Whatever Happened to.....

[Barbara]

LHP?

What happened to that Nobel Prize winning first chapter we all had the honor of previewing? What happened to the book?

What is she doing now?

Whatever happened with her lawsuits? Anything on appeal?

Talk about rotten luck! First, she gets thrown under the bus.. Then, she strikes back and in return has SCUM report that her daughter may be in pornographic materials (unforgivable!) Then, she gets bamboozled by a rotten lawyer who uses her to further his own agenda. She loses of course and now what?

Anybody know what has happened to her?

[Wrangler]

I'll bet she's doing the same thing she's always done. Working.

[jubie]

May I ask to be enlightened? Please?

[Toltec]

I'm also curious Barbara...haven't heard a peep from LHP and Darnay Hoffman. My guess is that he did not fight hard enough for LHP and she just went away. My hope is that Ariana Pugh goes after the skank for defamation of character. She did have to change schools the poor little thing.

[sissi]

Let's count up the dollars she earned while considering herself a celebrity. You guys feel sorry for her? She who "punched" up her story,contradicting her original statements,to sell to a tab? Then the book attempt? Her first chapter was "nothing short of inane",was her "ghost" writer a certain madam? I can't imagine feeling sympathy for any liar,however , we don't know when she lied,was it in her first interview or in her last? I would suspect her earliest and first interview was the only truth she told,the later ,paid,interviews clearly didn't match in content .IMO

[tipper]

"I'm tired of being used while everyone else is getting rich on this case," she said. "I think it's time for me to start making some money, too. This is the last free interview."

February 22, 1999

If I had to guess I say she's probably continuing a lifetime of poor and/or short-sighted decisions.

[Tricia]

Originally Posted by jubie

May I ask to be enlightened? Please?

Jubie Linda Hoffman Pugh or LHP was the Ramsey's housekeeper.

She appeared to be a good woman who loved JonBenet.

She was the first one pointed to by the Ramseys as a suspect. Or "thrown under the bus" as we call it.

She was very quickly cleared. Not officially but neither the cops, the Boulder D.A. or the Ramsey investigators continued to look at her as a suspect shortly after the murder.

Linda Hoffman Pugh was a very poor woman. I don't know what level of education she had but I don't think she was very worldly in the ways of the media. God Bless her.

Susan Bennett the one time (for a short time) Ramsey friend took it upon herself to post pictures of porn actors and claim the pictures were of Linda Hoffman Pugh's daughter. Keep in mind Bennett did this when she was a child. Also Bennett zeroed in on Pugh's husband claiming he was in the porn industry too. The porn pictures she posted claiming they were pictures of Pugh's young daughter and husband looked NOTHING like them. It was so sick. All in an attempt to somehow show the Pugh's must be guilty in the JonBenet case. Go figure.

Linda then sued the Ramseys for, among other things, telling the police she could have been the killer. Darnay Hoffman, an attorney in NYC, took her case pro bono. He promptly screwed it up. Even he admits he did a poor job.

Darnay Hoffman sent around a chapter from the book he said Linda was writing. It was quite graphic to say the least. All we got was one chapter then nothing. I don't know what happened to the book but we are waiting to see if it gets published.

So in other words Linda Hoffman Pugh was a woman who cleaned up after Patsy. She loved the family. She was poor and not highly educated. For her loyalty to the Ramseys she was thrown under the bus and her daughter's and husbands names were splashed all over the Internet under the pictures of porn stars. The reason I believe the Ramseys and their army turned on her so quickly is because she knew about their personal lives. She knew John Ramsey was cold and Patsy was not as nice as she appeared. That scared the Ramseys. So they do what they do best. Accuse innocent people and let others do their dirty work.

In my opinion that is.

[tipper]

Alternatively - She was the Ramsey's cleaning lady who they treated very well and who had nothing but nice things to say about them until she learned the tabs wouldn't pay for positive info on the Ramseys. There was no mention of how "cold" John was or Patsy's lack of "niceness" in her early interviews. For Schiller's book she describes Patsy as "warm and kind, just a sweet person"

The Ramseys did raise her name as a possible suspect the morning of the 26th. Going on the idea that they are innocent, they would have been foolish not to: She had a key to the house and knew the Ramseys plans, she was in the midst of money troubles, her husband was an alcoholic, and she, on at least one occasion, said something about JonBenet being kidnapped. That morning Patsy also said she didn't think Linda would have done it.

