at the Christmas party, just prior to JonBenét's murder. And we think they should be reinvestigated.

RPTR: They've been cleared.

Peterson: Well, who hasn't, besides the parents?

RPTR: Besides the parents.

Peterson: Right.

RPTR: But Santa's been cleared, privately, if not publicly. So why are you picking on this man?

Peterson: No, he hasn't been cleared.

RPTR: He is not considered a suspect. It's amazing I know your case better than you do.

Peterson: You do? What do you know about it? How do you know he's been cleared?

RPTR: Well, if you want to pay me what the Ramseys are paying you, I'll tell you.

Peterson: You think he's been cleared on the DNA evidence? You don't know that because I know the case better than you do.

RPTR: Really. Please, don't let me interrupt.

Peterson: Let's be civil.

RPTR: Why? Are you saying that he should be reinvestigated or that he did it?

Peterson: I'm saying with 99% certainty that he did. We have handwriting comparisons here.

RPTR: But the CBI excluded both McReynolds and his wife from being the authors of that ransom note. How do you--?

Peterson: And who have they included?

RPTR: They have excluded the McReynolds.

Peterson: No, they haven't.

RPTR: What evidence do you have that leads you to think--?

Peterson: I have handwriting samples from when he was a journalism professor. We'll make these public in the next couple days. You know, I think it's been--there are a lot of people who have invested in the parents having done it. I think this thing happened after the O.J. Simpson case, and I think a lot of people didn't like them, didn't like their lifestyle, didn't like the fact that they have attorneys. And they don't want to believe--we could start with the psychological block to believe that old Santa did it.

RPTR: Who are you working for? Who's paying you?

RPTR: Yeah, who's paying you?

Peterson: We started out working for a client in Boulder, a Dr. Steve Dubovsky, whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to this case. A lot of parallels overlapped to this case, and--misdirected routes in the process. But we think we're onto the right route.

RPTR: You're saying this same suspect could have been responsible for both?

Peterson: No, no. We excluded the first one, who was involved in our client's case. But in the process, through that process, we got into this case with the blessing of the client. And determined--we know what occurred.

RPTR: So this is now paid for by the family, by the Ramseys?

Peterson: No.

RPTR: By Hal Haddon. A cut-out.

Peterson: No. I'm just gonna ignore you. Hal Haddon is their attorney--
RPTR: Yeah.

Peterson: --and he's an attorney, OK?

RPTR: So who is your client?

Peterson: We have no client. We had a client when we got into this case. It was a psychiatrist in Boulder whose daughter was molested in their house, and there are a lot of parallels to the Ramsey case. This person got in the house, hid in the house, after the alarms were set--or before the alarms were set, three hours later attacked the daughter. We thought there were parallels to the Ramsey case, and that's how we got into it.

RPTR: Was the person wrapped in cellophane like Santa would have had to be?

RPTR: Did you call this today because you think the investigation needs to be reopened into the Santa Claus character? Is that why this is called today?

Peterson: No, I think--realistically, anybody that's followed this case realizes that quote-unquote authorities in Boulder--I mean, they're the laughingstock of the country. Let's face it. I mean, they have absolutely nothing, zero evidence of the parents. It's dragged on, everybody's frustrated. Everybody knows it's a stressful case, but I think they need to look in another direction.

RPTR: What other evidence do you have besides the handwriting?

Peterson: We have a lot that we're gonna disclose to them in about two days.

RPTR: Who's "them"?

RPTR: For example. Humor us.

Peterson: We have an entire background on these people, going back to their childhood.

RPTR: Which implicates them as what?

Peterson: Which fits all kinds of profiles. That's kind of circumstantial. We think the handwriting is not.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?cmd=entry&id=181510

In the Stephanie Crowe murder, people saw the guy around, he walked away covered in blood and the clothes were later there for the cops to take.

I justdon't think our guy was that nuts.

He may have a personality impairment that hobbles him in his more desired, normal relationships, but he is not nuts.

He may have employment difficulties due to an impaired ability to interact with others socially, but he is not nuts.

Even someone like Flippy Esso who painted the Ramsey basement while, unknown to them, wearing an electronic ankle bracelet while awaiting judicial disposition of his case is able to seek and obtain employment and is not nuts.

We are not dealing with some nutcase who was incredibly lucky; we are dealing with someone who is clever and who was incredibly lucky.

"FIRST: I want to state that your thoughts of being personally responsible for the eruption of Mt.St.Helens in NOT a delusion. I repeat: it is NOT a delusion. PLEASE do not think I am a fool or that I am attempting to make fun of you. I am being utterly serius. Any schizophrenic's so-called delutional thinking is always 'reasonable'."

There is more. Gotta go now.

There is a marked change in pen pressure toward the end of the ransom note, leading me to believe that some kind of chemical changes were taking place in the brain, or more than one person penned various portions of the note.

