Spin Docs: 20/20: "JonBenét Ramsey: Race Against Time, Who Is 'Unknown Male 1'?" (2026)

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Anya, and today we're going to be doing a Spin Docs episode on a recent 2020 special on the unsolved murder of JonBenét Ramsey. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder and sexual assault, namely the murder and sexual assault of a child. All right, Kevin, so I think this episode of 2020 has elicited a lot of discussion within the true crime community. You've seen some of that discussion, right, on social media? Kevin Kennedy

[00:00:29] [SPEAKER_02] JonBenét Ramsey case over the years have expressed a certain amount of, to be frank, frustration and even anger about this particular documentary and how it presented the facts of the case. And so we decided that due to the reaction is provoking, we would take a look at it. I think it's fair to say we don't have a really strong opinion about the case, but we do have an opinion about how it's important to be.

[00:00:59] [SPEAKER_02] Kevin Kennedy, Justin. And it's important when you do something like this to present all sides. So we watched it with an eye to see whether or not this was an accurate and fair presentation of the facts.

[00:01:10] [SPEAKER_01] JonBenét Ramsey I'll say this, I've traditionally had a strong opinion and it's not a, it's a strong opinion. It's not one I'm necessarily emotionally invested in having one opinion over another in this case. And it's also something where I'm open to being wrong. So that's where I stand on it. Is that, is that where you are or? JonBenét Ramsey Yeah.

[00:01:39] [SPEAKER_01] JonBenét Ramsey And I'm Kevin Greenlee.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_02] I'm an attorney.

[00:02:10] [SPEAKER_01] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:12] [SPEAKER_02] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:20] [SPEAKER_01] And this is Spin Docs. 2020. JonBenét Ramsey. Race Against Time. Who is Unknown Male 1. 2026.

[00:02:28] [SPEAKER_01] So just to put this into minor, very brief context, this case dates back to 1996. So sometime late in the evening of December 25th, 1996, or the following early morning hours of December 26th, 1996.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_01] A six-year-old JonBenét Ramsey was murdered in her family's home in Boulder, Colorado on 15th Street. JonBenét Ramsey

[00:03:55] [SPEAKER_01] Three decades later. You could probably categorize people who follow this case into two camps. One is people who are proponents of the intruder theory. What they're saying is that an intruder came into the Ramsey household that night and murdered JonBenét. And that the family had nothing to do with it. This was an outsider. It may have been someone known to the family. It may have been a stranger. It may have been a serial predator. It may have been who knows.

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_01] But there's multiple different suspects. But that's an overall categorization. People who don't think the family did it uphold the intruder did it theory. Now, what's the other side? The other side, they believe the Ramseys did it. The Ramseys either perpetuated this murder or something happened where then it was covered up.

[00:04:47] [SPEAKER_01] And that the Ramseys were the one behind it. You have people who specifically single out individual Ramseys. They say the father, Jon Ramsey, did it. They say the mother, Patsy Ramsey, did it. She's since deceased, by the way. Or they say that the other person present in the house, which was nine-year-old Burke Ramsey, her older brother, that he did it. So those are the two camps. And then some people, I think, who are maybe even agnostic on which Ramsey did it, but they're saying there's no intruder.

[00:05:17] [SPEAKER_01] Somebody did something. So I'd say those are the two big camps. And I think people fall into those and they have very strong opinions and emotions can run high, as you see in a big case.

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_02] And before we get into this documentary, I want to point out a few unusual factors about this case. One of which is there was a ransom note left indicating that JonBenet had been kidnapped. Unusually long ransom note. Number one, we're talking about that later. And also at the time the ransom note was left, the child's body was in the house.

[00:05:53] [SPEAKER_02] And it's difficult to think of another case where a body is left behind and also a ransom note is left behind. I can't think of another one.

[00:06:05] [SPEAKER_01] I can't either.

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_02] And also I want to note that this goes also to the, I'll just say, I think this documentary was really biased towards the Ramsey family and what they put out, their point of view. And one, I want to give just to the outset an indication of that.

[00:06:28] [SPEAKER_02] Generally speaking, I'm going to simplify here, but generally speaking, people find it hard to believe, oh, this alleged kidnapper spent a long time writing this long, lengthy ransom note. That seems unlikely that they would do that. It seems more likely that a family member would do that.

[00:06:45] [SPEAKER_02] And generally people would argue that the more time the alleged intruder has to spend in the house, the less likely it is that it was an alleged intruder. And the more likely that it was, in fact, one of the Ramseys. That's not solid proof one way or another. That's just a likelihood that I think people have come to. It's not an unreasonable likelihood.

[00:07:11] [SPEAKER_01] So with this 2020 episode, what they're doing, Diane Sawyer is sort of, I think, the lead reporter on this one. And they're using a lot of archival footage. You know, she is someone who covered it even way back in the day. She frequently cites that she was the first reporter with cameras in the house back in the day. And they also have participation of John Ramsey, John Bonet's father, and John Andrew Ramsey, who was John Bonet's half brother and is John Ramsey's son from a previous marriage.

[00:07:39] [SPEAKER_01] So they have their participation. They have multiple different law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and then people they're bringing in as experts. And I thought what you said about it being very biased on behalf of the Ramseys is accurate. Like, this is, if you know the case, I think, I would think that even people who are being intellectually honest who are supporters of the Ramseys would probably look at this and say, like, this is very much propaganda.

[00:08:08] [SPEAKER_01] Like, it's not even particularly convincing because it's so overt at times. Like, we start off, the whole thesis seems to be, would nice people do something like this? And I just think that as we examine all that we're going to talk about now, where we're going to break down the facts, that we need to set aside that. That is a bias. That is, why do we view people as nice versus other people as not nice or other people as suspect?

[00:08:37] [SPEAKER_01] Some of that can go towards our own internal biases, right? We might have a bias to think, well, this is a nice young family and they are successful, so they seem like nice people. I think all of that is totally useless when we're talking about anything. People can seem kind of sketchy and be innocent. People can seem really nice and be guilty. It doesn't matter. And I think I was disappointed in this output because so much of it went into that.

[00:09:06] [SPEAKER_01] And I think that's utterly meaningless. Many times, again, I'm not saying this is the case for the Ramseys at all. I'm just saying, like, someone can seem really nice. I mean, Ted Bundy, right? That's the famous example. Seemed like a charming man. People liked him. Not such a nice guy, to say the least. At the same time, I think we shouldn't convict people just because they're bad people. I just, I think this documentary, this output was a disaster from just any factual standpoint.

[00:09:35] [SPEAKER_01] And we'll talk about why now. I think what we'd like to do is just take you through all the things they didn't tell you. And without really coming down too hard on one side or another, just kind of point out the inadequacies in this project. I think it'll be clear why we feel it was an inadequate project when we get to the end of this very long list. Is that fair to say, Kevin? Yeah.

[00:09:57] [SPEAKER_02] Trying to figure out how to get the right mental health treatment for yourself can feel overwhelming. Talkiatry can help. They connect you with real psychiatric care so you can actually understand what's going on and get a treatment plan that works. Talkiatry helps you move from, I know I need help, to actually having a psychiatrist who listens.

[00:10:18] [SPEAKER_00] Talkiatry is a 100% online psychiatry practice that provides comprehensive evaluations, diagnoses, and ongoing medicine management for conditions like ADHD, which I have, anxiety, which I also have, depression, and more.

[00:10:33] [SPEAKER_02] Unlike therapy-only platforms, talkiatry is psychiatry. You're seeing a medical provider who can diagnose mental health conditions and prescribe medication when it's appropriate.

[00:10:45] [SPEAKER_00] All 800-plus clinicians are in network with major insurers, so you can use your existing insurance instead of paying monthly subscriptions or out-of-network costs.

[00:10:55] [SPEAKER_02] This means you can meet with a licensed psychiatrist who takes the time to understand what's going on, builds a personalized treatment plan, and supports you over time with consistent, evidence-based care.

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_00] Getting started is easy and just takes a few minutes. Complete a short online assessment, get matched with clinicians who fit your needs, and schedule your first visit in days, not months. Head to talkiatry.com slash msheet to complete the short assessment and get matched with an in-network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. That's T-A-L-K-I-A-T-R-Y dot com slash msheet to get matched in minutes. Talkiatry.com slash msheet.

[00:11:34] [SPEAKER_02] There is nothing quite like having pieces in your closet you love and knowing you can count on for any occasion, except maybe giving someone else that same feeling. This holiday season, Quince is where we are finding those pieces.

[00:11:48] [SPEAKER_01] And there are just so many to choose from, like their high-quality down outerwear and cozy cashmere gloves and scarves. And their 14-karat gold earrings and bracelets are an easy way to polish any look, making them thoughtful gifts for anyone in your life.

[00:12:02] [SPEAKER_02] Quince makes elevated, everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and premium stretch denim. The kind of pieces you'd be just as happy gifting as you would be to unwrap.

[00:12:16] [SPEAKER_00] And yet, everything at Quince is still priced 50-80% less than similar brands. That's because they work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, so you can give luxury-quality pieces without the luxury price tag.

[00:12:28] [SPEAKER_02] I bought their pearl snap denim western shirt in denim blue, and I wish someone had gotten that from me as a gift. I wear it all the time now, both for everyday events and for fancier things and get-togethers. I think any guy would love getting this as a Christmas gift.