Her book chapter left pretty much everyone speechless. I'm sure there is a copy somewhere on the internet. It's a far cry from what she told the police. I'd like to see her answers under oath.

I believe she's a high school drop out. I've seen her interviewed, I think she's easily led.

[Shylock]

Originally Posted by tipper

Alternatively - She was the Ramsey's cleaning lady who they treated very well and who had nothing but nice things to say about them until she learned the tabs wouldn't pay for positive info on the Ramseys.

Wrong Tipper. She had nothing but nice things to say about them until she figured out she had been thrown under the bus and she wasn't the "extended family member" she thought she was. Not long after that, the Rammer's Skank trumped up some total bull chit to make hirself look important and got LHP's family investigated for child sexual abuse.

LHP had GOOD reason to change her mind about the Rammers, and it had NOTHING to do with money. Her desire to make money off the case came later.

[Tricia]

Originally Posted by Shylock

Wrong Tipper. She had nothing but nice things to say about them until she figured out she had been thrown under the bus and she wasn't the "extended family member" she thought she was. Not long after that, the Rammer's Skank trumped up some total bull chit to make hirself look important and got LHP's family investigated for child sexual abuse.

LHP had GOOD reason to change her mind about the Rammers, and it had NOTHING to do with money. Her desire to make money off the case came later.

That's right Shylock.

She loved the family. She was protective of them. Imagine if this had been someone you loved. You would, in the beginning, only say good things about them. Not lie really but you wouldn't look at them honestly. You would only think about their pain and your pain.

Then you find out you are a suspect big time thanks to this family you loved.

The cloud of haze clears. You begin to realize all those things you tried to ignore now mean something.

That's what happened with LHP.

[tipper]

She got a pot of money from the Enquirer within the first year and supposedly she didn't know about the Ramseys giving her name until 1999. Either way, her descriptions of the Ramseys changed and truth doesn't appear to have been the motivation.

If the Ramseys are expected to accept that they were prime suspects why shouldn't LHP? She and/or Mervin had the means, motive and opportunity. I have yet to see a motive presented for the Ramseys that holds any logic.

[Barbara]

Originally Posted by tipper

She got a pot of money from the Enquirer within the first year and supposedly she didn't know about the Ramseys giving her name until 1999. Either way, her descriptions of the Ramseys changed and truth doesn't appear to have been the motivation.

If the Ramseys are expected to accept that they were prime suspects why shouldn't LHP? She and/or Mervin had the means, motive and opportunity. I have yet to see a motive presented for the Ramseys that holds any logic.

The Ramseys, as the only other persons in the house that night MUST accept that they would be the prime suspects. They stated that themselves during an interview, despite their actions to the contrary.

LHP and others should not have to expect to be suspects. They should expect to be questioned, but not as suspects.

What would be a logical motive for anyone to kill a 6 year old little girl? None that I can think of. LHP is less likely to have a motive than just about anyone else. She was supposed to pick up a check for $2000 (I think that's the amount, but I could be wrong) when she came back to the house after they left for Charlevoix. Why would she jeopardize getting that check, killing JBR before she had it? (for those who consider her a suspect)

[jubie]

Tricia


Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to answer my question!!



Jubie

[Sprocket]

I have yet to see a motive presented for the Ramseys that holds any logic.

Well that says a lot. And what would "logic" be to you?

JonBenet, that perfect child... wet the bed... chronically. This is a documented fact of this case. 15% of children over the age of 5 have a bedwetting problem.

http://www.familymanagement.com/fact...h/facts18.html

Toilet training & bedwetting issues are common problems where parents can and do lose their temper. To say that this issue could NEVER have happened in the Ramsey household is, imho, to live on the river DENIAL....

Another wet bed -------> Rage, anger, ------> Accident ------> cover-up

[tipper]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

Well that says a lot. And what would "logic" be to you?

JonBenet, that perfect child... wet the bed... chronically. This is a documented fact of this case. 15% of children over the age of 5 have a bedwetting problem.

http://www.familymanagement.com/fact...h/facts18.html

Toilet training & bedwetting issues are common problems where parents can and do lose their temper. To say that this issue could NEVER have happened in the Ramsey household is, imho, to live on the river DENIAL....