BTW, I recently re-read an old newspaper article about Lou Smit and some of the intruder clues in the case. Lou saw photos of a protest march, and one horizontal banner proclaimed "SBTC." Below each letter were the words..."Stop Bombing Third World Countries" which fits nicely with the false theme of the note by a "group of individuals who represent a small foreign faction."

I want to address TWO themes that are apparent from your 'condensed history'. FIRST: I want to state that your thoughts of being personally responsible for the eruption of Mt.St.Helens is NOT a delusion. I repeat: it is NOT a delusion. PLEASE do not think I am a fool or that I am attempting to make fun of you. I am being utterly serious. Any schizophrenic's so-called delusional thinking is always 'reasonable'. Consider a schizophrenic alleging that a small metal ball in outer space was controlling his thoughts. Absolutely absurd and totally unheard of PRIOR to the 'sputnik' launch, but really quite common after the sputnik launch. IF there were no mountain with that name, or if it were NOT a volcano or if the volcano had not recently errupted...THEN your thoughts would be a delusion. After all, you did not blame yourself for the eruption of Krakatoa a century earlier or for the eruption of Vesuvius in ancient Pompeii. Consider the following: All newspapers and radio/TV stations were talking about the eruption, there was discussion about the ash fallout, etc. What would a 'normal' person do: he would absorb the information and 'assess,categorize and store' it at night via a dream fragment. The reason you accept the 'thought fragment' as 'fact' is simply that the half of a schizophrenic's brain that is in a dream phase of a sleep state does NOT know it is asleep and can not communicate its sleep state to the other half of the brain. That is why common auditory and visual 'delusional thoughts' are so 'accepted' by a schizophrenic...its 'obvious' to any one that the person is 'awake'...its difficult to get a schizophrenic into a sleep lab to determine that in fact half of his brain is actually asleep and is frequently dreaming. SECOND: Nutritional deficit of vitamins/protein. From your condensed version: acne: this is a nutritional disease. YES, its nutritional NOT hormonal. Even a pregnant woman who gets acne gets it because her fetus is robbing her of nutrients, same as a teenager with a 'growth spurt' is depleted of nutrients. Universit food: steam tables deplete vitamins, food is notoriously low in proteins. Homeless/jobless: all indicate poor nutrition. BEER: foaming agents in beer rob you of vitamins. Beer is high in carbohydrates, low in protein. Trip to country: Likely to be a low protein event. The two central themes to your history are: poor nutrition and "delusional" thoughts based on perfectly reasonable dream fragments. So see if you can get to a sleep lab and have the brainwaves prove to you that while you and everyone else thinks you are obviously awake and walking down the street...one half of your brain is actually asleep and experiencing dreams, but can not communicate that the thoughts are really dreams: therefore the normal body defenses are NOT activated, and your brain 'accepts' the dream as real. Good luck to you.
Don Bradley
Seattle, WA USA - Sunday, August 23, 1998 at 15:12:33 (EDT)

edited for spelling. Dang, I need to start proofreading more.

Thank you:)

Also, in regard to the kidnapping of their daughter Jill and her friend, at which time her friend was molested while Jill was left to watch the molestation, Janet said when the abductor released the girls, he told them, "the Devil made me do it." This sounds like something a person in psychosis would say.

I really am beginning to think schizophrenia is the key to the note and strangulation.

Here's the definition of "nutcase" from dictionary.com. It's makes no reference to Schizophrenia:

"n : a whimsically eccentric person "

Definition
nutcase
noun INFORMAL DISAPPROVING
someone who is mentally ill or who behaves in an extremely silly way

Cambridge Dictionary

Depression is a mental state that can be masked. Depressiveness is a behavior pattern that telegraphs the mental state of depression.

So someone can technically be a schizophrenic but is not in such distress that anyone observing them would know at a glance and therefore think them a 'nutcase'. Its like someone who is homeless but clean and well dressed. At first glance, you don't think of them as living in the streets.

I have no idea whatsoever if the intruder actually had any sort of mental illness. He simply may have had values that we feel makes him a bad person, but that does not mean he is a "sick" person. He may enjoy killing. Well, alot of hunters enjoy killing. He may prefer adult, consenting females, but perhaps lacks the social skills to obtain them. Is he 'sick' or is he simply posessed of a separate set of fundamental values than most people have. One prospective juror when being questioned in a sexual abuse case actually expressed the viewpoint that it was acceptable for a man to make use of a daughter if his wife was for some medical reason unable to have sex. The young prosecutor was visibly shaken by his views despite the courtroom setting. She obviously got rid of that prospective juror but quick. However, it was her reaction that was significant. Its not a set of values that she shares or even felt would ever be expressed in speaking to a potential juror.

.........
Actually I think the main genetic influence is at Xp22.3, the KALIG gene. About 70 percent.