[00:12:43] [SPEAKER_00] Of course, when it comes to gifting, Quince has a lot more than clothing. Think leather bags, hotel-quality bedding, chef-grade cookware, and five-star luggage.

[00:12:51] [SPEAKER_01] Basically, plenty of ways to find something special for everyone on your list. Give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to Quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_00] And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the murder sheet. It's the best way to support the show.

[00:13:14] [SPEAKER_02] Generally speaking, it is perceived that things that require the alleged intruder to be in the house for an extended period of time are seen as being negative for the Ramseys. Things that shorten the amount of time the alleged intruder is in the house are seen as being positive for the Ramseys.

[00:13:34] [SPEAKER_02] Because it is hard to believe, just in terms of common sense, if a person is breaking into a house to kidnap a child, you imagine they're not going to want to be in the home for an extended time. Because the longer you're in the home to do your kidnapping, the greater the chance you're going to be captured. So I mentioned this because I want to highlight something that I felt was an indication of the bias I saw in this documentary.

[00:14:01] [SPEAKER_02] And this is the discussion of poor JonBenet's wounds. We know she was given a very strong blow to the head. Very strong blow to the head. She was bludgeoned. In addition to that, she was strangled.

[00:14:19] [SPEAKER_02] Now, they had one of the investigators on the show, a man named Lou Smith, who I believe at some point in his life he was working for the Ramseys, which certainly indicates the potential for bias.

[00:14:32] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, can I say what? Yeah. He was the Boulder County District Attorney's Office special investigator, came out of retirement to do this case. They specifically asked for him. And then within a couple months, I think he was hired in 1997. By 1998, he's resigned. And he goes, he's highly emotionally entangled with the Ramseys.

[00:14:52] [SPEAKER_02] But they have him on here. We'll talk more about him later. But what I want to highlight now is he's talking about around the garrotte that's around her neck when she's strangled. There are abrasions to her neck. And he says there are marks around the neck which indicate that JonBenet was conscious at the time and that she was trying to pry this away from her neck.

[00:15:17] [SPEAKER_01] Which would, yeah, that's horrifying.

[00:15:19] [SPEAKER_02] That's horrifying. But the medical experts who have looked at this case have indicated that they believe the first injury that she received was the blow to the head. And that after she received this severe blow to the head, she was unconscious and was highly, extremely unlikely to regain consciousness after this.

[00:15:45] [SPEAKER_02] And we know that her brain was swelling because of this blow to her head. And when we look at how much it was swelling, we know that it was between 45 minutes to, I believe, two hours after she received this blow to the head that she was strangled. And it was the strangulation which ultimately did, in fact, kill her. So she wasn't conscious when she was being strangled. She'd already had the blow to the head.

[00:16:14] [SPEAKER_02] And the blow to the head happened as long as two hours before she was strangled. They don't tell you that. They just give you Lou Smith's theory out of nowhere. They don't explain why he indicates that she was cautious at the time.

[00:16:31] [SPEAKER_02] And you have to then start asking yourself, is it likely that an intruder would have come in, given her this severe blow to the head and then hung around the house for a couple of hours before strangling her? And I don't find that terribly likely. But at the very least, this is a point that should have been addressed in the program.

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_01] Listen, I mean, I'll be a devil's advocate here for a minute because, I mean, or I'll push back a little bit because, yeah, I think there's been an evolving theory of the intruder. And certainly it doesn't really behave like intruder, many intruder kind of similar cases. Like the one I think of is Dennis Rader, who, of course, is BTK in in Kansas. And that's a situation where we do know of cases. There's actually one famous instance where he was waiting on a potential victim.

[00:17:23] [SPEAKER_01] He had gotten into her house and was waiting for her. She arrived so late that he actually got frustrated and left, thank goodness. So she survived. But he'd been in there waiting for her. So the idea that someone could lay in wait in somebody's home waiting for them to arrive to attack them or to do something bad, I think is at the very least within within the realm of plausibility to me.

[00:17:48] [SPEAKER_01] Now, where it gets weird, and I'm glad you broke this down like you did, where it gets weird to me is the gap in time between the initial devastating blow to JonBenet Ramsey's skull and the strangulation. That's bizarre waiting around that long is such a risk. And we'll talk about, like, what might people have heard or not heard or based on the acoustics in the house later on.

[00:18:17] [SPEAKER_01] But that is something that is hard to believe. And at the very least, people can argue for or against this. I'm open to different opinions, but you're absolutely right. It should have been addressed. Other things about Lou Smith should have been addressed in this because I think he is not some neutral arbiter of facts in this whatsoever.

[00:18:38] [SPEAKER_01] And presenting him as like, oh, he's just this guy who's investigating it is omitting things to the point of it's like not honest, in my opinion.

[00:18:51] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. And I think another clue you can look for when you watch documentaries like this as to whether or not they're coming from an honest place is if they understate the evidence for whatever they're going to argue against. Let's say, for instance, I say, well, I know some people don't listen to the Murder Street or watch us when we perhaps shows up on YouTube because they know that sometimes Anya wears a red sweater and they just hate the color red.

[00:19:19] [SPEAKER_02] That makes people who don't tune into us sound idiotic because we're not really giving whatever reasons they might have. Difficult to come up with an example because, of course, there's no good reason not to listen to us. But it's a certain level of intellectual dishonesty. It is. In this program, they indicated, well, some people suspected the Ramseys.

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_02] And that's just because John was the one that happened to find the body and the notepad of the ransom note was written on along to Patsy. And then they got an attorney. And no, no, those aren't the reasons people suspect these people. And again, don't go there unless you're going to go there honestly.

[00:20:04] [SPEAKER_02] If you want to talk about the actual reasons these people came under suspicion so you can explain it away and say, well, they suspected them because of this and that's not valid, do that. Don't set up straw men. Everybody who is questioned in a criminal investigation probably should at the very least consult a lawyer.

[00:20:28] [SPEAKER_01] I'm just going to say that.

[00:20:29] [SPEAKER_02] That's not a reason to assume guilt. I'm not aware of anybody who thinks, oh, they hired a lawyer. They must be guilty. No. It's a lot more than that.

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_01] It's a lot more than that. At one point, they had a former federal Bureau of Investigation special agent. What was it? Stephanie Benitez, who I guess looked in the case in 2021. She's saying, well, let's all just drop the fact the Ramsey, you know, the idea the Ramseys might have done it. They didn't do it. Tell me why we should do that. Like, don't just hand wave it. I don't think that's helpful.

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_01] I think basically trying – this whole documentary felt like it was trying to manipulate me and, like, basically, like, oh, they're so nice. Everyone says they're nice. Look at these nice pictures of them as a family. Oh, and this FBI agent says don't even think about it. I guess they must be innocent. Okay. I mean, like, I guess that might work on some people. To me, I think you should address some of these things. I'm open to it. Tell me why. Tell me why I should dismiss it.

[00:21:28] [SPEAKER_02] I'm not – I want to be very clear here. I'm not comparing the Ramsey family to Ted Bundy. I want to make that very, very clear. But I do note that Ted Bundy, well-known serial killer, a lot of people who knew him said they thought he was nice.

[00:21:43] [SPEAKER_01] Didn't think he was capable of it.

[00:21:45] [SPEAKER_02] So, the fact that there's people in someone's life who thinks that they are nice is not in and of itself evidence one way or the other. There's lots of genuinely nice people who are hailed as nice by their friends. And, yes, they're innocent.

[00:22:03] [SPEAKER_01] How many – yeah.

[00:22:04] [SPEAKER_02] There's also genuinely – there's also people who aren't genuinely nice but can fake it.

[00:22:07] [SPEAKER_01] How many times have we had people who are public figures or teachers or priests or pastors seem like such a nice community person and then it turns out they were molesting children? Again, I'm not saying that's what was happening here. I'm just saying, like, that's not good evidence either way. We've also had wrongful convictions of guys who were in gangs. It's not good to be in a gang. You shouldn't be in a criminal gang. But, like, that doesn't mean – like, it doesn't mean anything.

[00:22:32] [SPEAKER_01] And I think a good test that I try to apply – because I used to watch these documentaries and I'd probably be like – I'd probably think whatever the last documentary I watched. Like, if I was just watching it uncritically, I'd be like, well, yeah, that convinced me. They seem like nice people. And then I'd watch another and, okay, that one convinces me. The way to do this is to ask yourself constantly, so what? Okay, so what?

[00:22:58] [SPEAKER_01] And if the answer to the so what is, well, yeah, you could still – you could seem nice and still be a bad person, then you should realize that you are being –

[00:23:06] [SPEAKER_02] Manipulated.

[00:23:07] [SPEAKER_01] Manipulated, especially if that documentary is taking pains not to include other pieces of information, which I feel like they were doing here for the most part.

[00:23:15] [SPEAKER_02] I think they're doing that a lot. And they also were putting out misleading information. At one point, there was a scene where I think, again, Smith – a lot of stuff in this from Smith I think shouldn't be –

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_01] It was full of Smith. Let's just say that.

[00:23:33] [SPEAKER_02] He says, oh, the rope that was used, there was nothing like that. It was a rope that the Ramseys couldn't identify. I believe in the 1998 interview that John Ramsey did, he indicated, well, maybe it could have come from my son John Andrews' bedroom. He was an outdoorsman. Lots of reasons if you're mountain climbing or things like that.