Another wet bed -------> Rage, anger, ------> Accident ------> cover-up

Not sure how that "says a lot" to you. Logic would be - A serial killer who only kills red-headed women. We know that most serial killers were abused one way or another as children. His abusive mother was a red-head. His choice of victim was "logical."

I have yet to read any contemporaneous accounts of Patsy losing her temper and flying into a rage over JonBenet's bedwetting. She seems (like most of us who had bedwetters) to have taken it in stride and changed sheets as necessary.

For your scenario to work she would have had to fly into a rage over a wet bed, physically assault her daughter, decide her daughter was dead, kill her again with the garotte, sexually abuse her, and cold-bloodedly set up and carry out the kidnapping scenario. None of that fits into Patsy's prior behavior patterns. That's why I say I don't see any logic in it.

Added: There are other parents whose past behavior would make this a logical scenario. But I don't think it is in this case.

[Sprocket]

We don't really know, what went on in that house; whether or not, Patsy handled this bed wetting in "stride" or not. I mean, unless, you know the family "personally," ..........

But losing one's temper over a bed wetting incident is NOT uncommon. You're acting like it is.

The bag of diaper/underpants was hanging half out of the closet.... there's a photo to prove that. The Red T-Shirt that Patsy FIRST SAID she went to bed in, (before she "changed" her recolection on that) was balled up on the floor in JBR's bathroom. I believe there was a photo of that, too.

The sheets on JBR's bed were missing and/or never recovered by the initial detectives in the house, which was NOT Det. Thomas btw....

And regarding serial killers..... you might want to read up on a few, before giving an example such as this to explain serial killer "logic."

[tipper]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

We don't really know, what went on in that house; whether or not, Patsy handled this bed wetting in "stride" or not. I mean, unless, you know the family "personally," ..........

But losing one's temper over a bed wetting incident is NOT uncommon. You're acting like it is.

The bag of diaper/underpants was hanging half out of the closet.... there's a photo to prove that. The Red T-Shirt that Patsy FIRST SAID she went to bed in, (before she "changed" her recolection on that) was balled up on the floor in JBR's bathroom. I believe there was a photo of that, too.

The sheets on JBR's bed were missing and/or never recovered by the initial detectives in the house, which was NOT Det. Thomas btw....

And regarding serial killers..... you might want to read up on a few, before giving an example such as this to explain serial killer "logic."

I can tell you that I've never lost my temper over a wet bed and I have yet to read of an incident where Patsy did.

The quickly corrected error Patsy made over the red shirt has been discussed ad nauseum here and elsewhere.

I have seen the photos of the sheets and I don't see any indication they had been wet.

I was not attempting to explain serial killer logic. I was attempting to explain my use of the word logic as it relates to motive.

[Spade]

I attended a Q&A with Larry Schiller in Boulder when PMPT was published. He admitted to the group that he had hired LHP as his cleaning lady while he was researching the book.

[Sprocket]

So, you were a parent who didn't lose it over a bed wetting incident. So, you don't have that experience.... But there are many children who experienced it on the receiving end... Quite often, people are unable to extrapolate and understand how a situation could happen, just for that same reason: THEY'VE never had the experience.

Just because you never HEARD or READ anywhere that Patsy didn't lose it, doesn't mean, it could NOT have happened....

In the same vein, people, unable to understand that sociopaths are lacking a conscience, try to "logic" and "reason" away, why Scooter (imho, a garden variety sociopath) killed Laci. I mean, they throw up reason after reason after reason, an argument, Laci found out about Amber, etc., because they simply can not understand what living without a conscience is like. They've never had that "experience."

[tipper]

Originally Posted by Sprocket

So, you were a parent who didn't lose it over a bed wetting incident. So, you don't have that experience.... But there are many children who experienced it on the receiving end... Quite often, people are unable to extrapolate and understand how a situation could happen, just for that same reason: THEY'VE never had the experience.

Just because you never HEARD or READ anywhere that Patsy didn't lose it, doesn't mean, it could NOT have happened....