[00:23:54] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, so let's just look at that. He's not saying, oh, I definitely know what this rope's all about. But he's saying, like, it doesn't shock me that this is in here. Maybe it's this. That's a far cry from, I don't know whose rope this is. Now, if a big pile of rope was found in our house – we're not mountain climbers – we'd be very confused by that when we say, we don't know where this came from. Like, that would mean something. But if he's saying no actually kind of makes sense, like, that's a far cry from then what's being stated in this documentary.

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_01] And it's – again, maybe it's a minor point. Maybe it doesn't matter. But it's like, why is it being framed in this way? Why is Lou Smith, frankly, framing it in this way?

[00:24:33] [SPEAKER_02] Again, a lot of stuff that he puts out there shouldn't be taken seriously. They even aired this clip of him climbing into the Ramsey's basement through an open window as an indication, oh, maybe this is how an intruder could have gotten in. They don't tell you that – I believe there was, like, photographs of that window taken that show there was, like, cobwebs and some sort of vegetation and a dirty windowsill that were there. They were undisturbed after all this happened.

[00:25:03] [SPEAKER_02] And if an intruder truly had gotten in through that way, that wouldn't have been the case.

[00:25:08] [SPEAKER_01] Can I just say what I have to say about Lou Smith? I feel like from what I've read about him, I think he sincerely felt they were innocent. I think that was a sincere belief. I think he was emotionally compromised by this investigation. They brought him in. Boulder County District Attorney's Office brought him in. He's a special investigator, and he resigns in 1998 because he's so upset by the focus on the parents. Okay? I mean, that's his conscience, whatever.

[00:25:36] [SPEAKER_01] Maybe if he sincerely felt that, I could understand resigning. But he formed seemingly this very close bond with both parents early on, with John and Patsy Ramsey, to the point where, like, John Ramsey came and prayed over his deathbed. Like, they were extremely close. Like, going to the man's deathbed close. Again, it's okay to—I've heard of cases where detectives remain friends with the victim's family.

[00:26:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not necessarily saying, oh, this is all completely bad in any circumstance. But in the context of what he's doing, I think it's highly relevant to mention this. He goes from taking taxpayers' dollars working for the government to ultimately working for the Ramseys. This is said in multiple media press reports. He went to work for them. So he's taking money from them as an investigator.

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_01] He does this grandstanding campaign for years, talking about how it's the intruder. I don't—he did all sorts of things that I think were unscientific. We'll get into the whole stun gun issue. But I think he was—I think he was essentially charmed by them, felt they couldn't do it, and then made it his life's mission to show how they couldn't do it.

[00:26:52] [SPEAKER_01] I don't think he really cared about the facts so much as clearing them. And, again, even if you want to say they're innocent, I just don't—I don't think his role is this kind of neutral arbiter where we can kind of just take what he says and take it to the bank. I think everything he was doing was a calculated attempt to help the Ramsey cause, and it should be looked at through that lens.

[00:27:18] [SPEAKER_01] That doesn't mean that everything he's saying or doing is wrong necessarily, but it does make it more suspect, in my opinion.

[00:27:25] [SPEAKER_02] And, Anya, if you want to talk about people in positions of authority who were emotionally compromised by this case— Oh, my goodness. You know what I'm going to say. I do. You have to talk about Mary Lacey, who at one time was the district attorney, the prosecutor there. And they have this—she's in this program, and—

[00:27:48] [SPEAKER_01] It scares me that someone like her would be elected district attorney.

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_02] They have a scene where—first of all, let's be honest. It doesn't really matter if an investigator or a person of an authority believes X, Y, or Z. What matters is why they believe it. What is the evidence they have that supports their cause? Yes. They have this scene where she—I think she's trying to be emotional, and she's saying, oh— I think she's highly emotional.

[00:28:22] [SPEAKER_02] Highly emotional. She's trying to make an emotional plea, I think, where she says, imagine looking at your child and then committing these violent acts against your child. And she names in some detail the wounds that poor JonBenet suffered. And she indicates there's no way a parent could do that to a child because you couldn't do that to a child. And—

[00:28:45] [SPEAKER_01] Manipulation.

[00:28:46] [SPEAKER_02] It's manipulation. And also, she was a prosecutor in a big city. And I would think that anybody with that kind of experience is well aware of the fact that a lot of parents in this world do terrible things to their children. It happens literally every day.

[00:29:06] [SPEAKER_01] Well, but not for rich white people, right?

[00:29:08] [SPEAKER_02] I think that's it. I think a lot of people look at the Ramseys and either see them as aspirational figures or people they somehow identify with. Respectable. And there is a tendency in true crime—we saw this, frankly, when we talked to Josie Duffy Rice in the Temujin case—where you say, oh, I'm a reasonable person. I would not have behaved in this way, in this circumstance.

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_02] Therefore, this person, whether it be Jon Ramsey, Patsy Ramsey, Temujin Kinzu, they couldn't have behaved in this way either. And because I, as a rational person, wouldn't do this, I don't believe they would have done it. Therefore, they're innocent. And that's not evidence or even a very good argument.

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_01] Lacey, at one point, talks about, oh, well, they don't exhibit signs of psychopathy, which is basically, you know, I think my understanding is that can be another term for, you know, I don't think that is—I think that can be a very pop culture—pop psychology thing to say. But, you know, antisocial personality disorder, you know, antisocial behavior, lack of empathy, things like that. But it's like, Lacey, Miss Lacey, you're not a mental health professional.

[00:30:27] [SPEAKER_01] Like, what is your basic—like, people can do things and it not be reported. I'm not saying the Ramseys did anything. I'm—again, I'm open to kind of all sides on this one at this point. But don't be—like, that is just something—you got that vibe. You like them. It becomes very clear later on the level of emotional entanglement with this woman and this family. And it doesn't mean anything. And it's shocking.

[00:30:55] [SPEAKER_01] I made the comment somewhat flippantly about them being rich white people. And I do think that plays a role in this. I'm just being completely blunt here. I—especially maybe less the white part, but definitely the rich part. I don't believe at the same time that just because people are—sometimes I think there can be a bit of an ant. Like, they're rich, so they must be weird sickos. I don't think that's appropriate either. That's the opposite side of it where it's like they must be part of some evil thing.

[00:31:25] [SPEAKER_01] No. It should be a neutral thing. It shouldn't impact things. But unfortunately, it does. They certainly had a lot of resources that we'll get into later that they were, you know, used to their advantage in this situation. I will tell you, I grew up in an area with a lot of rich people. Like, I don't mean people who are doing well. I mean, like, generational wealth. I mean, like, really, really rich.

[00:31:50] [SPEAKER_01] A lot of people in the financial industry, living in the New York City suburbs, going to New York. I'm talking generational wealth, like a lot of family money. And in many ways, perhaps aside from the consequences for behavior, they're pretty much like anywhere else. There were incidents in my town where a teenage boy molested young girls.

[00:32:15] [SPEAKER_01] There were incidents where there would be discussions afterwards of like, oh, this kid killed the family dog maliciously. And they're kind of covering that up. There was plenty of intimate partner violence incidents that you would hear about. And people fleeing husbands and whatnot. There, it's just like anywhere else. There was an incident where someone actually, their parents hoarded guns and they locked themselves in the house.

[00:32:43] [SPEAKER_01] And we had a lockdown at our school because they thought something was going to happen. Barricaded in. Like, these are all things that can happen anywhere. Bad things happen anywhere. People do bad things anywhere. The difference where wealth comes in is that oftentimes that can provide a cushion to people who do things because they have the resources to get really good lawyers. They have the resources to make problems go away quicker or easier. That doesn't always happen, but it can happen. I'm not saying that's what happened here.

[00:33:11] [SPEAKER_01] But I am saying, I mean, you can be rich and very much love your kid and be, like, I think a nice person. But you can also be rich and be a bad person and or just a flawed person who makes some really bad choices. I just see the discussion around this sometimes and I feel like some people's perceptions of the socioeconomic factor here are quietly seeping into our expectations.

[00:33:35] [SPEAKER_01] Because the question is, if the Ramseys lived in low-income housing, if they lived in a mobile home, in an impoverished area, would we be looking at this in the same way? If we had approximately the same fact pattern, would we be looking at it the same way? I don't think we would.

[00:33:58] [SPEAKER_02] We wouldn't.

[00:34:00] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I can almost guarantee you we wouldn't.

[00:34:03] [SPEAKER_02] Talk about the letter that Lacey received from Patsy.

[00:34:07] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, my gosh. Okay, so Mary Lacey talks about in 2002, she received a letter from Patsy where Patsy discussed how she started six months of chemotherapy. Please, please don't stop trying to find JonBenet's killer and how much it moved Lacey. And a number of years later, she publicly cleared the family. We could talk more about that later. But her behavior throughout this is totally bizarre.

[00:34:34] [SPEAKER_01] At one point, and here's why I say Lacey's behavior is bizarre. I mean, we'll get into what she did maybe later, but in terms of how, you know, derailing this case. And but Lacey at one point starts defending the parents for putting their child in beauty pageants. It's like this is a prosecutor, right? Why are you acting as their flack? You can think that you can think whatever you want about the beauty pageants, right? You can find them creepy. You can find them normal.

[00:35:04] [SPEAKER_01] You could say, well, the intent was probably innocuous, but maybe there was some bad thing that happened. I don't know. But why is she going out of her way to say that's not a big deal? I just found that bizarre. You know, it's like, aren't you here to talk about the law and the choices you made? Why are you going out on a limb about this? I thought Diane Sawyer was kind of hilarious where she was like, I was in beauty pageants. I think it's normal. And, you know, she but at least at least she had that life experience where she can speak to it.

[00:35:31] [SPEAKER_01] You know, but I it's like this Lacey crossed such an ethical and moral line with this. I really again, I can understand a prosecutor in a case becoming friends with a victim's family like after the case is over or like, oh, you guys are so important to me and I'm so sorry for what you went through. Like I've seen those emotional connections between detectives, between prosecutors and victims families like that absolutely happens.

[00:35:58] [SPEAKER_01] But the key is the context here. I think this documentary makes me feel and I didn't have an opinion on this either way before this. I think the thing that this exposes is that she had an emotional connection to these folks at some point that developed and it kind of derailed her own behavior on this case.

[00:36:24] [SPEAKER_02] So I want to talk about another. You talked about a letter that Patsy wrote to Mary Lacey. I want to talk about another note that some people believe was was also written by Patsy. And this is the ransom note. This is a bizarre three page note left in the Ramsey home. And. A number of they try to make it sound this documentary that experts don't really think it was written by Patsy.

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_02] I mean, I've got lots of quotes here from people who either out and out say they believe it was written by her or say there they can't exclude her as the author of that ransom note. Keep in mind that people of a scientific bent. They're not going to go out there all the time and say, yes, it was definitely written by this person.

[00:37:15] [SPEAKER_02] Because for all they know, maybe on the other side of the world, there is a twin or a double of somebody who has the exact same way of writing and speaking. So they won't always say, yes, it's definitely this person. But one expert, Leonard Speckin, says, I am, however, unable to eliminate her as the author. There's only an infinitesimal chance that some random intruder would be have handwriting characteristics.

[00:37:44] [SPEAKER_02] So remarkably similar to those of a parent sleeping upstairs.

[00:37:48] [SPEAKER_01] Dang.

[00:37:48] [SPEAKER_02] So I think there's a lot of experts who say, yes, it is. It was written by her. We don't really need to go too much into that.

[00:37:56] [SPEAKER_01] But they're claiming like no one did except for one person.

[00:37:59] [SPEAKER_02] Which isn't true. That simply isn't true.

[00:38:01] [SPEAKER_01] Did they couch it in some way of like only one person who we hired as part of the investigation? I don't.

[00:38:08] [SPEAKER_02] They have Julia Cowley from The Consult on. I don't remember if Julia ever explicitly said she did not think it was written by Patsy.

[00:38:20] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know. The implication was she didn't. But I don't think she ever explicitly said that on the show. If she did, I missed it.

[00:38:29] [SPEAKER_02] But it's important to remember handwriting analysis isn't just, oh, this person writes the letter D the same way as this. Therefore, it must be the same person. Handwriting analysis also includes things like the words you use, the way you structure your sentences, things of that nature. So it's really, really complicated.

[00:38:51] [SPEAKER_02] And I wouldn't really put too much stock into a conclusion a person reaches unless they really do have a lot of experience in that.

[00:39:00] [SPEAKER_01] I think she was less analyzing the handwriting and more of analyzing or trying to construct a profile based on the content of the letter.

[00:39:09] [SPEAKER_02] And she was saying that the person who wrote it seems to have been like pretty angry with John. Without going too far down the road of speculation, I think it's pretty easy to imagine a set of circumstances where Patsy Ramsey would have been angry with John that night.

[00:39:26] [SPEAKER_01] I also think there's a set of circumstances without speculating too far that if I'm doing something bad. And I want to deflect attention away from me, I make myself look like a target. Right?

[00:39:41] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:39:42] [SPEAKER_01] Like this person must have really hated Anya.

[00:39:45] [SPEAKER_02] So therefore, Anya must be innocent.

[00:39:47] [SPEAKER_01] Anya must be innocent. She doesn't hate herself or anything. She's very emotionally healthy.

[00:39:52] [SPEAKER_02] I want to mention something else about this note. There was a reference to a dollar amount in it to be paid for a ransom. I believe it was $118,000, which was pretty similar to a bonus.

[00:40:04] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, this. Goodness gracious.

[00:40:06] [SPEAKER_02] It was pretty similar to a bonus that John had been paid earlier that year. And Patsy apparently claims, oh, I had no idea how much the bonus was. And they make some, hey, well, very few people would have known what his bonus was. So if you truly don't think that ransom note was written by Patsy, if you truly believe her when she said she does not know the amount her husband received in a bonus.

[00:40:34] [SPEAKER_02] And if you truly believe only a very few people would have that information, have you looked at all of those people and eliminated them? Because I would suspect that the number of people who knew the dollar figure of the bonus he received that year would not only be a finite number, but it would be a pretty small number. So I would be curious if any real work was done on that.

[00:41:01] [SPEAKER_02] I think you had some things you wanted to say. There were some phrases in that letter that people claim indicated that the person was obsessed with movies.

[00:41:11] [SPEAKER_01] I want to talk about the movies. We'll talk about the movies. But first, let me just talk about the bonus. I thought it was, I mean, again, when I say propaganda for the Ramses, I'm not trying to be facetious. Like I did expect, what was it, Reed Shun-Hee to appear at some point and talking about the glorious empire of the Ramses. I don't think stuff like, I mean, I guess people just kind of lap up with whatever they're given in many cases.

[00:41:35] [SPEAKER_01] But I think, frankly, as someone who's kind of open-minded about it, I would have loved to hear the Ramses answer some harder questions. Because maybe what they have to say would, oh, okay, I could kind of understand that. Or yeah, maybe I might do something like that too if I were under a lot of duress. Like I think there was an opportunity here that was missed, which is very unfortunate. And this was one of the ones where it just drove me crazy. They're like, okay, yeah, very few people knew this bonus.

[00:42:04] [SPEAKER_01] You know, gotcha people who think the family did it. Like that is a gotcha against the family because they'd be some of the only people to know it. But, you know, but Patsy told us she didn't know. So I guess we'll just take that to the bank.

[00:42:16] [SPEAKER_02] There's no reason she would lie.

[00:42:17] [SPEAKER_01] Why would she lie? It's like if she was involved, she might lie. She would have a reason to lie. And if she's not lying and it was really someone else who did this, then as you said, there's an extremely narrow, narrow list of who this could be. And I just found it so bizarre that they were like using that as a dunk when in fact it's actually extremely bad for the Ramseys because it makes it so a random pedophile who's just trolling around could not have done this.

[00:42:47] [SPEAKER_01] Because how would they have known that that number would correlate? It would have to be someone with connections to the Ramseys. And I again, I don't it like to me. The thing that would be like, OK, maybe there's so much about the scene that doesn't make sense.

[00:43:07] [SPEAKER_01] There's so much about abducting someone in their own home and then leaving their body in the home and doing two things to try to kill them over the course of hours and staying there for so long and writing a ransom note, but not actually wanting to do anything with that. So all of that could honestly you could sell me on a lot of that by just the idea that people are weird. Someone who's doing this is not exactly mentally healthy and perhaps they're just doing whatever you could actually I could buy that.

[00:43:35] [SPEAKER_01] But it falls apart in the face of the ransom note because the ransom note makes it clear that there was insider information that was in play here. I don't know how you can get around that. And and that means again that but the but the documentary is so smug about it like checkmate. It's like, no, this is what? And they don't ask them about this. I would have asked John Ramsey who knew who could this be?

[00:44:01] [SPEAKER_01] And maybe they're not involved, but maybe they told someone maybe like maybe like it's not curious. It's not interested. It's just saying like what I feel like are frankly talking points. I found a bizarre.

[00:44:12] [SPEAKER_02] Tell me about these movies.

[00:44:14] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, my gosh. The movies. Let's talk about them. Let's talk about the movies. There's been much hay made over time, as there should be. The ransom note is bizarre for many reasons. It's very long. Most ransom notes in history are pretty brief. This is two and a half pages, almost three pages. And it's rife with what are described as sort of movie quotes. The documentary specifically cites Dirty Harry, Nick of Time, Ruthless People, Ransom and Speed.

[00:44:43] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm going to go through exactly what's said in the ransom note and then the corresponding movie line. For Dirty Harry, that's a movie that came out in 1971. I'm noting when things came out because I think that's important. So people would have plenty of time to have seen that by 1996, obviously. But the ransom note says, Mr. Ramsey, listen carefully.

[00:45:04] [SPEAKER_01] And in Dirty Harry, which is an excellent movie if you watch it, you have the serial killer who has kidnapped a girl talking to Inspector Harry Callahan in this ransom situation. And he says, now listen to me carefully. Listen very carefully. OK, so that's not exactly verbatim. It's a similar concept. Right. And it has some of the same words. It's not a direct quote. No.

[00:45:29] [SPEAKER_01] You also have the ransom note saying, if we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. The movie line is, if you talk to anyone, I don't care if it's a Pekingese pissing against a lamppost, the girl dies. OK. Similar concept, as they pointed out in 2020. You talk to even a dog. She dies. It's a similar concept. It's not. It's very much not a direct quote. You have in the ransom note.