In the same vein, people, unable to understand that sociopaths are lacking a conscience, try to "logic" and "reason" away, why Scooter (imho, a garden variety sociopath) killed Laci. I mean, they throw up reason after reason after reason, an argument, Laci found out about Amber, etc., because they simply can not understand what living without a conscience is like. They've never had that "experience."

The Laci Peterson case is a garden variety domestic homicide which proves my point. When the police started digging they found behaviors in Scott Peterson's background which suggested he could be the killer. Further digging developed enough evidence for an indictment. Same with David Westerfield.

I've never said Patsy could NOT have lost it. I have said I've never seen any evidence that she did. I think if one is going to build a theory that requires a person to react in a particular way then it should be built on real evidence.

[Sprocket]

Originally Posted by tipper

The Laci Peterson case is a garden variety domestic homicide which proves my point. When the police started digging they found behaviors in Scott Peterson's background which suggested he could be the killer. Further digging developed enough evidence for an indictment. Same with David Westerfield.

I've never said Patsy could NOT have lost it. I have said I've never seen any evidence that she did. I think if one is going to build a theory that requires a person to react in a particular way then it should be built on real evidence.

I don't need to look to Patsy & John's past. Nor to Peterson's past. Post crime/incindent behavior, is what is the MOST revealing. To me, the Parents post incident behavior is VERY revealing. Post incident behavior is what detectives look at. And Patsy & John did everything they could to hinder this investigation. Why do you think that was? No way on this earth can you look at their behavior post incident and call it cooperative.

Just like Scooter couldn't spend the first night after Laci went missing in his house, neigher did the Ramseys ever go back to "that house." In fact, they evaded the police, and any indepth questioning, just like Scott Peterson did. When did they hand over their clothing? When did they sit down to be interviewed? MONTHS LATER. That post crime behavior is NOT the behavior of an innocent individual. You are entitled to you opinion about it, but, to me, a parent who doesn't spend every waking moment cooperating with police....has got plenty to hide.

[tipper]

I think the same emotion that caused Brenda van Dam to not want a memorial where Danielle's body was found caused the Ramseys to not want to go back to the house. If they were capable of doing all else they have been accused of they wouldn't turn a hair at returning to the house.

I believe Schiller quotes the FBI as saying both the Ramseys AND the BPD were responsible for the delays in being interviewed. I agree.

I would have to look it up to be sure but my recollection is that the Ramseys handed over their clothing about 13 months after the crime. BPD didn't ask for them until about 12 months after the crime.

[Shylock]

Originally Posted by tipper

When the police started digging they found behaviors in Scott Peterson's background which suggested he could be the killer. Further digging developed enough evidence for an indictment. Same with David Westerfield.

There was nothing in Westerfield's background that suggested he would kidnap and murder a little girl. And I don't think Scott Peterson's cheating on his wife points to him being a murderer. A lot of people (like John Ramsey) cheat on their spouses and don't kill them.

[Ivy]

It amazes me that certain posters who insist that Scott Peterson is guilty even though there's no physical evidence implicating him in Laci's death as far as we the public know, are the same posters who insist the Ramseys are innocent even though there is physical evidence (hair, fibers, fake ransom note written by Patsy) implicating them in JonBenet's death.

imo

[Sprocket]

Originally Posted by Ivy

It amazes me that certain posters who insist that Scott Peterson is guilty even though there's no physical evidence implicating him in Laci's death as far as we the public know, are the same posters who insist the Ramseys are innocent even though there is physical evidence (hair, fibers, fake ransom note written by Patsy) implicating them in JonBenet's death.

imo

I think they're both guilty. And it's not the "evidence" in Peterson's case; it's his post incident behavior that convinced me. Sociopaths LACK a conscience. And Scooter-speak, to me (since I've studied this) shows evidence of him being a sociopath, and lacking a conscience. (And I've heard that speech before, where, we can't "diagnose" him; only a professional can...Sorry. I disagree.) Behavior IS revealing about individuals. Enter a room at a party; observe a few people; there are things you can tell about people just by being in their company for a few minutes.

The ransom note in the Ramsey case is pretty damming evidence. However, it was also the Ramsey's behavior post incident that convinced me they have some knowledge, or involvement in the death of their daughter.

Again and again and again and again. Innocent people, ACT innocent. There is a recognizable pattern of behavior, where having a conscience, will show in their actions and speech. They don't have a THING to hide.