[00:45:58] [SPEAKER_01] I advise you to be arrested. The movie line is it sounds like you had a good rest. You'll need it. A lot of these things have a similar meaning, but they're far from direct quotes. Is that fair to say?

[00:46:11] [SPEAKER_02] That's fair to say.

[00:46:12] [SPEAKER_01] I don't say this to say that the Dirty Harry connection is meaningless. But we'll talk about my conclusion on that later. So another one. This movie was actually in theaters when this happened in 1996. This is the film Ransom. It has a kidnapping plot. A businessman's son is kidnapped. His young son. The movie line is do not involve the police or the FBI. If you do, I will kill him. End quote. Not a direct quote.

[00:46:37] [SPEAKER_02] I like to say that generally speaking, I don't find these quotes to be super compelling. I'm not even sure if they came from these movies. They are generic enough. They're cliched. That they could also even come from television shows. They could come from books about kidnappings. If you're saying, just saying the phrase, listen carefully, well, that's obviously from Dirty Harry. I'm not even sure I buy that.

[00:47:05] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know if I buy that either, actually. And I also think like you might, you might kind of vaguely remember the Dirty Harry scene where if you even talk to a dog, she dies. And you're kind of your brain simplifying it. Like, oh, I could say something like that. That sounds like a real criminal. To me, it's like someone who has to watch the movies to try to see what a criminal sounds like.

[00:47:22] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. I'm not thinking that this is a person who is obsessed with thrillers.

[00:47:26] [SPEAKER_01] Well, let's, I'm going to, yeah. But go on. Ruthless People, 1986 film also involves a kidnapping plot. The Ransom Note says, at this time we have your daughter in our possession. The movie line, at this time we have kidnapped your wife. Again, like at this time is the only actual verbatim. I don't know. Like as a writer, I guess I'm just like, I don't know. I think there's too much being put into like a couple of words.

[00:47:52] [SPEAKER_01] Nick of Time, 1995, which also aired the night of the murder, December 25th, 1996, on Boulder Cable. The movie quote says, you talk to a cop, even look at one too long, your daughter's dead. Again, it's similar, but I don't know. I find a lot of this overstated.

[00:48:11] [SPEAKER_01] And I find it more someone who watches movies and is perhaps familiar with some thrillers, perhaps synthesizing ideas and maybe some criminal sounding phrasings from them. I feel like the 2020 episode makes it out like somebody must be obsessed with these movies to be able to write this Ransom Note. And I don't think that's accurate because I don't think that's accurate at all. The phrasing is too different across the board.

[00:48:37] [SPEAKER_01] I think it's somebody who could just have sent the and this doesn't point to or away from the Ramses necessarily. It's more just like, I think like anyone could have done this. I don't think it's like they were like almost like I feel like one of the reporters at one point were like, someone's got to be obsessed with these movies. Somebody's got to remember someone who was obsessed with Ransom or something. And it's like, I don't think that's necessarily a prerequisite for writing this thing.

[00:49:02] [SPEAKER_02] So what basically the whole program is about at its heart is the presence of touch DNA on JonBenet's.

[00:49:13] [SPEAKER_01] That's his whole reason for existing, honestly.

[00:49:16] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. And first of all, I hasten to add and make the point, this is not new information. This has at least been publicly known since, what, 2008. And touch DNA doesn't really describe what it is. It didn't really describe how little of it was on this.

[00:49:38] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, they're reporting on that. It's not clear whatsoever.

[00:49:41] [SPEAKER_02] It's not. It's entirely possible that it was some sort of remnant from the person who packaged the underwear. If you get a package of clothes from a department store and you run a DNA test on it, you're probably going to get some touch DNA results. So that's really quite overstated.

[00:50:02] [SPEAKER_01] Well, you say that, but where is your information on that coming from?

[00:50:06] [SPEAKER_02] A lot of my information on this comes from James Kohler, who wrote a book about this, and he was involved with the grand jury.

[00:50:15] [SPEAKER_01] He obviously thinks that the Ramseys are culpable in what happened to their daughters. So, I mean, he thinks that. I guess I, whatever you think about that, I don't think this documentary did a good job as presenting what they have. Because the thing I kept on thinking was, as just a viewer, I tried to put myself in viewer mode versus someone who knows the case mode. Okay, how much is it? Can they test that? What can they do with it? How many markers did it have?

[00:50:44] [SPEAKER_01] Can we tell the person's race? Can we use it for genetic genealogy? I felt like a lot of these questions were answered somewhat at times through, like, other information. But, like, they weren't clear about it. They should have kind of made it clear how little it was. But what you're saying is this is not enough DNA to do anything with. Is that fair to say?

[00:51:04] [SPEAKER_02] That's fair to say, although claims are made that maybe someday.

[00:51:10] [SPEAKER_01] Well, no, that's fair. DNA has progressed rapidly. I think anything's possible. Nothing should be taken off the table. Maybe 10 years from now, that's enough. And they can do whatever they want with it. That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with 2020 not being super clear about it. And, you know, they say things like, okay, it's male DNA. It's unknown male number one. And it's connected. Rather, we can exclude the Ramseys. Okay, that's notable.

[00:51:38] [SPEAKER_01] But what else can or cannot you do with it? I think a lot of people who watch this who maybe are not familiar with the case or how DNA works are going to come away somewhat confused.

[00:51:47] [SPEAKER_02] I'm going to go make the meatloaf.

[00:51:49] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. All right. One thing that I felt was interesting was at one point, John Ramsey, John Bonney's father, says, you know, talks about DNA testing in our favor, which I thought was kind of an interesting, maybe somewhat telling phrase. Because to me, a lot of this stuff is automatically within the Ramsey's favor. And what do I mean by that with DNA? Well, DNA is circumstantial evidence. DNA is really important.

[00:52:20] [SPEAKER_01] Circumstantial evidence is important. People kind of decry circumstantial evidence as this kind of like meaningless thing, or it means like the case is less good. But like, let's look at semen, for instance. Semen present in a body in the context of that person being married and having consensual sex with their husband, that can be explained. It can't be explained if it's some kind of serial killer traversing the nation, raping and murdering people. Right. So, I mean, like that's contextual.

[00:52:46] [SPEAKER_01] And I think even more so with touch DNA. Touch DNA is what we're dealing with in this case, is my understanding, or at least it's possibly touch DNA. What they said is it's not semen. So, semen is the gold standard because semen contains sperm and sperm are very DNA rich, right? That's what sperm exists for. So, I don't know. I know that I've seen it speculated. Maybe it's saliva. Maybe it's touch.

[00:53:16] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know. I don't know enough about that. But I'm just saying it's not really the gold standard. Now, touch DNA can still be highly meaningful. If someone has no reason to be in a home and their touch DNA is everywhere, that's notable. But if someone's an invited guest, if someone's a family member, if someone's supposed to be there, I think touch DNA becomes a lot more iffy. It doesn't mean it's useless. It just means it may not identify the killer, depending on what kind of DNA it is. JonBenet had already been to like a friend's house.

[00:53:46] [SPEAKER_01] It was Christmas. She was around different people. I think we've talked to DNA experts who say, like, sometimes just living in a household, you might get tiny bits of DNA under your fingernails, on your body, on your person, on your clothing. That's not unusual. So, could this mean something? Could the DNA, the unknown male DNA in this case, mean something? I think we have to be open-minded to different possibilities. Do I think it's likely anything other than a red herring? No.

[00:54:15] [SPEAKER_01] I think it's probably a red herring. That's my personal take, but I'm happy to be wrong. I love this thing to get solved. If the DNA comes back, they're able to do something within future years, and it comes back to some, like, predator who, then, okay, let's go. But what I wanted to say was, I say the Ramseys have a favorable DNA situation, and that's because their DNA is supposed to be everywhere. She's living in the household with them. They're her family members.

[00:54:45] [SPEAKER_01] So, as far as the Ramseys are concerned, DNA testing, whether or not they did anything, is a boon. Because if it ever comes back that their DNA is on anything, they can say, well, it was our house. It was our stuff. It was our kid. We were all, you know, and there would be nothing particularly damning about any of that. And I wouldn't say there would be. I mean, if there's DNAs on any of this stuff, I'd say, well, it's their house, right? What do you think?

[00:55:11] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I agree completely.

[00:55:12] [SPEAKER_01] So, basically, as far as I'm concerned, they can kind of explain away any of their DNA, but any other DNA that doesn't belong to them, they can say, well, this indicates there's a third-party killer. So, to me, it's like, yeah, I can understand why they're definitely stressing this and talking about it a lot. Because I just think people, I've seen some people be like, well, you know, if they did anything, why would they still be calling for testing? Well, if there's a win-win situation, why wouldn't you? That could be a grieving family who wants answers.

[00:55:41] [SPEAKER_01] That could be people who are acting in bad faith.

[00:55:43] [SPEAKER_02] You've got nothing to lose.

[00:55:44] [SPEAKER_01] Got nothing to lose. Some things that struck me, they gloss over this. They gloss over this. But I want to talk about the delayed cooperation aspect of this. Because I think they completely, the way that Diane Sawyer and 2020 producers frame the Ramseys is dedicated family, locked in, striving for justice.

[00:56:12] [SPEAKER_01] And I think that's antithetical to a lot of their behavior, especially in the crucial, critical early days of this case. I think there's a truism now in true crime that I always appreciate and I think we should live by, which is grief affects different people differently. People can come off as weird, right? People can come off as creepy. People can come off as fake. Doesn't make those things true. Doesn't make them bad.

[00:56:38] [SPEAKER_01] But there's like emotions and how you come off in a conversation. And there's specific behaviors. I want to read out a timeline, a documented timeline of what happened in this case and how the Ramseys reacted. And see if this is corroborating of the image they're portraying in 2020 or if it shows a bit of a different side. They have on the show attorney Mike Bynum, who is a family friend.

[00:57:08] [SPEAKER_01] He says, I take the blame for them getting a lawyer. That was me. I said they should do it because I'm a lawyer and I know you want to get a lawyer. You yourself said get a lawyer if you're in this situation, right? Yes. It's a no brainer. Any lawyer will tell you get a lawyer.

[00:57:20] [SPEAKER_02] Get a lawyer.

[00:57:22] [SPEAKER_01] You want someone to protect your rights.

[00:57:24] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. I mean, even if you're going to buy a home, get a real estate agent. When you're doing something you're not used to, get someone who has experience to help you navigate that process. But go on.

[00:57:36] [SPEAKER_01] I think if the only problem was that they'd gotten a lawyer, I wouldn't personally care. It's not even a problem. That's not a problem. You should want to protect your rights. Police get things wrong. And police can be overly aggressive. And police can go down the wrong path. A lawyer can help you keep things streamlined, protect you, protect your family. I'm all for it. Get a lawyer. So.

[00:57:58] [SPEAKER_02] And also, let me just stress this. I don't care who you are. I don't care if you are the greatest person who has ever lived. And everybody recognizes this and hails you whenever they see you. So, if your husband, if your wife, if your son, if your daughter is found dead in a house that you are in, the police are going to look at you. It's a no-brainer. Yes. There's no way around that. But I keep on interrupting you.

[00:58:28] [SPEAKER_02] No, no, no.

[00:58:29] [SPEAKER_01] I think that is important. So, by December 31st, media reports indicate that the Ramsey family had not only hired attorneys. They had a whole team of attorneys for both parents, but they also hired Pat Corton, who was from the public relations firm in Washington, D.C., Rowan and Blewett, as basically a crisis management person. A flack, right? So, not just an attorney, but someone who's doing crisis PR for them.

[00:58:58] [SPEAKER_01] And by January 14th, 1997, they hired John Douglas, the famed FBI profiler, right?

[00:59:07] [SPEAKER_03] Yes. Okay.

[00:59:07] [SPEAKER_01] An attorney is one thing. An attorney is someone I would say everyone should do in this situation. But also, crisis PR? That's odd. No? And, of course, what does Douglas do? Oh, well, I came in, I talked to them for four hours, and I looked at the case information they gave me, and I don't think they could have done this. Like, I'm just being totally blunt here.

[00:59:36] [SPEAKER_01] I enjoyed Mindhunter with everyone else, but I think this chapter in his career makes him not a credible person to me. That someone could purchase his services in this way. And I don't, like, I mean, like, what, oh, if he thought they were guilty, he was really going to say that? Like, okay. I just think that you add money to anything, and it taints it. It does. It tainted it for Smith. I think it taints it for, I think it taints all these people.

[01:00:05] [SPEAKER_01] Especially so early on. So, you know, they're immediately trying to get ahead of this. Media reports indicate by February they're saying, yeah, we know we're at the top of the list. So they're aware that they're being looked at, and yet they don't go in and talk to police. Now, they talked to police when this was all initially happening in their house, but they refused to come in and do a formal police interview. And here are some reasons why they refused to go in for that.

[01:00:35] [SPEAKER_01] It wasn't, you know, it wasn't, oh, we don't have attorneys yet. Let us get attorneys, then we'll talk to you. That would be understandable. It was, we only want to be interviewed together, John and Patsy Ramsey together. Why would that matter? Why would that matter at all? That's really odd. Is that so that you can keep your story straight? Like, what's a good reason? Oh, for emotional support? Well, I find that utterly bizarre. They want to be interviewed together.

[01:01:02] [SPEAKER_01] They want the lawyers, their lawyer, their legal team, to select which detectives are allowed to talk to them. Again, what? What? They're trying to control the terms of this whole thing. Police, understandably, Boulder Police. Listen, I don't believe the Boulder Police Department covered themselves in glory in this case whatsoever. I'm not going to defend the mishandling of the crime scene at all. That's a disaster. That is the primary reason this goes unsolved.

[01:01:28] [SPEAKER_01] But it's not their job to capitulate to whatever the wealthy targets of their investigation want to do just because they have fancy lawyers. So they're saying no. April 18th, 1997, District Attorney Alex Hunter uses the famous umbrella of suspicion around the Ramseys phrase. And then only after that do they consent to a formal police interview separately, which occurs on April 30th, 1997, four months after their daughter was brutally murdered.

[01:01:58] [SPEAKER_01] Four months. Four months it took these people to do police interview, which is like the first step in anything happening as far as this investigation. Like that would be the first step in any investigation. If someone is found dead in your house, you are going to be interviewed. If your daughter is found dead in your house, you are going to be interviewed. If your daughter is found dead, you're going to be interviewed. Yes. Like. I don't even.

[01:02:23] [SPEAKER_01] They've I think they've made statements being kind of exasperated, horrified, scandalized, angry that they were treated as suspects. I don't know if the level of entitlement. Has to be just utterly off the charts. No one wants to be wrongfully accused of a crime, correct?

[01:02:44] [SPEAKER_03] Correct.

[01:02:45] [SPEAKER_01] Especially a crime against someone you love. And you know what? You and I have interviewed a ton of family members who have been in this exact same position, who have. Entered into a nightmare. And police want to talk to them about that. And police in those instances are like. Looking for people to blame. Right. And they're looking. OK, you're a family member. Most people are killed by someone they know.

[01:03:15] [SPEAKER_01] We have to either rule you out or keep going with you. These are high stakes, no doubt. I can imagine it being stressful. I can imagine.

[01:03:23] [SPEAKER_02] I can imagine it being on some level, not only hurtful, but offensive. Yes. To be falsely suspected. Yes. Of a crime against someone you love. I understand that. But unfortunately, it is reality that police have to take that as a serious possibility. And to not understand that.

[01:03:41] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, I don't think these are unsophisticated people. And I think, you know, they kept saying, well, you're wasting time on us. You're wasting time by refusing to let the process play out. What are you talking about? Like the level of entitlement again and again, I'm I'm someone who I've said it again and again. Get a lawyer. Do what you need to do. But in all these other family members that we've talked to who have been in this exact same position. Some have been on the show.

[01:04:11] [SPEAKER_01] Some haven't. What they say is this. They're angry. They're offended. How dare you suggest that to me? But you know what trumps all of that is they're eager. They're eager to give the police the information they need to clear them and move on and get to the next phase because they realize that time is running out. And the quicker I get this over with, because I know I didn't do anything. I know I didn't do anything. And here's all my information.

[01:04:38] [SPEAKER_01] I don't all the people that I'm thinking of in this category. None of them even brought in lawyers. And again, I don't that's neither here nor there because that's your right. And you should do that. I think people should do that. But these folks all were willing to say, you know what? Screw it. I don't even care. I'll talk to you right now. Let's get this moving. Because I don't want this to happen to another family. I want to catch this person who did this. And because I have nothing to hide.

[01:05:03] [SPEAKER_01] And I can't even imagine waiting four months to get the ball rolling on this. That is bizarre to me. You don't get to do this and then turn around and act like we've been waiting. We're the only ones pushing for something. Four months. And their excuse is what? They got the sense the police were looking at them. Of course they were. That's not a good excuse. I just I find it. I find this appalling.

[01:05:31] [SPEAKER_01] If the Ramsey's are guilty. Then this is obviously just, you know, they didn't want to be interviewed because they're guilty. And if somehow, I mean, if they're innocent, then this bizarre set of actions where they seemingly cared more about covering themselves and protecting themselves over getting justice for their daughter. I think this is a critical failure on their parts to take this seriously.

[01:06:01] [SPEAKER_01] And here's why. If they're innocent, we've elaborated. If they're innocent, okay, there's a small group of people who would know his bonus or would have access to that information or have access to people who had that information. That would be critical to provide to investigators. It would be critical to, okay, who did we have some bad interactions with lately? Who was being kind of creepy? I mean, they certainly were willing to throw a lot of people under the bus later on.

[01:06:28] [SPEAKER_01] But having that stuff immediately after the crime, wouldn't that be like a baby before the criminal has gotten rid of evidence or like time is of the essence here. And so I just find this theater. It's theater. It's theatrical of, you know, posing as if as if they didn't do this. And, you know, and again, the 2020 team, they let them get away with it. They don't ask about any of this. My first question would be, how could you do this? How could you?

[01:06:58] [SPEAKER_01] Didn't you care? And hiring a crisis PR manager. Like, I just. That says, I mean, that just says a lot to me. I don't. And that's the 31st. That's days after they found her dead. I don't I don't even. You don't go on CNN before you talk to the police, even if you don't like the police, even if you don't think they're doing a good job. You lawyer up. You give them the information they need to get started.

[01:07:25] [SPEAKER_01] If at some point months down the road, they're still harping on you and, you know, you didn't do it. I can understand getting frustrated and going to the media. But they accelerated that process from the beginning. From the beginning, it seems like they had no intention of cooperating with this investigation. And I just find that bizarre. And then they have the gall to go on TV every couple of years and complain about it. What do they have any ownership of their own contribution to that? I don't.

[01:07:54] [SPEAKER_01] It doesn't seem like it. One thing they talked about was actually one thing Diane Sawyer did back in the 90s was she got a hold of the pediatrician who cared for JonBenet Ramsey, Dr. Francesco Buff. I'm sorry if I'm saying his name wrong. And she actually interviewed him and he was able to clear up something that I think is important. Some people have said, like, could she have been sexually molested by a relative? And he was saying, you know, she did have 33 pediatrician visits in like a shorter amount of time.

[01:08:23] [SPEAKER_01] But like 27 of those were sinus related, as far as he recalls. And maybe she had asthma. And she did have a UTI or I think maybe he mentioned three UTIs, but he felt that was normal. He didn't see signs of sexual abuse, although it's not clear to me like what his examinations would have entailed where he would have seen that. And I thought all that was good. I thought it was good reporting on Diane Sawyer's part back in the 90s.

[01:08:51] [SPEAKER_01] One thing that I was a little bit annoyed about, not the biggest deal in the world, was would it surprise you that this doctor was actually extremely close to the Ramseys?

[01:09:02] [SPEAKER_02] No.

[01:09:02] [SPEAKER_01] Would it surprise you to know that this doctor actually rushed to the Ramsey side immediately after this happened and even got tranquilizers for Patsy Ramsey?

[01:09:10] [SPEAKER_02] No.

[01:09:11] [SPEAKER_01] It seemed to me like they had a pretty close relationship. So him saying this family couldn't have done this should be contextualized in that, like, I don't think my friends or I don't think these people I'm close to could have done this. Again, it doesn't mean he's lying. I'm not saying that. It's just like having some of that context, I think, would be a little bit helpful. I'll say this.

[01:09:31] [SPEAKER_01] The Ramsey's housekeeper, Linda Hoffman Pugh, she talked about, I guess, she felt that a month before the murder, that JonBenet had regressed in terms of her bedwetting. Like, she had been doing it, it stopped, and then she went back to it. And she also said, according to Steve Thomas' book, he was one of the investigators on the case, not only that, but that she would defecate in her bed.

[01:10:00] [SPEAKER_01] There were instances where she described finding feces in the bed. So that's something that seems relevant. I think if you're going to mention, hey, these doctor's checkups didn't show anything, that's interesting. But to me, a six-year-old child suddenly resuming bedwetting, defecating in the bed, I think that's notable. Is that child going through some stress? Is that child being abused in some way? Is there something else going on?

[01:10:28] [SPEAKER_01] Is there a health thing going on? Is the housekeeper not being accurate or lying? I mean, I will note, I think it's important if we're going to say that this guy was, the pediatrician was friends with the Ramsey's. Hoffman Pugh did say a lot of negative things about the Ramsey's in the press and, you know, very negative things. And even sued the Ramsey's for libel after their book, Death of Innocence, came out. That lawsuit was dismissed. But I don't know. I think it would have been nice to address that.

[01:10:58] [SPEAKER_01] I appreciated them dressing the pediatrician checkups, though. I think the stun gun thing is, again, just like, okay.

[01:11:07] [SPEAKER_02] What's the stun gun thing?

[01:11:09] [SPEAKER_01] Well, okay. So Lou Smith, these two small red marks. So two pairs of these. So one is on her right cheek jaw area. Another one is on her lower left back. He says this looks like a stun gun. It's a stun gun weapon that he shocked her and then shocked her again during a struggle. So it's like, you know, he's using it to control her. Okay.

[01:11:36] [SPEAKER_01] And he claims that they match up to this. And then there's, you know, they're using like pig skin to do it. And they're doing all these experiments with it. Now, the official autopsy does not say that these are electrical burns. They say they're just abrasions. And in addition to that, like, there's been a lot of back and forth about people who, I mean, I've seen pictures of stun gun injuries.

[01:12:04] [SPEAKER_01] And I didn't think they resembled this. But that's just, I mean, that's my non-expert opinion. And people, you know, who worked for some of these companies were quoted in the press as saying, like, you know, if a child is struggling, you're not going to be able to get these kind of marks. It's going to be a lot more chaotic. People said, like, it wouldn't really cause you to lose consciousness or stop screaming. Like, there's a lot of problems with the idea that this is a stun gun, in other words. Now, some people say it is a stun gun. Some say it's not.

[01:12:31] [SPEAKER_01] But I think you should, if you're going to say, like, they just kind of throw it out there and say, well, yeah, stun gun. And they don't mention all the things that people have said, like, on the other side about why it's not. I don't mind people saying some say it's a stun gun, notably Lou Smith. But I would love it to have both sides. When it's disputed to that extent, I don't think it's responsible to just say stun gun.

[01:12:58] [SPEAKER_02] I don't know. Yeah, it's always important to have two sides. Well, another thing I wanted to mention is there's another project about this case. I think it came out a few years back called The Case of, colon, JonBenet Ramsey. This was a two-part thing on CBS, which was largely based on the work of James Kohler, who wrote a book called A Foreign Faction, who really kidnapped JonBenet. Excellent book. Excellent book.

[01:13:28] [SPEAKER_02] And it's been a while since I watched this TV show. I remember thinking it was very well done at the time. They don't mention this by name in this program. They just refer to it, oh, somebody did a network show saying that they thought maybe Burke was the killer. But, you know, good news, Burke and the family sued them and they settled out of court.

[01:13:53] [SPEAKER_02] People say things like that in order to cast disrepute on something.

[01:13:59] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, that's true.

[01:14:00] [SPEAKER_02] In order to make it sound kind of, well, they must not have had anything if they settled out of court.

[01:14:05] [SPEAKER_01] They say that all the time with a lot of things.

[01:14:07] [SPEAKER_02] I want to say I don't have any special knowledge of the circumstances of this case. I haven't talked to anybody involved with this case. I will say it's often a strategy if someone says something about you you don't like. You file a lawsuit for some huge amount of money. You get a lot of publicity for it. And then later you settle it for some token amount.

[01:14:32] [SPEAKER_02] The thing to remember is a lot of people and agencies and networks and publishers are represented by insurance companies. And an insurance company will look at a case that's been filed against you and say, okay, we could win this case, but the legal fees would probably, I'm going to pull a number out of the air. The legal fees to win this case would be $50,000. Why don't we offer to settle with them for $25,000?

[01:15:01] [SPEAKER_02] Then we come out ahead. In other words. It's purely a monetary decision. Yeah, it's a business decision to settle often. So what I'd like to do is if one of these cases that gets settled out of court really has merit, one thing I like to look for is the contested piece of work still available.

[01:15:23] [SPEAKER_02] Because if someone said something scurrilous about me that really harmed me and my family to the extent that I thought I was entitled to hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate me for that harm, I would not settle for that unless as part of the settlement the offending works were taken out of the public marketplace.

[01:15:45] [SPEAKER_01] Get it gone.

[01:15:46] [SPEAKER_02] I just looked. This documentary still available on Amazon Prime. I encourage you guys to go out and watch it. And also, of course, the book Foreign Faction that it is based on by James Collar. That is also still available. I encourage you guys to read it. I think that's probably the best single work I've encountered on this case.

[01:16:07] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, listen, it's a very opinionated book. It has a very clear suspect and it lays it out. But I think beyond that, even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it's a helpful look at the evidence, which I think is lacking in many spaces. I think I think people should read it. I would go watch the documentary and read the book. And as I've said, I'm kind of stepping away from my own opinions to a certain degree. With this documentary, it's more like what what we're lacking here.

[01:16:38] [SPEAKER_01] And I just don't think it's very comprehensive. I will say like. I want to say about the lawsuits, because I think this is important. So. With the lawsuits, you broke that down. That was in 2016 when that came up, the case of JonBenét Ramsey. And what that theorized was that Burke at nine years old had accidentally killed his sister in an accident. And they posited that the parents then covered it up.

[01:17:08] [SPEAKER_01] So that was what their point of view was. But there was the suit. I just want to say like Ramsey's are highly litigious. This is the I'll give you what I think is a comprehensive list of some of the litigations they've taken against others. So. National Enquirer, Star Magazine, Globe, various tabloids, they sued them, I think, in 1999 or 2000. That was also settled out of court, undisclosed some. Time Warner and CNN, 2001.

[01:17:39] [SPEAKER_01] Out of court. Fox News. That was a radio broadcast where they it was reported that Burke's DNA was. On evidence in the case, which, again, like he lives there. So I don't know. That doesn't necessarily mean anything. That was dismissed by a judge. So they actually lost that one. Then they sued Dr. Werner Spitz, who is a forensic pathologist, I believe. He said in a radio interview that Burke killed JonBenét.

[01:18:08] [SPEAKER_01] And that was settled along with the CBS suit. And then CBS was. Yeah. The last one. And that was all resolved in 2019. All that stuff still available. There is a there is that I think there's it's fair to say that they're highly litigious, but it's it seems like they just kind of file a suit and then settle for something. And I think that's it's a pattern. I think it's interesting.

[01:18:36] [SPEAKER_01] I would say this with kind of certain aspects of this information. I mentioned the whole delay. Some people who are very upset about the delay and them cooperating with police in any measure were Fleet and Priscilla White. Those are the friends that they called. So those are some of the friends they called over to their house the morning they discovered the ransom note. And many people have said, like, the note says we're going to kill your daughter if you even call the police. Why would you call your friends over?

[01:19:05] [SPEAKER_01] Calling the police is one thing because they're professionals who are supposed to be able to be trained to deal with a situation like this. But your friends might go blab. So why bring them over? I find it odd, but people do odd things. I think one thing notable with the whites, though, was they essentially. Like we're expecting their friends, the Ramsey's to, like, work with the police.

[01:19:29] [SPEAKER_01] And what they were seeing was that their close friends are compiling this massive team to protect them at the expense of the investigation and everything else. And they urge them to talk to police at some point. And they felt they were cut off after that. And they felt they were thrown under the bus. So I thought that was interesting. Another thing that I think this documentary kind of glosses over that was unfortunate was at one point we even see Diane Sawyer back in the 90s being like, OK, that's kind of a whole convoluted house.

[01:19:59] [SPEAKER_01] So could anyone hear anything if something was going on? Right. Yeah. Like that's something some people sleep at different levels or sometimes a house. The acoustics might be weird. So maybe you would hear something or wouldn't hear it. It kind of depends. And they talked about how what I read in press reports from back in the day was that there were sound testings done in the house.

[01:20:19] [SPEAKER_01] And what was found in those testings was that it would have been potentially pretty hard for you to hear stuff in the third floor parents bedroom on on the lower floors that could go unheard, especially in the basement. And you wouldn't have necessarily heard like footsteps on the stairs. But caveat was that Burke's bedroom was on the second floor of the home, along with JonBenet's.

[01:20:45] [SPEAKER_01] And a scream originating from that floor would have been heard unless someone was really deeply asleep. So kind of is a mixed bag there. Now, I want to talk a little bit more about the DNA because I think that is that's a that's a big part of this. And I think it was confusingly laid out, frankly. So.

[01:21:06] [SPEAKER_01] One thing I felt this 2020 documentary was saying, mostly through Mary Lacey, the former district attorney, was that you have JonBenet's underpants and you have her long Jon Bottoms and that there's the same male DNA profile on both. Right. Right. That's what I felt they were saying. And that would be a huge deal. Why is that?

[01:21:31] [SPEAKER_01] Well, if you have a match that clearly points to someone handling it during the crime as opposed to some innocuous factory worker or retail worker or, you know, somebody getting DNA on it through innocuous means. If it's on two items, two of the same items, two of the items at the crime scene is the same DNA. That's that's a big deal. Right. Am I right? Absolutely. OK. So, OK, that's like game over.

[01:22:01] [SPEAKER_01] That's an intruder. But it's it's not it. But that's not really very accurate. So that was the justification that Mary Lacey said in 2008 when she publicly cleared the family in a letter. I want to talk about that with you in a moment. But, you know, they they find this touch DNA on the sides in the waistband of the long johns. And previously they had found this unknown male one DNA profile in the bloodstain in in her panties.

[01:22:29] [SPEAKER_01] Although it seems like that may be saliva is what I think I've read and what they kind of I think they may have. I don't know if they even indicated in here, but that might be saliva. But then it's touch DNA on the long johns. And that was so the long johns was not a standalone profile. It was a genetic mixture. JonBenet and possibly other individuals is my understanding. And the panties, it's like they do have a single source profile with that.

[01:22:57] [SPEAKER_01] And what they say is basically unknown male one from the panties can't be excluded from the long johns. That's not a match.

[01:23:06] [SPEAKER_02] Not a match.

[01:23:07] [SPEAKER_01] That's not a match. That's that's they can't be excluded. And this is this was the basis for her to write this unprecedented insane letter. So that tells me everything about Lacey, frankly.

[01:23:21] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, she wrote a letter basically saying, oh, you guys are innocent because of this DNA evidence. Sorry. And that's not what a prosecutor is supposed to do.

[01:23:33] [SPEAKER_01] I it's it's inappropriate, in my opinion. It harms the case. You know, she's like, well, it was justice for who? Your friends? Because that's what it sort of seems like. It seems like she became friends with these people. And I can understand feeling like if they're innocent, they're going through hell and I want to help them out. And like that's perhaps a human impulse, but it's not appropriate for a prosecutor. A prosecutor's job is not to defend people. It's not to protect them in the press.

[01:24:02] [SPEAKER_01] It's to prosecute. It's to get justice for the victim. And one thing we've heard detectives tell us all the time is, you know how you clear people? Convict someone else. That's how you clear them. You don't want to just preemptively be like, OK, it's not that guy. It's not that guy. It's not that. Don't leave him alone. Because if you turn out to be wrong on any of that, a defense attorney will have a field day with it later on. You want to just leave it open. And I'll say this.

[01:24:31] [SPEAKER_01] So we talked about CODIS. So CODIS is something where you need a short tandem repeat profile. That's STR profile. You hear a lot about those. And, you know, then you can put that into CODIS. And that can if the criminal is in CODIS, that'll be a match. And you'll know, OK, this is the person who did this. So STR profile has 13 markers, is my understanding.

[01:24:56] [SPEAKER_01] Now, a SNP profile, SNP, that's a single nucleotide polymorphism testing. That's what you need for investigative genetic genealogy. That's the golden state killer. That's where we look at the guy's family tree and figure out who did this. And so you can't make an STR profile into a SNP profile. That's not. Right. But you have to, what you have to do is go back to the original sample and extract that

[01:25:25] [SPEAKER_01] to get a SNP profile. Now, in this case, what it seems to be the issue is that what they have is very, very minute amounts of DNA. And testing DNA is not a neutral thing. When you test, you destroy. It consumes the sample. And so then things could develop and progress years from now. And you could have, OK, we're ready, but you'll have destroyed the sample.

[01:25:54] [SPEAKER_01] So you won't be able to use it. Yeah. STR, it's not going to be used in IgG. I felt like that when they interviewed Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfern on this, they were, you know, I will give Diane Sawyer credit. I feel like that part of the interview was interesting where she really kind of honed him down on like, OK, do we have anything? Can we get a SNP profile? He did not say a lot, but he indicated that they're trying to test different things to see if they can get one, maybe work with a lab to do so. So I found that part.

[01:26:23] [SPEAKER_01] I found that the worthwhile aspect of this because it at least didn't further my knowledge of perhaps what they might be doing or what could happen with this. Although, frankly, it was a little too late. I didn't feel like this was worth a two hour thing. And they got so much wrong that it was just disappointing to see. Honestly, I just I would have expected a little bit better in terms of putting out this information. And I know access journalism isn't everything.

[01:26:50] [SPEAKER_02] I know we're wrapping up here. I just want to quickly say they also had an interview with Burke Ramsey, John Bonet's brother, who, of course, was present in the house that night. In some ways, it was kind of a bizarre interview because it was like him sitting in a car, either driving or in a parked car.

[01:27:07] [SPEAKER_01] Or walking around the woods.

[01:27:08] [SPEAKER_02] From the side. But at the same time, he of all the family members interviewed, he was the one that came across, at least to me, as the person most emotionally affected by this.

[01:27:21] [SPEAKER_01] I completely agree with that. I know he's often discussed as coming off poorly or off putting in public. And I understand that viewpoint. In this, he just seemed wrecked. That doesn't mean anything either way. He can be wrecked for a lot of reasons. But I felt sorry for him. He was only a child when this happened. So whatever happened, obviously, severely affected him, too. And he has my sympathy. But it's I mean, he certainly. Yeah. I mean, certainly more than John Ramsey.

[01:27:49] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, that was almost striking.

[01:27:52] [SPEAKER_02] Before we go, is there anything else you wanted to say?

[01:27:54] [SPEAKER_01] There's a lot to say on this case. I would say that I think there's a lot more to the case than this. And I think you could say that any two hour thing is not going to get to all of it. But I think there was such shading and such putting their thumb on the scale for one side of this that it was kind of just useless. I think that we should be open minded. I mean, it's a lot of controversy, a lot of a lot of different viewpoints.

[01:28:23] [SPEAKER_01] I don't I don't really have a horse in the race as far as I'm concerned. But I feel like. In order to do good journalism on something, you should at least acknowledge that there's another side to some of this. And I feel like this was inaccurate enough to be actively misleading a lot. And I didn't think that was appropriate.

[01:28:41] [SPEAKER_02] I would agree completely.

[01:28:42] [SPEAKER_01] But that's all I have to say about how about you?

[01:28:45] [SPEAKER_02] You've nailed it. And preview of coming attraction distant future. I think we're going to cover this in more depth.

[01:28:51] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I'd like to get really into it and see some of the different viewpoints. As you can tell, I value the Kohler book. But I'd like to really kind of get into all of it. Outline the facts as it's outlined in different perspectives. And then perhaps compare and contrast. And maybe we can all, I don't know, just kind of see where we land after looking at everything.

[01:29:10] [SPEAKER_02] Thanks so much. Thanks for listening. Listening. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:29:32] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:29:57] [SPEAKER_02] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:30:07] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join The Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Thanks for listening.